The only specialised marine publication in Oceania that focuses on the maritime industry, from super yachts to small craft to large commercial ships, including coastal shipping, tugs, tow boats, barges, ferries, tourist, sport-fishing craft
Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaleditions.com/i/131029
Power Solutions Proudly New Zealand Owned The Trusted Name in Marine for 75 Years 'The Powerhouse of Marine Engines' Why rebuild when you can buy a new Doosan engine from Korea? 3 Engine Familes, with 10 Models Available. 160 HP at 5.8L to 1200 HP at 22L Heavy duty mechanical engines Continuous power ratings Low RPM Extremely fuel efficient Inexpensive parts Proven reliability over 55 years of production Visit Lees Group to see why so many commercial operators are choosing the rugged reliability of Doosan. BEST PRICING IN NEW ZEALAND FIAT POWERTRAIN TECHNOLOGIES 'Riding the Wave of Innovation' See why FPT have broken international boat speed/efficiency records 5 Engine Familes, with 24 Models Available. 20 HP at 2L to 825 HP at 12.9L Mechanical injection models available from 20 HP to 280 HP Electronic Common Rail models available from 230 HP to 825 HP Excellent power to weight ratio Extended service intervals = greater profit Italian engineering at its best PROVEN RELIABILITY Best in class models available AND VIP.S93 maintaining biosecurity protection against bio-fouling and not be further penalised by added costs before the rest of the world adjusts or even complies. • We would strongly oppose any suggestion of restricting access or use of quality cost effective marine antifoul paints to the DIY operator. • We would caution against the phase out of the use of the identified key toxin ingredients in these paints until acceptable alternatives have been developed overseas tried and tested. • We would also recommend that when these toxins are phased out for the purpose of protecting the marine environment, that these toxins be phased out of all products available to the rural and urban community in New Zealand at the same time. If this cannot happen then don't bother, because the greatest threat will remain from these external runoff sources. • We do not support the banning or reduction in the use of copper within antifouling formulations at this time, as non copper containing formulations are in their infancy and far from commercial reality. • Therefore we do not support the phase out of copper based AFPs at all. Rather we would ask that the EPA endorses the use of copper as a naturally occurring element and mineral as an approved additive substance in AFPs available to the domestic fleet. • A minimum phase in time of at least 10 years is required before any changes to the current use of the other named substances and/or chemical additives before these AFPs are altered or modified. As much as the EPA might like to think so, we are not a world leader on the subject of AFPs. Therefore it would be prudent for us to wait and see what develops worldwide before we jump into the unknown and all its associated costs. The hull protection and fuel efficiencies for international shipping will dictate what protects the hulls of these ships in the future, not the EPA. New Zealand has no authority, a limited voice and no ability to dictate to world shipping how they should paint their bottoms. Our greatest concern with any proposed legislation is that we do not wish to see the local ownership of pleasure craft and commercial shipping being subjected to large unacceptable cost increases that will prohibit the right to own a boat and enjoy the boating activities our country offers. We do not want to see New Zealand introduce regulations that will increase commercial costs or drive away boat building, refit and maintenance business opportunities for the New Zealand marine industry. While we might have got away with our nuclear free stance when we took on the United States, try the same trick by banning the same range of AFPs on international ships and they could bring this nation to its knees with crippling results in 30 days. For example, New Zealand has no strategic fuel reserves, we are assuming the oil tankers will continue to come regularly. Forcing ship owners to paint their bottoms with something inefficient and eco-friendly, will see tankers diverted elsewhere, so we cannot rely on "business-as-usual" planning. If the EPA cannot impose the same rules on visiting ships as what it is suggesting the domestic fleet must endure, it leaves itself and Government open to yet another legal challenge. Is this the outcome the Government is seeking? I think not. So just how do we bring some commonsense to this debate? In this submission we have suggested some answers worthy of consideration. In closing, To our readers, if you share these above concerns please write or call your local MP quoting this article and make your views clear, or email joanne.armstrong@epa.govt.nz supporting these comments. Thank you. Proud sponsor of Coastguard Boating Education Marine Engine Maintenance Course www.leesgroup.com PHONE 09 299 6019 182 Great South Road, Takanini, Auckland email info@leesgroup.com