Page 13: of Maritime Logistics Professional Magazine (Q4 2012)

Using scenarios of future pricing for heavy fuel, gas oil and LNG fuel, out to 2030, the researchers concluded: ?Using LNG as ship fuel promises less emissions and, given the right cir- cumstances, less fuel costs.? The lengthy analysis is heavily quali ed, and is vessel and trade-speci c; LNG?s advantage depends on a larger price difference for LNG versus heavy fuel, a reasonable cost for an LNG tank system and the percentage of operation within ECAs. Initial investments for scrubbers and for LNG systems, shown for a notional newbuild 2,500 TEU containership, are each around $5 million. The analysis also considers the installation of Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) systems, which adds approximately $4 million to the upfront outlay. For the basic LNG con guration, annual bene ts, in the form of cost savings (compared to distillate fuels) are calculated to be around $4 million; when vessels spending a signi cant proportion of trading time inside ECAs, bene ts rise and the theoretical ?payback? times are calculated to be less than 12 months in the most optimistic cases. Bottom Line ? No Easy Answers Because of the bespoke nature of cost economics, and the large number of variables involved, the next few years will be very busy for GL and others in the business of performing such calculations for shipowners. For the operators themselves, and given the likely ongoing constraints on sourcing capital, a wrong decision today could contribute to disaster tomorrow. The new cost of compliance comes at a particularly bad time. Yet, these costs are not going away and must remain a part of every owner?s  nancial planning. Barry Parker , bdp1 Consulting Ltd provides strategic and tactical support, including analytics and communications, to businesses across the maritime spectrum. The company can be found online at www.conconnect.com www.maritimeprofessional.com I Maritime Professional I 13MP #4 1-17.indd 13MP #4 1-17.indd 1311/12/2012 11:42:51 AM11/12/2012 11:42:51 AM