MAN PrimeServ - Slow Steaming Rapport 2012
-
Upload
argentum19619692 -
Category
Documents
-
view
62 -
download
7
Transcript of MAN PrimeServ - Slow Steaming Rapport 2012
1
Slow Steaming Practices in the Global Shipping Industry
Results of a survey conducted by MAN PrimeServ in late 2011 among representatives of the global container, bulk and tanker shipping industry
Copyright © 2012 MAN PrimeServ
All rights reserved
2
Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Main trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Implementation of slow steaming – all respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Engine loads down to between 30 and 50 per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Most combine slow steaming with full-load steaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fuel savings are the overriding reason for slow steaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fuel savings are most important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Utilisation of capacity and avoiding idling costs are also important . . . . . . 6
Almost all retrofits achieved expected fuel savings or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Customers are generally positive towards slow steaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Slow steaming affects shipping rates in many cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Slow steaming helps environmental compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Retrofits help meet environmental challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fouling of the exhaust gas boiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Soot deposits on moving parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4
The purpose of the survey was to inves-
tigate the approach of container lines as
well as bulk and tanker operators to slow
steaming, the retrofit, derating and up-
grade measures taken to maximise the re-
turn on slow steaming, and evaluation of
the results of these measures .
Respondents were asked to answer 25
multiple-choice questions and to attach
free text comments where relevant .
The following results are based on the an-
swers and comments from the respond-
ents who had already implemented slow
steaming . These were again split into two
groups:
1 . 38 respondents who had already im-
plemented one or more engine retrofit
solutions such as slide fuel valves, tur-
bocharger cut-out, engine derating or
propeller upgrade .
2 . 111 who had either not implemented
any of the above, but had implemented
other solutions such as hull cleaning .
Main trends
The survey indicates a clear difference in
attitude to slow steaming among those
who had implemented engine retrofit solu-
tions and those who had not . The results
obtained from engine retrofit solutions had
encouraged a significantly more positive
understanding of the efficiency increases
and savings that can be obtained by tak-
ing steps to maximise the return on slow
steaming .
The overwhelming reason for adopting
slow steaming was the promise of fuel
savings . The survey revealed that engine
retrofit, derating and propeller upgrade
measures delivered fuel savings either as
expected or higher than expected . In addi-
tion, the survey documented a positive re-
action to slow steaming by a large majority
of the global shipping community .
In addition to fuel savings, the opportunity
for better utilisation of existing fleet capac-
ity also played a significant role in the deci-
sion to adopt slow steaming .
Executive Summary
In late 2011, MAN Diesel & Turbo conducted a web survey among
more than 200 representatives of the global container and bulk
shipping industry. Of these, 149 had implemented slow steaming.
5
Implementation of slow steaming – all respondents
Almost one third of container fleet respond-
ents (32 .1 per cent) stated that they were
employing slow steaming in 50 per cent or
less of their fleet . 15 .4 percent reported
that slow steaming was employed in more
than 50 per cent of their container fleet . A
significant number of respondents, how-
ever, were not able to answer this question
specifically .
The corresponding figures for bulk vessels,
tankers, etc . were significantly higher with
more than half (54 .4 per cent) indicating
that they were using slow steaming in 50
per cent or less of their bulk/tanker ves-
sels, and 26 .2 per cent stating that they
were using slow steaming in more than half
of these vessels . Here, the number unable
to answer was also considerably lower (be-
low 20 per cent) .
The following figures are thus based on
answers from 149 respondents employing
slow steaming .
Engine loads down to between 30 and 50 per cent
A minority of respondents reported very
low engine loads below 30 per cent, while
more stated engine loads between 20 and
40 per cent . A significant majority reported
engine loads between 30 and 50 per cent,
indicating that super slow steaming was
not a priority . This was particularly evident
in bulk/tank vessels .
10-30% 20-40% 30-50%
Container 17 .8 25 .8 56 .4
Bulk/Tank/others 5 .9 11 .9 82 .2
Table 1: Typical engine load in slow steaming ves-sels (percentages)
Most combine slow steaming with full-load steaming
A majority of respondents combined slow
steaming with full-load steaming with only
6 per cent employing slow steaming alone .
This reflects a broad need for flexibility, in-
dicating major interest in the possibility of
turbocharger cut-out or modification solu-
tions .
