TECHNICAL DIVISION

CONTENTS

1. General
2. Eco MR Tanker
3. Performance comparison
4. Economic study

General
What is eco ship?
Eco friendly (statutory minimum requirement)

SOx (MARPOL Annex VI)

Nox (MARPOL Annex VI)

Ballast Water (BWM Convention)

Recycling (Ship Recycling Convention)

CO2 (MARPOL Annex VI)

Economic (market demand)

Fuel efficiency improvement, how much?

Desirable economic ship?

Competitiveness of shipyard

Eco MR Tanker
Adoption of G50ME-B Engine

Stroke increased

RPM decreased

MEP(mean effective power) increased

SFOC reduced

Propeller of larger dia adopted

Propeller efficiency improved

Fuel efficiency improved by 20%

Comparison with design of 5 years ago

Comparison at same condition

Eco MR Tanker
Adoption of G Type Engine

Change of main diesel engines to achieve high efficiency

Trend
* Criteria : Standard point(L1) on Layout diagram for engine power and speed

M/E Type

S 50 MC

S 50 MC-C

S 50 ME-C

S 50 ME-B

G 50 MEB

Output

9,480 kW

9,960 kW

9,960 kW

10,680 kW

10,320 kW

RPM

127

127

127

117

100

Bore

500

500

500

500

500

Stroke

1,910

2,000

2,000

2,214

2,500

Ratio of B/S

3.8

4.0

4.0

4.4

5.0

SFOC

174 g/kWh

173g/kWh

170 g/kWh

168 g/kWh

168 g/kWh

M.E.P

18.0bar at
127rpm

20.0bar at
127rpm

20.0bar at
127rpm

21.0bar at
117rpm

21.0bar at
100rpm

[MAN Diesel & Turbo : Engine Selection Guide & Marine Engine Program]

Eco MR Tanker
New Development Performance Upgrade
Speed Power Curve

10000

9000

8000

kW
7000

6000

5000

4000
12

13

14

15

16

17

Speed in Knots

Eco MR Tanker
New Development Performance Upgrade
EEDI Calculation

MR Tanker
12

EEDI Value (g-CO2/ton mile)

10
8
6
4
2
0
20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000
60,000
Capacity (DWT)

70,000

80,000

Eco MR Tanker
New Development - Adoption of G Type Engine

Changes to Propeller Diameter

Comparison of Stern Frame Outline

Eco MR Tanker
Adoption of MAN G-ME-B Type Engine
Type

Advantage

Challenge
1. Increased excitation force due to the

Can adopt a propeller with

tangential torque and the moment of

bigger diameter at lower

inertia of propeller

speed
6S50ME-B 6G50ME-B

The level of torsional vibration is

Increased efficiency of

increased.

propeller
2. Increased propeller mass

Alignment problems

Countermeasures against disadvantages

Increase the diameter of the intermediate shaft
Apply the heavy tuning wheel & turning wheel
Adjust the shaft bearing position & offset

Performance comparison
Old MR tanker vs New MR tanker

* assuming steaming of 240 days in a year

Old MR tanker

New MR tanker

Condition

Design

Design

.Speed (knots)

14.0

14.0

Power w/ S.M 15%

(kW)

SFC (g/kw.h)

DFOC (ton/day)

21.6

17.7

FOC (ton/year)

5184

4248

Annual FO Cost ($)

3.11 Mil

2.55 Mil

* The price of bunker oil is assumed as 600 $/ton

6000.0

5184.0

Annual FO Cost comparison ($)

4248.0

5000.0
4000.0

Old MR

3000.0

New MR

2000.0
1000.0
0.0
Old MR

New MR

New MR : 2.55 Mil

Old MR : 3.07 Mil
Diff./[Year] : 0.56 Mil
Diff./[25 Year] : 14.0 Mil

Performance comparison
1.600
g/(ton x N.M) for Designed condition

g/(ton x N.M)

1.500

1.392

1.400
1.341

1.350

A
SEALION-67K

B
DELTA-64K(Wartsila)

1.300

1.200

1.100

1.000
C (MAN)
DELTA-64K

Performance comparison

POWER
(KW)

12

13

14

15

16

Speed in Knots

(Design draft)

17

Performance comparison

POWER
(KW)

12

13

14

15

16

Speed in Knots

(Ballast draft)

17

Performance comparison
Supramax

* assuming steaming of 240 days in a year

Yard

Condition

Ballast

Design

Ballast

Design

Ballast

Design

Speed (knot)

12

13

12

13

12

13

12

13

12

13

12

13

Power (kW)

2920

* 3800

3542

4624

3070

* 3920

3407

4433

2976

* 4005

3439

4406

SFC (g/kw.h)

176.7

175.1

175.6

173.6

176.4

174.3

175.6

173.1

162.9

161.7

162.4

161.2

DFOC (ton/day)

12.4

* 16.0

14.9

19.3

13.0

* 16.4

14.4

18.4

11.6

* 15.5

13.4

17.0

Operating Profile (%)

15

35

15

35

15

35

15

35

15

35

15

35

446.4

1344.0

536.4

1621.2

468.0

1377.6

518.4

1545.6

417.6

1302.0

482.4

1428.0

FOC (ton/year)
3948.0

3909.6

3630.0

Annual FO Cost ($)

2.43 Mil

2.40 Mil

2.23 Mil

Rank

Annual FO Cost comparison ($)

Rank 3
: 2.43 Mil
Rank 1
: 2.23 Mil
Diff./[Year] : 0.20 Mil
Diff./[25 Year] : 5.0 Mil
* The price of bunker oil is assumed as 615 $/ton

Performance comparison
Supramax

* assuming steaming of 240 days in a year

Performance comparison
Kamsarmax

* assuming steaming of 240 days in a year

Economic study
Which decision?

Operation with 52K Bulk Carrier (2003 built)

Replace with eco ship

or
Continue with 2003 built ship

New construction price: 25 M USD

2nd hand ship price (10 years old): 16 M USD
Capital cost: 9 M USD

Economic study
Assumption
1. Ship type : Supramax 52K Bulk carrier (2003 built)
2. Sea route : Indonesia taboneo -> China nansha
3. Loading cargo : coal

4. Operating day : 290 days

- voyage number 17 (17day per 1 voyage number)
- ship speed : 14.5 knots
- sailing day : 7 day
- in port day : 10 day (taboneo 6 day, nansha 4 day)
5. Freight rate (per voyage) : USD 550,000, (USD 11/ton, 50,000ton cargo)
6. Bunker cost : Singapore (2013.10.24)
- IFO380 : 613.5$, MDO : 916.5 $
7. Fuel oil consumption

2003 built ship

Eco ship

Voyage

25.0 ton/day

21.1 ton/day

In port

6.0 ton/day

6.0 ton/day

Fuel consumption
(1 voyage)

144,173 $

127,424 $

Fuel consumption
(Year)

2,450,941 $

2,166,207 $

Economic study
Net Present Value (NPV) comparison

NPV at 2023
Replace with eco ship : 45.3 M USD
Continue with 2003 built ship: 42.6 M USD
(Difference: 2.7 M USD)

NPV at 2033
Replace with eco ship : 64.7 M USD
Continue with 2003 built ship: 61.5 M USD
(Difference: 3.2 M USD)

Thank you for your attention!