Double Hull prevents oil spill in about 75% of all
groundings according to the IMO/MEPC Marpol I/13F accident
statistics, but, in every grounding considered, it is
assumed that the outer hull is breached and water enters the
fore peak and/or double hull ballast spaces. This means that
the displacement increases and that the tanker will be stuck
on the ground. In 25% of the groundings Double Hull spills
from one or more cargo tanks, i.e. the displacement is
reduced, but it is probable that the tanker remains stuck on
the ground. Even if some oil collects inside the Double
Hull, the discharge into the environment is important and
expensive to clean up. According to the statistics Double
Hull will be associated with major oil spills also in the
future.
A Marpol I/13F(4) Mid-deck tanker (figure below) is expected
to reduce the total discharge in all groundings
considerably, because the cargo oil in the lower tanks is in
hydrostatic balance with the outside sea water.
The GROUNDING FORCE is expected to breach the cargo
tank bottom (and retard the tanker) in almost all groundings
of a Mid-deck tanker, but the total discharge or
pollution is reduced considerably compared with Double
Hull, as the cargo outflow is restricted by an excessive
external sea water pressure pushing up the cargo against the
tank top. The only discharge is the INITIAL EXCHANGE
LOSSES i.e. when the Mid-deck tanker runs aground
at high speed and is slowed down and the single bottom is
breached and water (dark blue in the figure) enters the
bottom cargo tank(s), then the cargo itself forms a
'bubble', which floats inside the breached tank. However,
this 'bubble' is not slowed down, but it is pushed against
the forward bulkhead during the retardation phase, and some
oil spills out below the bulkhead as can be seen on the
figure above. These initial exchange losses are very small -
average 1% of the capacity of the breached tank volume
(depending on the speed of the tanker before the accident) -
but they are subject to much controversy, even if it has
been shown that the Marpol13F Mid-deck tanker reduces
total pollution in all accidents very much compared with
Double Hull. Note that, if the Mid-deck tanker
does not have a double bottom in the fore peak tank, the
fore peak is flooded in grounding and the tanker trims on
the bow (it might act as a break!). It should also be
remembered that the Marpol Mid-deck tanker has
ballast side tanks down to the bottom, which will also fill
up in grounding and may list the ship. The safest grounding
protection has no or minimal void spaces in the bottom to
prevent any water inflow anywhere, so you lose buoyancy and
get stuck. This is the COULOMBI EGG logic.
The COULOMBI EGG tanker (below) grounding protection
is expected to reduce the Initial Exchange Losses to
virtually nil. When a COULOMBI EGG tanker runs
aground and is slowed by the grounding force and the bottom
is breached and water flows in (dark blue in the figure),
the 'oil bubble' formed in a lower tank is of course pushed
forward, but it is also pressed up into a big access
trunk forward and aft of each tank, from where the cargo
later can escape by gravity under controlled conditions to
the top side ballast tanks, which acts as evacuation tanks
(if there is a tide). By permitting the 'oil bubble' to
expand upwards through air, which offers much less
resistance than water and to allow an equivalent amount of
water to enter the breached tank, the risk that cargo oil
spills out below the forward bulkhead as initial exchange
losses is reduced. Of course some oil may spill out, if the
side is ripped away, but the amounts are
small.
In all event, the COULOMBI EGG arrangement is the
only tanker grounding protection which eliminates all
further grounding pollution due to falling tides - all cargo
at risk is transferred by gravity (actually pushed
up) to the top side ballast tanks before the tide falls.
Finally, as the COULOMBI EGG tanker virtually does
not increase its displacment in any grounding - it floats
on the cargo - it is expected that you can quickly get
off the ground and move to a sheltered location (without
assistance of tugs). You then surround the tanker with
booms, transfer the oil in the breached tanks to the ballast
tanks or to a lightering tanker, and then, in principle, you
should be able to proceed to the discharge port (subject to
many other restrictions, e.g. the residual strength of the
vessel which is always good - the upper deck and the
mid-deck constitute a lot of strength). The best solution is
of course to to off-load all cargo, trim the vessel on the
stern (assuming the damage is forward) and to clean the
damaged lower cargo tanks and to seal the tanks, and then
proceed to a repair yard.
If you go aground and spill oil, the first
GOLDEN RULE is to spill small amounts
that can be mopped up quickly by interested parties at a
reasonable cost using existing technology.
There is no technology available that can mop up a
big oil spill and the only permitted Marpol tanker
design today associated with big spills is Double
Hull. The second GOLDEN RULE is to get off the
ground as quickly as possible and to move to a sheltered
place. The IMO/Marpol grounding statistics do not include
consequential damages, e.g. that the ship, that was
initially grounded, becomes later a total loss due to
changing weather. Thus it is possible that future accident
statistics of DoubleHull tankers will have a fair number of
groundings, where the tanker initially gets stuck and does
not spill any oil but later becomes a total loss because it
could not get off the ground due to breached and water
filled ballast tanks.