TXO Plc Share Discussion Threads

[lofuw] 05/10/2015 10:54

The impact of sea trade



The global maritime transport is notably driven by globalization and the rising economic importance of Asia. It has recorded an annual long-term growth rate of about 3 to 4% (1997-2017, source: HIS Maritime). When in operation, ships produce fuel oil waste, which is called “slops”.

Ecoslops estimates at 100 millions of tons per annum the amount of produced hydrocarbon residues and mixtures averages produced globally. Previously, this waste was discharged into the sea.

For instance, a container ship which is powered by a 550 horsepower engine generates 1.6 tons of fuel oil waste in the form of sludge, in relation to a daily consumption of 180 tons of fuel.

Thanks to the MARPOL Convention, marine fuel oil waste now has to be collected and treated on land.

pollution


Slops include various hydrocarbon residues produced by maritime activity, such as sludges, bilge waters and ballast waters. They are composed, in variable proportions, of water, hydrocarbons, sediments and various pollutants.



Sludges

They are produced in the engine rooms during the purification of fuels used by the ships. They contain 80% of hydrocarbons.


Bilge Waters

These polluted bilge waters contain a mixture of fuel oil, seawater, freshwater, cooling water, oil leaks and lube oils. They contain 10% of hydrocarbons.


Ballast waters

Also called slops, ballast waters are used in older tankers to stabilize the ship by replacing the oil when they navigate with no payload. By extension ballast waters also include tank-cleaning waters. They contain 20% of hydrocarbons.




Categorized as industrial waste, slops are collected in ports and typically dealt with by ship owners. Their variable composition and the nature of the pollutants (sediments, heavy metals) make them particularly hard to treat and recycle. Therefore, more often than not, they are incinerated.

Thanks to its treatment process, which enables slops to be recycled, Ecoslops offers port infrastructures, waste collectors and ship-owners an economical and ecological solution, in accordance with regulation regarding the collection and the treatment of this kind of waste.

→ Regulation










Mentions légales

[temmujin] 01/10/2015 20:14

hows the court case going these days?

[lofuw] 01/10/2015 19:20

Offshore slops treatment

Efficient treatment for oily slops and sludges offshore

Offshore slops treatment

A significant volume of oil slop waste, containing a potentially hazardous mixture of oil, rainwater, chemicals and solids, is generated by the oil and gas industry.

We offer specialist services for the treatment of oily slops and sludges offshore. Combining settling, flocculation and centrifugation, slops treatment separates oil, water and solids from the mixture. Recovered solids are either sent for additional processing through an on-board TWMA TCC RotoMill or transferred onshore for further treatment whilst water is safe to be discharged and oil is suitable for reuse. Absence of high temperature treatment means recovered base oil retains its original quality and is suitable for immediate reuse in the drilling mud system, delivering significant cost savings for operators.

We offer a containerised treatment system for the handling and treatment of slops offshore. The system includes the following modules:
•Feed stock container
•Process container
•Settling tank
•Recovered solids skips

Onshore slops treatment

We also offer skip and ship or bulk transfer of offshore slops to one of our onshore treatment plants located in key global oil and gas centres.

[lofuw] 01/10/2015 19:17

Crude oil washing


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


Crude oil washing (COW) is washing out the residue from the tanks of an oil tanker using the crude oil cargo itself, after the cargo tanks have been emptied. Crude oil is pumped back and preheated in the slop tanks, then sprayed back via high pressure nozzles in the cargo tanks onto the walls of the tank. Due to the sticky nature of the crude oil, the oil clings to the tank walls, and such oil adds to the cargo 'remaining on board' (the ROB). By COWing the tanks, the amount of ROB is significantly reduced, and with the current high cost of oil, the financial savings are significant, both for the Charterer and the Shipowner. If the cargo ROB is deemed as 'liquid and pumpable' then the charterers can claim from the owner for any cargo loss for normally between 0.3% up to 0.5%. It replaced the load on top and seawater washing systems, both of which involved discharging oil-contaminated water into the sea. MARPOL 73/78 made this mandatory equipment for oil tankers of 20000 tons or greater deadweight.

