Final report EMIP-May 29-1715 - The FRAM Projecttheframproject.com/uploads/Final_report_EMIP-May_29-1715.pdf · 7.3 13 RESOURCES-ORGANISATION-BUDGET-ACCOUNTANCY..... 74 7.3.1 Budget

FR PROJECT 200840/I40 FINAL REPORT ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE

NSAI AUTH: GRIEG SHIPPING GROUP I

FINAL REPORT

PROJECT

NFR 200840/I40

ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN

PRACTICE (EMIP) 29/05/2011

E M I PEnergy Management In PracticeE M I PEnergy Management In Practice

NFR PROJECT 200840/I40 FINAL REPORT ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE

II

Preface This report is written as part of execution of the Energy Management In Practice (EMIP) project. The project, supported by the Norwegian Research Council, was initiated by the WG 5 group consisting of the companies Klaveness Maritime Logistics, Wilh. Wilhelmsen , Høegh Autoliners, BW Gas and Grieg Shipping Group in March 2010. The project aims to make contributions within three main areas, namely improve energy efficiency in each participating company through intelligent cooperation with likeminded partners, to make a coordinated contribution towards to the Norwegian Shipowners Association’s environmental vision “Zero harmful emissions to air and sea” and mobilization of Norwegian shipowners for effective and structured implementation of the Maritime 21 strategy. The EMIP project management would like to thank MARINTEK and the company Marorka for their strong efforts throughout the project. By joining forces in an intelligent manner and establishing a determined common movement, it is strongly believed that substantially more can be achieved compared to working in solitude.

“Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.”

-Henry Ford- Solstrand/Os, May 20 2011. ________________ ______________ ______________ __________ Aage O Langeland Petter C Jønvik Knut Ljungberg Øyvind Toft Project Manager EMIP Wilh. Wilhelmsen Høegh Autoliners BW Gas Grieg Shipping Group __________________ Christoffer Bøhmer Klaveness Maritime Logistics


III

Date of first issue: Project No.:

07.05.2010 NFR 200840/I40 Project Manager: Organisational unit:

Aage O Langeland Grieg Shipping AS

Project Owner: Project Responsible:

The WG 5 group Klaveness Maritime Logistics / Bent Martini

Summary:

See Executive summary on page IX.

Report No.: Doc Type:

FINAL REPORT Indexing terms

Energy efficiency ships

Energy Management systems

Procedures & Training

Energy profile

Energy saving measures

No distribution without permission from the

project owner or project sponsor.

Work verified by:

EMIP project management team Strictly confidential

Unrestricted distribution


IV

Table of Contents: PREFACE............................................................................................................................................................. II

TABLE OF CONTENTS: .................................................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................VI

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. IX

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 MAIN OBJECTIVE.................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 SCOPE & DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 SOURCES OF INFORMATION................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 METHODOLOGY/PROCESS ..................................................................................................................... 3

2 WBS 2 PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ............................................................................. 4

2.1 WBS 21 INSTRUMENTATION................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 WBS 211 Coriolis fuel measuring ................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 WBS 212 kWh meter........................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.3 WBS 213 Torque meter ................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.4 WBS 214 Speed log ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.5 WBS 216 Other sensors / Equipment matrix ................................................................................... 9

2.2 WBS 22 DATA SUPPORT SYSTEM....................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 WBS 222 Evaluate EMS systems ................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 WBS 223 Establish/harmonize KPI structure................................................................................ 12

2.3 WBS 23 INSTALLATION TEST SHIPS .................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 WBS 231 Klaveness....................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 WBS 232 Wilh. Wilhelmsen........................................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 WBS 233 Grieg Shipping............................................................................................................... 17 2.3.4 WBS 234 Høegh ............................................................................................................................ 20 2.3.5 WBS 235 BW Gas.......................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.6 Feedback from Marorka................................................................................................................ 23

3 WBS 3 EMIP PROCEDURE.................................................................................................................... 24

3.1 WBS 31 ENERGY MANAGEMENT CURRENT PRACTICE....................................................................... 24 3.2 WBS 32 GUIDING FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................... 25

3.2.1 WBS 321 Rules and regulations .................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2 WBS 322 International standards ................................................................................................. 25

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON EMIP PROCEDURE FRAMEWORK............................................................ 25 3.3.1 WBS 331 Identify relevant Energy Management processes .......................................................... 25 3.3.2 WBS 332 Description of Energy Management processes.............................................................. 27 3.3.3 WBS 333 Control of processes, Performance Indicators & KPI’s................................................ 29

4 WBS 4 TRAININGPROGRAM............................................................................................................... 30

4.1 WBS 41 CURRENT PRACTICE TRAINING/EXISTING COURSES FOR THE COMPANIES ............................. 30 4.2 WBS 42 HARMONIZED TRAINING PROGRAM....................................................................................... 30

4.2.1 WBS 421 Program development & description............................................................................. 30 4.2.2 WBS 422 Target group for training .............................................................................................. 32 4.2.3 WBS 423 Execution of training program ...................................................................................... 32 4.2.4 WBS 424 Course providers training program............................................................................... 33

5 WBS 5 ENERGY PROFILE TEST SHIPS............................................................................................. 34

5.1 WBS 51 INITIAL ENERGY PROFILE- “BASELINE AS BUILT” .................................................................. 34


V

5.1.1 WBS 511 Klaveness- “BANIYAS”................................................................................................. 39 5.1.2 WBS 512 Wilh. Wilhelmsen- “TAMESIS”..................................................................................... 40 5.1.3 WBS 513 Grieg Shipping- “STAR ISTIND“ ................................................................................. 41 5.1.4 WBS 514 Höegh Autoliners – “HØEGH COPENHAGEN” ......................................................... 42 5.1.5 WBS 515 BW Gas- “BW ODIN”................................................................................................... 43

5.2 WBS 52 INITIAL ENERGY PROFILE- CURRENT OPERATION .................................................................. 44 5.2.1 WBS 521 Klaveness- “BANIYAS”................................................................................................. 44 5.2.2 WBS 522 Wilh. Wilhelmsen- “TAMESIS”..................................................................................... 45 5.2.3 WBS 523 Grieg Shipping- “STAR ISTIND“ ................................................................................. 45 5.2.4 WBS 524 Høegh – “HÖEGH COPENHAGEN”........................................................................... 48 5.2.5 WBS 525 BW Gas- “BW ODIN”................................................................................................... 48

5.3 WBS 53 ENERGY PROFILE AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES.................................................... 49 5.3.1 WBS 531 Klaveness- “BANIYAS”................................................................................................. 52 5.3.2 WBS 532 Wilh. Wilhelmsen- “TAMESIS”..................................................................................... 54 5.3.3 WBS 533 Grieg Shipping- “STAR ISTIND“ ................................................................................. 56 5.3.4 WBS 534 Høegh – “HÖEGH COPENHAGEN”........................................................................... 58 5.3.5 WBS 535 BW Gas- “BW ODIN”................................................................................................... 60

6 WBS 6 ACTION PLAN- FURTHER WORK......................................................................................... 62

6.1 WBS 61 PROCESSES ........................................................................................................................... 64 6.1.1 WBS 611 Internal in OWN companies .......................................................................................... 64 6.1.2 WBS 612 External BETWEEN WG5 companies ........................................................................... 64

6.2 WBS 62 TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 64 6.2.1 WBS 621 Evaluate and set up for test program for measures....................................................... 65 6.2.2 WBS 622 Data Support systems/sensors/instrumentation development ........................................ 67

6.3 WBS 63 ORGANISATION..................................................................................................................... 67 6.3.1 WBS 631 Training ......................................................................................................................... 68 6.3.2 WBS 632 Organizational development/change processes............................................................. 69

6.4 WBS 64 EXTERNAL MARKETING/PROFILING ...................................................................................... 70 6.4.1 WBS 641 Media general................................................................................................................ 70 6.4.2 WBS 642 Norwegian Shipping community.................................................................................... 71

7 WBS 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................... 72

7.1 11 GEN ADMIN.................................................................................................................................... 72 7.2 12 TIME & SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................................... 73 7.3 13 RESOURCES-ORGANISATION- BUDGET-ACCOUNTANCY.................................................................. 74

7.3.1 Budget and earned value in the project......................................................................................... 74 7.3.2 Organisation- the cooperation matrix........................................................................................... 76

7.4 14 INTERFACING PROJECTS AND THE MARITIME 21 STRATEGY........................................................... 77 7.5 15 MEETINGS & WORKSHOPS.............................................................................................................. 79 7.6 16 METHODS & TOOLS........................................................................................................................ 79 7.7 17 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................... 79 7.8 18 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 79 7.9 19 MARKETING- COMMUNICATION ..................................................................................................... 81

8 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................... 82

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 84

INDEX.................................................................................................................................................................. 86

APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................................................... 88

FR PROJECT 200840/I40 FINAL REPORT ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE

NSAVI AUTH: GRIEG SHIPPING GROUP VI

List of Figures Figure 1Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for project EMIP, level 2..................................... 2 Figure 2 Comparison of absolute fuel consumption (left) vs cargo (right) between two years (Klaveness, 2011)....................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Fuel consumption BW Prince AG- Chiba, laden (BW Gas, 2011) ............................. 6 Figure 4 Comparison between speed over ground (GPS) vs speed through water (LOG). (Klaveness, 2011)....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Energy Management Systems architecture (Marorka, 2011). ................................... 11 Figure 6 Screen shot from the EMS system showing key information for decision support to the operator (Marorka, 2011) ................................................................................................... 12 Figure 7 Screen shot from the EM portal (Marorka, 2011) ..................................................... 12 Figure 8 The testship Baniyas from Klaveness (Klaveness, 2011).......................................... 14 Figure 9 The testship Tamesis from Wilh. Wilhelmsen (Wilh. Wilhelmsen, 2011)................ 16 Figure 10 The testship Star Istind from Grieg Shipping( Grieg Shipping, 2011).................... 18 Figure 11 The testship Hoegh Copenhagen from Hoegh Autoliners (Hoegh Autoliners, 2011).................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 12 A high level picture of the ship shore reporting process (Høegh Autoliners, 2010)22 Figure 13 The testship BW Odin from BW Gas (BW Gas, 2011).......................................... 22 Figure 14 EMIP "mental model"- systems architecture........................................................... 24 Figure 15 Process flow chart for measuring effect of fuel saving initiative. ........................... 26 Figure 16 Process flow chart for measuring/monitoring energy operational index/energy profile. ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 17 Front page in developed interactive energy efficiency program. ............................ 31 Figure 18 Screen shot from module "Energy management with the Maren system" in the developed training program. .................................................................................................... 31 Figure 19 Explanation of fuel consumption pr nm in developed training program. ................ 32 Figure 20 Images from execution of energy efficiency training onboard Grieg vessel Star Istind April 2011. ..................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 21 Energy balance in an energy system........................................................................ 35 Figure 22 A generic ship energy system from MEPC 59/24/Add.1 Annex 17 Page 8. ........... 36 Figure 23 Pareto diagram from BW Gas “BW ODIN”............................................................ 38 Figure 24 Klaveness Baniyas Energy profile with respect to states. ....................................... 39 Figure 25 Klaveness Baniyas Energy profile with respect to equipment. ............................... 39 Figure 26 Wilh. Wilhelmsen Tamesis Energy profile with respect to states. .......................... 40 Figure 27 Wilh. Wilhelmsen Tamesis Energy profile with respect to equipment. .................. 40 Figure 28 Grieg Star Istind Energy profile with respect to states. ........................................... 41 Figure 29 Grieg Star Istind Energy profile with respect to equipment .................................... 41 Figure 30 Höegh Copenhagen Energy profile with respect to states. ...................................... 42 Figure 31 Höegh Copenhagen Energy profile with respect to equipment. .............................. 42 Figure 32 BW ODIN Energy profile with respect to states. .................................................... 43 Figure 33 BW ODIN Energy profile with respect to equipment. ............................................ 43 Figure 34 Speed trial, average of A and B run, compared with a speed trial test from 1999. . 46 Figure 35 Power Consumption in transit Star Istind. ............................................................... 46 Figure 36 Overview of measures assessed for implementation on case ships. ........................ 50 Figure 37 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BANIYAS. .................... 52 Figure 38 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard TAMESIS. ..................... 54 Figure 39 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard STAR ISTIND............... 56


VII

Figure 40 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard HÖEGH COPENHAGEN................................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 41 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BW ODIN...................... 60 Figure 42 The Balanced Scorecard perspectives (Shipping KPI, 2011) .................................. 62 Figure 43 Example of strategic map based upon the Balanced Scorecard methodology. ....... 63 Figure 44 Conceptual roadmap for setting up the coordinated test plan for nominated testships in the EMIP project. ................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 45 Project structure for internal BW Gas energy efficiency program (BW Gas ,2011)................................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 46 Picture from on board training and execution of speed trials on Star Istind April 2011.......................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 47 Timeline and interface between the DOCERS and EMIP projects. ........................ 71 Figure 48 Knowledge areas in "best practice" project management (PRINSIX, 2011) .......... 72 Figure 49 Initial time schedule in project EMIP, February 2010............................................. 73 Figure 50 EMIP initial monthly expense budget. .................................................................... 74 Figure 51 Actual monthly expenses in EMIP, MARINTEK/DOCERS incorporated. ............ 75 Figure 52 Earned value, financial, in project EMIP................................................................. 75 Figure 53 The "Sustainable winners" article published in attachment to Tradewinds Feb 2011................................................................................................................................................... 82

List of tables Table 1Main KPI's for monitoring energy efficiency in the WG 5 group. .............................. 13 Table 2 Main particulars nominated testship Baniyas from Klaveness. .................................. 14 Table 3 Installation timeline Energy Management system on testship Baniyas (Klaveness, 2011)......................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4 Main particulars nominated testship Tamesis from Wilh. Wilhelmsen...................... 16 Table 5 Installation timeline Energy Management system on testship Tamesis (Wilh. Wilhelmsen, 2011) ................................................................................................................... 17 Table 6 Main particulars nominated testship Star Istind from Grieg Shipping. ...................... 18 Table 7 Installation timeline Energy Management system on testship Star Istind (Grieg Shipping, 2011) ........................................................................................................................ 19 Table 8 Main particulars nominated testship Hoegh Copenhagen from Hoegh Autoliners ... 20 Table 9 Main particulars nominated testship BW Odin from BW Gas. .................................. 23 Table 10 Recommended conditions and limitations for measurements of selected vessel states. ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 11 Example of a typical yearly operational profile for a wet/dry bulk ship. ................ 36 Table 12 Generic efficiencies in a ship system........................................................................ 37 Table 13 Accounting table for BW Gas “BW ODIN”. ............................................................ 37 Table 14 References used together with WG5 and MARINTEK assessments of measures (MARINTEK,2011). ................................................................................................................ 49 Table 15 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BANIYAS....................... 53 Table 16 Combination effects of implementation of measures for BANIYAS. ...................... 53 Table 17 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard TAMESIS. ...................... 55 Table 18 Combination effects of implementation of measures for TAMESIS........................ 55 Table 19 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard STAR ISTIND. ............... 57 Table 20 Combination effects of implementation of measures for STAR ISTIND................. 57 Table 21 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard HÖEGH COPENHAGEN................................................................................................................................................... 59


VIII

Table 22 Combination effects of implementation of measures for HÖEGH COPENHAGEN................................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 23 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BW ODIN....................... 61 Table 24 Combination effects of implementation of measures for BW ODIN. ...................... 61 Table 25 Coordinated actionplan- Consolidated overview of energy efficiency measures allocated to nominated testships............................................................................................... 66 Table 26 Initial budget for project EMIP. ................................................................................ 74 Table 27 Financial result in EMIP versus original budget....................................................... 76 Table 28 The EMIP cooperation matrix................................................................................... 76 Table 29 Selection of planned, ongoing and concluded projects with bearing on energy efficiency on ships.................................................................................................................... 79


29.05.2011 IX

Executive SummaryIn February 2009 the ship owning companies Klaveness, Wilh. Wilhelmsen, Høegh Autoliners, BW Gas and Grieg Shipping Group established the WG 5 group based upon an initiative taken by Mr Tom Erik Klaveness. The purpose of WG 5 has been and still is to make an contribution towards the Norwegian Shipowners Association`s (NSA) environmental vision stating “Zero harmful emissions to air and sea” by execution of relevant projects with the aim to demonstrate environmental effect in real life applications. In August 2009, after having executed an experience transfer program within 7 environmental areas, it was decided by the WG 5 High Level meeting to prioritize the reduction of Green House Gases (GHG). This lead to the initiation of the Energy Management In Practice (EMIP) project. The EMIP project has been carried out in the period from March 22 2010 to May 2 2011 with support from the Norwegian Research Council(NRC). The reason for doing the project, the effectgoal, is ” To establish a common platform and ability amongst a group of shipping companies which will enable a future cooperation about the evaluation, distribution, implementation, measurement and evaluation of energy saving measures on board ships”. As such the project is to be seen as an enabling project with systematics providing for intelligent cooperation and rational use of resources amongst the WG 5 companies in the task of verifying effects of energy saving measures in real life applications. To support the achievement of the effectgoal, the EMIP project has had 5 defined resultgoals which have been addressed in separate sub projects. In subproject WBS 2, Performance monitoring systems, sensors and decision support systems for improved measuring accuracy are evaluated and installed on three of the five nominated testships. In sub project WBS 3, EMIP procedure, procedures have been developed for measuring effect of energy saving measures. A trainingprogram intended for ship crews is developed in subproject WBS 4. In WBS 5, Energy profile testships, systematics related to as built and current energy profiles are established for nominated testhips providing for baseline before implementation of energy saving measures. WBS 5 also identifies feasible energy saving measures for each of the nominated testships and their expected combined effect. Figures for every testvessel indicate that 20% savings should be obtainable within 2020 with the proposed measures, but with a higher potential, 30 to 40%, if more measures are implemented. A coordinated testplan has been made in sub project WBS 6 and for each of the testships a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) draft is developed. The EMIP project has had an ambitious scope given 13 months project duration and various uncertainties have influenced the execution. However, the earned value is 80% both in terms of deliverables and financial result when incorporating external financing from the DOCERS project run by MARINTEK. Remaining work is a question of allocation of sufficient time and resources to conclude. The reserve in the project is 40% of an initial budget of 7.425 KNOK. The EMIP project sketches 19 recommendations organized according to a Process, Technology, Organisation (PTO) perspective in chapter 6 seen as necessary to implement, sustain and further develop the EMIP results. On the technology side it is vital that the planned EMIP 2 project is executed. However, improving energy efficiency is not a single man`s exercise and efforts taken to improve energy efficiency must be rooted in an acknowledgement that all stakeholders must be involved in the process. As such, possible internal WG 5 energy efficiency programs, aligned with the EMIP 2 scope, should seek broad internal company commitment from all disciplines. The process must be accompanied by clear and consistent leadership. The EMIP project is fully aligned with the research area “Effective and environmentally friendly energy utilization” in the Maritime 21 strategy. As such the EMIP project has had the intention to contribute to the implementation of the strategy by advocating consolidation and intelligent cooperation in the Norwegian maritime cluster to bring forth faster results. By joining forces in an intelligent manner and establishing a determined common movement, it is strongly believed that substantially more can be achieved compared to working in solitude.


