Impact of New Technology on Shipping Operations

7/26/2019 Impact of New Technology on Shipping Operations

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/impact-of-new-technology-on-shipping-operations 1/5

Impact of new technology onshipping operations

– Workshop –Danaos Auditorium, Piraeus, Greece – May 13th

SUMMARY RECORD

Dr John Coustas, Chairman & CEO of the DANAOS Corporation welcomed theparticipants and the initiative by Flagship for organizing this workshop. In shipping

operations there are many, possibly too many data around. For an adequate and

optimal use and management of these data a holistic view is required. This workshop

could certainly assist in making progress.

The respective power point presentations are attached separately, questions, answers

and further observations follow the presentations.

Welcome and introduction,

Flagship coordinator, Herman de Meester (ECSA)

Attachment 00

Emphasis placed on the need for cooperation through comments and suggestions on

the approaches and outcomes in Flagship by shipowners as present in the workshop.

1. ICT and Infrastructure. There is indeed no lack of data, but the use and usabilityare less evident, also due to different formats and contexts of use. Ship-shorecommunication is becoming a critical factor in ship operations. Developments intechnology as well as in public and private strategies will impact availability of ship-shore communication facilities.

Ørnulf Jan Rødseth, (MARINTEK)Attachment 01

• VTS – AIS – SSN are all developed for use by authorities; what about use by theshipping industry? Although today there largely exists no such mix of use, AIS isavailable also for on board navigational purposes, while e.g. the MARNIS projectseeks an integration of public and private data for appropriate dissemination.

• Is information management acknowledged as an issue by industry? Mostcertainly, but first attention often goes to the cost factor.



2. Technical operation strategy and logistics. A high level view on how shippingoperations may be influenced by new and emerging technology and cooperationpossibilities.

Knut-Einar Wold (MARINTEK)Attachment 02

• The presentation shows that an effort has been made to notably come toscenario’s by taking a holistic view, while staying close to market andtalking account of a certain context (shipping sub-sector and/or trade). Therisk is that the shipowners as interviewed remain rather inward lookingand basing opinions on past experiences. This, while the scenarioapproach is forward looking and out of the box, to assess possible effectsin the context of uncertain (external) developments.

3. Key performance indicators for technical operation. New methods forsupervision of technical systems by automated and systematic use ofmeasurements and performance reports. Support for improved cooperationbetween ship and shore personnel.Brage Mo (MARINTEK)Attachment 03

• The question brought up is whether operators recognize the use and needof KPI’s as a good tool. Or is this rather seen as a formalistic way ofexisting routine comparisons by fleet managers in a benchmark approachon e.g. fuel consumption? No explicit conclusion. Oil majors do use KPI’sto measure environmental performance.

• There is a need for standardization in KPI’s

• The approach in Flagship seems to be more on technical condition index(TCI) than on key performance indicators (KPI’s)[see definitions in ppt]

• Experience learns that new technology approaches are hardly taken up infull by (shipping) industry

• In the past data onboard data were hardly used onshore

• Good use is more an organizational issue

•

Look at the benefits, also for commercial purposes (chartering, classextension or credits)

• Owners are increasingly prepared taking on new tools, but this does alsorequire convincing salesmanship

• Elaborate (control and evaluation) systems have been on offer for manyyears, which is maybe OK for the more sophisticated ships like cruisevessels and etc, but much less so for bulkers and such (TCI) systemsshould not be made mandatory.

• On TCI, monitoring standards will certainly help



• What would the (additional) cost impact be in equipment and eventuallymanpower? Most data are already available, certainly on more recenttonnage, but not processed in the indicated way.

• The feedback to equipment manufacturers is a sound concept. It is notedthat such maintenance data are already sent to engine manufacturers(certain parameters) and comments for on board use are being received.

4. Monitoring systems for real-time assessment of hulls. More targetedinspections and hull maintenance may reduce dry-docking and steel replacementcosts. Onboard and shore tools can help to achieve this. The tools can alsoimprove integration of class’ and owner’s hull condition information.Tony Evans ( BMT)Attachment 04

• The difference or advantages with existing coorosive models is notaltogether clear

• In what way the effect of coatings has been taken into account?

• It seems more an area than a structure module

• Would this work for dynamic structures or rather for static structures?Reference made to corrosion models by Professor Spike (Boydell?).

• There can be large differences in impacts due to (changing) methods ofloading [bulk] cargoes, changing trades or even charterers. Can suchfactors be included in a model? Indeed, but the basis of the module are

numerous data, of many vessels over the years.• Observe that there are many random variables that will still require a

yearly routine and 5 yearly detailed survey. Tin this respect here is nodifference between static and dynamic structures.

• The whole point is introducing a systematic approach with little or nocosts. The results can then be seen and evaluated over the years. Thereis no immediate fit and result.

• This is very much a probabilistic approach, which can bring insight andpossibly make maintenance more targeted, but in the case of incidentsand litigation a 95% certainty based on statistics may not stand muchchance in a more deterministic based court verdict.

5. Energy efficiency operation. The development of the Energy EfficiencyOperational Index (EEOI) continues in IMO. Ship and shore personnel can use acontinuous consumption monitoring tool for evaluation of saving potentials andoptimization of operation, pinpointing wasted energy and measure changesimmediately.Gerd Würsig (GL)Attachment 05



• Has account been taken of already available systems? Most certainly andall need special fuel measurement equipment, which is not thencase withthe Flagship approach, making it easier as well.

• A mandatory design index for energy efficiency is acceptable, but anoperational index would not be acceptable. Maybe there is good use as acompany management tool, but not mandatory and controlled. Theresimply are too many different circumstances, while for instancemanipulation by slow steaming can not be ruled out either.

6. Support for rule compliance. Automatic decision support tool for checking rulecompliance during sea, coastal passage and port approach makes it easier foronboard and shore personnel to observe increasingly more complex andnumerous international and local legislation.Dimitris Theodosiou(Danaos)Attachment 06

• The key element is a Regulation Repository, requiring the regulators likeIMO on MARPOL, ISM, SOLAS, to ‘file’ new rules in a standard format(like XML), allowing the system to work and all other parties will follow thatstandard, also for instance local port rules. Rule extraction is the simple.

• This support tool is of direct use and benefit to authorities and toshipowners

• If there would have been any doubt on whether electronic / digitalinformation exchange could and/or should be made mandatory, DG TRENinformed on their intentions for linking e-maritime with rule compliance(study phase)

• There are inconsistencies in IMO rules, for which corrections are beingcirculated. This tool will much simplify processing and accessing theseamended editions

• Also in EU regulation a lack of consistency can be identified

• Quite probably could use this tool not only for rules, but also for makingvessels’ particular experiences known

•

On the question of impact on certificate issues, like changes in expirydates, it was observed that this did not change the rules

• A clear benefit for the regulator and the user would be also be consistencyin language and definitions

• Most probably this tool would very much support the uniform application ofPSC inspections and reporting

General Discussion & AOB

• The issues raised, in particular the last were most pertinent as these may makeauthorities to look at things differently. For example, it is difficult to understandwhy in ‘difficult regions’ is mandatory to use official local map data on ECDIS,



while there are perfect and often superior private suppliers like Jeppesen [alsopublishing under license]

• The compelling need or reason was questioned for coming to a much changedinformation flow from ship to shore with an inherent change of responsibility; i.e.placing much or all responsibility with the owner / management office andthereby most probably much increased liability risks.

• The changed / enhanced ship-shore online communication would certainly be acost factor, including external costs for legal and liability reasons

• It was observed though, that we are beyond the time that the company is notaware and not liable; for instance many procedures are laid down in ISMinstructions. The good use of the tools as presented may very well bring muchbenefit.

•

On several of the presentations and topics, the interest, potentials and effectiveuse may well differ between dry bulk and other vessel types, larger and smallshipowners, new and older fleets.

• On the question of whether the European Commission would make suchcommunication and use of regulation repository tools mandatory, it wasexplained that there are always impact assessments made by the Commission,while the European parliament followed the same practice and the reports arepublic. ECSA could confirm that consultation with industry always took place.

Conclusion

The Flagship Coordinator thanked Danaos for the hospitality, the moderator for hisguidance in the discussions and evaluation. Most of all thanks were extended to theparticipants for attending, as reactions and input from the users are of key importancefor possible adjustments in the approaches, clarity of reporting and motivation of theFlagship partners. With regard to the follow-up:

• Presentations (ppt) will be circulated to participants, together with draft report onwhich comments will be welcomed.

• Participants will also receive a short questionnaire for commenting on theworkshop; presentations, coherence, time for discussion etc. Participants arekindly invited returning the questionnaire soonest.

•

Participants can also ask for copies of specific reports (deliverables) underlyingthe presentations for own internal use. In principle these are available to ECSAmember companies, but in some cases agreement may have to be asked fromproject partners in view of intellectual property rights

• Any future ideas, questions and suggestions will be welcome at the coordinatorsmail address [email protected]. When known, the Sub Project leaderconcerned may also be approached directly in parallel.

Impact of New Technology on Shipping Operations

Documents

Transcript of Impact of New Technology on Shipping Operations