Although COWing is most notable for actual tankers, the current chairman for Hashimoto Technical Service, Hashimoto Akiyoshi, applied this method in washing refinery plant oil tanks in Japan. Hashimoto is currently using this method in the Kyushu, Chugoku, and Tohouku regions in Japan.[1] Because of the logical nature of the technical complexities of COW, crude oil wash is still frowned upon by many who are not able to understand the exact mechanism behind COW; however, it is undeniable that COWing will become the norm not only in saving money for oil companies but moreover for recycling crude oil waste that should not be dumped and neglected.

Seawater washing[edit]

Originally oil tankers used one set of tanks for cargo and about one third of the same tanks were for water ballast on their empty trips. High pressure, hot, seawater jets were used to clean the tanks and the mixture of seawater and residue called slops discharged into the sea, as was the oil-contaminated ballast water. The 1954 OILPOL Convention attempted to reduce the harm by prohibiting such discharges within 50 miles (80 km) of most land and 100 miles (160 km) of certain particularly sensitive areas.

Load on top[edit]

The discharges from seawater washing were still considered a problem and during the 1960s the load on top approach began to be adopted. The mixture of cleaning water and residue was pumped into a slop tank and allowed to separate by their different densities into oil and water during the journey. The water portion was then discharged, leaving only crude oil in the slop tank. This was pumped into the main tanks and the new cargo loaded on top of it, recovering as much as 800 tons of oil which was formerly discarded.

History[edit]

Even with load on top there is still some oil in the discharged water from the slop tank. Starting in the 1970s, equipment capable of using crude oil itself for washing began to replace the water-based washing, leading to the current technique of crude oil washing. This reduces the remaining deliberate discharge of oil-contaminated water and increases the amount of cargo discharged, providing a further benefit to the cargo owner.

Crude oil washing equipment became mandatory for new tankers of 20,000 tons or more deadweight with the 1978 Protocol to the 1973 MARPOL Convention. Revised specifications for the equipment were introduced in 1999.

Modern tankers also use segregated ballast tanks and these remove the problem of discharge of oily ballast water.

External links[edit]
International Maritime Organization description of Crude Oil Washing
Scanjet Crude Oil Washing Machine[dead link]

Source[edit]

1.Jump up ^ hxxp://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~hts.wak/473/494.html[dead link]




Categories: Petroleum production
Ocean pollution







Navigation menu




Create account
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in




Article


Talk











Read


Edit


View history



















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store


Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page


Tools

What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page


Print/export

Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version


Languages

Nederlands
Norsk bokmål

Edit links

This page was last modified on 14 August 2015, at 13:49.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki

[howesp] 01/10/2015 11:14

FF, thanks for that. Yep I have been stupid but was mislead late in the day by a glowing report/article written in Oilbarrel (I think it was) but that too seems to have fallen by the wayside!

I must admit to a certain morbid desire to see what report actually comes out of any liquidation.

[howesp] 30/9/2015 11:48

Please bear with my stupidity or inexperience, but ultimately what is likely to happen to TXO, other than administration or liquidation?

Ironically I have been in dispute with my stockbroker, Barclays, because they prevented me from acquiring extra shares in TXO which severely irritated me at the time but now it seems it might have been blessing in disguise! I still want to get at Barclays but am knackered by the failure of TXO to be resuscitated.

[fishermansfriend] 30/9/2015 10:03

Now 6 months late with the Annual Report. Had TXO not already been booted off of AIM it would have been today. Except had Tim not turned down the offer from a well respected Nomad (I know who it was, but am sworn to secrecy) then TXO would have been under new management and would have had a real asset reversed in by the new Nomad.

Thanks Tim! yet again you put your own interests ahead of the interests of the company and all its stakeholders. Oh well what is just one more in a long line of flagrant breachs of your director's responsibilities as laid down in the Companies Act 2006? You really are not fit to be a director of any company and one day, hopefully soon, you will get struck off.