1

1 Introduction and background information

1.1 Background In light of the climate crisis and enhanced focus on environmental protection, players at all levels are called upon to make a contribution to turn the development and/ or limit the impact of the climate change. The shipping industry has traditionally been regarded as a major contributor to environmental pollution despite sea transportation by far is the most environmental friendly transport mode. Through several initiatives the Norwegian Ship-owners Association (NSA) has had the intention to initiate and coordinate efforts which can make the industry greener and through this improve the shipping industry’s reputation in society. In February 2009 the working group WG 5 consisting of Klaveness Maritime Logistics, Wilh. Wilhelmsen ASA, Høegh Autoliners, BW Gas and Grieg Shipping Group was inaugurated in a response to NSA’s environmental vision stating “Zero harmful emissions to air and sea”. A joint experience transfer program was initiated at time of inauguration with focus on the following thematic areas; A1 Emission reduction technologies (lead by Klaveness Maritime Logistics AS) A2 Alternative fuels (lead by BW Gas AS) A3 Energy efficiency (lead by Grieg Shipping AS) A4 Waste generation and handling (lead by Wilh. Wilhelmsen Lines AS) A5 Discharge to sea (lead by Grieg Shipping AS) A6 Environmental training (lead by Höegh Autoliners AS) A7 Environmental monitoring & accounting (lead by Höegh Autoliners AS) Each area was summed up in reports in which possible cooperation projects were presented to the WG 5’s”high-level” meeting in August of 2009 where owners/leaders of the respective shipping companies participated. It was decided to prioritize GHG reduction through improving energy efficiency for ships which led to the initiation of this project in March 2010.

1.2 Main Objective The reason for why doing the EMIP project has been the following; ” To establish a common platform and ability amongst a group of shipping companies which will enable a future cooperation about the evaluation, distribution, implementation, measurement and evaluation of energy saving measures on board ships” This goal is the effectgoal of the project and indicates what shall be measured some time after project completion. The operative words are “common platform and ability”. The effectgoal is thought to be achieved by delivering according to the project’s resultgoals. The result goals, i.e. what shall be delivered to what time and to what budget, have been as follows;

1. Selection, acquirement, instalment and testing of instruments for measuring, in real time, consumption and performance on board test ships.


2

2. Selection, acquirement, instalment and testing of systems for data collection, trend analysis and support for decision making related to evaluating, implementing and verifying measurements.

3. Establishment and implementation of procedures which enable a systematic approach to different energy saving measures.

4. Establishment of programs for training personnel in the use of instruments, computer support tools and procedures as described above.

5. Establishment of energy- and emission profiles for each of the test ships which will form the base for measuring improved energy efficiency as a function of implemented measures. Expectations to improved energy efficiency as a function of implementation of several measures will be quantified using scientific analysis.

6. Establishment of a coordinated plan with measures showing how the shipping companies will continue their cooperation to test energy saving measures.

7. Budget: 7,425 MNOK.

8. Time frame; March 22 2010- May 02 2011.

1.3 Scope & description A detailed plan for the project was developed in February 2010 and harmonized within the WG 5 group and EMIP project management team in February/March 2010. To achieve the resultgoals the following Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) was developed.

Figure 1Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for project EMIP, level 2.

Project EMIP

1 Project Management 2. Performance Monitoring System

3. EMIP procedure 4. Training 5 Energy Profile Test ships

6 Action plan/ Further work

11 Gen admin

12 Time & Schedule

13 Resources

14 Interfacing projects

15 Meetings & Workshops

16 Methods & tools

17 Reporting

18 Uncertainty analysis

19 Marketing

21 Instrumentation

22 Data support system

23 Innstallation testships

31 Energy ManagementCurrent Practice

32 Guiding framework

33 Develop common EMIP

P d

41 Current Practice Training/existing

42 Harmonized trainingprogram

51 Initial energy profile ”baseline as built”

52 Initial energy profile Current operation

53 Energy profile after implementation of

61 Processes

62 Technology

63 Organisation

64 External marketing/profiling


3

The WBS structure is in shown at level 2, but the detailed WBS consists of three levels. This structure is attached in appendix 1. It can be noted that all chapters in this report are more or less a direct mapping of each subproject (marked yellow in Figure 1) and attached work packages.

1.4 Sources of information The project has used several sources for information. One vital contributor has been the in house competence from each of the five ship owning companies. MARINTEK has been strongly involved in the work related to creating energy profiles and evaluation of various energy efficiency measures. The Icelandic company Marorka has been contributing in many parts of the project, ie the work related to installation of energy management system onboard testships, development of training program and energy profiles. The project has also reviewed open information on the Internet and received information from various equipment/system manufacturers. In regard of ongoing R&D projects, all partners have strived towards to not “reinvent the wheel” in the project but base the work on results obtained in other projects. To ensure this, one workpackage in the EMIP project is “14 Interfacing projects”. By introducing this work package the project aimed to try initiate “consolidation” in the maritime R&D project portfolio in an acknowledgement that a lot of duplicative R&D work seems to be the case. The project strongly believes, seen from a shipping company’s perspective, that improved and faster results may be achievable by working more intelligently and structured in the maritime cluster. As such, the Maritime 21 strategy is a comprehensive work which, when properly implemented, can cater for efficient resource utilization, quality deliverables and faster results. The Maritime 21 strategy is further discussed in chapter 6 and 7.

1.5 Methodology/process In all phases of the project it has been the intention to follow principles for “best practice” project management, ie in planning, execution and termination. Success in a project is dependent on several factors, both “hard” and “soft” and using the principles in “best practice” project management can improve the process in the project and contribute to the achievement of the resultgoals. The project management in the EMIP project is presented in greater detail in chapter 7.


4

2 WBS 2 Performance monitoring system Energy conservation is often a complex matter since there are a large number of influencing factors. For ship operation these may be related to purely technical issues, navigational practices, commercial commitments and operation, and freight market. Human behaviour, knowledge and experience as well as organisational aspects are also factors playing an important role. Principally, there is a large amount of information expressing fuel consumption and characterising vessel performance available onboard. Unfortunately, it has proved difficult to synthesise this information to provide a sound basis to support informed decisions. Further, the situation is still that many operating parameters are hampered with inconsistency and inaccuracy which often lead to confusion when it comes to implementing fuel efficient measures. Typically, this may be illustrated by the following quotation from a WW officer conference: “It is a general desire from these officers to have better understanding of actual fuel consumption and knowledge on how to improve sailing efficiency. At present there is no information on the bridge which is showing fuel consumption, and optimising sailing conditions are based on gut feeling and experience.” In recent years software to address these problems has become available. Such programmes can read and process large amounts of data by vessels characteristics and performance models. By this, the ship management team is able to read current performance as well as getting proposals to improve conditions and how this will affect fuel consumption. Further, there has been improvement with regards to measuring techniques in some areas (for example fuel flow meters and direct engine power measurement) that would enhance the value of the described “overlay software”. In an attempt to establish procedures for utilising the new technologies, the EMIP project has carried out investigations and initiated a test programme. The programme encompasses all in all 8 vessels where “overlay software” supplied by Marorka and improved flow meters and torque meters (direct power measurement on the propeller shaft) have been introduced. Relevant parameters and KPI’s for monitoring fuel efficiency exist and these have to be used for monitoring and follow-up. However, these signify each issue separately and it may be difficult to obtain an overall view of the total effect from efforts to reduce fuel consumption. An example is shown in the following graphs in Figure 2. One graph shows an increase in fuel consumption in 2010 compared to 2009. The other graph shows, however, that the freight volume has increased also.


5

Figure 2 Comparison of absolute fuel consumption (left) vs cargo (right) between two years (Klaveness, 2011) The graph above to the left shows an increase in the total fuel consumption for a number of vessels from one year to another. Does this mean that the energy efficiency performance has decreased? Not necessarily and the graph to the right shows that the cargo volume has increased at the same time. The important question is then how to balance the various measures values when calculating and documenting the energy efficiency of a vessel or a fleet. To overcome this problem, an overall parameter for fuel consumption is required. Since the consumption depends to a large degree on speed, this factor has to be drawn into the overall parameter. One possibility is to monitor total fuel consumption vs speed for a reference voyage. One example is shown in Figure 3 below. Figure 3 shows the relation between speed and daily consumption over a period of two years in the blue curve. The trend curve is used to calculate fuel consumption for a voyage between AG and Chiba depending on speed. In this example the blue curve is based on the two year statistic, and the red curve reflects a 10 % reduction. If overall fuel consumption reduces, curves based on future statistics should move from the blue line to the red. This parameter would embrace all efforts to reduce on fuel independently on the speed setting.


6

Fuel consumption BW Prince AG - Chiba, laden

600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950

1000

13 14 15 16 17

Speed (knots)

Fuel consumption (MT)

Baseline

Target

Figure 3 Fuel consumption BW Prince AG- Chiba, laden (BW Gas, 2011)

2.1 WBS 21 Instrumentation The majority of vessels sailing today are equipped with very basic systems related to measuring fuel consumption and fuel consumption, due to little focus from ship owners and ship yards when designing and building vessels. Modest maintenance and calibration of key instruments for being able to measure fuel efficiency have been stressed on board the vessels due to lack of knowledge and historically focus from ship owners. Key instruments related for measuring fuel efficiency have been mapped in the EMIP project with following chapters describing the use of these sensors. A matrix, containing gathered experiences from the ship owners, mapping existing equipment have been formed and utilised in the project.

2.1.1 WBS 211 Coriolis fuel measuring All companies reported varying experiences regarding quality of existing fuel flow meters on board ships in their fleet. Proper maintenance has been challenging to get executed frequently with the consequence that measuring accuracy over time for these meters has decreased. As such, there was a need to identify and evaluate fuel flow meters which inherently is more accurate and robust with regards to operation. In the following the principles for positive displacement flow meters and coriolis flow meters are presented with attached measuring accuracies to be expected. POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT FLOW METERS Positive displacement flow meters repeatedly entrap fluid to measure its flow. It can be thought of as repeatedly filling a bucket with fluid before dumping the contents downstream. The number of times that the bucket is filled represents the flow. Many positive displacement flow meter geometries are available. Entrapment is usually accomplished using rotating parts that form moving seals between each other and/or the flow


7

meter body. In most designs, the rotating parts have tight tolerances so these seals can prevent fluid from going through the flow meter without being measured (slippage). In some positive displacement flow meter designs, bearings are used to support the rotating parts. Rotation can be sensed mechanically or by detecting the movement of a rotating part. When more fluid is flowing, the rotating parts turn proportionally faster. The electronic transmitter processes the signal generated by the rotation to determine the flow of the fluid. Some positive displacement flow meters have mechanical registers that show the total flow on a local display. The accuracy of a positive displacement flowmeter will depend on input regarding viscosity and temperature of the fluid in question. Given such information is present, the accuracy is expected to lie in the range of +/- 0,5 to 1 %. This Figure may deteriorate over some time due to wear and tear. Positive displacement meters measures the volumetric flow, and this has to be converted to mass flow by introducing fuel density (at 15 deg C). The density is stated on the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN). However, this is not a reliable Figure since this Figure is a calculated value (fuel is a blend from various sources). A more accurate Figure would be the one obtained from the bunker analysis report. Still, this will not be an accurate Figure since the fuel sample may not be representative for the fuel in use. Since the flow meter works at a temperature of about 90 deg. C (and not at the reference temperature at 15 deg. C) the volumetric flow has to be corrected. Errors in temperature readings will also reduce the accuracy somewhat. Therefore, the factual accuracy for positive displacement meters will be further reduced and a realistic value could be in the range of +/- 1 to 2 % or sometimes even worse. CORIOLIS FLOW-METERS The Coriolis flow meter measures the mass flow directly thereby eliminating the uncertainties associated with the positive displacement meter. Coriolis flow meters contain one or more vibrating tubes. These tubes are usually bent, although straight-tube meters are also available. The fluid to be measured passes through the vibrating tubes. It accelerates as it flows toward the maximum vibration point, and slows down as it leaves that point. This causes the tubes to twist. The amount of twisting is directly proportional to mass flow. Position sensors detect tube positions. The accuracy of a Coriolis system may be as good as 1 % and better, and viscosity sensors are not needed. Vibration from the surroundings has earlier been a problem for Coriolis flow meters but this issue has been solved on present meters. Price level: High (the meter is more expensive than positive displacement and ultrasonic flow meters but it does not require any viscosity sensors)

2.1.2 WBS 212 kWh meter A kWh meter measures the accumulated energy produced by the diesel generator over a period of time. In most vessels today, this value is only available through the propulsion automation system and can be difficult to obtain from that system without an overall energy management system that is able to import the data. If a vessel does not have a energy management system that is able to capture the total energy produced form the diesel generators, a separate kWh meter can be installed on the switchboard. This is a simple installation that can in most cases be done by the electrician onboard and the cost per kWh


8

meter is between 500 – 1000 EUR. This simple meter can then be manually read and reported to shore at predefined intervals in order to measure the total consumed electrical energy onboard as well as the average load on the diesel generators (in combination with the running hour log). This is important when measuring the effect of initiatives with a relatively small potential such as frequency convertors, minimizing air leaks or energy efficient lighting systems.

2.1.3 WBS 213 Torque meter Torque meter important for measuring actual power and torque delivered from the engine. Accurate measurement of engine power is essential to monitor vessel performance. There are several means to do this,

Engine power diagramme Calculation by mean cylinder pressure (MIP/MEP) Shaft power measurement

Generally, the two first methods are mostly used, However, these are indirect methods and experience is that they are encumbered with uncertainties and errors that are of the same magnitude as for example the saving potential for the engine’s specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC). The engine power diagram expresses engine power by fuel pump index (delivery) and rotational speed. This is considered to be a rough estimate only since the index is changing with wear and tear. There are also other factors that influence the power estimate adversely that cannot be corrected for (e.g. scavenge air supply, engine timing and ambient conditions). The use of the MIP calculator requires an estimate of the mechanical efficiency for the engine to calculate shaft power. This incurs an uncertainty since the mechanical efficiency varies with engine load. Further, the accuracy of the MIP-value depends mainly on the accuracy of the pressure sensor (assumed to be high), and the timing of top dead centre (TDC) of the reference cylinder (large influence on the calculated value). It has also been found that the cabling installation for the flywheel pick-up(s) has been affected by interference problems that may cause an off-set of the signal. Furthermore, MIP-calculators of today are generally not capable of continuous measurements. Therefore they are not suited for “online” monitoring systems such as the Marorka System since engine power fluctuates to such an extent that an instantaneous measurement would not represent a realistic value in such a setting. Power measurement by shaft torque meters is a direct measurement that is considered to be the most accurate since the number of uncertain factors are largely reduced. Further, they are able to provide continuous signals required for modern performance monitoring systems. The accuracy of torque meters are generally given to better than +/- 0,5 % which is considered far superior to the methods referred above. In appendix 2 results from BW Gas onboard test program of fuel flow and torque meter is shown.


9

2.1.4 WBS 214 Speed log When measuring a vessel’s energy performance, the vessel speed is a key parameter. As the speed/consumption curve is steep at the design speed, small speed variations will lead to a big difference in the fuel consumption. It is therefore important that the vessel speed is measured as accurately as possible. Vessel speed is normally measured by two different methods, that is;

Speed over Ground, measured by the GPS onboard Speed through water, measured by the vessel’s speed log

When measuring the vessel’s performance it is the speed through water that is the correct method. This speed also reflects the sea current which is not included when measuring speed over ground. The challenge is that the vessel’s speed log is affected by the water flow caused by the vessel’s movement through the water. That means that the accuracy of the speed log is not as good as desired for measurement of the effect of hull and propeller initiatives. In order to verify the speed log accuracy, there are two main actions that can be taken. Comparing the speed over ground with the speed log measurements can provide useful insight to how the speed log is performing. In addition, using the traditional object in the water can be used. Throw an object into the water and measure the time is takes to travel a predefined distance. This procedure is described further in the test program for speed trials.

