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