Shipowners, operators, charterers and ports need to collaborate to reduce fuel consumption and emissions from ocean voyages transporting the world’s commodities from producers to consumers
Voyages can be optimised to lower the speed and operating costs of bulk carriers sailing between terminals by sharing information, adapting charter contracts and arrival dates, and cutting waiting times for ships at anchorage.
However, there are technical, operational and contractual reasons proposed methods of optimising voyages are not being adopted to cut the shipping industry’s carbon footprint.
Experts examined the challenges and solutions during Riviera Maritime Media’s Optimising bulk carrier voyages via digital collaboration with ports and terminals webinar, held 26 March during Riveria’s Bulk Carrier Webinar Week, supported by Intercargo.
Delegates learned how enhanced data-sharing and co-ordination between ports, terminals and ship operators can be used to create a digital ecosystem to optimise bulk carrier voyages.
BHP principal for maritime technical and safety, Prashanth Athipar said the concept of just-in-time (JIT) arrivals and IMO’s Maritime Single Window (MSW) can enable shipping companies and owners to reduce voyage speeds, fuel consumption, emissions and anchorage waiting times. However, these should not compromise optimal terminal operations in bulk export and import ports.
“When we talk about JIT and MSW, from a terminal point of view we should ask, does it affect terminal performance, mine performance?” said Mr Athipar. “We need balance to optimise without shutting down mining operations or affecting port and terminal performance.”
He explained how at Port Hedland, the largest and busiest bulk ore export centre in Australia, BHP terminals work at around 40% capacity with ship turnarounds dependent on pilot and tug availability and tidal forces.
BHP keeps several ships waiting at anchorage outside the port, ready to be sailed to these terminals, to keep iron ore exports at their highest rates possible.
“With complicated supply chains, upstream and downstream, our focus is on throughput and less on ships, to ensure ships are available. So, it is better to have 10 ships waiting than have to wait for one to arrive,” said Mr Athipar.
“If there is more alignment between players to optimise voyages, there should be no need to rush to ports. JIT arrival would minimise and optimise a different sector of the industry; it is good for the environment and safety.”
“MSW is a common platform facilitating data exchange between multiple parties"
He said JIT could minimise accident risks, pollution and emissions, “but this will not work if there is a bottleneck at the terminal, port, railway or mine.”
There are also contractual reasons why it would not work for BHP and other mining companies. “There are contractual barriers and issues, availability of nautical services such as tugs and pilots, tidal windows, alignment and information quality,” said Mr Athipar.
He said IMO’s MSW is improving data sharing and co-ordination, but it is not being implemented worldwide by port state control.
“It is a common platform facilitating data exchange between multiple parties, owners and agents, etc. They all see the same information at the same time – information on cargo, crew lists, safety, security and environmental performance to be shared.”
Lookout Maritime chief executive Martin Crawford-Brunt agreed challenges for reducing berth-to-berth emissions involve interactions between different stakeholders, ship types and market responses to changing demand and regulations. He mirrored Mr Athipar in questioning how JIT and MSW would be implemented.
“What are we optimising?” he asked. “Are terminals optimised for emissions or more for cargo throughput; and who is responsible for emissions? It depends on charterparties and leverage, with commercial implications. Who is going to pay for this?”
Mr Crawford-Brunt said ports and terminals must be included in the conversation. “They are vital to solving this challenge,” he said. “We need better commercial agreements, not forgetting port operations. Charterparties and contractors need to accept and trust the same measurements.” Key performance indicators need to be consistent and correct for that trade and trusted.
“Regulations are evolving, complex and ambiguous. We need better transparency and information sharing,” said Mr Crawford-Brunt.
Stephenson Harwood partner Haris Zografakis said around 20% of emissions from maritime operations come from sail-fast-then-wait (SFTW), so often used in shipping to ensure there are vessels available at ports and terminals.
Which is why JIT arrival would be highly beneficial to helping the industry meet IMO’s drive towards net zero in 2050. But it must not disrupt terminals.
“It should be done segment by segment, addressing the needs of different terminals and making changes to contracts without waiting for regulators,” Mr Zografakis said. “MSW is a fantastic tool and an enabler.”
Stephenson Harwood is part of a consortium of 33 organisations and companies implementing the Blue Visby solution for optimising voyages as part of JIT arrival, “without optimising berthing at the same time. This is a problem terminals need to fix,” said Mr Zografakis. “To do this, we tweaked contracts with adaptations and devised a benefit system, a reason to participate, and a sharing mechanism.”
Blue Visby optimises voyages to anchorage, delivering 15% of fuel savings, while leaving berthing matters to the terminals. To go further, Mr Zografakis said the industry needs co-operation with terminals to organise the system for ship arrivals, co-ordinating everyone ashore and all ships at sea.
Webinar poll results
Attendees were asked to vote on a series of poll questions during the webinar. Here is a summary of the results.
Do you expect your fleet to reach the 2030 carbon intensity reduction target of 40% by installing retrofits and/or consuming zero-carbon fuels?
We expect to partially meet the target through retrofits and efficiency improvements, but may not fully achieve a 40% reduction by 2030: 30%
No, we do not anticipate meeting the target as we face significant challenges in implementing this: 10%
We are currently evaluating our options and developing a strategy to address the 2030 carbon intensity reduction target: 60%
Where can ports make the biggest contribution in global supply chain emissions reduction?
Reduce emissions associated with vessels at anchorage: 18%
Provide cold ironing facilities to reduce emissions at berth: 6%
Reduce harbour craft and pilot boat emissions: 6%
Improved scheduling to optimise vessel arrival OPL to reduce SFTW: 70%
Electrification of harbour equipment: 0%
Which of the following statements is true?
More than 10% of our voyages implement a virtual arrival scheme: 18%
More than 10% of the ports that our ship visits implement a just-in-time system: 27%
Virtual arrival and just-in-time are not applied in our voyages: 55%
What would you regard as the main obstacle to abandoning the SFTW practice?
Financial loss: 50%
Psychological attachment to business-as-usual: 30%
SFTW does not result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, so there’s no need to abandon it: 20%
The key to incentivising added investment in optimisation or efficiency is a more consistent way to communicate voyage performance by trade
Strongly agree: 33%
Agree: 44%
Somewhat agree: 11%
Disagree: 12%
Strongly disagree: 0%
(Source: Riviera Maritime Media)
Click here to read the latest Bulk news and follow the International Bulk Shipping Community for exclusive content and offers.
Visit our Bulk webinar library to explore our highly successful Bulk Carriers Webinar Series.
The International Bulk Shipping Conference 2024 will discuss critical issues shaping the world’s largest shipping sector. Register your interest to learn more about this event.
© 2023 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.