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
1
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
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. The purpose of the survey was to inves-
Main trends
tigate the approach of container lines as
The survey indicates a clear difference in
well as bulk and tanker operators to slow
attitude to slow steaming among those
steaming, the retrofit, derating and up-
who had implemented engine retrofit solu-
grade measures taken to maximise the re-
tions and those who had not. The results
turn on slow steaming, and evaluation of
obtained from engine retrofit solutions had
the results of these measures.
encouraged a significantly more positive understanding of the efficiency increases
Respondents were asked to answer 25
and savings that can be obtained by tak-
multiple-choice questions and to attach
ing steps to maximise the return on slow
free text comments where relevant.
steaming.
The following results are based on the an-
The overwhelming reason for adopting
swers and comments from the respond-
slow steaming was the promise of fuel
ents who had already implemented slow
savings. The survey revealed that engine
steaming. These were again split into two
retrofit, derating and propeller upgrade
groups:
measures delivered fuel savings either as expected or higher than expected. In addi-
1. 38 respondents who had already im-
tion, the survey documented a positive re-
plemented one or more engine retrofit
action to slow steaming by a large majority
solutions such as slide fuel valves, tur-
of the global shipping community.
bocharger cut-out, engine derating or propeller upgrade.
In addition to fuel savings, the opportunity for better utilisation of existing fleet capac-
2. 111 who had either not implemented any of the above, but had implemented other solutions such as hull cleaning.
4
ity also played a significant role in the decision to adopt slow steaming.
Implementation of slow steaming – all respondents
Engine loads down to between 30 and 50 per cent
Fuel savings are the overriding reason for slow steaming
Almost one third of container fleet respond-
A minority of respondents reported very
The obvious reason for introducing slow
ents (32.1 per cent) stated that they were
low engine loads below 30 per cent, while
steaming is to save fuel. When fuel prices
employing slow steaming in 50 per cent or
more stated engine loads between 20 and
soared, the technical experts of one of the
less of their fleet. 15.4 percent reported
40 per cent. A significant majority reported
world’s biggest shipping companies set
that slow steaming was employed in more
engine loads between 30 and 50 per cent,
about solving the problem. Slowing down
than 50 per cent of their container fleet. A
indicating that super slow steaming was
was the solution they came up with. By
significant number of respondents, how-
not a priority. This was particularly evident
2009, significant fuel savings resulting from
ever, were not able to answer this question
in bulk/tank vessels.
sailing at 12 knots instead of 24 saw slow
specifically.
steaming become the standard operating 10-30% 20-40% 30-50%
The corresponding figures for bulk vessels,
Container
tankers, etc. were significantly higher with
Bulk/Tank/others
more than half (54.4 per cent) indicating that they were using slow steaming in 50
procedure in their fleet. Meanwhile, it has
17.8
25.8
56.4
become the standard in several other ship-
5.9
11.9
82.2
ping companies.
Table 1: Typical engine load in slow steaming vessels (percentages)
per cent or less of their bulk/tanker ves-
Fuel savings are most important The survey shows that fuel cost savings
sels, and 26.2 per cent stating that they
are by far the most important reason for introducing slow steaming. The table be-
of these vessels. Here, the number unable
Most combine slow steaming with full-load steaming
to answer was also considerably lower (be-
A majority of respondents combined slow
“Considerers” who have not yet imple-
low 20 per cent).
steaming with full-load steaming with only
mented engine retrofit, derating or propel-
6 per cent employing slow steaming alone.
ler upgrade solutions, and “Implementers”
The following figures are thus based on
This reflects a broad need for flexibility, in-
who have already implemented at least
answers from 149 respondents employing
dicating major interest in the possibility of
one of these.
slow steaming.
turbocharger cut-out or modification solu-
low splits respondents into two segments,
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 fullload steaming (percentages)
Main advantages of slow steaming
Implementers
tions. Considerers
were using slow steaming in more than half
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 perceived by Considerers and Implementers (percentages). Respondents were able to provide more than one answer 5
Fuel cost savings rank as the overriding
Several customers also note that a re-
expected savings, while about 9 per cent
reason more or less equally between the
duction in fuel consumption automatically
were not able to answer specifically.
two segments. This is hardly surprising
means a drop in emissions of CO2. This
in the light of their expectations regard-
advantage is obviously a secondary ben-
The gains are even more pronounced when
ing bunker costs over the next two years.
efit, but is still rated as the second-most
it comes to engine derating and/or propel-
Here, more than three out of four of those
important reason for slow steaming.
ler upgrades with 87.5 per cent reporting
considering engine retrofits believe that
expected fuel savings and none less than
bunker costs will be higher than at present
expected. Here, 12.5% were not able to provide a specific answer.
implemented engine retrofit solutions con-
Almost all retrofits achieved expected fuel savings or more
curring.