[lofuw] 30/9/2015 10:00

Monday, November 18, 2013

By NEIL HARTNELL – Tribune Business Editor,

Valuing the Bahamas Electricity Corporation’s (BEC) environmental liabilities at $100 million is a “conservative” estimate, a well-known attorney warning it was a “pipe dream” to believe the Government would realise top price from its partial privatisation.


Romauld Ferreira, an attorney specialising in environmental law, told Tribune Business that BEC’s pollution legacy, combined with its many other multi-million dollar liabilities, meant the Corporation was “not an attractive sale”.


Describing the environmental liabilities as “a major hurdle” to reforming BEC and the wider Bahamian energy sector, Mr Ferreira said the six bidders in the current process could use their existence as a negotiating tool to reduce their price and planned investment in the utility.


He was speaking after Simon Townend, a KPMG (Bahamas) partner and managing director of its corporate finance arm in the Caribbean, confirmed last week that liabilities arising from oil spills and other pollution inflicted by BEC “could be over $100 million”, yet were currently unknown.


KPMG is a key adviser to the Government on BEC’s restructuring/partial privatisation, and Mr Townend indicated to a Bahamas Institute of Chartered Accountants (BICA) conference that the winning bidder(s) could face a massive unknown exposure.


“We have these very significant environmental issues, not least at Clifton Pier, but elsewhere. These environmental issues have built up over many, many years,” Mr Townend said.


“It’s going to take a lot of work and money to figure out what the damage is. It could be $40 million, it could be $80 million, it could be over $100 million to sort out the environmental issues. But we don’t know what the figure is until the work is done.”


The six remaining BEC bidders are likely to be fully aware of the environmental legacy they will inherit, both from disclosures made during the process and their own due diligence.


Such environmental liabilities are likely to have been factored into their pricing proposals, which were due to be submitted to the Government on Friday.

“I think $100 million is conservative,” Mr Ferreira told Tribune Business of the likely value of BEC’s environmental liabilities. “That is a major hurdle to privatisation, the environmental liabilities.


“They would mean that the people who are looking to buy BEC can ask the Government to discount it by $100 million, whatever it is.


“It’s a bargaining tool, and means the idea of selling BEC for cash is a pipe dream. It will be an equity swap.”


Mr Ferreira said the Government would likely have to indemnify the winning BEC bidder(s) “to sweeten the pot”.


Drawing upon his experiences when he was employed at the Corporation, he added: “At Blue Hill Road [power plant], they must have lost two million gallons of fuel, and to clean that up, with Clifton Pier, I don’t know how much they’ve lost.”


Mr Ferreira said that apart from the spillage/leakage of fuel, BEC had in the past engaged in practices such as the dumping of oil in emulsion wells. And boilers had also been used to burn waste oil to produce electricity.


“Anyone visiting there, you can see egregious examples of oil spills at Clifton Pier,” he added. “At Clifton Pier they have over 20 feet of oil in some places. To manage that in perpetuity requires time and resources, and will take away from your core business.


“I remember working with the Corporation, going to Clifton Pier for the first time, and they had very bad environmental management practices. The managers are not evaluated on environmental performance.”


Mr Ferreira also recalled an incident when Clifton Pier was pumping bunker diesel to its fellow power station at Blue Hills.


Because no one told Clifton Pier to stop pumping, diesel fuel overflowed its tanks “on to the ground for at least half an hour”. Yet there were no ramifications or firings.


Mr Ferreira told Tribune Business that BEC’s fuel surcharge frequently included costs to cover the loss or spillage of fuel, which was the Corporation could not explain to customers how it was calculated.


“There’s an Inter-American Development Bank study showing the cost of fuel increased by 20 per cent, and the fuel surcharge increased by 170 per cent,” he added. “What they charge you for is not just the cost of fuel.”


Mr Townend last week said BEC’s unknown environmental liabilities added to the Corporation’s $350 million debt burden, some $180 million of which is government guaranteed, and its $81 million employee pension plan deficit.


Picking up the same theme, Mr Ferreira told Tribune Business: “What would be interesting to note is you have these potential liabilities with the pension plan the employees don’t contribute to, you have overstaffing, you have secretaries earning $66,000 and people being overpaid to work there.