Figure 4 Comparison between speed over ground (GPS) vs speed through water (LOG). (Klaveness, 2011)

2.1.5 WBS 216 Other sensors / Equipment matrix A desire from the participants in the project was to share more structured information regarding quality and experience of present installed equipment and evaluated equipment which relates to being able to measure fuel performance, on board vessels in the companies. Key equipment, which relates to being able to measure fuel performance, was shared in an equipment matrix between the companies. The equipment matrix form an important tool for


10

further systematic work beyond EMIP with regards to continuously improving measuring accuracy. The following items are described in the matrix:

- Instrumentation type - Maker - Purpose of use - Accuracy (promised by supplier) - Lifetime - Maintenance need - Price range - Ship owners experience - Additional comments

The following sensor types are included in the marix:

- Fuel flow meters - Torque meters - Speed logs - Draft sensors - Software systems - Wind meters - kW meters - Autopilots - MIP calculators - Movement sensors

The matrix is a living document and will be continued updated with gained experiences and new sensors.

2.2 WBS 22 Data Support System Being able to monitor vessel performance with high level of accuracy require frequent data gathering with high data quality. Automatic data capturing is desirable for this purpose. There are numerous of suppliers offering more or less sophisticated data capturing and energy management systems on the market today. To fit the purpose for EMIP, a comprehensive data capturing and performance monitoring system is desirable. The Figure 5 below show basic principles of an advanced energy management system.


11

Figure 5 Energy Management Systems architecture (Marorka, 2011).

2.2.1 WBS 222 Evaluate EMS systems There are numerous simple energy consumption support systems on the market today, but more advanced energy management systems are limited to handful of suppliers. Different energy management systems were discussed in the group. The Icelandic company Marorka was chosen due to already long relationship and work together with Wilh. Wilhelmsen and Grieg. The company provides one of the most advanced and sophisticated systems on the market today and has a good market position. It is offering modular systems that could be delivered as a simple software and build up to a very advanced system. Its most advanced system, the Maren solution, was chosen as energy management system for this project. Figure 6 below shows screenshot from the main screen on the Maren system on board Star Istind.


12

Figure 6 Screen shot from the EMS system showing key information for decision support to the operator (Marorka, 2011)

Data from the Maren system are transmitted to a database on shore and Marorka has developed a portal where key fuel performance data are visualised. Screenshot from the portal is show in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 Screen shot from the EM portal (Marorka, 2011)

It was decided to install the Maren system on board one vessel from each of the project participants: Klaveness, Grieg and Wilh. Wilhelmsen. Framework agreements between these companies and Marorka where established.

2.2.2 WBS 223 Establish/harmonize KPI structure A Performance Indicator or Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is the term used for a type of measure of performance. KPIs are used to evaluate the success or status of a particular activity in which it is engaged. Sometimes success is defined in terms of making progress toward strategic goals, but often, success is simply the repeated achievement of some level of operational goal. Accordingly, choosing the right KPIs is reliant upon having a good understanding of what is important to the organization. 'What is important' often depends on


13

the department measuring the performance. The table below lists the most important high-level KPI’s used for measuring energy efficiency.

Fuel consumption per transport work MT/Cargo(DWT)*Nm Fuel consumption per Nm MT/Nm Energy consumption per Nm kwh/Nm Fuel consumption per day MT/day

Table 1Main KPI's for monitoring energy efficiency in the WG 5 group.

A complete list of suggested Performance Indicators (PI’s) and Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) used for the purpose of measuring energy efficiency in this project can be found in Appendix 3 and is further discussed/presented in chapter 3.3.3. Even though it is only three of the nominated test vessels which have the Maren system, all required data is collected for the BW Gas and Høegh Autoliners ships by other means. In order to measure the overall energy efficiency and to document improvements, It is important to capture the parameters that also are connected to the market situation. When the market is good, most vessels will go at a high speed as possible and all the energy efficiency parameters will increase despite of any other energy reduction initiatives. In these cases it is important to be able to document and justify the effect of the initiatives even if the total fuel consumption has increased.

2.3 WBS 23 Installation test ships One vessel from each ship owner in the group was announced as test vessels for the EMIP project. The Maren solution from Marorka was decided to be installed on the announced test vessels from Klaveness, Grieg and Wilh. Wilhelmsen. Following these installations, it was decided to replace existing fuel flow meters to coriolis type meters and the vessels were also equipped with torque meters for their main engines.

2.3.1 WBS 231 Klaveness Vessel description The vessel Baniyas has been announced from Klaveness as test vessel in EMIP. The vessel was chosen as one of 6 similar vessels operating on the same trade.


14

Figure 8 The testship Baniyas from Klaveness (Klaveness, 2011)

Main particulars

Year built: 2000 Main engine output 10 410 KW Aux engines output 3 x 919 KW Approx. consumption pr day in transit 37,5 tons Design speed 15 knots DWT 72 600 tons

Table 2 Main particulars nominated testship Baniyas from Klaveness. For further vessel information, see appendix 4. What has been performed with the vessel during the EMIP project? The following were installed to upgrade equipment for being able to monitor fuel performance:

- Maren EM 200 system from Marorka - New fuel flow meters of Coriolis type for main and auxiliary engines - kWh meters on the switchboard - New anemometer with a digital signal output

The Maren system installation was conducted from September 2010 to March 2011. The installation team experienced some difficulties with connecting to the different equipment, especially the Terasaki automation system and the anemometer. In addition, there were problems with the flow meters that needed a specialised service engineer. Looking back after the installation, the quality of the preparations needs to be improved in order to identify all potential integrations challenges during the initial assessment.


15

Installation timeline

Table 3 Installation timeline Energy Management system on testship Baniyas (Klaveness, 2011) What is planned activities for the vessel as a result of EMIP. As the Marorka Portal is up and running and that wind measurements are included, the plan is to start utilising the information collected by the system. A close dialogue with Marorka is needed in order to tune their dashboard solution and their standard reports. It is important to be able to understand how the different parameters are affected and to include both the crew onboard and the commercial/operation department. In April 2011, the vessel docked in China.The scope of work affecting energy efficiency will be necessary input when working with the developed SEEMP. The SEEMP , ref chapter 6.2.1.1, for the vessel describes more in detail on what will be the focus area for 2011.

2.3.2 WBS 232 Wilh. Wilhelmsen Vessel description The vessel Tamesis has been announced from Wilh. Wilhelmsen as test vessel in EMIP. The vessel was chosen due to being one of the largest vessels with appurtenant relatively high fuel oil consumption in the Wilh. Wilhelmsen fleet. The vessel is also fairly advanced equipped with respect to trimming capabilities.

Date Action Comment 18.03.2010 Pre-visit Initial assessment 27.04.2010 Quotation 21.07.2010 Order confirmed 19.09.2010 First visit onboard Most hardware installed and cables laid.

Some data collection in place. 09.11.2010 Second visit onboard Installation finished. All data except from

the Terasaki being collected. Problem with Krohne meters requiring a service engineer from Krohne.

21.03.2011 Third visit. Project delivered according to contract.

Portal connected. Still waiting for new anemometer.


16

Figure 9 The testship Tamesis from Wilh. Wilhelmsen (Wilh. Wilhelmsen, 2011)

Main particulars

Year built: 2000 Main engine output 20 960 kW Aux engines output 2 x 2 539 kW

3 x 5 061 kW Approx. consumption pr day in transit 80 tons Design speed 20 knots DWT 39 517

Table 4 Main particulars nominated testship Tamesis from Wilh. Wilhelmsen For further vessel information, see appendix 5.

What has been performed with the vessel during the EMIP project? The vessel was dry-docked in February 2010. During dry-docking the following upgrades was installed to upgrade equipment for being able to monitor fuel performance.

- Maren system from Marorka - New fuel flow meters of Coriolis type for main and auxiliary engines - Torque meter - New doppler speed log - New software for autopilot - New antifouling applied

The Maren system installation was conducted in May 2010, and it occurred over time that the torque meter installed was not functioning as promised. Troubleshooting was conducted and due to several mistakes in the installation, new torque meter was installed in May 2011. Installation timeline


17

Table 5 Installation timeline Energy Management system on testship Tamesis (Wilh. Wilhelmsen, 2011) What is planned activities for the vessel as a result of EMIP. After the new torque meter has been installed, the Maren system can be fully utilised and will be used for mapping measurement quality of installed sensors. New key equipment will be installed if improved sensors are available or additional sensors will be tested to compare measurement accuracy. Tamesis will together with Star Istind and Baniyas be used as further product development for the Maren system. The system will be utilised as key enabler of implementation of SEEMP as described in chapter 6.2.1.2. Experience from installations In dry-dock new speed log, torque meter and upgraded autopilot were installed. All sensors were installed without sufficient calibration from the suppliers. As the inaccuracy (due to insufficient calibration) of these sensors was not detected before a short time after leaving the dry-dock, it has taken extensive time and communication with suppliers to get the sensors working as claimed from the suppliers. This has led to delay in the project and postponed to utilise the real advantages from the Maren system. The Maren system was installed without experiencing any major obstacles except from the above sensor inaccuracies.

2.3.3 WBS 233 Grieg Shipping Vessel description The vessel Star Istind represents one out of ten sistervessels in the Grieg fleet of the HIJ class with proven performance track record. Star Istind was selected as testship based upon the fact that the ship have long residual service time and have installed the Mewis Duct. The ship was drydocked in October 2009.

Date Action Comment 17.01.2010 Pre-visit Sister vessel visited for initial assessment. 08.02.2010 Quotation Plan: first visit 17.01.2010, finish

installation while in doc 16.02.2010 11.02.2010 Order confirmed 27.02.2010 First visit onboard Installation successfully carried out. All

data logging in place. 16.05.2011 Second visit onboard Install SPM, connect to ECDIS and

troubleshooting shaft power meter. Decision support installed and activated.


18

Figure 10 The testship Star Istind from Grieg Shipping( Grieg Shipping, 2011) Main particulars

Year built: 1999 Main engine output 10 520 kW Aux engines output 2 x 1 400 kW

1 x 795 kW Approx. consumption pr day in transit 44 tons Design speed 16 knots DWT 46 400

Table 6 Main particulars nominated testship Star Istind from Grieg Shipping. For further vessel information, see appendix 6. What has been performed with the vessel during the EMIP project? The vessel was dry-docked in Oct 2009. The Maren system was installed, including torque meter and coriolis fuel flow meters, in the period from April 2010- January 2011. The matrix blow indicates the detailed timeline. Installation timeline


19

Table 7 Installation timeline Energy Management system on testship Star Istind (Grieg Shipping, 2011) What is planned activities for the vessel as a result of EMIP. After having conducted speed trials in Apr 2011, it was identified a need to check the calibration of the torque meter and fuel flow meter as outlined in chapter 5.2.3( WBS 523). New key equipment will be installed if improved sensors are become available or additional sensors will be tested to compare measurement accuracy. Star Istind will together with Tamesis and Baniyas be used in the planned EMIP 2 project where the main intention is to measure effect of various energy efficiency measures according to the developed SEEMP. The system will act as key enabler of implementation of SEEMP as described in chapter 5.3.3 and 6.2.1.3. Experience from installations Torque meter installation went according to planned and was completed in Europe, Brake, Germany, 7 October 2010, by Service engineer from Lehmann & Michels GmbH, Germany. Before installation took place, the crew had carried out the following preparations:

1. Signal cable from engine control console to torque meter position in engine room is pulled.

2. El. power supply cable is pulled from power cabinet L22, E/R LT Distribution Board to torque meter location in engine room.

3. Stand for torque meter is produced as per drawing, and ready for installation. 4. Brackets for cabinets, A2a/b are in place (Lemag supply). 5. Brackets for RF signal receivers are in place (Lemag supply). 6. Engine control console is prepared for the installation of panel unit SP A1. 7. Propeller shaft cleaned to bare steel in the area occupied by the torque meter.

The installation took about 7 hours to complete. On completion of the installation, the torque meter was calibrated in accordance with Lemag procedure. A re-calibration had to be carried out only few weeks after installation due to erroneous readings. It was made use of service engineer for this calibration. It shall be noted though, that procedure for calibration is simple to follow and can be carried out by the crew.

Date Action Comment 21.04.2010 Pre-visit Initial assessment 14.05.2010 Quotation 14.06.2010 Order confirmed 24.08.2010 First visit onboard Prepare and startup the installation. Some

hardware installed. 14.09.2010, 04.10.2010

Second-third visit onboard

Data collection started although some measurements are still missing.

11.01.2011 Fourth visit onboard Draft sensors connected 21.01.2011 Fifth visit. Project

delivered according to contract

Destroyed energy meter replaced. New anemometer installed. Training of the crew.

06.04.2011 Problem with one of the DG fuel flow meters.

09.04.2011 Portal Portal connection established. 09.04.2011 Energy efficiency day EMIP training material presented and

speed trials conducted


20

The flow meters were installed by the crew at a later stage. The flow meter’s connecting flanges was delivered according to DIN- in stead of JIS-standard. This called for a different installation then planned, which was in position of original flow meters. It was decided to keep original flow meters as is, and use the by-pass line for the new once. For the remaining vessels, 9 ships in total, all flow meter were delivered with JIS flange connection and installed in original position. The MAREN installation was completed during vessel’s operation from 21.02.2011 – 07.03.2011. An Acceptance test was carried out were all functionality of the program was tested; everything was in order except connection related to the Terasaki alarm system which has been cancel for a while. A sea trial with speed and consumption testing was carried out 7 April – 11 April 2011 while the vessel was under way from Naples, Italy to Motril, Spain. Results from sea trial is presented in chapter 5.2.3 (WBS 523)

2.3.4 WBS 234 Høegh The vessel, Hoegh Copenhagen, is one of the newest vessels in the Hoegh Autoliners fleet, and will be the dedicated test ship from Hoegh. The vessel was chosen since it is representative for the fleet and will be in service for a long period of time. In addition, as a large vessel, the on-board energy consumption is substantial.

Figure 11 The testship Hoegh Copenhagen from Hoegh Autoliners (Hoegh Autoliners, 2011)

Main particulars

Year built: 2010 Main engine output 19460 kW (MCR) Aux engines output 3 x 470 kW Approx. consumption pr day in transit 50 MT (HFO) Design speed 20,5 (kn) DWT 27175

Table 8 Main particulars nominated testship Hoegh Copenhagen from Hoegh Autoliners For further vessel information, see appendix 7.


21

In order to measure and improve energy performance, the following equipment has been installed since delivery: - KYMA Diesel Performance Analyzer - New fuel flow meters of Coriolis type for main engines - Torque meter - Trim tables for optimal trim Although Hoegh Copenhagen is a relatively new vessel to the HA fleet, it has been as part of the ongoing eMAP project. The eMAP project is an internal HA energy management project and has been running since 2008. Many initiatives have been launched as part of this project and Hoegh Copenhagen has also benefitted from this. Some of the energy efficiency measures already launched is listed below:

ME / AE tuning and optimalization Optimum Trim Guidelines Propeller polish (optimum) Speed management & voyage management AE utilization Weather Routing Application of new antifouling Incentive & awareness programme

However, more initiatives will be tested and introduced, both as part of the EMIP program and as part of the eMAP program. It is possible that some measures will be tested on other vessels than Hoegh Copenhagen first. Some of these initiatives to come are listed below:

New autopilots / calibration of older autopilots Propulsion system enhancements (PBCF, Mewis duct), this remains however to be

concluded. Frequency converters Improved hull cleaning More antifouling

In order to improve the ship shore reporting process, HA has through the EMIP project introduced a new ship shore reporting tool and streamlined this process. This has resulted in a more uniform and simpler process and also increased the data quality received from the vessels. Several reports have been combined into actually two reports and reporting validation rules have been introduced. The picture below illustrates how the new ship shore reporting process is organized


22

Figure 12 A high level picture of the ship shore reporting process (Høegh Autoliners, 2010) Planned activities after EMIP Høegh Autoliners is partner in the EMIP 2 project and has for a sustained period of time executed an internal energy efficiency program. As such the company will continue its efforts in pursuit of improving energy efficiency through mobilizing internally and sharing/receiving experiences through the EMIP 2 project.

2.3.5 WBS 235 BW Gas LPG/C BW Odin is a medium sized LPG carrier built at DSME, Korea. The vessel has been mostly trading in the North Sea between various ports in Norway, Sweden, UK, and ARA and thereby rather easily accessible.

Figure 13 The testship BW Odin from BW Gas (BW Gas, 2011)


23

Main particulars

Year built: 2005 Main engine output 9600 (MCR) Aux engines output 3 x 970kW Approx. consumption pr day in transit 25 MT (LSHFO) Design speed 16(kn) DWT 29450

Table 9 Main particulars nominated testship BW Odin from BW Gas. For further vessel information, see appendix 8. The vessel is equipped with standard instrumentation for measurement of fuel consumption and a KYMA torque meter to measure main engine power – the latter in addition to a standard MIP calculator of ICON make (the “Doctor”). A programme to evaluate accuracy for fuel consumption and engine power has been carried out. Further, a procedure to calibrate fuel flow meters onboard is also proposed and tested. Planned activities after EMIP BW Gas is partner in the EMIP 2 project and has also launched an internal energy efficiency program. As such the company will continue its efforts in pursuit of improving energy efficiency through mobilizing internally and sharing/receiving experiences through the EMIP 2 project.

2.3.6 Feedback from Marorka “In general, all the installations have been more or less successful. The obstacles met during the installations mostly occurred due to unexpected issues that where hard to predict. The importance of good communication with the crews working onboard prior to and during the installation can be vital for each installation. For future reference, this communication should be improved and made clearer – verbally as well as through detailed installations plans. It is also important not to perform installation during shifting of crews since it can be very hard to get their attention at that time. A part of the communication could include responsibility matrix—who is responsible for what and what has to be finished by the crew for Marorka engineers to be able to continue.”


