At the Sea Asia conference this week there has been something of a “backlash” against “Ecoships”. Various shipowners have expressed the opinion that shipyards are branding their output “Ecoships” as a marketing ploy. The owners go on to cast doubt upon some of the fuel efficiency savings touted by the shipyards and designers. It is of course wildly difficult to accurately prove the actual amount of fuel saved by a new propeller, hull coating or other technology when weather and other variables have to be accommodated. In a report on the conference in cTech Fathom News, the reporter cites ship efficiency as the operators number one priority in an era when environmental legislation and high bunker prices prevail.
From our perspective as providers of environmental technology it is very encouraging that fuel cost and performance have risen up the agenda and now feature prominently on the CEO radar. This has enabled the industry to appreciate the dramatic impact the implementation of the 0.1% sulphur limit will have on vessels operating within Emissions Control Areas (ECA). In this context of course the financial impact is in the sense of a cost avoided rather than saving from reduced consumption. The cost implications of switching to Marine Gas Oil (MGO) in order to comply with the 0.1% ECA limit in 2015 are highly significant and our offering is pragmatic. By fitting an Ecobox, vessels can comply with the 0.1% limit whilst continuing to consume Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) thereby avoiding the need to consume MGO. The capital investment required to install our equipment being rapidly repaid against the costs avoided.
We appreciate the many and varied challenges facing the shipowner in the 21st century and see collaboration between the suppliers of solutions and the operators as the best way forward. We certainly seek to work in this way with our customers and try to keep things as pragmatic as possible.
-