“You have all kinds of problems. When you couple this with the fact that on most islands, they are not making a profit, and electricity generation is subsidised by New Providence, it’s not an attractive sale.


“You would need very skilful negotiators experienced in the industry to deal with it [BEC’s privatisation and restructuring] effectively. That’s a very complicated situation. I’m not saying the skill set’s not in the country, but I have my doubts that the skill sets are in the Government.”


Mr Townend last week explained that the Government had chosen to split BEC into two, a generation arm and separate transmission/distribution arm, as a means of ensuring attention would be paid to the latter business.


He said that virtually all the 60-plus bids the Government had previously received, unsolicited, focused on independent power producers (IPPs) selling the electricity they produced to BEC.


This, Mr Townend said, threatened to leave the issues with BEC’s transmission and distribution business untouched. To prevent this, the Government hired KPMG and other advisers to establish a structured process, and ensure a management/operating partner for the transmission side would be found.


Mr Townend added that splitting BEC into two would encourage specialisation and greater efficiency, while also removing “the inherent conflict of interest” that would exist if it remained one single entity.


If that happened, the danger was that BEC’s transmission and distribution arm would continue to only buy electricity from itself, squeezing out IPPs and preventing the benefits from price competition from being realised.


Likening the management contract for the transmission/distribution operation to the arrangement with Vantage Airport Services over the Nassau Airport Development Company (NAD), Mr Townend said the Government had yet to determine the equity stake it would grant to a joint venture partner on the generation side.

[lofuw] 30/9/2015 09:57

We think of oil as being a single substance, but there actually are many different kinds of oil. Oil types differ from each other in their viscosity, volatility, and toxicity. Viscosity refers to an oil's resistance to flow. Volatility refers to how quickly the oil evaporates into the air. Toxicity refers to how toxic, or poisonous, the oil is to either people or other organisms.


When spilled, the various types of oil can affect the environment differently. They also differ in how hard they are to clean up. Spill responders group oil into four basic types, which you can see here, along with a general summary of how each type can affect shorelines.



Type 1: Very Light Oils (Jet Fuels, Gasoline)
• Highly volatile (should evaporate within 1-2 days).
• High concentrations of toxic (soluble) compounds.
• Localized, severe impacts to water column and intertidal resources.

• No cleanup possible.

Type 2: Light Oils (Diesel, No. 2 Fuel Oil, Light Crudes)
• Moderately volatile; will leave residue (up to one-third of spill amount) after a few days.
• Moderate concentrations of toxic (soluble) compounds.
• Will "oil" intertidal resources with long-term contamination potential.
• Cleanup can be very effective.


Type 3: Medium Oils (Most Crude Oils)
• About one-third will evaporate within 24 hours.
• Oil contamination of intertidal areas can be severe and long-term.
• Oil impacts to waterfowl and fur-bearing mammals can be severe.
• Cleanup most effective if conducted quickly.


Type 4: Heavy Oils (Heavy Crude Oils, No. 6 Fuel Oil, Bunker C)
• Little or no evaporation or dissolution.
• Heavy contamination of intertidal areas likely.
• Severe impacts to waterfowl and fur-bearing mammals (coating and ingestion).
• Long-term contamination of sediments possible.
• Weathers very slowly.
• Shoreline cleanup difficult under all conditions.






More Information about Oil Types






More technical information about the characteristics of different oils is available on these pages:

Alaska North Slope Crude Blends

No. 6 Fuel Oil (Bunker C) Spills

Small Diesel Spills (500-5,000 gallons)

Tarballs





Figure showing the weathering processes affecting oil spills.





Weathering Processes Affecting Spills






The figure at right shows the weathering processes affecting oil spills:

Adsorption (sedimentation): The process by which one substance is attracted to and adheres to the surface of another substance without actually penetrating its internal structure.

Biodegradation: The degradation of substances resulting from their use as food energy sources by certain micro-organisms including bacteria, fungi, and yeasts.