24

3 WBS 3 EMIP procedure Early in the project it was a need to define energy efficiency in a holistic context acknowledging the fact that energy efficiency is dependent on both “soft” and “hard” aspects. The model shown in Figure 14 was developed with the purpose to give focus and direction in the project and also be a model used for communication purposes externally the project.

Figure 14 EMIP "mental model"- systems architecture.

The loop is based upon a standard quality loop and it is only when excelling in all parts of the loop one can obtain improved energy efficiency.

3.1 WBS 31 Energy Management Current Practice All companies had general statements, goals and visions regarding efforts to reduce the companies’ environmental footprint and negative impact. In addition, all companies had some projects or programmes running with the objective to achieve environmental goals and visions. However, very few procedures specifically focusing on measuring the effect of new measures were in place. Some existing procedures, like monthly performance tests and sea-trail-runs were in place for most companies, but were used primarily with other intentions. They are however necessary for measuring the effect of efficiency measures and will be included as a part of these general procedures.


25

3.2 WBS 32 Guiding framework

3.2.1 WBS 321 Rules and regulations No additional rules or regulations were considered

3.2.2 WBS 322 International standards The following International standards have been review:

- IMO Guideline of MEPC 59/24 Annex 19 (SEEMP) - IMO Guideline of MEPC.1/Circ.684 17 August 2009 (EEOI) - ISO/CD 50001, ISO PC 242 (Energy management systems)(draft)

3.3 Development of common EMIP procedure framework The purpose of the procedure is to enable a company to measure the effect of an energy efficiency measure. This should help the company with reductions in cost, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts. This should also support the company to achieve its policy commitments and to take action as needed to improve the energy performance.

3.3.1 WBS 331 Identify relevant Energy Management processes In general, the process of deciding the overall effect of a specific energy efficiency measure involves monitoring or measuring the change in a vessels overall energy efficiency operation index (EEOI) or energy profile (EP). However, for the purpose of simplicity, the project decided to use a simplification of the EEOI and use the term Efficiency Operation Index (EOI). The EOI will serve the same purpose as the EEOI, but considerations to transported cargo are left out.


26

Figure 15 Process flow chart for measuring effect of fuel saving initiative.

Figure 16 Process flow chart for measuring/monitoring energy operational index/energy profile. The process diagram above illustrates the general flow associated with measuring the effect of efficiency measures.


27

Furthermore, the detected change in EOI or EP should be measured in such a way that the cause of the change is clearly isolated and that the degree of change is quantified or clearly described. The process involves the following steps: 1. Establish reference conditions for comparison (define current EOI & EP) 2. Introduce an efficiency measure 3. Measure/monitor any change in EOI or EP 4. Analysis - compare results & conclude effect

3.3.2 WBS 332 Description of Energy Management processes

3.3.2.1 Reference conditions (baseline EOI & EP) In order to determine the effect of an energy measure it is necessary to compare one measured EOI or EP to a previously established EOI or EP. This reference condition should be described as either a baseline EOI or a baseline EP.

3.3.2.1.1 Efficiency Operating Index - EOI The EEOI is defined by IMO as an efficiency indicator for all ships (new and existing) obtained from fuel consumption, voyage (miles) and cargo data (tonnes), but as mentioned, a simpler definition is used in this project denoted EOI.

The EOI may be defined by the following parameters:

Actual fuel consumption – MT HFO Distance travelled – 1000 Nm

Since the EOI is influenced by external factors like weather and current in addition to operating conditions such as engine load, trim and more, it is recommended that the EOI is measured and monitored over a period of time. The set of monitored values for EOI over a period of time should be used to calculate an average value for EOI for different states of the vessel. This calculated average should be used to create a baseline for the vessel to be used as a reference condition for future comparison. A noon reporting system or an automated system like Marorka may be used to obtain daily values for EOI and the procedures for using a dedicated noon reporting system or an automated monitoring system from Marorka is described in a separate document.

3.3.2.1.2 Energy Profile – EP The energy profile of a vessel (EP) is defined by a specific set of measured values for production of energy, transmission of energy and consumption of energy. The measured values should also be representative (measured) for a specific state of the vessel. See chapter 5 The main set set of values to be measured is defined in Table 1. The state of the vessel when measured should be defined as one of the listed states below:

Fuel Consumption Operation Index

Actual Fuel Consumption

Distance travelled =


28

1. Full load (seagoing) 2. Ballast (seagoing) 3. Intermediate (seagoing) 4. Manoeuvring 5. Loading / Unloading

Depending on the nature of the actual fuel efficiency measure to test, it may or not be necessary to measure all defined values for the energy profile. Considerations should be taken when deciding which values should be measured and how the introduced fuel efficiency measure will influence the EP or EOI.

3.3.2.1.3 Operating conditions when obtaining EOI/EP In order to obtain reliable data for the EOI/EP, it may be beneficial to perform measurements at certain determined conditions where some parameters are controlled. For example, during a monthly performance test the vessel should maintain a predetermined RPM that is the same from time to time and the weather conditions should be according to an acceptable level. Another approach is to conduct measurements under sea-trial mode. A procedure for how to perform sea-trail is described in appendix 9. A third option is to conduct measurements during a “reference voyage” if the vessel trades regularly in the same area.

3.3.2.1.4 Measurements for selected vessel states The energy profile should focus on limited conditions in transit. The following conditions should be covered: Condition: Transit (Fully loaded/Ballast 1/Ballast 2), port Operation could also be included. The speed: Full Speed / Economical Speed 1 / Economical Speed 2. The table below describes examples of the conditions and limitations for which the measurements should be taken. The procedure for performing monthly performance tests (MPT) should be followed when measurements are taken when seagoing (not manoeuvring) and is described in separate document. Vessel state Duration

(hrs) ME load (%)

Wind (max wind)

Wave (max height)

Water (max depth)

Full Load (seagoing) > 2 hrs 85% <Beaufort 3 <2 mtrs >100 mtrs Ballast (seagoing) > 2 hrs 85% <Beaufort 3 <2 mtrs >100 mtrs Intermediate (seagoing) > 2 hrs 85% <Beaufort 3 <2 mtrs >100 mtrs Manoeuvring - - - - - Loading / Unloading - - - - -

Table 10 Recommended conditions and limitations for measurements of selected vessel states. When conducting measurements for manoeuvring and loading/unloading conditions, considerations should be taken so that the critical conditions are kept similar and recorded in order to minimize the influence from external factors and ensure that the actual effect of an energy efficiency measure is identified and measured.


29

3.3.2.2 Measuring any change in EOI or EP When an energy efficiency measure is introduced it is critical to obtain a new EOI or EP shortly after the measure has been introduced, unless the nature of the measure is such that the effect can only be detected over a period of time. In many cases it may be difficult to observe a sudden change in EP due to the nature of the measure. In this case the average shift in EOI must be observed.

3.3.2.3 Analysis The purpose of analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of the introduced energy efficiency measure, and to deepen the understanding on the overall characteristics of the vessel’s operation such as what types of operating conditions may limit the effect of the measure. The analysis should be done using data collected for EP or EOI and it is recommended to invest time in identifying the cause and effect of the performance in order to conclude decisively regarding the introduced measure. For instance, if the vessel is docked in connection with the introduced measure, were any other changes or improvements done to the vessel that may influence the EP or EOI. It may also in some cases be necessary to use and compare sister vessels to deduce the effect of initiatives introduced. Any change in EOI or EP should be recorded and communicated to the appropriate parties.

3.3.3 WBS 333 Control of processes, Performance Indicators & KPI’s A Performance Indicator or Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is the term used for a type of measure of performance. KPIs are used to evaluate the success or status of a particular activity in which it is engaged. Sometimes success is defined in terms of making progress toward strategic goals, but often, success is simply the repeated achievement of some level of operational goal. Accordingly, choosing the right KPIs is reliant upon having a good understanding of what is important to the organization. 'What is important' often depends on the department measuring the performance. The table below lists the most important high-level KPI’s used for measuring energy efficiency as introduced in chapter 2.2.2(WBS 223).

Fuel consumption per transport work MT/Cargo(DWT)*Nm Fuel consumption per Nm MT/Nm Energy consumption per Nm kwh/Nm Fuel consumption per day MT/day

Table 1Main KPI's for monitoring energy efficiency in the WG 5 group

A complete list of suggested Performance Indicators (PI’s) and Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) used for the purpose of measuring energy efficiency in this project can be found in Appendix 3


30

4 WBS 4 Trainingprogram The importance of training cannot be overemphasized strongly enough. It is by the contribution from systematic and endured training one can obtain and sustain the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to operate and manage ships in an optimum way.

4.1 WBS 41 Current Practice training/existing courses for the companies

All companies sketched that training in general was a challenge. With regards to energy efficiency, no specific programs have been established prior to start of the EMIP project. As such the diagnosis was that only fragmented training was in place and there was a need to establish a coherent program comprising all aspects related to energy efficiency.

4.2 WBS 42 Harmonized training program When establishing the training program, the Höegh program which was available from thematic area “A6 Environmental training “ in the initial WG 5 experience transfer exercise formed a basis for the work. This program was quite comprehensive dealing with all environmental issues in shipping. The program was reviewed by crew representatives from all ship owners at one training session at Manila office. The feedback received from this session gave vital input to the development of the training program which is found in appendix 10.

4.2.1 WBS 421 Program development & description The developed program comprises three modules which is based upon and interactive PDF file. The three modules are as follows;

1. Module 1; Environmental effect of shipping- general environmental awareness with the whole crew as target group

2. Module 1; Energy management for officers- general on energy efficiency on ships with officers as target group.

3. Module 3; Energy Management with the Maren system- specific on how to use the Maren system provided by Marorka. Target group is officers which will use the system as decision support.

Below in Figure 17 the front page of the developed training program is shown.


31

Figure 17 Front page in developed interactive energy efficiency program.

By clicking on each of the modules one gain access to an interactive PDF presentation enabling navigation between various pages and Maren screen shots. Below in Figure 18 the Explorer view is active for navigation related parameters as found in the Maren system (similar as found in the real system installed onboard).

Figure 18 Screen shot from module "Energy management with the Maren system" in the developed

training program. The training program has the functionality that the user can click on various curves and parameters to activate a pop up window giving a closer description of what is meant. One example is if one clicks on the blue Figure 112,9 in Figure 18 (Propulsion Fuel


32

consumption/nm) the explanatory text for this appear on the screen as shown in Figure 19 below.

Figure 19 Explanation of fuel consumption pr nm in developed training program.

Module 1 and Module 2 in the developed training program are viewed upon as having value for all WG 5 companies. Module 3 has most value for the companies that have installed the Maren system onboard, ie Wilh. Wilhelmsen, Klaveness and Grieg. As such, there is a need to further develop the training program to also support crew training in the systems used by BW Gas and Høegh.

4.2.2 WBS 422 Target group for training The training program has been developed mainly aimed for the crew onboard. Besides this the program is intended for ship superintendents who are identified as a key individuals in the practical daily follow up of work related to improving energy efficiency , reference is given to Figure 14, where the “Daily Management” is placed in the center of the energy efficiency loop.

4.2.3 WBS 423 Execution of training program The training program has been shown and discussed on Wilh. Wilhelmsen ships and executed fully on board the vessel Star Istind in April 2011. The program took approx 6 hours to execute, encompassing theory and practical training on the Maren energy management system. The participating crew members were Captain, Chief mate, Chief Engineer and 1. Engineer. Below in Figure 20 images from the energy efficiency training on Star Istind are shown.


33

Figure 20 Images from execution of energy efficiency training onboard Grieg vessel Star Istind April

2011. Upon completion some time was used to capture thoughts and feedback related to the training from the crew. One key comment was that it was definitely a need for having a coherent training program which shows the holistic picture, ie from general environmental awareness down to practical use of the installed energy management system. The experience from earlier was that only “spotwise and fragmented” training had been executed. The crew on Star Istind stated that the developed program was good and fit to its purpose. With further development of the training program the aim should be to incorporate this in each of the ship owning companies` overall training scheme and make the training of crew members in Environmental awareness and energy efficiency as a KPI, ie the training must be managed. One way ahead is to use the Seagull system as platform for the course as this system is widely used by ship owners. The Module 1 should be performed for all new crew members before embarking a ship. For officers all modules should be executed. To sustain the knowledge all crew should execute repetition of the training program once a year.

4.2.4 WBS 424 Course providers training program To support the effect goal of EMIP it is seen as beneficial/necessary that the harmonized training program is executed in a fairly uniform way in all the ship owning companies. To cater for this the training program should be incorporated in the training services provided by NTC Manilla. The various manning offices used by the WG 5 companies represent also an opportunity with regards to execution of the training program. The training program, CBT based, should ideally also be available on board every ship enabling repetition according to individual desire (self study) or as part of programmed ship internal training. To reach out in a fast way and “shock” the company crews with knowledge and generate awareness “instantly”, officers’ conferences are identified as arenas for this purpose where one returns to routine training after having executed initial training encompassing every crew member. Such an approach would clearly signify to all the importance and will to improve environmental performance in general and energy efficiency specifically.


34

5 WBS 5 Energy profile test ships A vital part of establishing an energy management system to improve energy efficiency is to know where you are today with regards to energy utilization, so that you with that basis can control and follow-up implementation of procedures and measures that improve the energy efficiency. To do this you need to store/document structures and information that allocate the energy the consumption. This storage/documentation will provide confidence for your actions and measurements so that technology processes and organisation improves the energy management of the ships. Hence, this chapter has worked with energy profiles for case ships to document: Baseline, estimate/example of energy consumption with basis in design information Current operation with basis in measurements onboard ships Reduced energy consumption, hence estimating measures contribution to improved

energy profiles Another important part of this work is to start the digging in the information achieved historically and by the new systems to improve the structures and check the information achieved. Energy management systems and plans will then better focus on how to obtain data that correlate and control minimum energy consumption relative operation by quality with confidence. It is noted that all references in chapter 5 are summarized under (MARINTEK,2011) under references.

5.1 WBS 51 Initial energy profile- “baseline as built” The initial purpose of an “as built” energy profile is to establish a system architecture. The architecture is meant to be a tool in each WG 5 company that enables a systematic approach to set up the initial energy profiles of their ships from the design stage. To obtain the “as built” energy profiles following information have been used. Sea trials’ documentation Electric load analysis design documentation Other manufacturer information

The initial energy profile is to be viewed as “the map” where producers, transformers and consumers of energy are defined and quantified. In the future it is logical to correlate “as built” energy profiles with energy profiles from real operation. By this correlation there will be more consciousness regarding how to make “as built” energy profiles in the future that reflect the experience, i.e. the impact of operation and technology. Hence, a better basis for selecting measures on new-buildings. The goal for WBS 52 has been to check “the terrain”, i.e. the actual energy consumption in various modes so that “as built” energy profile could be compared with the energy profile from “current operation“.


35

When designing an initial energy profile an energy system must be defined. Such a system establishes a boundary that defines which elements that are evaluated in the system and which elements that are outside the system. Figure 21 presents an example of an energy system that illustrates the energy flow from the reservoir to the energy demand. In such a system there will be an energy balance where the energy input equals the energy output. In this example the energy from the heavy fuel oil equals energy for propulsion of the hull and the sum of energy losses.

Figure 21 Energy balance in an energy system. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 21, the energy is transferred sequentially through three energy categories:

1. Energy production convert energy received from outside the system into useful work. The received energy could be fuel oils, LNG and wind energy

2. Energy transmission transfer energy from the production unit to the consumption unit. The purpose for energy transmission could be several, e.g.:

a. The consumer requires a particular energy form (e.g. the cargo light requires electricity)

b. The consumer cannot be connected directly to the producer due to practical and economical reasons (e.g. the thrusters cannot be connected directly to auxiliary engines)

c. The consumer requires different operational states (e.g. a propeller with different rotational frequency than the main engine)

3. Energy consumption. Includes all units in the system that directly deliver energy in order to satisfy a demand (e.g. a propeller deliver energy in order to achieve propulsion of hull)

The output for each energy category is useful work and energy loss. The efficiency for each category is the ratio between useful work and energy input. Figure 21 can be further employed on an energy system for merchant ships so that typical energy equipments are identified, see Figure 22. This system is illustrated in the IMO MEPC 59th session report as a generic and simplified marine power plant, MEPC 59/24/Add.1 Annex 17 Page 8. Other structures could be used as well. Our choice of structure was made to avoid too much levels and details when allocating the energy to equipment and states. In Figure 22 the energy equipment has been indexed describing whether the unit produces, transforms or consumes energy. When constructing an energy profile, the operational profile for the ship is used. The operational profile consists of operational states and time used in each state. Not all states are initially used to build the “as built” energy profile. Figure 21 presents the overview of these states and example of times in states relevant for typical wet and dry bulk ships that are either


36

fully loaded or in ballast. The time durations used in section 5.1.1 to 5.1.5 for case ships are estimates, however real operational Figures from the ships will adjust the energy profiles.

Production

Production

Transmission

Transmission

Consumption

Consumption

Ship propulsion energy demand

Auxiliary energy demand

Production

Consumption

3.1

2.1 2.22.3

1.1

3.2

3.3

2.4

1.2 1.33.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Figure 22 A generic ship energy system from MEPC 59/24/Add.1 Annex 17 Page 8.

State Validity and description of state Hours Full load Transit, loaded condition, full draft 4300 Ballast Transit, in ballast, draft/power less than at full load 2900 Loading Cargo loading 500 Discharging Cargo unloaded 500 Waiting Ship waiting for cargo loading/unloading/ quay. 550

Table 11 Example of a typical yearly operational profile for a wet/dry bulk ship. All though these states could be regarded as generic for cargo ships, there could be different sub states for a ship. For instance, the state “Full load” could be divided into normal sea going and sea going with cargo handling which requires more energy. Energy accounting can be performed when following data has been collected. The efficiency between each energy category Propulsion curve from sea trials (Appendix 17) Electric load analysis (Appendix 17) Time distribution for the operational states

This information gives data into the energy profile structure that generates the energy profiles. It is also a source for root cause assessment when real and “as built” operation deviates. In order to estimate energy production from main engine and auxiliary engine in Figure 22, efficiencies must be estimated, see Table 12.