All the time 21 .5
Some of the time 60 .4
Hardly at all 12 .1
Never 6 .0
Table 2: Combination of slow steaming and full-load steaming (percentages)
Fuel savings are the overriding reason for slow steaming
The obvious reason for introducing slow
steaming is to save fuel . When fuel prices
soared, the technical experts of one of the
world’s biggest shipping companies set
about solving the problem . Slowing down
was the solution they came up with . By
2009, significant fuel savings resulting from
sailing at 12 knots instead of 24 saw slow
steaming become the standard operating
procedure in their fleet . Meanwhile, it has
become the standard in several other ship-
ping companies .
Fuel savings are most important
The survey shows that fuel cost savings
are by far the most important reason for
introducing slow steaming . The table be-
low splits respondents into two segments,
“Considerers” who have not yet imple-
mented engine retrofit, derating or propel-
ler upgrade solutions, and “Implementers”
who have already implemented at least
one of these .
Main advantages
of slow steaming Co
nsid
erer
s
Imp
lem
ente
rs
Fuel cost savings 93 .7 94 .7
Greater utilisation of existing
capacity 22 .5 34 .2
Avoidance of idling costs 29 .7 28 .9
Schedule reliability 10 .0 15 .8
Service and maintenance
savings (e .g . longer TBO) 17 .1 18 .4
Lower emissions 36 .0 42 .1
Table 3: Main advantages of slow steaming as per-ceived by Considerers and Implementers (percent-ages). Respondents were able to provide more than one answer
6
Fuel cost savings rank as the overriding
reason more or less equally between the
two segments . This is hardly surprising
in the light of their expectations regard-
ing bunker costs over the next two years .
Here, more than three out of four of those
considering engine retrofits believe that
bunker costs will be higher than at present
with just under three out of four who have
implemented engine retrofit solutions con-
curring .
Bunker cost trends Co
nsid
erer
s
Imp
lem
ente
rs
No major change compared
with today 14 .4 18 .4
Higher than today 76 .6 73 .7
Much higher than today 9 .0 7 .9
Table 4: Bunker cost expectations over the next two years (percentages)
Utilisation of capacity and avoiding
idling costs are also important
Again, half as many of Implementers con-
sider greater utilisation of existing capac-
ity an important reason . A reason for this
could well be that these respondents have
realised that slow steaming is an effective
way of achieving greater utilisation of ca-
pacity .
A significant number considers avoidance
of idling costs to be an important driver,
while schedule reliability is not high on the
list . This is reflected later on in this report
in connection with customer perceptions
(see Table 7) .
Several customers also note that a re-
duction in fuel consumption automatically
means a drop in emissions of CO2 . This
advantage is obviously a secondary ben-
efit, but is still rated as the second-most
important reason for slow steaming .
Almost all retrofits achieved expected fuel savings or more
While slow steaming in itself obviously
saves fuel and reduces emissions, it is in-
teresting to see to which extent extra gains
can be achieved .
The supplier business case for investing in
solutions such as engine retrofitting, en-
gine derating and propeller upgrades ap-
pears to hold water in the vast majority of
cases .
Fuel savings As
exp
ecte
d
Hig
her
than
exp
ecte
d
Low
er t
han
exp
ecte
d
Engine retrofit incl . slide
fuel valves and T/C
cut-out 70 .3 5 .4 16 .2
Derating & propeller
upgrade
87 .5 0 0
Table 5: Fuel savings achieved using specific solu-tions (percentages)
Three quarters of respondents reported
that they had achieved fuel savings as ex-
pected by implementing slide fuel valve
and/or turbocharger cut-out solutions .
Only 16 .2 per cent achieved lower than
expected savings, while about 9 per cent
were not able to answer specifically .
The gains are even more pronounced when
it comes to engine derating and/or propel-
ler upgrades with 87 .5 per cent reporting
expected fuel savings and none less than
expected . Here, 12 .5% were not able to
provide a specific answer .
These results confirm the conviction of
nearly one in three of those who have al-
ready implemented engine retrofits solu-
tions of the benefits of fitting slide fuel
valves in older vessels . Those still consid-
ering implementing engine retrofit solutions
are less aware of the benefits of slide fuel
valves .
