Basic HTML Version
14
Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11 No 1 January 2012
Preview of global ballast water treatment markets
the cost of having a dedicated crew install a BWTS while
the ship is at sea is slightly more expensive than having the
system installed at a shipyard, survey information did not
indicate that this would be a cost-prohibitive option for most
vessel types if BWTS installation needs did not correspond
with a routine shipyard visit. Interviews indicated that such
installations have been successfully completed with no vessel
downtime recorded. However, several ships may not have
sufficient accommodation for the extra crew required for
installation. This could mean installation would have to be
done in stages, which would add to time and cost.
Further to this, fitting a BWTS during a ships operational
service raises some important safety management issues such
as the possible introduction of prolonged hot work undertak-
ings in critical machinery spaces. Such work may also call for
the penetration of watertight bulkheads at sea. Hull integrity
may also be temporarily breached where additional overboard
lines are required to be fitted for items such as new high level
ballast suctions or filter back-flushing sludge lines. When
such activities are planned, a formal method statement may
need to be submitted to both Class and Insurers.
For most technologies, interviews and other research
indicated that annual fixed operating costs for mainte-
nance of BWT systems would typically be in the $9000 to
$17 000 range, depending on vessel type and size. The excep-
tion among approved technologies is for Filtration/chemical
systems which have a much wider range of annual operating
costs – an estimated $31 000 to $296 000 – because of the
use of consumables (chemicals) that will vary widely based
on vessel type and size. For each vessel type/size, operat-
ing costs were estimated to amount to two to five cents
per metric ton of ballast water treated. The exception is for
Deoxygenation/cavitation systems, which were estimated to
cost 19 to 20 cents per metric ton due to fuel costs.
For all ship types analysed, analyses indicated that the
installation of BWTS during new ship construction, on
average, is about $100 000 lower than the cost of a compa-
rable retrofit. Due to variations in individual ships, shipyard
labour rates, new construction price guarantees, and ship-
yard volume price incentives, this number will vary widely.
Subsequent interviews suggest that this estimate of $100 000
in cost savings associated with new builds is probably low.
From a supply perspective, interviews and analysis
indicate that the biggest potential bottleneck in response to
the IMO timetable will most likely be related to production
of systems and the availability of engineers to design and
oversee installation, not from insufficient global shipyard
capacity to install them. Table 9 describes some of the issues
other than costs that shipowners will be considering when
they choose which types of BWTS to install and how to
install them.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
In 2012 the global market for ballast water treatment tech-
nologies is at a critical juncture. Two more European coun-
tries are likely to ratify the IMO convention in early 2012. If
Panama follows suit, the IMO D-2 treatment standard will
probably enter into force by 2013. However, it is unlikely that
IMO member nations will be willing or able to enforce these
regulations unless it is possible for most ships to comply. This
will require investments in the fledgling global BWTS indus-
try (which is currently producing only a few hundred units
per year) allowing production of tens of thousands of BWTS
per year. In most emerging industries there is a multi-year
lag between the time investors recognise a growing market
and invest to increase production capacity, and the time when
increased supplies reach market.
In the case of BWTS markets, this lag will have a tendency
to be longer than usual because prospective investors in
BWTS supplies understand that the size and timing of BWTS
markets depends on international regulations, technical stand-
ards, and national implementation programmes that are not
yet in place. This lag is made even more uncertain by the
fact that IMO member nations may wait for more certainty
about BWTS supplies before firming up their commitments
to enforce IMO ballast water regulations, while investors in
BWTS supplies wait for more certainty about the commit-
ment of IMO ballast water regulators. A major commitment
to providing universal sampling and analytical standards is
represented by a paper submitted to BLG 16 by the European
Commission in January 2012.
4
Potential BWTS suppliers are positioning themselves
to meet the high level of global demand for BWTS that is
expected to begin once IMO regulations are ratified and it
becomes clear that they will be implemented and enforced on
schedule by IMO member nations. The current study estimates
that more than 68 000 ships will be subject to the IMO regula-
tions between now and 2016. About 8 000 of these ships are
relatively small fishing vessels that are not likely to be in a
financial position to adopt the technologies that have been
approved by IMO or that are close to receiving approval. This
suggests that other technologies will be developed to meet this
segment of the market. On the other hand, many of the other
61 000 or so ships that will need to comply are larger merchant
ships with large ballast water capacities that will need to install
more than one BWTS in order to meet IMO ballast water dis-
charge standards. Some recent industry reports estimate future
BWTS markets based on 57 000 or so vessels needing BWTS.
5
However, taking into account the likelihood of many large ves-
sels will need multiple systems, an estimate of global demand
for BWTS of 70 000 units does not seem unreasonable.
In the United States ballast water regulation will be
administered through a partnership between the US Coast
Guard (USCG) and the US Environmental Protection
Agency. While the USCG federal ballast water standards are
still pending, they are expected to mirror the IMO standard
for the foreseeable future. The US Environmental Protection
Agency has enrolled in its Vessel General Permit programme
approximately 68 000 vessels plying the inland and coastal
waterways of that country. While few of these will merit
BWTS, final decisions on which might qualify as a result
of their sizes and routes, have yet to be made. Several other
countries face similar questions.
Practical issues, such as what to do about the non-ocean
going (‘laker’) fleet plying the North American Great Lakes
trade remain in review. A particular dilemma relates to the
fact that many of the largest ships in this fleet frequently take
up and discharge water at very high rates (10–20 000m
3
/h)
Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 14
28/01/12 9:36 AM