While slow steaming in itself obviously
These results confirm the conviction of
saves fuel and reduces emissions, it is in-
nearly one in three of those who have al-
teresting to see to which extent extra gains
ready implemented engine retrofits solu-
can be achieved.
tions of the benefits of fitting slide fuel
Higher than today
76.6
73.7
9.0
7.9
Much higher than today
are less aware of the benefits of slide fuel
gine derating and propeller upgrades ap-
valves.
pears to hold water in the vast majority of cases.
Utilisation of capacity and avoiding idling costs are also important Again, half as many of Implementers consider greater utilisation of existing capacity an important reason. A reason for this could well be that these respondents have realised that slow steaming is an effective
Fuel savings Engine retrofit incl. slide fuel valves and T/C cut-out
As expected
Table 4: Bunker cost expectations over the next two years (percentages)
70.3
5.4
16.2
Engine Upgrade Measures
Implementers
18.4
ering implementing engine retrofit solutions
solutions such as engine retrofitting, en-
Considerers
14.4
The supplier business case for investing in
Lower than expected
Implementers
No major change compared with today
Bunker cost trends
valves in older vessels. Those still consid-
Higher than expected
Considerers
with just under three out of four who have
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 5: Fuel savings achieved using specific solutions (percentages)
Table 6: Number of respondents currently considering engine upgrade kits to further increase reliability and savings from slow steaming (percentages). Respondents were able to give more than one answer
while schedule reliability is not high on the
Three quarters of respondents reported
Another potential source of savings that
list. This is reflected later on in this report
that they had achieved fuel savings as ex-
is related to slow steaming is the oppor-
in connection with customer perceptions
pected by implementing slide fuel valve
tunity to save expensive lubricating oil by
(see Table 7).
and/or turbocharger cut-out solutions.
adapting dosage to the engine load. Here,
Only 16.2 per cent achieved lower than
slightly more than one in five Considerers
way of achieving greater utilisation of capacity.
Derating & propeller upgrade
87.5
0
0
A significant number considers avoidance of idling costs to be an important driver,
6
Considerers
Implementers
and only one in six Implementers are seri-
Positive, without reservation
18.0
32.4
Customers are generally positive towards slow steaming
Positive, as long as schedule reliability is not impacted
35.1
29.7
On the face of it, slow steaming presents
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
0
0
22.5
13.5
ously considering cylinder oil optimisation as a means of saving costs and optimising cylinder lubrication for low-load operation.
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 steaming is mainly positive with 68.4 per cent of
Customer reactions
Negative because of sensitive or perishable cargo Do not know
Table 7: Customer reactions to slow steaming (percentages)
slow steamers considering the implemen-
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 shipping rates significantly or to some extent. Just under half of those considering engine retrofits share this view. In both cases, however, the number believing that slow steaming has had a significant impact on
customers have reacted positively. The
to customers. The figures suggest, how-
has to some extent.
situation is even more pronounced among
ever, that they have faith in the planning ca-
those who have implemented engine retro-
pabilities of shipping lines and charterers to
fit solutions with nearly 73 per cent report-
ensure that their cargos arrive on time.
Implementers
shipping rates is lower than that believing it
Considerers
Obviously, schedule reliability is important
tation of engine retrofits stating that their
Yes, significantly
15.3
21.6
Yes, to some extent
32.4
34.2
ing a positive reaction.
Installation of a Turbocharger cut-out with swing gate on a 12K98MC-C
Effect on shipping rates
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 engine retrofits concur. 7
Slow steaming helps environmental compliance
who have implemented engine retrofits
“Considerers” and “Implementers” is most
believe that these make a substantial con-
likely due to lower fuel consumption and
Depending on vessel type and operational
tribution to compliance with environmental
not a result of experience. There are, how-
pattern, substantial fuel savings can be ob-
regulations.
ever, some interesting divergences when
tained alone by reducing speed. The fuel savings directly make a huge impact on
it comes to environmental regulations and
emissions, making slow steaming a major
Contribution to environmental compliance
contributor to compliance with environ-
Yes
48.3
mental regulations.
Maybe
30.2
No
16.1
Table 3 showed that half as many respondents who saw fuel savings as the main reason for adopting slow steaming also cited emissions. Fleets are doing a lot to limit
Do not know
All slow steamers
5.4
Table 9: The contribution of slow steaming to compliance with environmental regulations (percentages)
how best to address these.
Retrofits help meet environmental challenges Table 10 and 11 indicate how Implementers and Considerers approach important environmental challenges that can affect their compliance with local environmental regulations.
emissions, but the connection here is most likely that of lower emissions being a natu-
Table 9 also shows that 78.5 per cent of
ral consequence of slow steaming.
all respondents believe that slow steaming
The most immediate difference between
makes a significant contribution to envi-
the approach of these two segments is the
This is probably also what lies behind Table
ronmental compliance. The fact that there
willingness of Implementers to invest in ret-
9 in which nearly four out of five of those
are no significant differences between
rofit solutions.