Engine Upgrade Measures Co
nsid
erer
s
Imp
lem
ente
rs
Installation of slide fuel valves
to prevent deposits 44 .1 62 .1
Turbocharger cut-out solutions
for increased flexibility 18 .9 10 .8
Cylinder oil system optimisation
to save lubricating oil and avoid
the risk of scavenge fires 23 .4 16 .2
Table 6: Number of respondents currently consid-ering engine upgrade kits to further increase reli-ability and savings from slow steaming (percent-ages). Respondents were able to give more than one answer
Another potential source of savings that
is related to slow steaming is the oppor-
tunity to save expensive lubricating oil by
adapting dosage to the engine load . Here,
slightly more than one in five Considerers
7
and only one in six Implementers are seri-
ously considering cylinder oil optimisation
as a means of saving costs and optimising
cylinder lubrication for low-load operation .
Customers are generally positive towards slow steaming
On the face of it, slow steaming presents
a challenge to customer logistics in that
delivery from a manufacturing plant in Asia
to a distribution chain in Europe can take
four or five days longer . Also the financial
benefits of slow steaming mainly lie in fuel
savings, which are to the advantage of the
shipping line or charterer .
In fact, customer perception of slow steam-
ing is mainly positive with 68 .4 per cent of
slow steamers considering the implemen-
tation of engine retrofits stating that their
customers have reacted positively . The
situation is even more pronounced among
those who have implemented engine retro-
fit solutions with nearly 73 per cent report-
ing a positive reaction .
Customer reactions Co
nsid
erer
s
Imp
lem
ente
rs
Positive, without reservation 18 .0 32 .4
Positive, as long as schedule
reliability is not impacted 35 .1 29 .7
Positive, as long as it means
lower rates 15 .3 10 .8
Indifferent, as long as schedule
reliability is not impacted 5 .4 8 .1
Negative because of
destination logistics planning 3 .6 2 .7
Negative because of sensitive
or perishable cargo 0 0
Do not know 22 .5 13 .5
Table 7: Customer reactions to slow steaming (percentages)
Obviously, schedule reliability is important
to customers . The figures suggest, how-
ever, that they have faith in the planning ca-
pabilities of shipping lines and charterers to
ensure that their cargos arrive on time .
A small minority of customers seem to be
looking for a share of the financial savings
offered by slow steaming, while none are
worried about the impact late delivery may
have on sensitive or perishable cargo .
Slow steaming affects shipping rates in many cases
The effect of slow steaming experienced
by shipping lines on shipping rates is
somewhat larger than indicated in Table 6 .
Slightly over half of the respondents who
have implemented engine retrofits indicate
that slow steaming has affected their ship-
ping rates significantly or to some extent .
Just under half of those considering en-
gine retrofits share this view . In both cases,
however, the number believing that slow
steaming has had a significant impact on
shipping rates is lower than that believing it
has to some extent .
Effect on shipping rates Co
nsid
erer
s
Imp
lem
ente
rs
Yes, significantly 15 .3 21 .6
Yes, to some extent 32 .4 34 .2
No, not at all 24 .3 21 .6
Do not know 27 .9 24 .3
Table 8: Effect of slow steaming on shipping rates (percentages)
Interestingly, however, just over one in four
of those considering engine retrofits say
that slow steaming has had no effect at all
on shipping rates . Slightly fewer than one
in four of those who have implemented en-
gine retrofits concur .
Installation of a Turbocharger cut-out with swing gate on a 12K98MC-C
8
Slow steaming helps environmental compliance
Depending on vessel type and operational
pattern, substantial fuel savings can be ob-
tained alone by reducing speed . The fuel
savings directly make a huge impact on
emissions, making slow steaming a major
contributor to compliance with environ-
mental regulations .
Table 3 showed that half as many respond-
ents who saw fuel savings as the main rea-
son for adopting slow steaming also cited
emissions . Fleets are doing a lot to limit
emissions, but the connection here is most
likely that of lower emissions being a natu-
ral consequence of slow steaming .