37

Energy loss Efficiency From fuel to main engine power 48 % From fuel to auxiliary engine power 51 % From auxiliary engine to switchboard 97 % From switchboard to consumption units 98 % From main engine to shaft power 98 %

Table 12 Generic efficiencies in a ship system By evaluating the propulsion curve from sea trials, the shaft power in Figure 23 is found for the transit states full load, intermediate and ballast. The rest of the consumption units are found by categorizing and summarizing the items in the electric load analysis in accordance with the index system in Figure 22. However it should be mentioned that there can be significant deviation between real life electrical consumption and designed consumption. Since energy is accumulated power over time, it is possible to calculate production, transmission and consumption of energy if distributions for the operational states are available, see right column in Table 11. When all necessary data has been collected, an accounting table can be calculated. The accounting and presentation of the energy profile for each test ship are found in Appendix 16. Table 13 presents the accounting table for BW Gas “ BW ODIN” at full load. System index Energy category Shortname State 1 Hours: 4300

Full load

Unit Item Sum up Unit Item Sum up

0.1 Main Engine kW 17 085 17 085 MJ 264 478 030 264 478 030

0.2 Auxiliary Engines kW 1 687 18 772 MJ 26 119 582 290 597 612

0.3 Boiler kW MJ 290 597 612

1.1 Main Engine kW 8 713 8 713 MJ 134 883 795 134 883 795

1.2 Auxiliary Engines kW 810 9 523 MJ 12 537 400 147 421 195

1.3 Boiler kW 0 9 523 MJ 0 147 421 195

2.1 Shaft motor kW 0 0 MJ 0 0

2.2 Shaft generator kW 0 0 MJ 0 0

2.3 Waste Heat Recovery kW 0 0 MJ 0 0

2.4 Switchboard kW 786 786 MJ 12 161 278 12 161 278

3.1 Shaft Power kW 8 539 8 539 MJ 132 186 119 132 186 119

3.2.1 Main engine pumps over 50 kW kW 112 8 651 MJ 1 733 760 133 919 879

3.2.2 Main engine pumps under 50 kW kW 437 9 088 MJ 6 766 308 140 686 187

3.3.1 Accomodation over 50 kW kW 148 9 236 MJ 2 291 040 142 977 227

3.3.2 Accomodation under 50 kW kW 71 9 307 MJ 1 095 984 144 073 211

3.4.1 Cargo Heat over 50 kW kW 0 9 307 MJ 0 144 073 211

3.4.2 Cargo Heat under 50 kW kW 0 9 307 MJ 0 144 073 211

3.5.1 Thrusters over 50 kW kW 0 9 307 MJ 0 144 073 211

3.5.2 Thrusters under 50 kW kW 0 9 307 MJ 0 144 073 211

3.6.1 Cargo pumps over 50 kW kW 0 9 307 MJ 0 144 073 211

3.6.2 Cargo pumps under 50 kW kW 0 9 307 MJ 0 144 073 211

3.7.1 Cargo gear over 50 kW kW 0 9 307 MJ 0 144 073 211

3.7.2 Cargo gear under 50 kW kW 2 9 309 MJ 30 960 144 104 171

3.8.1 Ballast pumps over 50 kW kW 0 9 309 MJ 0 144 104 171

3.8.2 Ballast pumps under 50 kW kW 0 9 309 MJ 0 144 104 171

3.9.1 Reefers over 50 kW kW 0 9 309 MJ 0 144 104 171

3.9.2 Reefers under 50 kW kW 0 9 309 MJ 0 144 104 171

Fuel consumption

Transmission

Consumption

Production

Table 13 Accounting table for BW Gas “BW ODIN”. For this liquefied gas vessel it is estimated that the time in state 1, full load, is 4300 hours per year, as in Table 11. In the right columns in Table 13 the energy production, transmission and consumption is calculated into mega-joules.


38

For presentation purpose a standard conversion from mega-joules to mass is used since many operational people are more familiar with mass as a “unit” for energy content. In this context 40 MJ/kg are used for heavy fuel oil and 42.7 MJ/kg for gasoil/diesel. Pareto diagrams, see Figure 23, are used to present graphical presentation of the energy flow from the accounting list. The bars represent the consumption of individual equipment and the red line the accumulated value. This technique visualizes equipment that uses most energy to the left and those using less energy to the right. The example in Figure 23 is for the sum-up of energy consumption for equipment that uses energy in the Full load state. As can be seen in Table 13 a breakdown going further than in Figure 22, a three level breakdown has been used in e.g. the category “3.2.1” with short name “Main engine pumps over 50 kW”. The purpose for the third level breakdown was to identify equipment that was relevant to test/measure power consumption for in WBS 5.2, and hence it will not be further discussed here.

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

Shaft Power Main engine pumps Accomodation Cargo gear

Tons / year

Full load(Fuel heat value 40 MJ/kg)

Figure 23 Pareto diagram from BW Gas “BW ODIN”. As there are many challenges with measuring the efficiency and consumption of the different consumers and transmissions, the initial stage of follow up of these profiles is to install/use energy counters for fuel (energy) usage for all the producers in category 1, so that one can measure the energy consumption in the different states. When the energy counters are established and registrations are provided with sufficient frequency, and operation time of consumers also are logged one have a basis for better decision support and mapping of “energy waste” in operations. Then the opportunities to improve the energy processes will evolve. However the “as built” energy profiles create the systematic architecture and foundation for this work.


39

5.1.1 WBS 511 Klaveness- “BANIYAS” BANIYAS was built in 2001 and is registered as a bulk carrier and tanker for caustic soda (CABU). More specific ship characteristics are found in Appendix 4. An overview of relevant states and equipment with significant energy consumption has been identified in Figure 24 and Figure 25below.

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

Full load Ballast Discharging Loading Waiting

Tons / year

Total consumption(Fuel heat value 40 MJ/kg)

Figure 24 Klaveness Baniyas Energy profile with respect to states.

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

Shaft Power Main engine pumps Accomodation Ballast pumps

Tons / year


Figure 25 Klaveness Baniyas Energy profile with respect to equipment. The detailed energy profile for BANIYAS is stored in Appendix 17. This profile identifies the individual states and equipment at the lower levels.


40

5.1.2 WBS 512 Wilh. Wilhelmsen- “TAMESIS” TAMESIS was built in 2000 and is registered as a General cargo carrier, Car carrier, RO/RO and Container. More specific ship characteristics are found in Appendix 5. An overview of relevant states and equipment with significant energy consumption has been identified in Figure 26 and Figure 27 below.

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

Full load Intermediate Loading Discharging Waiting

Tons / year

Total consumption(Fuel heat value 40 MJ /kg)

Figure 26 Wilh. Wilhelmsen Tamesis Energy profile with respect to states.

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

Shaft Power Main engine pumps Accomodation Cargo gear Ballast pumps

Tons / year

Total consumption(Fuel heat value 40 MJ /kg)

Figure 27 Wilh. Wilhelmsen Tamesis Energy profile with respect to equipment. The detailed energy profile for TAMESIS is stored in Appendix 17. This profile identifies the individual states and equipment at the lower levels.


41

5.1.3 WBS 513 Grieg Shipping- “STAR ISTIND“

STAR ISTIND was built in 1999 and is registered as a general cargo/container carrier. More specific ship characteristics are found in Appendix 6. An overview of relevant states and equipment with significant energy consumption has been identified in Figure 28 and Figure 29 below.

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000

Full load Intermediate Ballast Loading Discharging Waiting

Tons / Year

Total Consumption(Fuel heat value 40 MJ/kg)

Figure 28 Grieg Star Istind Energy profile with respect to states.

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000


Ton s/ year

Total Consumption(Fuel heat value 40 MJ/kg

Figure 29 Grieg Star Istind Energy profile with respect to equipment The detailed energy profile for STAR ISTIND is stored in appendix 17. This profile identifies the individual states and equipment at the lower levels.


42

5.1.4 WBS 514 Höegh Autoliners – “HØEGH COPENHAGEN” Höegh Copenhagen is built in 2010 and is registered as a Car carrier with possibility with RORO. More specific ship characteristics are found in appendix 7. An overview of relevant states and equipment with significant energy consumption has been identified in Figure 30 and Figure 31 below.

‐

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

Full load Intermediate Loading Discharging Waiting

Tons / year


Figure 30 Höegh Copenhagen Energy profile with respect to states.

‐

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000


Tons/year


Figure 31 Höegh Copenhagen Energy profile with respect to equipment. The detailed energy profile for HÖEGH COPENHAGEN is stored in appendix 17. This profile identifies the individual states and equipment at the lower levels.


43

5.1.5 WBS 515 BW Gas- “BW ODIN” BW ODIN was built in 2005 and is registered as a Tanker for liquefied gas. More specific ship characteristics are found in appendix 8. An overview of relevant states and equipment with significant energy consumption has been identified in Figure 32 and Figure 33 below.

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

Full load Ballast Discharging Loading Waiting

Tons / year


Figure 32 BW ODIN Energy profile with respect to states.

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

Shaft Power Main engine pumps Accomodation Cargo pumps Ballast pumps Cargo gear

Tons / year


Figure 33 BW ODIN Energy profile with respect to equipment. The detailed energy profile for BW ODIN is stored in appendix 17. This profile identifies the individual states and equipment at the lower levels.


44

5.2 WBS 52 Initial energy profile- current operation This chapter describes activity performed to obtain information that will provide better energy profiles from real operation in the future as well as giving input for better definition of “as built” energy profiles. There has been most focus on the MAREN system delivered by MARORKA as three ship owners have chosen to implement this system. The most extensive onboard tests have also been performed onboard MV STAR ISTIND with a MAREN installation. The MAREN system collects data online that can be used in an energy accounting system. Two of the ship managers have chosen a different approach and it is not yet identified whether they will use a manual follow-up of operational data or online systems for collection of necessary data for energy accounting. The systems evolve and their operation and precision level is important for the EMIP2 project. It is important to emphasize the need to focus on the human elements and calibration of instrumentation to succeed with energy accounting and management. Future energy management will among others contain following. Holistic energy management that covers technology, processes and organization Documentation Training / crew preparedness Calibration of sensors/instrumentation Energy Analysis and Correlation of Measurements Ships as laboratories for good performance and practice Demonstration and promotion of results

5.2.1 WBS 521 Klaveness- “BANIYAS” There have not been performed dedicated tests for EMIP on this vessel to provide data to assess quality of the onboard monitoring systems to support energy management calculations/assessments. However this ship will build on the MAREN system to follow-up and develop accuracies that support better energy management and observations.


45

5.2.2 WBS 522 Wilh. Wilhelmsen- “TAMESIS” There have not been performed dedicated tests for EMIP on this vessel to provide data to assess quality of the onboard monitoring systems to support energy management calculations/assessments. However this ship will build on the MAREN system to follow-up and develop accuracies that support better energy management and observations.


In April 2011 MARINTEK performed verification of some of the most important measuring input to MAREN system on “Star Istind” when the vessel was sailing from Naples to Motril, [2],[3]. The scope of work in the measurement campaign was to verify and compare measurement data from permanent installed onboard measurement equipment with independent third party measurements data which was performed by MARINTEK. The most important inputs to the MAREN system is the shaft torque measurement on the main engine and the fuel flow measurements on the main engine and the auxiliary engine. On the ship a permanent shaft torque meter supplied by LEMAG is installed, which measure the shaft power input to the MAREN system. To compare the measurements from the LEMAG system, separate shaft torque meter instrument was installed by MARINTEK and this shaft torque meter was instrumented in parallel with the LEMAG system. In addition to the shaft meter MARINTEK also measured the Air Receiver pressure on main engine as a control parameter. Figure 34 shows the average shaft power for test runs A and B together with data from speed trial report from 1999 when the ship was delivered from ship yard. As a part of the project objective the electric power consumption on main components should be evaluated and such measurements were included in the MARINTEK measurements on the four largest electrical power consumers. These are the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Compressor and Fan, Main Cooling Sea Water pump, Low temp. Cooling Fresh Water pump and Main Lubrication Oil pump. Figure 35 shows the power consumption for the 4 largest electric consumers when sailing in transit. Only one of two pumps was used in transit (Main L.O., Low temp. Cool. F.W., Main Cool S.W.). Main L.O. pump was running fixed at 59 kW, Low temp. Cool. F.W. pump was running fixed at 51 kW. Main Cool S.W. pump had the possibility for manually frequency setting. In transit the pump was set to 100 %, i.e. 28 kW, but in port the frequency was set to 75 %, i.e. 11 kW.


46

Figure 34 Speed trial, average of A and B run, compared with a speed trial test from 1999.

Figure 35 Power Consumption in transit Star Istind. Additional relevant operational data as flow measurements, other relevant machinery data and ambient condition data where either obtained from the MAREN system log-files or from the vessel control panels. The information above illustrates how the MAREN system will be capable to build more exact energy profiles in the future. The most important findings, which are quite likely to find on other vessels is the need for calibration of instrumentation and checks of systems operations and fuel flows. It will therefore be focused on the main engine torque meter and the fuel oil flow meters in the following.


47

5.2.3.1 Propulsion shaft power MARINTEK shaft power readings was 9 % lower than MAREN (LEMAG) shaft power readings and 4 % lower than calculated value from MITSUI 003805 cylinder indicator. The method for shaft torque measuring (strain gauge) which MARINTEK used on Star Istind is the most accurate method for shaft torque measuring. Both the measuring principle and the calibration method MARINTEK use are well recognized to be a most accurate way to measure shaft torque. The permanent torque meter LEMAG Shaft power which is installed on STAR ISTIND is using a different measuring principle compared with MARINTEK’s torque meter instrumentation. Action must be taken to do an ‘onboard’ calibration check of the LEMAG shaft meter, both zero point and 2-4 different load points. Using shaft power values from strain gauge measuring principle perhaps together with calculated values of shaft power based on dynamic indicating of cylinder pressure, is the most appropriate way to do a ‘onboard’ calibrating. The old speed trial report (1999), which we assume that is based on ‘strain gauge’ shaft power measurements did show good correlation with MARINTEK’s shaft power measurements.

5.2.3.2 Fuel flow meters On Star Istind there are installed three flow meters (two Optimass 1010 S25 and one Optimass 1000 S25). The flow meters use coriolis measuring principle and measure mass, density, temperature and have a maximum flow rate at 27000 kg/h and accuracy better than 1%, ref. Krohne/Optimass technical manual. Actual flow through the flow meters on Star Istind is approximately 10-15 % of maximum flow rate. With the information and experience we have with this type of flow meters, we can say it is unlikely that the reason for the large differences between measured mass flow and expected mass flow is caused by the flow meters themselves. All three flow meters on board Star Istind are well suited for this purpose, both as regards the measuring principle and accuracy. All flow meters at Star Istind are connected into a circulation loop that supplies fuel oil to both the main engine and all three auxiliary engines. Flow meter 1 measures mass flow in to the circulation loop and thereby the total fuel consumption of all engines. Flow meter 2 and flow meter 3 are connected inside the circulation loop and measure the total flow into and total flow out from the three auxiliary engines together. The difference between readings from flow meter 2 and readings from flow meter 3 is the total fuel consumption of all three auxiliary engines together. The difference between readings from flow meter 1 and the total consumption of all three auxiliary engines is the fuel consumption of the main engine. Given that we can eliminate the error source is due to the flow meter, it is probably the circulation loop that must be checked. Based on the readings one did on the flow meters, there are most likely two reasons that cause incorrect flow measurements. One reason could be leakages from the circulation loop. It may be due to controlled or uncontrolled leakages. Controlled leaks could be for example overpressure valve that opens when too much pressure in fuel line and ‘leak’ fuel back to fuel tank or it could be some drain return from engines. Uncontrolled leakages could also be a reason.


48

Except leakages, pressure fluctuations in the circulation loop can cause incorrect flow measurements. Pressure fluctuations can be caused by the engines or chocking (valves etc) in the loop. The conclusion is that the circulation loop must be checked to be sure there are no leaks from the circulation loop and that the flow has no pressure fluctuations.

5.2.4 WBS 524 Høegh – “HÖEGH COPENHAGEN” There have not been performed dedicated tests for EMIP on this vessel to provide data to assess quality of the onboard monitoring systems to support energy management calculations/assessments. Type of system/software to be used for performance assessment and accumulation of data and the holistic coverage in analysis will be defined at a later stage.

5.2.5 WBS 525 BW Gas- “BW ODIN” In order to verify the procedure and obtain a better understanding of accuracies that can be expected measurements were collected onboard BW Odin measurements on a voyage from Braefoot Bay and Coryton (UK) on the 8th to 10th February 2011, [1]. This mission was basically twofold.

1. To compare fuel flow meter readings with fuel tank soundings (flow meter VAF B 5040, No. 590427, Var. No. 27520 – rotary vane type with spring loaded vanes of sintered carbon).

2. To compare “Doctor” readings of main engine power with shaft power measurements by the KYMA torsion meter (type KPM-P, torque measurement only).

The conclusion of the measurements and analysis can be summarised as follows: Procedure

1. Flow meter readings show good correlation with tank soundings. The described test method may be used to determine flow meter accuracy provided that the tank level is not run down too far. Further, weather conditions must be good. The test period should be limited to 10 to 12 hours.

2. Average power measurements by shaft torque meters are better for SFOC calculations than calculated power from MIP measurements.