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
8
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
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
Mechanical damage arising from manual adjustment
Table 11: How Considerers address important environmental challenges (percentages). Respondents were able to choose more than one solution for each challenge
9
The relationship between fuel savings and
Answers from Implementers are consist-
of Implementers also point to engine up-
the environment indicated in this report
ently significantly higher than those from
grade kits as a response to this challenge
may be based on a number of different
Considerers. Two significant challenges are
against only 38.7 per cent of Considerers.
parameters. Here, however, the question
fouling of the exhaust gas boiler and soot
was where respondents invest specifically
deposits on moving parts.
This might appear obvious in that it seems
in relation to the environment and environmental compliance.
to reflect the fact that Considerers have Fouling of the exhaust gas boiler
not yet adopted engine retrofit or derating.
Implementers differ from Considerers in
However, it pinpoints an important environ-
The striking difference between Imple-
their approach to fouling of the exhaust
mental challenge for those who have not
menters and Considerers is the signifi-
gas boiler in that only 31.6 per cent man-
yet reaped the extra benefits from slow
cantly higher investment of Implementers
age this via proactive onboard servicing
steaming offered by engine upgrades.
in engine-related measures.
against 41.4 per cent of Considerers. Half
The majority of Considerers are ignoring a certain way of achieving significant im-
Considerers
tain countries and that offer a fairly short
Engine upgrade kits > Mechanical challenges represented by slow steaming
Implementers
provements that may be required by cer-
Fouling of the exhaust gas boiler
50.0
38.7
Here again, Implementers outdistance
Low temperature in the exhaust gas boiler affecting heat recovery efficiency
42.1
32.4
Considerers with half looking to engine up-
Soot deposits on moving parts
50.0
33.3
grade kits as a means of limiting soot de-
Premature wear and tear of vital parts
34.2
24.3
posits, while only one in three Considerers
Under and over-lubrication
44.7
30.6
thinks in the same way.
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)
10
payback time. Soot deposits on moving parts
Conclusion
These measures enable more efficient con-
Compliance with local environmental rela-
Slow steaming has been adopted by the
sumption of fuel and lubricating oil as well
tions is also important for shipping lines
world’s shipping community since 2007
as increasing engine performance, adding
requiring access to certain countries and
with an increasing focus. The engines
significant further gains to the annual sav-
ports. There is a significant difference in the
in the world’s fleet were built to run con-
ings of millions of dollars achieved by slow
approach to this question by those who
stantly at full load, which is typically not
steaming.
have already implemented engine retrofits
the optimal operational pattern now. This
and those who have not. Those who have
constitutes challenges to the operators in
Lower fuel consumption also means fewer
implemented engine retrofits are more in-
order to maximise the performance and
emissions – a useful side effect in a world
clined to address environmental compli-
competitiveness under these new market
where environmental regulations are be-
ance by investing in mechanical solutions
conditions.
coming ever stricter. Those who have im-
that are certain to deliver the necessary ad-
plemented engine upgrades rate factors
vantages with a reasonable payback time.
Fuel costs are the driving factor with a
such as fouling of the exhaust gas boiler,
huge majority both of those who have not
soot deposits in moving parts and correct
MAN Diesel & Turbo would like to thank all
implemented engine retrofits or upgrades,
lubrication as far more important focus ar-
of those who spent some of their valuable
and of those agreeing that it is the overrid-
eas than those who have not.
time in responding to the survey that ena-
ing reason for adopting slow steaming.
bled the preparation of this report. Generally speaking, there is a positive re-
There are a number of ways of further in-
action from customers to slow steaming
Copenhagen, Denmark
creasing the financial return from slow
with little sign of concern about schedules
June 2012
steaming. These include slide fuel valves,
and planning. There may also be a trend
turbocharger cut-out solutions, lubrication
amongst shipping companies to use the
oil system upgrading, engine derating and
financial gains from slow steaming as a
propeller upgrading. Respondents in the
competition parameter. The shipping lines
survey who had adopted one of more of
that decide to invest in solutions that can
these measures were clearly pleased with
further optimise their returns from slow
the results.
steaming stand to gain an advantage in this respect.
11
MAN PrimeServ – a service brand of MAN Diesel & Turbo
12
All data provided in this document is non-binding. This data serves informational purposes only and is especially not guaranteed in any way. Depending on the subsequent specific individual projects, the relevant data may be subject to changes and will be assessed and determined individually for each project. This will depend on the particular characteristics of each individual project, especially specific site and operational conditions · Copyright © MAN Diesel & Turbo · 1510-0197-00ppr Jun 2012 Printed in Denmark
MAN Diesel & Turbo PrimeServ Copenhagen Teglholmsgade 41 2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark Phone +45 33 85 11 00 Fax +45 33 85 10 30
[email protected] www.mandieselturbo.com
