COLUMN | Enhanced performance strategies, not "green" propulsion devices, will contribute to ship optimisation [Grey Power]

We have become accustomed to seeing illustrations of all sorts of exciting devices claimed to be improving a ship’s performance while saving the planet. Gigantic sails are erected on huge folding masts on bulk carriers and tankers, while several different designs of rotors compete for the attention of shipowners.

It is difficult to find somewhere on a containership to accommodate these devices, but after decades of denying that streamlining has any effect at the sort of speed of ships, huge windshields have started to appear on the bows of these vessels.

And underwater, the questing ship operator has a variety of different strategies to demonstrate that vital performance improvement that the regulators now demand, from air bubbling devices to reduce resistance on the boundary layer, to innovative coatings, propeller ducts and clever equipment that will minimise rudder movement.

If you have the money and the will, you are spoilt for choice.

Of course, there are cynics around who might suggest that many of these devices remain unproven over time, could require expensive maintenance, with their fitment driven primarily by the need to prove to the regulators that they are doing their bit to show they are willing to “improve” their ships’ performance.

After all, the object of the ETSs and FuelEU Maritime regulations is fuel, and thus emission reduction, and there is no choice other than through demonstrable improvement, however this is achieved.

I don’t think it is difficult to deny that in terms of the industry’s general willingness to expend a lot of effort and expense on efficiency, technical advances, the use of new fuels, etc, there has been no resistance to the environmental demands upon the shipping industry in general.

It has never been enough, or fast enough, for some activist interests, but the trajectory of a transport industry operating in a "greener" fashion is upwards. What perhaps needs to be emphasised more is the sheer difficulties of translating an industry dependent upon big diesels running on heavy fuel oil to something less polluting.

Some people seem to think you can manufacture vast quantities of clean, green fuel out of thin air, or just stick batteries into a 300,000DWT ship. Improvements take time and a great deal of money and will inevitably mean that the cost of sea transport rises.

As has been pointed out, the demand for constant improvement in fuel consumption or emissions contradicts the reality that as a ship ages, its performance deteriorates as its mechanical parts experience wear.

But in all this trumpeting of the visible additions to a ship’s appearance, is there a lesser focus on the traditional and perhaps more boring mechanical performance from the machinery?

I am a mere sailor, and so all of this is well beyond my competence levels, but this view was recently expressed by Pankai Sharma, Managing Director of OneLink Performance.

Mr Sharma suggests that a focus on the “emissions debate” – which never seems to be away from the headlines – deflects attention from sensible “performance management strategies” that directly contribute to vessel optimisation.

It is an important point he is making, even though this is exactly what OneLink Performance does. Fuel over-consumption is a big issue and an obvious contributor to emissions and higher cost. The difficulty may revolve around why it is happening, something that is by no means obvious.

He also points that while most modern ships have been fitted with all sorts of data collection equipment, there can be a substantial gap between this assemblage of data and any “actionable insights” – actually drilling down into the cause and effects and doing anything about it.

He references a case where increased fuel consumption was attributed to hull fouling, but after investigation by OneLink’s AI-powered diagnostics, it was found to be a pressure imbalance caused by worn piston rings.

Sharma suggests it is more than “just maintenance” and an operator wishing to stay ahead of the game should not be reactive and wait for fuel bills to rise before doing anything about it. Diagnostics are an important and increasingly useful tool to proactively maintain optimum performance.

It is also worth noting that regulators, while tightening up all their rules and surveillance on maintenance and emissions, are also becoming far less tolerant of the explanations an earlier generation might have written off as, “just a machinery breakdown.”

The technical “post mortem” after the Baltimore bridge disaster gives a gruesome indication of what an operator could face after an accident. Currently, the New Zealand government, following an inquiry into why a containership became disabled twice in hazardous circumstances, is considering legislation that will empower its regulators to prohibit deficient or suspect ships from its waters.

And with port state control everywhere gaining so many more powers in its oversight of fuel, emission reporting, and effectively ship performance, the need for operators to demonstrate more operational excellence is itself becoming obvious. Scrutiny everywhere is increasing.