49

5.3 WBS 53 Energy profile after implementation of measures The measures performance and energy savings are dependent to ship particulars and real life operation. The estimates of reduction potential described herein should be regarded as estimates that need further research to document precision/confidence in savings and applicability to different ship types. Different sources have been used to estimate energy savings for case ships and similar ships. The second IMO GHG study, by Ø. Buhaug/MARINTEK et al [10] and Pathway to low carbon shipping by DNV [12] are well known studies of potential energy savings on a generic ship level. So, the sources range from written material by R&D, consultancies, makers, etc. together with judgments by technical and operational personnel in WG5 and at MARINTEK. An overview of some of the sources used is given in Table 14 below.

Measure Reference Maintaining a clean hull and propeller [7, 9] Application of new type of antifouling [7, 9, 14] Voyage program [6, 11] M/E tuning/ optimization [7, 9] Trim optimization [6] Frequency converters [11] Propulsion system enhancement (propulsion duct, boss fins, interceptor) [7, 9] Kite [11] Propulsion system enhancement (ducktail) [7, 9] Engine modification (slide valves for slow steaming) [13] Autopilots [11] Light systems [11] Waste Heat Recovery [11] Air lubrication [11] Propulsion system enhancement (propeller and rudder integration) [11] Electronic engine control [11] Misc. alternative fuels for engines, from HFO to MDO [15]

Table 14 References used together with WG5 and MARINTEK assessments of measures (MARINTEK,2011). To build this confidence it is important to build a structural approach for energy efficient performance with objective of good quality in documentation, accumulation, testing and instrumentation. The MAREN system is a solution with objective to online manage information sources onboard the ships to control and improve energy consumption. This solution has been selected for case ships within Klaveness Logistics, Wilh. Wilh. Wilhelmsen and Grieg Shipping. BW Gas and Höegh Autoliners have selected a different approach. However, reliability/precision level of instrumentation is challenging. Procedures to correlate measurements with each other, references and tolerances have to be improved. Sensors’ quality, positioning and number of to give reliable and representative/usable information is another part of this challenge. Measurements and statistics from real life and their correlation to laboratory tests and theoretical models are also important – to adjust or recognize effects occurring/missing. The


50

models could also be important for future simulation to provide calculations/estimated of efficiencies for new vessels including energy reduction measures. Hence, one important objective is to build more confidence to solutions that in real life reduce energy consumption relative work performed so that these are realized in new ships when the company finds them attractive from a view point of economy or policy. In this context references for initial performance and performance without measures have to be specified. Especially when it comes to operational measures in some way normal or average performance has to be defined as to decide what to improve from, e.g. defining what is the average increased ship resistance due to hull coating/finish through ship life, between docking or other intervals. This depends on operational conditions, maintenance practice and so on – presumptions that might vary a lot between ships and with little real precise Figures to rely on. Measures proposed for case ships’ implementation have been discussed and they are now sorted in groups with different color codes. Figure 36 gives an overview of measures assessed for implementation.

Blue bars and background – Measures that all case ships will implement Grey bars and background – all these measures to be implemented, but not on all case

ships, i.e. the different case ships will only realize a part of the grey zone measures Red bars and background – these measures are not within the scope of realization

Figure 36 Overview of measures assessed for implementation on case ships.


51

The measures are subject to implementation and follow-up in the EMIP 2 project. Some measures will not be possible to implement within the timeframe of the upcoming project due to docking intervals. The important issue is to speed up the implementation of measures to systematic create confidence to documentation of savings, and reach a 20% reduction target well before 2020. The estimates in Figure 36 are based on dependencies.

Measures are introduced in a sequence. I.e. estimation of a new measure’s energy reduction impact is based on energy consumption after implementation of previous measures.

Some measures potential might be influenced by other measures implemented and this impact is identified as the combination effect.


52

5.3.1 WBS 531 Klaveness- “BANIYAS” Figure 37 illustrates graphically how much individual measures contribute to energy savings. The measures are identified with number 1-17 which can be found in Table 15 where they are described and the saving values are given. The measures qualified for implementation onboard are sorted by stage of implementation and by their reduction in energy consumption. Stages of implementation are:

Green – already implemented Yellow – to be implemented Red –subject for future assessment

As can be seen in the Figure and table in this section measures for implementation are estimated to reduce energy consumption with more than 25 % of today’s consumption. These Figures, though given by sources, should be regarded as ambitious with significant uncertainty. How successful implementation of measures will be is therefore subject to demonstration on real ships so that technology performance and dependencies to operational practice are documented. If 40 % or 100 % of the reduction in the Figure below will be achieved, is a subject for real life demonstration. So, the Figures below are the initial picture of energy savings. Measuring of energy profiles and ship performance systematically for further analysis starting in EMIP2 will build more accurate information that will provide a better picture of energy profiles and energy savings obtained after implementation of measures.

Figure 37 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BANIYAS.


53

Table 15 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BANIYAS. Table 16 shows the sequence of implementation/follow-up of measures and the magnitude of their reduction due to the same sequence. The table does also adjust measures influence when combination effects occur due to other measures.

Table 16 Combination effects of implementation of measures for BANIYAS.


54

5.3.2 WBS 532 Wilh. Wilhelmsen- “TAMESIS” Figure 38 illustrates graphically how much individual measures contribute to energy savings. The measures are identified with number 1-17 which can be found in Table 17 where they are described and the saving values are given. The measures qualified for implementation onboard are sorted by stage of implementation and by their reduction in energy consumption. Stages of implementation are:



Figure 38 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard TAMESIS.


55

Table 17 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard TAMESIS. Table 18 shows the sequence of implementation/follow-up of measures and the magnitude of their reduction due to the same sequence. The table does also adjust measures influence when combination effects occur due to other measures.

Table 18 Combination effects of implementation of measures for TAMESIS.


56


Figure 39 illustrates graphically how much individual measures contribute to energy savings. The measures are identified with number 1-17 which can be found in Table 19 where they are described and the saving values are given. The measures qualified for implementation onboard are sorted by stage of implementation and by their reduction in energy consumption. Stages of implementation are:


As can be seen in the Figure and table in this section measures for implementation are estimated to reduce energy consumption with slightly more than 25 % of today’s consumption. These Figures, though given by sources, should be regarded as ambitious with significant uncertainty. How successful implementation of measures will be is therefore subject to demonstration on real ships so that technology performance and dependencies to operational practice are documented. If 40 % or 100 % of the reduction in the Figure below will be achieved, is a subject for real life demonstration. So, the Figures below are the initial picture of energy savings. Measuring of energy profiles and ship performance systematically for further analysis starting in EMIP2 will build more accurate information that will provide a better picture of energy profiles and energy savings obtained after implementation of measures.

Figure 39 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard STAR ISTIND.


57

Table 19 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard STAR ISTIND. Table 20 shows the sequence of implementation/follow-up of measures and the magnitude of their reduction due to the same sequence. The table does also adjust measures influence when combination effects occur due to other measures.

Table 20 Combination effects of implementation of measures for STAR ISTIND.


58

5.3.4 WBS 534 Høegh – “HÖEGH COPENHAGEN” Figure 40 illustrates graphically how much individual measures contribute to energy savings. The measures are identified with number 1-17 which can be found in Table 21 where they are described and the saving values are given. The measures qualified for implementation onboard are sorted by stage of implementation and by their reduction in energy consumption. Stages of implementation are:



Figure 40 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard HÖEGH COPENHAGEN.


59

Table 21 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard HÖEGH COPENHAGEN. Table 22 shows the sequence of implementation/follow-up of measures and the magnitude of their reduction due to the same sequence. The table does also adjust measures influence when combination effects occur due to other measures.

Table 22 Combination effects of implementation of measures for HÖEGH COPENHAGEN.


60

5.3.5 WBS 535 BW Gas- “BW ODIN” Figure 41 illustrates graphically how much individual measures contribute to energy savings. The measures are identified with number 1-17 which can be found in Table 23 where they are described and the saving values are given. The measures qualified for implementation onboard are sorted by stage of implementation and by their reduction in energy consumption. Stages of implementation are:



Figure 41 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BW ODIN.


61

Table 23 Measures by stage and size for implementation onboard BW ODIN. Table 24 shows the sequence of implementation/follow-up of measures and the magnitude of their reduction due to the same sequence. The table does also adjust measures influence when combination effects occur due to other measures.

Table 24 Combination effects of implementation of measures for BW ODIN. Having presented measures allocated for each nominated testship, the coordinated testplan among the WG 5 group is presented in the following chapter( 6.2.1).


62

6 WBS 6 Action plan- further work As highlighted in the EMIP effectgoal, the purpose of the EMIP project has been to establish a common platform and ability among the 5 ship owning companies which enables efficient collaboration within the field of energy efficiency in the years to come. It is acknowledged that the complexity in succeeding in improving energy efficiency is substantial encompassing the need for systematic work within several dimensions which are interlinked. The holistic picture within improving energy efficiency is sought divided into manageable parts in this project which combined yield the desired overall effect. An overall package encompassing procedures, utilization of technology and measures within the human/organisational perspective is necessary. As such, in the wake of EMIP, the project will give recommendations which are directed to each ship owning company. The recommendations are organised according to the “PTO” perspective, implying Procedures, Technology and Organisation. The “PTO perspective” aligns to the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) methodology. Processes are actions put into a system which, when adhered to, contributes to ensuring that a company obtains its goals. The ultimate goal is to ensure profitability and succeed in the financial perspective. However, reaching the profitability goals is dependent on achievement of several underlying part goals as become clear when reviewing the Original BSC perspectives in Figure 42 below.

Figure 42 The Balanced Scorecard perspectives (Shipping KPI, 2011)

The BSC methodology illustrates that to succeed financially, a systematic approach should be taken in the four perspectives which are interlinked;

1. Learning and Growth 2. Internal Business processes 3. Customer 4. Financial


63

The word “balanced” in the BSC methodology reflects as such the importance to set up and monitor all sub goals in a structured and balanced manner acknowledging and showing causalities between the objectives. Having introduced the BSC methodology in a robust way in a company, the methodology becomes a strong tool for practical implementation of developed strategies. One of the strengths of the methodology is the transparency which is obtained when utilizing the strategic map. Once the methodology is fully understood, the strategic map as shown in Figure 43 (example) is viewed to have a strong communication value compared with a 20 pages strategy document, both internally to mobilize the organisation and create commitment towards objectives and externally towards shareholders/stakeholders.

4

NO HARMFUL EMISSIONS TO AIR AND SEA

Committed Solid Proud Open

MLD

Inte

rnal

pro

cess

esE

con

omy

& f

ram

esD

eliv

erab

les

M1. Increase knowledge and environmental conciousness onshore (OSM)

I4. Establish Green Passport on all ships(OPT)

I3. Sustainable concept develop. & ship recycling(AOL)

I2. Ensure good house keeping & operational planning(TW)

I1. Establish regime for monitoring environmental performance(EKV)

E3. Participate in Global Compact & WBCSD(OSM)

D1. Enhance environmental performance onboard existing and future ships(HAS)

E2. Be ahead of any requirements(JSV)E1. Optimize use of

tax env. fund & budget (MR)

D3. Become preferred ”green” carrier in our cargo segment(TR)

I5. Ensure ISO 14001 compliance and certification(EFB)

D2.Ensure a safe and sound protection of the biodiversity and the earth environment(CG)

M3. Share information internally/externally (HAS)

M2.Enhance & ensure environmental conciousness onboard (OSM)

M4. Engage in R/D projects (HAS)

Figure 43 Example of strategic map based upon the Balanced Scorecard methodology.

The strategic map shows four perspectives in which strategic objectives are displayed in the yellow bubbles. Between the objectives the causality is shown with white lines, meaning “if we succeed with this objective, this contributes to next objective in a positive way”. In the bottom of the map the company values are shown which gives each member of the organisation “guidance” with regards to how one should approach the execution of everyday work and as such be rooted in the “backbone” at any time. At the top of the map, the vision is stated which dimensions the strategy and portrays what is the ultimate end state which the organisation strives towards. The vision as such gives the ultimate rational for WHY execute the strategy. The methodology is of course not enough to succeed, and must be accompanied with a clear and consistent leadership. Further reference is given to the Shipping KPI project which is based upon the BSC methodology. Should it be the case that more companies select to use, develop and adjust the Shipping KPI standard, ie use the BSC methodology, a forceful movement can be created enabling benchmarking. The EMIP project with its defined KPI’s is in this context to be seen as a building block in overall ship management with regards to energy efficiency.


64

6.1 WBS 61 Processes Within the process perspective it is vital that developed procedures in the EMIP project is adopted in each of the WG 5 companies in a fairly unified way. Such an implementation is necessary to support the project’s effect goal, ie “establish and common platform and ability....”. The EMIP project has identified two arenas where processes must be implemented to support the projects effectgoal (which first is measurable some years after project completion), namely internal in each company and externally between the WG 5 companies.

6.1.1 WBS 611 Internal in OWN companies The project’s recommendations;

1. Implement the developed SEEMP for each of the nominated testships after internal harmonization

2. Implement developed EMIP procedures(chapter 3) with necessary company specific adjustments

3. Perform speed trials(simplified) every 3 month according to developed speed trial procedure

4. Harmonize and create institutional commitment towards execution of the EMIP 2 project

5. In general align all programs/projects/activities with bearing on improving energy efficiency with the EMIP 2 project catering for efficient resource utilization.

6.1.2 WBS 612 External BETWEEN WG5 companies To further develop and support the project’s effectgoal, the following recommendations are put forward;

1. Strengthen and revitalize the WG 5 group through redefining and harmonization of the WG 5 mission statement and mandate. This exercise is viewed as necessary to further ensure company commitment to common efforts and implementation of the EMIP results

2. Ensure regular meetings in the WG 5 group to keep up momentum, coordination and follow up of ongoing projects/activities, ie continue to act as a coordinating body and project(s) Board.

3. Ensure continuity in the WG 5 representation 4. Define WG 5 common approach to the operationalizing of the Maritime 21 strategy

The EMIP platform will further be sustained by execution of the EMIP 2 project. See appendix 17 for project description of EMIP 2.

6.2 WBS 62 Technology As mentioned in this report, the EMIP project has had an ambitious scope in light of the project duration of 13 months. In some areas which are mentioned, there still exists work to be done. The intention is to close these activities when executing the EMIP 2 project. In the initial plan, the further work/action plan encompasses the delivery of a coordinated testplan


65

(resultgoal) and work related to continuous improvement of measuring accuracies. The coordinated testplan is presented below.

6.2.1 WBS 621 Evaluate and set up for test program for measures The work related to setting up of the coordinated testplan started in October 2010. MARINTEK became fully involved at this point as a result of the cooperation agreement between the DOCERS and EMIP projects. The total delivery from the cooperation is described in WBS 5 Energy profile testships. With regards to the WBS 621, coordinated testplan, the approach taken is schematically shown in Figure 44 below.

Figure 44 Conceptual roadmap for setting up the coordinated test plan for nominated testships in the EMIP project.

Figure 44 above show the sequence in the work performed which is presented in greater detail in chapter 5.3 (WBS 53). As mentioned, feasible energy efficiency measures was evaluated for implementation for each of the nominated testships. In the final WBS 5 workshop Apr 15 2011, the matrix in Table 25 showing which measures to be tested on which testship was concluded in the project and forms a vital part of setting up the SEEMP as input to the EMIP 2 project.


66

Table 25 Coordinated actionplan- Consolidated overview of energy efficiency measures allocated to

nominated testships It is strongly emphasized that the indicated savings are only to be viewed as potential and by no means represent firm and guaranteed savings. It is by endured systematic utilization and further development of the EMIP platform in the EMIP 2 project and years beyond it will be possible to quantify the indicated/combined savings. Years are necessary when one considers the case with systematic evaluation of Anti Fouling systems which have 5 years lifetime between dry dockings. In regards of possible timeframe, it is viewed towards the Maritime 21 strategy which has defined a set of goals to be achieved by the year 2020. Acknowledging the complexity within the field of energy efficiency and required need for a systematic “turn every rock” approach, 2020 is evaluated to be rather close in time when speaking of verifying/measuring combined savings in the magnitude 25 to 40%. As noted, several initiatives are indicated not to be implemented. This stems from cost/risk/benefit considerations, but it may be a possibility that different equipment manufacturers propose testing of their technologies on the nominated testships at own cost and risk to get the technology verified. Such an arrangement would be a win-win for both parties.

6.2.1.1 WBS 6211 Klaveness As mentioned above the project has developed a draft SEEMP for the nominated testship Baniyas, see appendix 11. It will be required to harmonize this internally before execution of the EMIP 2 project.

6.2.1.2 WBS 6212 Wilh. Wilhelmsen As mentioned above the project has developed a draft SEEMP for the nominated testship Baniyas, see appendix 12. It will be required to harmonize this internally before execution of the EMIP 2 project.


67

6.2.1.3 WBS 6213 Grieg Shipping As mentioned above the project has developed a draft SEEMP for the nominated testship Star Istind, see appendix 13. It will be required to harmonize this internally before execution of the EMIP 2 project.

6.2.1.4 WBS 6214 Høegh As mentioned above the project has developed a draft SEEMP for the nominated testship Hoegh Copenhagen, see appendix 14. It will be required to harmonize this internally before execution of the EMIP 2 project.

6.2.1.5 WBS 6215 BW Gas As mentioned above the project has developed a draft SEEMP for the nominated testship BW Odin, see appendix 15. It will be required to harmonize this internally before execution of the EMIP 2 project.