Dispersion: The distribution of spilled oil into the upper layers of the water column by natural wave action or application of chemical dispersants.


Dissolution: The act or process of dissolving one substance in another.


Emulsification: The process whereby one liquid is dispersed into another liquid in the form of small droplets.


Evaporation: The process whereby any substance is converted from a liquid state to become part of the surrounding atmosphere in the form of a vapor.


Photo Oxidation: Sunlight-promoted chemical reaction of oxygen in the air and oil.


The various types of oil differ in how they weather (chemically or physically change when exposed to the elements). Most crude oil blends will emulsify quickly when spilled, creating a stable mousse that presents a more persistent cleanup and removal challenge. Even in high winds, usually over 70% of a Fuel Oil No. 6 spill will persist as floating or beached oil for a week or longer. On the other hand, over 90% of the diesel in a small spill in the marine environment is either evaporated or naturally dispersed into the water column in time frames of a couple of hours to a couple of days.

[fishermansfriend] 30/9/2015 08:26

BAM BAM,

To my way of thinking Viral Angels has all the hallmarks of an elaborate Ponzi Scheme. It has closed to new members and is transitioning to a new company - Angel Business Club.

I think the 175k was cash, though I suspect the 25k fee may have been retained by Viral Angels as I can't see how anyone else could claim a 25K fee. Athabasca would have had to have lied even more egregiously than they already have been proven to have lied in their annual report for it not to be cash.

One of the recent share issues (possibly the one a 10p for 67k) might be VA charging its fees in shares.

[bam bam rubble] 29/9/2015 19:47

"1,000,000 shares were issued to Viral Angels raising £175,000"

One of their presentations (not worth linking to) says "Viral Angels charges our
client companies in return for guidance on strategy and we take payment in stock.
80% of all shares we receive are then given away to our fee-paying subscribers"
So instead of raising £175,000 in cash, this was an issue of 200,000 free shares
to Viral Angels alongside a further 800,000 free shares reserved for its members

In terms of credibility, any company that uses 'comic sans' font has very little

[temmujin] 16/9/2015 13:23

save on admin costs...more profit for shareholders

[lofuw] 15/9/2015 20:48

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)


Adoption: 1973 (Convention), 1978 (1978 Protocol), 1997 (Protocol - Annex VI); Entry into force: 2 October 1983 (Annexes I and II).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







​​​;The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes.


The MARPOL Convention was adopted on 2 November 1973 at IMO. The Protocol of 1978 was adopted in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977. As the 1973 MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The combined instrument entered into force on 2 October 1983. In 1997, a Protocol was adopted to amend the Convention and a new Annex VI was added which entered into force on 19 May 2005. MARPOL has been updated by amendments through the years.


The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships - both accidental pollution and that from routine operations - and currently includes six technical Annexes. Special Areas with strict controls on operational discharges are included in most Annexes.



Annex I Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil (entered into force 2 October 1983)



Covers prevention of pollution by oil from operational measures as well as from accidental discharges; the 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory for new oil tankers to have double hulls and brought in a phase-in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003.


Annex II Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk (entered into force 2 October 1983)




Details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk; some 250 substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to the Convention; the discharge of their residues is allowed only to reception facilities until certain concentrations and conditions (which vary with the category of substances) are complied with.



In any case, no discharge of residues containing noxious substances is permitted within 12 miles of the nearest land.



Annex III Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form (entered into force 1 July 1992)




Contains general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking, labelling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, exceptions and notifications.

For the purpose of this Annex, “harmful substances” are those substances which are identified as marine pollutants in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) or which meet the criteria in the Appendix of Annex III.


Annex IV Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships (entered into force 27 September 2003)





Contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage; the discharge of sewage into the sea is prohibited, except when the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant or when the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest land; sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected has to be discharged at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.



Annex V Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships (entered into force 31 December 1988)




Deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of; the most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban imposed on the disposal into the sea of all forms of plastics.



Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entered into force 19 May 2005)

Sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances; designated emission control areas set more stringent standards for SOx, NOx and particulate matter. A chapter adopted in 2011 covers mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships.