Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions, experiences p

GL Your competitive edge

Take the lead through innovation

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reliable Service

Competitive Rates

Quality Management > Use Standards > Apply Methods

Implement Methods > Reduce OpEx > Maintain competitiveness

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Bunker costs: a central factor in defining competitiveness

Annual costs per trade* i mio in i USD
687 41 (6%)

Ship operations**

437 41 (9%)

582 (85%)

Driven by design and operations Strong variances between comparable ships

Bunker costs 332 (76%) Capital costs 64 (15%) Bunker price 450 USD/ton 64 (9%) 800 USD/ton

* Far East-Europe, 9,000 TEU, at 25 kn ** Measuring, Measuring Maintenance Maintenance, Lubes Lubes, Dry-Docking Dry-Docking,

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

F l Oil Prices Fuel Pi

Bunker 380 cst, Rotterdam Yearly Average prices, per metric ton
700 380cst bunker prices, Rotterdam 600

$ per Tonne e

500 400 300 200 100 106 138 117 134 153 155 234 293 345 472 354 450 0 580 81 83 67 84 96 96 68 93

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201102

Source: Clarksons Research, February 2011

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

S Slow steaming: an interim reaction an permanent solution? ?

Annual costs per trade* (at 450 USD/ton) in mio USD
Ship operations** 437 41 (9%) 377 57 (15%) Positive effect on bunker cost partly compensated by need for more ships in trade T Today's d ' ships hi often ft not t designed and equipped for slow speeds

Bunker costs

332 (76%)

222 (59%)

Capital costs 64 (15%) Vessels Speed 25 kn

98 (26%) 22 kn

* Far East-Europe, 9,000 TEU Measuring Maintenance Maintenance, Lubes Lubes, Dry-Docking Dry Docking, ** Measuring,

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

4.400 TEU Container Vessels Fuel Efficiency

Development/Forecast of Bunker price & Container vessel Timecharter rate
800 Bunker Costs in n $/Tonne 600
400 20.000 200 0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Forecast 2018

50.000

Left hand scale

40.000 30 000 30.000

Timecharter Rate es in $/day

Heavy Fuel Oil Bunker price (Rotterdam, 380 cst) Time Charter rate 4.400 TEU container vessel

Right hand scale

10.000 0

2002
Fuel costs* 1 yr charter rate $/day Ratio fuel costs / charter rate Efficiency improvement** Daily total savings*** [in US$] Yearly total savings*** [in US$] Daily savings in % of charter rate
MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

2010 40.500 20.000 2,0 10% 4.000 1.200.000 20%

2018 60.000 22.000 2,7 10% 6.000 1.800.000 27%

17.500 23.125 0,75 10% 1.750 500.000 7,5% ,

* Assumptions for bunker consumption, vessel speed and sailing days per year: 130 tonnes per day/24 knots/300 days (2002), 88 tonnes per day/21 knots/300 days (2010), 88 tonnes per day/21 knots/300 days (2018). ** Estimated reduction of HFO Bunker consumption, based on GL efficiency products/services. *** Savings due to a decrease of yearly fuel costs.

GL; December 2010

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Worldwide Fleet development [mGT]

1.600
million GT [left hand scale] Number of vessels [right hand scale]

50.000

1.400 1.200 1 000 1.000

2,1% * 6,1% *

2,0% *

40.000

Million GT

30.000

800 600 400 10.000 200 20.000

No. of vessels

725,2

776,1

833,6

1.014

1.048

1.054

1.061

1.082

1.111

1.133

1.151

1.172
2020

860

917

974

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Source: Clarksons Research, March 2010 (Vessel > 2.000 GT)

Years

* = average yearly growth based on GT

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

CO2 Emission Development

1200

Discussed Emission target

- 40 %

1000

million tonnes CO O2

800

- 20%
600

-20% of 2005 till 2020

400

200

0 2005 2020

Source: IMO GHG Inventory Study

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

The EEDI value

power * spec. fuel consumption * emission factor capacity * speed

EEDI =

and improvement opportunities

Strong g effect
Reduce installed power through better design and / or reduced speed

Weaker effect
Reduce spec spec. fuel consumption of engines > Use fuels with lower emission factor > Increase capacity
> Exploit the yet not defined elements (weather factor factor, novel technologies)
MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

First indication of future required EEDI

(MEPC 60/4/36, submitted by Japan)

The required EEDI is defined by a reduction relative to the baseline. MEPC 60/4/36 suggests an initial reduction of 10% for all ship types, based on an assessment of application of possible technologies.
MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Key success factors: Design optimisation

Design will be a key lever and future ships can be expected to be significantly more efficient and thus competitive than those designed in the past and sailing today. Comprehensive/holistic solutions are required to achieve significant improvements An additional cost-reduction potential of 5 15% can be generated through FutureShip's operations oriented tools focusing on fuel efficiency without impacting the operational profile fil of f a vessel l In an increasingly competitive industry, minimizing bunker costs will be a key success factor. Slow steaming g has been a first step but will not be sufficient moving forward

Efficiency

Minimizing costs

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

O Opportunities t iti for f Energy E Savings S i

Savings example % of fuel cost
10 -0.5

Added investment % of new building investment 0.5 3.0 5.0 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 0.1 0 1 0.2 1.0

Planning phase Construction phase Service phase

Hull
5 5 5 4

Appendages

Marine engineering Trim, routing Trim Plus monitoring Plus controlled hull and engine maintenance
Source: GL research and GL analysis

5 5 5 4 6 10

-0.5

Figures are indicative and cannot be added Savings depend on original design and operational environment Particularly high potential after change of operations (e.g. after speed reduction)

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case "ECO Solutions / Schulte, 9.000 TEU vessel

Clients starting point Shipping companies Bernhard Schulte and Costamare ordered container vessels at a Chinese shipyard The Th original i i l design d i of f the th h hull ll li lines was performed by a major Chinese ship designer In order to increase the vessels competitiveness owners decided to subject hull lines to a computational optimisation process aiming on minimization of wave resistance and improved arrangement of propeller and rudder Our service Based on the existing design hull line constraints were agreed with design office Hull lines and propulsion arrangement t were optimised ti i d b by means of CFD analysis Towing tank tests were performed at HSVA in order to verify the calculated results and to establish a basis for comparison with the original design Results Total resistance could be reduced by more than 10% Hereby owners attained the possibility to reduce main engines MCR which leads to - Daily fuel oil savings of app. 30 tons - Lube oil savings of about 30 tons per year The optimisation will pay within a period shorter than one month

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case "ECO Solutions / Schulte, 9.000 TEU vessel Impact of bunker price: ca. 200 t Fuel/Day x 365 Days = 73.000 t Fuel/Year BEFORE Optimization = 10 10,95 95 = 35,92 = 43,01 = 1.077.000 AFTER Optimiazation

Bunker Cost (in MioUS$) 2004: 73.000 73 000 t x 150 US$/t 2007: 73.000 t x 492 US$/t 2011: 73.000 t x 590 US$/t Over life of ship @ 25 years
MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case "ECO Solutions / Schulte, 9.000 TEU vessel

Lpp = 288m, Speed: 22,2kn, Installed Power: 54.180kW Hull Optimization Results
Yearly Fuel Consumption / Yearly Fuel Costs 47.286 to -19% 38.528 to 23,6 M 19,3 M Not Optimized Optimized Pd [kW] 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20 000 20,000
18 19 20 21 22

optimized not optimized S Speed d [k [kn] ]

23

Tank Test Rsults

Base Line Modell

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Post Modell

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case "ECO Solutions / Schulte, 9.000 TEU vessel Impact of bunker price: ca. 200 t Fuel/Day x 365 Days = 73.000 t Fuel/Year BEFORE Optimization = 10 10,95 95 = 35,92 = 43,01 = 1.077.000 AFTER Optimiazation 8.87 8 87 29.19 34.84 872.37

Bunker Cost (in MioUS$) 2004: 73.000 73 000 t x 150 US$/t 2007: 73.000 t x 492 US$/t 2011: 73.000 t x 590 US$/t Over life of ship @ 25 years
MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

2.08 2 08 5.37 6.17 204.63

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case: Trim Adjustment using GLs ECO-Assistant ECO Assistant

Power measurement data (similar draft, trim, weather)
Trim at normal operations ECO-Assistant optimized trim Nominal propeller-curve Average

48.0

Engine power could be reduced by 3% after trim was optimized

-3%

46.5

This translates into fuel saving equals 270t HFO or $130k per year
Fuel saving of 3% verified by shaft power measurement during voyage

Test conditions

RPM @ speed: 82 (~78%) @ ~15 kn Data: In test (blue 2010-05-26,16-24h), after test phase (red 2010-05-28, 14-22h) Displacement: 39,500 39 500 to

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case: Trim Adjustment using GLs ECO-Assistant

Fleet of 3 hull-sister container ships 2850 TEU

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case: Trim Adjustment at Bulk carrier using GLs ECO-Assistant

SAVINGS OVER 5 MONTHS: 81t @ 650$/t or 52600S$

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case: Trim Adjustment at Bulk carrier using GLs ECO-Assistant

SAVINGS OVER 5 MONTHS: 62t @ 650$/t or 40300.00$

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case: Trim Adjustment at Bulk carrier using GLs ECO-Assistant

SAVINGS OVER 5 MONTHS: 140t @ 650$/t = 93000.00US$

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Th 64$ question The ti .... Whats Wh t in i for f me h here? ? If you are: OWNER
your ship consumes less fuel you have a competitive advantage your ship complies with Regs Regs. You pay less for fuel, increase in operating margins A competitive advantage Competitive advantage, Owners prefer operators running p more effectively y ships

CHARTERER

OPERATOR
MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Have you thought about .... Re-engine your ship with dual Fuel: HFO and LNG THE GL Classed chemical Tanker BIT VIKING

Particulars DWT Loa B Cubic capacity Main Engines Classed GL Register

24783MT 177 08m 177.08m 26.30m 27310cu.m 98% 2x WAERTSILA 6L46B 5850kW GL +100A5 E3 ESP IW NAW OC Chemical Tanker Type 2 GF 111552

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Have you thought about LNG?

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

So, What do next? Easy.... Lets talk! Call us! Germanischer Lloyd, We have solutions for you! Proven, , solid and real

N more chicken No hi k or egg questions ti

Lets make chicken-omelettes

(John Hartley, ( y, Waertsila Americas) )
MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November

For more Information and inquiries please contact Harry Vordokas Bus. Development Manager,, Region g Americas

GERMANISCHER LLOYD
303 S. Broadway, Ste 460 Tarrytown, NY 10561, USA

T: +1.914.3666606 C: +1.786.5430516 EM il EMail: harry.vordokas@gl-group.com gastechnology@gl-group.com

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November