This is probably also what lies behind Table
9 in which nearly four out of five of those
How best to address the challenges >
Mechanical challenges represented by
slow steaming
Proactive
on-board
servicing
Manual
cleaning
Manual
adjustments
Fuel
adjustments
Enhanced
engine room
staff training
Engine
upgrade kits
Fouling of the exhaust gas boiler 31 .6 47 .4 15 .8 23 .7 39 .5 50 .0
Low temperature in the exhaust gas boiler affecting
heat recovery efficiency 31 .6 36 .8 18 .4 15 .8 31 .6 42 .1
Soot deposits on moving parts 47 .4 36 .8 18 .4 23 .7 42 .1 50 .0
Premature wear and tear of vital parts 31 .6 23 .7 18 .4 15 .8 28 .9 34 .2
Under and over-lubrication 31 .6 36 .8 21 .1 23 .7 34 .2 44 .7
Mechanical damage arising from manual
adjustment 15 .8 18 .4 13 .2 7 .9 13 .2 21 .1
Lower engine performance and combustion
efficiency 23 .7 26 .3 15 .8 15 .8 23 .7 34 .2
Performance and combustion efficiency loss due to
low-quality fuel 13 .2 10 .5 7 .9 13 .2 7 .9 15 .8
Table 10: How Implementers address important environmental challenges (percentages). Respondents were able to choose more than one solution for each challenge
who have implemented engine retrofits
believe that these make a substantial con-
tribution to compliance with environmental
regulations .
Contribution to environmental
compliance
All slow
steamers
Yes 48 .3
Maybe 30 .2
No 16 .1
Do not know 5 .4
Table 9: The contribution of slow steaming to compliance with environmental regulations (per-centages)
Table 9 also shows that 78 .5 per cent of
all respondents believe that slow steaming
makes a significant contribution to envi-
ronmental compliance . The fact that there
are no significant differences between
“Considerers” and “Implementers” is most
likely due to lower fuel consumption and
not a result of experience . There are, how-
ever, some interesting divergences when
it comes to environmental regulations and
how best to address these .
Retrofits help meet environmental challenges
Table 10 and 11 indicate how Implement-
ers and Considerers approach important
environmental challenges that can affect
their compliance with local environmental
regulations .
The most immediate difference between
the approach of these two segments is the
willingness of Implementers to invest in ret-
rofit solutions .
9
How best to address the challenges >
Mechanical challenges represented by
slow steaming
Proactive
on-board
servicing
Manual
cleaning
Manual
adjustments
Fuel
adjustments
Enhanced
engine room
staff training
Engine
upgrade kits
Fouling of the exhaust gas boiler 41 .4 44 .1 20 .7 26 .1 41 .4 38 .7
Low temperature in the exhaust gas boiler
affecting heat recovery efficiency 31 .5 36 .0 19 .8 25 .2 36 .9 32 .4
Soot deposits on moving parts 34 .2 36 .0 18 .0 22 .5 39 .6 33 .3
Premature wear and tear of vital parts 27 .0 22 .5 16 .2 18 .9 29 .7 24 .3
Under and over-lubrication 34 .2 37 .8 21 .6 25 .2 36 .0 30 .6
Mechanical damage arising from manual
adjustment 9 .9 12 .6 9 .9 9 .0 13 .5 9 .0
Lower engine performance and combustion
efficiency 25 .2 23 .4 9 .9 15 .3 29 .7 28 .8
Performance and combustion efficiency loss
due to low-quality fuel 6 .3 6 .3 1 .8 4 .5 6 .3 8 .1
Table 11: How Considerers address important environmental challenges (percentages). Respondents were able to choose more than one solution for each chal-lenge
10
The relationship between fuel savings and
the environment indicated in this report
may be based on a number of different
parameters . Here, however, the question
was where respondents invest specifically
in relation to the environment and environ-
mental compliance .
The striking difference between Imple-
menters and Considerers is the signifi-
cantly higher investment of Implementers
in engine-related measures .
Answers from Implementers are consist-
ently significantly higher than those from
Considerers . Two significant challenges are
fouling of the exhaust gas boiler and soot
deposits on moving parts .
Fouling of the exhaust gas boiler
Implementers differ from Considerers in
their approach to fouling of the exhaust
gas boiler in that only 31 .6 per cent man-
age this via proactive onboard servicing
against 41 .4 per cent of Considerers . Half
of Implementers also point to engine up-
grade kits as a response to this challenge
against only 38 .7 per cent of Considerers .
This might appear obvious in that it seems
to reflect the fact that Considerers have
not yet adopted engine retrofit or derating .