6.2.2 WBS 622 Data Support systems/sensors/instrumentation development

As discussed and presented in chapter 2, a measuring system is only as good as the sensors` measuring accuracies enables it to be. As such, in the quest of ever improving measuring accuracy in a system, there is a need to systematically evaluate the performance of existing sensors in use and calibrate them according to specifications. In addition, it will be central to be proactive towards testing of new sensors which are developed. In the EMIP project, as mentioned in chapter 2.1.5 (WBS 216), an equipment matrix has been established. This will be further developed through execution of the EMIP 2 project by mapping operational experience of existing sensors and introducing possible new ones. With regards to improved sensor technology it is viewed to be a possibility that various sensor manufacturers approach the WG 5 group with a view to testing new sensors for improved measuring accuracy.

6.3 WBS 63 Organisation Reference is given to the”mental model”/systems architecture developed for the EMIP project shown in Figure 14 in chapter 3. “It is all interlinked” and the acknowledgement is that one cannot come about the fact that the human dimension must work to excel in energy management (and other areas). Little do happen in energy management if not initiated/monitored by a human being. The only way to succeed in improving energy efficiency goes through the acknowledgement that one has to have a broad support and commitment through the whole organization, meaning that improving energy efficiency is not “a single man`s exercise”. Below in Figure 45 the project structure for BW Gas internal energy management project is shown.


68

Kevin KnottPål Standeren

Doris OhOfficer TBN

Bunker Performance

Trond Loftesnes

AutopilotSiddharaj Pathare

Project Owner:

Yngvil Åsheim

Steering CommitteeAndreas Sohmen Pao

Yngvil ÅsheimClarence Lui

Reference GroupØyvind SolemAndrew HoareTrevor Smith

External Partner

Primary Consumers Responsible: Øyvind Toft

Ship PerformanceResponsible: Ashish Bagshi & Olav Lyngstad

Project ManagerErle Kristin Wagle

Voyage Performance Responsible: Prodyut Banerjee

& Arild Julsen

Speed Optimization

Prodyut Banjeree

Weather RoutingArild Julsen

Trim & Draft optimization

Kishore Prabhu

Hull Management Olav Nilsen

Main EngineKnut Sverre Andersen

Auxiliary EnginesKnut Sverre Andersen

Roy Arne Hansen, Erik Elzinga, Paul Dunn, Benoit Grovel, Christian Øwre,

Officer TBN

Performance Monitoring: Responsible: Øyvind Toft Erle Kristin Wagle, Yngve Jacobsen, Manish Kumar, Hasan Maksudur, Bente Aunan, Paul Dunn, Hari Krishna, Bruno de la Taille, Oracle BI Team

Training & Awareness: Responsible: Ivar WilhelmsenErle Kristin Wagle, Paul Jones, Julia Chan, Jon Kolstø, Bente Aunan, Vibhas Garg, Philippe Cavaletto, Pierre-Henri LeGoff, Bruno de laTaille, Officer TBN

Doris OhPhilippe GrallØyvind Solem

Officer TBNErik Kardash

Joachim BakkeOle Breimo

Prodyut BanjereePhilippe Grall

Anja B. KarthumPhilippe Grall

Commercial Aspects

Bruno Bai / Peder Østlyngen

Propeller ManagementRodney Mayol

Erik KardashSubrotu Mitra

Surajit ChangaOfficer – TBN Peter Bittmann

Nicolai OmejerBenoit Grovel

Paul DunnPeter Bittmann

Rune O. EriksenOffice - TBN

Rodney MayolØyvind Toft

Benoit Grovel

Subrotu MitraSurajit Changa

Olav NilsenBenoit Grovel

Communication & Organization: Responsible: Erle Kristin WagleYngvil Åsheim, Julia Chan, Jon Kolstø, Janice Wong, Pierre-Henri Le Goff, Mohamed Bacha

Figure 45 Project structure for internal BW Gas energy efficiency program (BW Gas ,2011). It is noted that the project is staffed with both onshore and seagoing personnel coming from all disciplines throughout the organization, ie commercial, technical, project, nautical, finance etc. It can be seen that the project has clearly defined roles of personnel and communication lines. As such the project organization is well defined and according to principles from “best practice” project management. It is believed that selecting “best practice” project as working form can contribute strongly to achieve results.

6.3.1 WBS 631 Training Training constitutes a central aspect in the”Learning and growth” perspective introduced in the BSC methodology above. The importance of training cannot be overemphasized strongly enough. It is by the contribution from systematic and endured training one can obtain and sustain the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to operate and manage ships in an optimum way. All companies sketched that training in general was a challenge. With regards to energy efficiency, no specific programs have been established up to start of the EMIP project. The following recommendations with regards to training are put forward from the EMIP project;

1. Further refine and develop the delivered training program in the EMIP project and aim for introducing this at NTC Manilla. A harmonized EMIP training package among the WG 5 companies will help sustain and further develop the EMIP platform. The program would also be of value for other ship owners.

2. Align all company internal efforts which aim to improve training and bring this forth in the execution of the EMIP 2 project, ref above.


69

3. Evaluate and clearly identify, in collaboration with NSA, what can be done to improve

training delivered from NTC. Mobilize other ship owners. Execute improvements as found feasible/acceptable.

4. Execute energy efficiency training on board ships encompassing crew and superintendent- (Recommendation 4 may be naturally addressed if acting upon recommendation 1 in chapter 6.3.2 below).

Figure 46 Picture from on board training and execution of speed trials on Star Istind April 2011.

6.3.2 WBS 632 Organizational development/change processes Numerous discussions has been carried out throughout the execution of the EMIP project related to ”root causes” for why it is so hard to improve energy efficiency on ships. The root causes are found both in the “hard” and “soft” dimensions. With regards to the “soft” dimension this includes everything related to the human dimension, ie training, organization, leadership etc. It is clear that many barriers and challenges exist in every organization with regards to ability to change. As such, “best practice” related to change management should be employed when launching organizational development (OD) programs entailing the need for change. What should be clear when addressing energy efficiency is the fact that to excel at this it is necessary with broad participation and commitment from all disciplines in the company. Beyond the company are the cargo owners/charterers/ports which also influence energy efficiency. As mentioned, “It is all interlinked”. The EMIP project team has discussed dilemmas when executing projects which aim at improving energy efficiency performance. One clear dilemma is what the “technical support department” often experiences. This department has often only an advisory role towards the operations department. Challenges related to effective implementation can arise if the operational department(s) is not aligned with the technical support department.


70

Based on the above, the project puts forward the following recommendations;

1. When implementing internal energy efficiency programs, base it on principles from best practice project management and change management, ie seek broad participation and commitment throughout the whole organization (see Figure 45).Mobilize all disciplines. Provide for and execute clear and consistent leadership.

2. Review today’s organization with respect to roles and responsibility towards energy efficiency and discuss any changes that would possibly contribute towards improving energy efficiency. Implement changes as found feasible. (Recommendation 2 may be naturally addressed if acting upon recommendation 1).

6.4 WBS 64 External marketing/profiling The project has also described in the project application to NRC that one aspires to make a contribution to best practice energy management in the industry, ie share experiences. As such it becomes vital to communicate results from the ongoing work in the WG 5. This acknowledgement is also adhered to in the execution of the project and is described in more detail in chapter 7.9 (WBS 19 Marketing/profiling). To be able to create a “movement”, ie “win hearts and minds” in the industry, communication (of good results) is paramount. In the following specific actions are recommended undertaken within two arenas for communication.

6.4.1 WBS 641 Media general The project recommends that the WG 5 approach national and international media(newspapers, television) when it is clear that it can be demonstrated substantial improvements with regards to energy efficiency. At time of writing it is now vital that the EMIP platform is utilized and further developed so as to assure that the effectgoal of EMIP is achieved. In using the platform it is the intention to be able to demonstrate and verify energy savings as function of introduction of various energy saving measures. The concept as described in establishing the cooperation contract between the EMIP and DOCERS projects is shown in Figure 47 below.


71

Figure 47 Timeline and interface between the DOCERS and EMIP projects.

As indicated, the intention was to use the DOCERS project as platform for communication of results from operation. The EMIP 2 project is also planned and the project management team will undertake the same philosophy as indicated towards the DOCERS project in the execution, ie communicate results in a joint venture with the DOCERS project.

6.4.2 WBS 642 Norwegian Shipping community The communication philosophy from the EMIP project is shown in Figure 47 above. In specific terms it is recommended that;

1. Continuous reporting is carried out through various forums like FRES(Forum for Reducing Emissions from Ships) etc .

2. Specific reporting is performed in possible conferences/seminars once a year.

3. The WG 5 becomes a key driver in the implementation of the Maritime 21 strategy with initial main focus on the thematic area “Efficient and environmental friendly energy utilization”.

4. The WG 5 facilitates intelligent cooperation with other ship owners who want to join in the implementation of the Maritime 21 strategy in thematic as shown above- ie strive to make a coherent and forceful “movement” with rational use of resources in specific clearly defined projects.


72

7 WBS 1 Project Management As alluded to in chapter 1 and other chapters, the project has been strived managed after the principles found in best practice project management. Knowledge areas in this regard are found in Figure 48 below (Norwegian text);

Figure 48 Knowledge areas in "best practice" project management (PRINSIX, 2011)

Summarized from Figure 48 the following is vital to keep track of when executing a project according to best practice;

1. Management of quality/deliverables according to plan 2. Management of cost according to plan 3. Management of time according to plan 4. Management of uncertainty in the project 5. Management of communication( expectation management) 6. Management of personnel allocated to the project

In the execution of item 1 through 6 above it is adhered to the worked out project plans, which are the project’s starting point. As such the main goal for every project team is to ensure a project which is;

terminated having the specified quality on the deliverables completed on time and according to budget

On a final note regarding project management it is very so that good management of projects takes time and resources. As such, it is important to highlight this in the project plan and receive enough support/resources to this. In the following various aspects related to the management of EMIP is highlighted.

7.1 11 Gen admin This workpackage entails all general administration related to the project. In this regard work has specifically been carried with regards to the consortium agreement between the WG 5


73

partners, correspondence with the Norwegian Research Council with respect to changes in scope/budget etc.

7.2 12 Time & schedule This workpackage has entailed establishing and managing the project after the time schedule. The initial plan is shown in Figure 49 below.

Figure 49 Initial time schedule in project EMIP, February 2010. Throughout the project it was observed a need to postpone the termination dates of all sub projects. The reason for this is mainly connected to uncertainties which came into play. Management of uncertainty is addressed in chapter 7.8 (WBS 18). The following summarizes the termination dates of sub projects;

1. WBS 2 Performance Monitoring System, planned finish medio Dec 2010, actual finish; Medio april 2011- delay 4 months.

2. WBS 3 EMIP procedure, planned finish medio Aug 2010, actual finish; Medio March 2011- delay 7 months- postponed due do need for doing work in other sub projects first(dependency) and uncertainties. It is noted that the delivery is not 100% according to scope.

3. WBS 4 Training, planned finish medio Dec 2010, actual finish; ultimo January 2011- delay 1 month.

4. WBS 5 Energy Profile testships, planned finish medio Feb 2011, actual finish; Medio April 2011-delay 2 months. It is noted that the delivery is not 100% according to scope.

5. WBS 6 Action plan/further work, planned finish primo May 2011, actual finish; medio May- delay 0,5 months.

All sub projects, as presented in respective chapters, have remaining work before they can be stated to be 100% according to scope. Having said this, the resultgoals in EMIP is evaluated to be achieved with an earned value in the magnitude of 80% holistically seen. This value is


74

the same as the financial earned value when including the work delivered from MARINTEK from the DOCERS project. It is to be noted that some sub project managers in the EMIP project had to be replaced due to having intense workloads and travelling in their position hampering their possibility to contribute towards EMIP. This occurred in August/September 2010.

7.3 13 Resources-organisation- budget-accountancy

7.3.1 Budget and earned value in the project The EMIP project had an initial budget as shown in Table 26 below;

REVISED BUDGET- FEB 2010- Figures in 1000 NOK GS WL BWFM HA KML SUM

Personal 640 640 440 440 640 2 800

Equipment 475 475 0 0 475 1 425

Other 720 720 520 520 720 3 200

SUM 1 835 1 835 960 960 1 835 7 425

Table 26 Initial budget for project EMIP. It is noted that the item “Other” incorporates cash out from each company and should ideally be found in each company’s budgets. The support from the Norwegian Research Council is 40% of the total Figures presented in Table 26 above. The initial periodicity/monthly expense budget in the project is shown in Figure 50 below.

Figure 50 EMIP initial monthly expense budget. The periodicity is made up of as function of the WBS structure (see Figure 1, chapter 1) with corresponding expectations with regards to use of internal work hours and payment of invoices related to milestones.


75

Below in Figure 51 the actual monthly expenses are shown. Compared to the initial monthly expense budget it is noted that the cost related to equipment (WBS 2) was accrued earlier than first estimated. In addition, the project did not manage to mobilize MARINTEK as quick as planned. MARINTEK is fully involved first in October which is visible as resources under “5 Energy profile test ships”. WBS 3 also got a slow start and resources were first utilized from August 2010 and onwards.

Figure 51 Actual monthly expenses in EMIP, MARINTEK/DOCERS incorporated.

When aggregating the cost based upon accrued expenses the earned value for each month in the project is calculated. Below in Figure 52 the planned earned value (PEV) based on original monthly expenses is shown compared to real earned value with (REV DOC) MARINTEK and without (REV) MARINTEK.

Figure 52 Earned value, financial, in project EMIP. The actual earned value in the EMIP project, included MARINTEK DOCERS resources, is 81 % and reflects the value which would be the case if each ship owning company would use


76

the budget for “Other” to pay MARINTEK work. WBS 5 had an initial budget of 1 375 KNOK. MARINTEK has used 1 373 KNOK from the DOCERS project. The final result in EMIP is shown in Table 27 below;

2010 2011 SUM BUDGET

Personal 1 206 692 1 898 2 800

Utstyr 1 425 0 1 425 1 425

Annet 328 605 933 3 200

SUM 2 959 1 297 4 256 7 425Table 27 Financial result in EMIP versus original budget.

As can be seen there is a reserve in the project upon termination. The reasons for not reaching the financial resultgoal (budget) are rooted in many causes. Firstly, the MARINTEK work is left out in Table 27. Originally it was planned for mobilization of MARINTEK with the use of internal EMIP budget. Other causes for the deviation are rooted in uncertainties which came into play which are presented in chapter 7.8 (WBS 18). It must also be noted that the EMIP project has “hidden hours” in most companies, meaning that it has been put in more hours beyond the budget in respective sub projects. This is especially the case in WBS 2 Performance monitoring systems, where initial internal budget was 200 hours. Finally it can be noted, commented from a selection of observers, the initial scope for EMIP has been seen as rather ambitious to conclude within a 13 months’ timeframe.

7.3.2 Organisation- the cooperation matrix To cater for efficient mobilization of and communication between subject matter experts in the five companies a cooperation matrix was developed in the project planning work in February 2010. This is shown in Table 28 below.

Table 28 The EMIP cooperation matrix.


77

The matrix gives a clear overview of allocated personnel from each company to respective sub projects in EMIP. The matrix, developed over time, is seen as part of the process of sustaining the developed EMIP platform. The matrix will be revitalized in the execution of the EMIP 2 project.

7.4 14 Interfacing projects and the Maritime 21 strategy All WG 5 companies have been involved a in a series of R&D projects in past years and were at time of initiation involved in ongoing R&D projects. The common acknowledgement in the group was that it seemed to be a too high degree of duplicative work going on with a too broad spread of resources. Such a situation can lead to projects operating under sub optimal conditions giving bearing on quality of deliverables. One other perspective in the group was that it is often quite a challenge to operationalize results and findings from projects, ie in many cases the results from projects are not relevant or usable in operation. To this it is attached many root causes which will be touched upon in the following. First, in EMIP there was a need to try to get an overview of relevant projects with clear interface with EMIP, ie treating energy efficiency on ships. The exercise was necessary to avoid “reinventing the wheel” and try to establish liason with especially relevant projects. Below in Table 29 is shown a selection of planned, concluded and ongoing projects with bearing on energy efficiency on ships. It is noted that the list is by no means complete and similar future exercises should aim to map all ongoing projects for the sake of consolidation. This would enable greater transparency in the project portfolio, improved management of the total R&D portfolio and thereby more efficient resource utilization leading to faster implementation of results. Proper practical implementation of the Maritime 21 strategy has the potential to provide for this provided that the industry mobilizes in one fairly coherent common movement.

Project/activity Name in full Main goal Timeframe

EMISOL

GHG Emissions Reduction Solutions and Impacts for Transport Systems

Identify and evaluate existing and forthcoming solutions for reducing the fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from maritime shipping activities 2009-2011

LCS Low Carbon Shipping

Identify the cost-effective GHG reduction potential in the world merchant fleet, investigate barriers to implementation, quantify effects on climate and environment and, based on this, to develop decision support tools. 2010-2012

WG 5 EU project 1 (MARINTEK)

Improved Hydrodynamic Performance for main sea states through Retrofits

To reduce the emissions and optimize energy efficiency of existing ships through improved hull-propulsion interaction

2012-2015

WG 5 EU project 2 (MARINTEK)

Retrofitting of ships with green technologies

To create and combine technologies to improve the environmental and climate change footprint of existing ships. 2012-2015


78

MOPS

Managing Organisational Performance in Ship management

Create a competitive advantage through application of benchmarking in continuous improvement and strategic positioning of participating ship management companies. 2011-2014

DEO/AEROS

Design-stage evaluation of ships and transport chain efficiency

To develop methods and tools, including software, for use in an early design phase, to ensure that the demand for energy optimized maritime logistics chains with minimal GHG emissions is reflected in robust, energy-efficient fleet and ship designs with minimal GHG emissions under volatile (and uncertain) operating conditions 2009-2010

MARLEN

Operational and organizational conditions that may influence the energy efficiency and environmental profile

Obtain and systematize facts and knowledge regarding - the main operational, organizational, and contractual conditions that may influence the energy efficiency and environmental profile/performance of alternative maritime logistics chains, and thereby reduce the probability of introducing sub-optimal solutions ?--->2009--->?