However, it pinpoints an important environ-
mental challenge for those who have not
yet reaped the extra benefits from slow
steaming offered by engine upgrades .
The majority of Considerers are ignoring
a certain way of achieving significant im-
provements that may be required by cer-
tain countries and that offer a fairly short
payback time .
Soot deposits on moving parts
Here again, Implementers outdistance
Considerers with half looking to engine up-
grade kits as a means of limiting soot de-
posits, while only one in three Considerers
thinks in the same way .
Engine upgrade kits >
Mechanical challenges represented by slow steaming Imp
lem
ente
rs
Co
nsid
erer
s
Fouling of the exhaust gas boiler 50 .0 38 .7
Low temperature in the exhaust gas boiler affecting heat recovery efficiency 42 .1 32 .4
Soot deposits on moving parts 50 .0 33 .3
Premature wear and tear of vital parts 34 .2 24 .3
Under and over-lubrication 44 .7 30 .6
Mechanical damage arising from manual adjustment 21 .1 9 .0
Lower engine performance and combustion efficiency 34 .2 28 .8
Performance and combustion efficiency loss due to low-quality fuel 15 .8 8 .1
Table 12: Engine upgrade kits as a solution to environmental compliance (percentages)
11
Conclusion
Slow steaming has been adopted by the
world’s shipping community since 2007
with an increasing focus . The engines
in the world’s fleet were built to run con-
stantly at full load, which is typically not
the optimal operational pattern now . This
constitutes challenges to the operators in
order to maximise the performance and
competitiveness under these new market
conditions .
Fuel costs are the driving factor with a
huge majority both of those who have not
implemented engine retrofits or upgrades,
and of those agreeing that it is the overrid-
ing reason for adopting slow steaming .
There are a number of ways of further in-
creasing the financial return from slow
steaming . These include slide fuel valves,
turbocharger cut-out solutions, lubrication
oil system upgrading, engine derating and
propeller upgrading . Respondents in the
survey who had adopted one of more of
these measures were clearly pleased with
the results .
These measures enable more efficient con-
sumption of fuel and lubricating oil as well
as increasing engine performance, adding
significant further gains to the annual sav-
ings of millions of dollars achieved by slow
steaming .
Lower fuel consumption also means fewer
emissions – a useful side effect in a world
where environmental regulations are be-
coming ever stricter . Those who have im-
plemented engine upgrades rate factors
such as fouling of the exhaust gas boiler,
soot deposits in moving parts and correct
lubrication as far more important focus ar-
eas than those who have not .
Generally speaking, there is a positive re-
action from customers to slow steaming
with little sign of concern about schedules
and planning . There may also be a trend
amongst shipping companies to use the
financial gains from slow steaming as a
competition parameter . The shipping lines
that decide to invest in solutions that can
further optimise their returns from slow
steaming stand to gain an advantage in
this respect .
Compliance with local environmental rela-
tions is also important for shipping lines
requiring access to certain countries and
ports . There is a significant difference in the
approach to this question by those who
have already implemented engine retrofits
and those who have not . Those who have
implemented engine retrofits are more in-
clined to address environmental compli-
ance by investing in mechanical solutions
that are certain to deliver the necessary ad-
vantages with a reasonable payback time .
MAN Diesel & Turbo would like to thank all
of those who spent some of their valuable
time in responding to the survey that ena-
bled the preparation of this report .
Copenhagen, Denmark
June 2012
12
MAN PrimeServ – a service brand of MAN Diesel & Turbo
MAN Diesel & Turbo
PrimeServ Copenhagen
Teglholmsgade 41
2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark
Phone +45 33 85 11 00
Fax +45 33 85 10 30
info-cph@mandieselturbo .com
www .mandieselturbo .com
All d
ata provid
ed in this docum
ent is non-bind
ing . This data serves inform
ational purp
oses only and is especially not guaranteed in any w
ay . Dep
ending on the sub
sequent
specific ind
ividual p
rojects, the relevant data m
ay be sub
ject to changes and will b
e assessed and determ
ined individ
ually for each project . This w
ill dep
end on the particular
characteristics of each individ
ual project, esp
ecially specific site and op
erational conditions · C
opyright © M
AN
Diesel &
Turbo · 1510
-0197-00p
pr Jun 2012 P
rinted in Denm
ark