DOCERS WP 3 Documented Emission Reduction from Ships

Researching potentials and validating relevant technology for emissions reductions and efficiency improvements theoretically, by lab tests and by analysing experiences within the industry

2009-2011

NAVTRONIC Navigational System for efficient maritime transport

To develop a decision support system for optimizing the operational performance of a ship at sea; fuel consumption, timeliness and hull stresses in function of the met-ocean conditions.

2009-2012

POSE2IDON

To enhance the electric ship concept so it suits a wider range of vessels with lower build and operating costs. This will reduce the emissions and improve the impact on global warming 2008-2012

SuperGreen

Benchmarking of Green corridors. Based on a total picture of relevant parameters (KPIs) like energy consumption and emissions, operational aspects and Supply Chain Management (SCM) issues, external costs, infrastructure costs and internal costs, identify areas and candidates for improvement (i.e. bottlenecks). “Green technologies”. Implications for improving the identified bottlenecks. Among the green technologies considered may be novel propulsion systems, alternative fuels, cargo handling technologies, new terminal technologies or novel concepts of any kind relevant for the multimodal Green corridors.“Smarter” utilisation of ICT-flows already available in the multimodal chain may improve the 2009-2011


79

identified bottlenecks and make the Green Corridors even greener.

Table 29 Selection of planned, ongoing and concluded projects with bearing on energy efficiency on ships. In the regard of consolidation the Maritime 21 strategy steps up as the framework for enabling an intelligent collaboration throughout the maritime cluster. Implementing this calls for participation of more ship owners pitching in resources. Throughout the execution of the EMIP project many ship owners have approached the project and the ship owning company Solvang is now included in the WG 5. In future projects the WG 5 will aim for the setting up of intelligent cooperation with other ship owners and by this contribute to the implementation of the Maritime 21 strategy.

7.5 15 Meetings & workshops The project has carried out 6 internal status meetings.4 workshops related to execution of WBS 5 has been carried out in October 2010, November 2010, December 2010 and April 2011. In addition meetings in the respective sub projects have been executed. In the period May 18-20 2011 the project termination meeting was held.

7.6 16 Methods & tools The project has utilized standard IT software in the planning and execution phase. To facilitate efficient communication the E-room has been used hosted by MARINTEK. By the involvement of Marorka and MARINTEK the project has taken advantage of their expertise and in house tools. As mentioned, for the project management, principles from best practice have been sought utilized throughout the all project phases.

7.7 17 Reporting 7 reports have been made to WG 5 group (project board) and two status reports have been made to the WG 5 high level meeting in April 2010 and in April 2011. Reporting to NRC has been carried out according to requirements, ie June 1 2010, Dec 1 2010 and Jan 20 2011(accountancy report).

7.8 18 Uncertainty analysis As part of the project management, an uncertainty (risk and possibilities) analysis was carried out during the Kick off meeting March 22-23 2010. The initial analysis showed a total of 49 uncertainties which the project had to address. The uncertainties were categorized as follows;

19 internal uncertainties controlled in/by the project 21 external uncertainties only partially controllable by the project 9 extreme uncertainties not controllable/ foreseeable

The highest ranked uncertainties were communicated to the High Level WG 5 meeting held in April 2010. Throughout the execution of the project the effect of a selection of identified uncertainties were noticed. The effects from uncertainties stem from both internal and external uncertainties and this has influenced the project with regards to full achievement within all


80

resultgoals. . The scope has been ambitious with regards to execution within a timeframe of 13 months. Below is a selection of high ranked uncertainties;

E-D/T-3-3-9; “Lack of(sufficient) internal harmonization in the WG 5 organizations- leading to slow progress in the project and above all unsuccesful/slow/fragmented implementation of the projects results. (Buy-in form operators and crew, and that system is easy to understand and use)”

Risk mitigation; Internal profiling of the project, use of Intranet, internal articles in internal magazines and external profiling. Development of the cooperation matrix.

E-D/T-2-2-4; “WBS 2 Installation time expected one week, but insufficient preparations/sensor problems leading to more installation time”

Risk mitigation; Close dialog between involved stakeholders.

E-D/T-2-3-6/2-3-6; “Poor management of the project due to lack of cooperation in the

project management and not being able to make coordinated efforts related to the scope of work. Impairs the totality in the solution- risk of "individualizing" the project- "we do it solely in our way"- the common platform is lost/not optimum”

Risk mitigation; Frequent statusmeetings held. Execution of kick off seminar. Close dialog between individuals in the project management team. Continuous repetition of project’s scope and plans.

E-D/T-1-3-3/1-3-3;“The project plan is not sufficiently harmonized in the project team- leading to "friction" in the cooperation impairing progress and deliverables”

Risk mitigation; Frequent statusmeetings held. Execution of kick off seminar. Close dialog between individuals in the project management team. Continuous repetition of project’s scope and plans

I-D-3-3-9 “WBS 2 buy in towards superintendents and crew onboard. Training friction- training critical”

Risk mitigation; Internal profiling of the project, use of Intranet, internal articles in internal magazines. Early involvement of superintendents on the nominated testships.

I-D-2-3-6; “All WBS do not keep continuous momentum leading to some/everyone "forget" the project in everyday work. Quality and deliverables impaired. Need for "Skippertak" in the final project phase- total EMIP quality reduced"

Risk mitigation; Frequent statusmeetings held. Close dialog between individuals in the project management team. Continuous repetition of project’s scope and plans In summary it can be stated that the EMIP project, like most projects, has experienced some friction impairing the quality of the resultgoals to a certain degree. The total uncertainty


81

picture the project has operated in has been sought dealt with according to available means and measures to mitigate the effect. The project has been organised as a matrix organisation. It is a known fact that such an organisation form may pose challenges with regards to prioritization between tasks for each participating member. All project participants have other obligations and work which must be attended to. As such, upon leaving the Kick off seminar in March 2010, all was familiar with that the EMIP project would maximum receive priority 2 throughout the execution. How to cater for this challenge in future projects has been discussed in the project termination session May 18-20 2011 and some of these discussions are summarized in recommendations in chapter 6.

7.9 19 Marketing- communication As indicated in the beginning of this chapter, management of communication/expectations forms a vital task for projects. The purpose of this exercise has been twofold in EMIP. Firstly it has been a desire to create interest for the project in the surroundings and possible mobilization of other ship owning companies into one fairly common movement with regards to improving energy efficiency on ships, ie consolidation. Active (leading) participation from ship owners in R&D projects aiming at improving energy efficiency is seen as a necessity to obtain results. As such, the WG 5 and EMIP have tried to contribute in implementing the Maritime 21 strategy. Secondly, all external and internal communication has also been aimed at the maritime cluster at large. There are many stakeholders in the shipping business, and it should continuously be strived after to do even more smart and intelligent things together to improve energy efficiency on ships. One key message from EMIP is the thinking related to the nominated testships. They can act as “laboratory ships” for equipment manufacturers which would like to test out new technology for the sake of verifying their technology. This could provide for a triple “win-win”. The ship owning company improves energy efficiency, the equipment manufacturer increase sales and one obtains less environmental impact. The following summarizes the external profiling work done in EMIP;

1. Apr 2010; Project presentation for Forum for Reducing Emissions from Ships (FRES). Approx 30 participants present from the maritime cluster.

2. Sep 2010; Launch of WG 5/EMIP homepage at Norwegian Shipowners

Association’s website. Frequent statusreports made available to the public.

3. October 2010; Article in magazine “Teknisk Ukeblad”, “Gjør hverandre en miljøtjeneste”.

4. Jan 2011; Project presentations for Bergen Superintendents Forum (BIF), the

ERFA conference and Maritime 21 workshop.

5. Feb 2011; Publishing of the article “Sustainable winners” in an attachment to the shipping paper Tradewinds. See Figure 53 below.


82

Figure 53 The "Sustainable winners" article published in attachment to Tradewinds Feb 2011.

6. Mar 2011; Project presentation at the Green Ship Technology conference. In

relation to this the project was also mentioned in the national newspaper “Dagens Næringsliv”.

7. Apr 2011; Project presentation for Forum for Reducing Emissions from Ships

(FRES). In addition to this the WG 5 and EMIP project are mentioned at a selection of web articles. A complete screening of this publicity is not carried out.

8 Conclusion The EMIP project has had an ambitious scope. Kick off in the project was held in March 22. It is evaluated that the project has managed to deliver according to the project resultgoals in an acceptable manner given the fairly optimistic project duration of 13 months and some effects of various uncertainties. Holistically seen the earned value with regards to the resultgoals for the deliverables is 80%. By this is meant, in the case of WBS 5 Energy profile testships, that all work packages have been executed for at least one of the nominated testships . The remaining work in WBS 5 specifically is a question of allocating time and resources to fully conclude this work. It is the intention to conclude remaining work in EMIP in the EMIP 2 project. As such the deliverables from the project are seen to support the realization of the effectgoal of the project, ie to establish a common platform and ability among the 5 shipowners, but there is a need for further work to sustain and further develop the EMIP platform. To achieve effect it is necessary to initiate measures as indicated in chapter 6. To excel in energy management it is vital that one is able to mobilize all key stakeholders in the organisation. Without this advanced measuring systems will most likely not yield the desired effect. With regards to the use of the budget the financial earned value is 81% when incorporating the resources spent from MARINTEK through the DOCERS project. The reserve in the project, approx 40% of initial budget, is a result of the fact that the initial plan was fairly optimistic and some uncertainties came into play in the project. Working in a matrix organisation which EMIP has been based upon constitutes several challenges with regards to availability of personnel. However, despite this, the project is happy with the achieved results. With regards to the project’s termination date, May 2 2011, all main work was concluded by this date meaning that the project met the resultgoal within the time dimension and was able to create a coherent final report during May 2011.


83

In the project termination meeting held May 18-20 2011 all participants expressed the positive value of executing the EMIP project. Speaking beyond the project’s resultgoals the WG 5 and the EMIP project must be viewed as an attempt to contribute in creating a greater “movement” in the Norwegian maritime cluster within the field of energy efficiency and be an exponent for consolidation and intelligent cooperation within the maritime R&D field. As such, the WG 5, through execution of the EMIP 2 project, will contribute in the implementation of the Maritime 21 strategy. Whether the WG 5 and EMIP have succeeded in contributing to creation of a greater “movement” must be judged by observers external the project.


84

References (Klaveness, 2011) Bøhmer, Christoffer, Technical Manager, Klaveness Maritime Logistics (BW Gas, 2011) Toft, Øyvind, Head of technical support department, BW Gas (Marorka, 2011) Kristiansson, Leifur, Manager,Technical Sales Marorka ehf.,Borgartun 20, 105 Reykjavík,Iceland Tel: (+354) 582 8000 Fax: (+354) 582 8499 (Wilh. Wilhelmsen, 2011) Jønvik, Petter C, Manager Shipping & Environment, Wilh. Wilhelmsen (Grieg Shipping, 2011) Langeland, Aage Oscar, Senior Project Manager, Grieg Shipping Group (Hoegh Autoliners, 2011) Ljungberg, Knut, Project Manager, Høegh Autoliners (Hoegh Autoliners, 2010) Ljungberg, Knut, Project Manager, Høegh Autoliners (MARINTEK, 2011) Mo, Brage, Research Manager, MARINTEK 1 BW Gas, Calibration of Fuel Oil Consumption, February 2011 2 MARORKA, Star Istind Speed Trials April 10 2011 3 MARINTEK, Verification of MAREN system onboard Star Istind 4 MARINTEK, Environmental and Economic Operation of Ships, Information Letter

No. 1: General overview 5 MARINTEK, Environmental and Economic Operation of Ships, Information Letter

No. 2: Optimal design 6 MARINTEK, Environmental and Economic Operation of Ships, Information Letter

No. 3: Operation planning and follow-up 7 MARINTEK, Environmental and Economic Operation of Ships, Information Letter

No. 4: Maintenance of hull and propeller 8 MARINTEK, Environmental and Economic Operation of Ships, Information Letter

No. 5: Maintenance of machinery 9 Brembo J. C. et al., Anbefalinger om energisparing for mindre skip 10 Buhaug/MARINTEK et al., Second IMO GHG Study 2009 11 Wärtsilä, Boosting Energy Efficiency 12 DNV, Pathway to low carbon shipping 13 MAN, Slide Fuel Valve, PrimeServ Retrofitting 14 Jotun, The Smoothing Effect of TBT-free Antifoulings 15 Drew Marine Division, Improving Heavy Fuel Oil Usage by Homogenization


85

(PRINSIX, 2011) http://www.prinsix.no/flo/kunnskapsomrader/kunnskapsomrader.asp (Shipping KPI, 2011) http://www.intermanager.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=BqoXipnJkSU%3D&tabid=69&mid=457


86

Index

A accuracy, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19, 23, 47, 48, 67 anemometer, 14, 15, 19 auxiliary engine, 36, 37, 45

B Balanced Scorecard, 62, 63 Ballast, 28, 36 Baseline, 34

C climate crisis, 1 commercial, 4, 15, 68 communication, 17, 23, 24, 63, 68, 70, 71, 72, 76, 79, 81 consolidation, 3, 77, 79, 81, 83 Coordinated actionplan, 66 CORIOLIS FLOW‐METERS, 7 Coriolis fuel measuring, 6

D Dagens Næringsliv, 82 direct engine power measurement, 4 DOCERS, 65, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78, 82 Draft sensors, 10, 19

E earned value, 73, 74, 75, 82 EEOI, 25, 27 effectgoal, 1, 62, 64, 70, 82 Efficiency Operation Index, 25 Electric load analysis, 34, 36 EMIP 2, 19, 22, 23, 51, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 77, 82, 83 EMIP procedure, 24, 25, 64, 73 EMS systems, 11 Energy conservation, 4 Energy consumption, 13, 29, 35 energy efficiency, II, 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83

Energy production, 35 Energy profile, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49, 65, 75, 82 Energy Profile testships, 73 Energy transmission, 35 engine power diagram, 8 Environmental awareness, 33

F freight volume, 4 FRES, 71, 81, 82 fuel consumption, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 23, 27, 32, 47, 77, 78 fuel efficiency, 4, 6, 28

fuel flow meters, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23 Full load, 28, 36, 38

G gasoil, 38 GHG reduction, 1, 77

H heavy fuel oil, 35, 38

I IMO, 25, 27, 35, 49, 84 implementation, II, IX, 1, 2, 17, 19, 34, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69, 71, 77, 79, 80, 83

inaccuracy, 4, 17 Instrumentation, 6, 10 intelligent cooperation, II, 71, 79, 83 Intermediate, 28

K Key Performance Indicator, 12, 29 Kick off, 79, 81, 82 KPI, 4, 12, 13, 29, 33, 62, 63, 85

L leadership, 63, 69, 70

M main engine, 23, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48 Manoeuvring, 28 Maren system, 11 MARINTEK, II, 3, 45, 47, 49, 65, 74, 75, 76, 79, 82, 84 Maritime 21, II, 3, 64, 66, 71, 77, 79, 81, 83 Marorka, 11 MIP calculator, 8, 23 monthly performance tests, 24, 28

N Norwegian Research Council, II, 73, 74 Norwegian Ship‐owners Association, 1

O Operating conditions, 28 operational profile, 35, 36 organizational development, 69 overlay software, 4


87

P Pareto, 38 performance data, 12 Performance Indicator, 12, 29 Performance Monitoring System, 73 Positive displacement flow meters, 6 Power measurement, 8 process diagram, 26 Propulsion curve, 36 PTO perspective, 62

R reduce energy consumption, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 resultgoal, 65, 76, 82 Risk mitigation, 80

S Sea trials’, 34 SEEMP, 15, 17, 19, 25, 64, 65, 66, 67 shaft power readings, 47 ship shore reporting tool, 21 Speed log, 9 Speed over Ground, 9 Speed through water, 9

stakeholders, 63, 80, 81, 82 strategic map, 63

T testships, 3, 64, 65, 66, 80, 81, 82 Torque, 8, 10, 16, 19, 21 Tradewinds, 81, 82 training, 1, 2, 3, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 68, 69, 80 Trainingprogram, 30 transport mode, 1

U uncertainties, 7, 8, 73, 76, 79, 82

V vision, II, 1, 63

W WBS structure, 3, 74 WG 5, II, III, 1, 2, 13, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71,

72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 win hearts and minds, 70 win‐win, 66, 81


88

Appendix Appendix 1; EMIP WBS structure- level 3 Appendix 2; BW Gas- Report “Calibration of fuel oil consumption” Appendix 3; WG 5 common KPI matrix Appendix 4; Single sheet characteristics “Baniyas” Appendix 5; Single sheet characteristics “Tamesis” Appendix 6; Single sheet characteristics “Star Istind” Appendix 7; Single sheet characteristics “Hoegh Copenhagen” Appendix 8; Single sheet characteristics “BW Odin” Appendix 9; Procedure for speed trial Appendix 10; EMIP training program Appendix 11; SEEMP for “Baniyas” Appendix 12; SEEMP for “Tamesis” Appendix 13; SEEMP for “Star Istind” Appendix 14; SEEMP for “Hoegh Copenhagen” Appendix 15; SEEMP for “BW Odin” Appendix 16; Project description EMIP 2 Appendix 17; MARINTEK Appendixes- No distribution without permission from the project owner(WG 5)

Documents

Final report EMIP-May 29-1715 - The FRAM Projecttheframproject.com/uploads/Final_report_EMIP-May_29-1715.pdf · 7.3 13 RESOURCES-ORGANISATION-BUDGET-ACCOUNTANCY..... 74 7.3.1 Budget