An August 2012 issue of Marine Log printed a slow steaming apologetic by an unidentified writer, who no doubt figured that if he could get this one by us, he could sell us the Brooklyn Bridge.

“Fuel Savings Primary Reason for Slow Steaming, Says Survey” – and here’s some of it:

“Fuel savings was the overwhelming reason why slow steaming was introduced into bulk and container shipping fleets worldwide, according to a recent survey conducted by MAN Diesel & Turbo. The survey, Slow Steaming Practices in the Global Shipping Industry, was performed in the late 2011 among over 200 representatives of global container and bulk shipping …

“Before it came into prominence in 2009, slow steaming met with a great deal of skepticism because diesel engines at slower speeds could potentially lead to excessive engine damage, such as rapid wear of the cylinder liners. However the rising cost of bunker fuel led Maersk – one of the world’s largest shipping companies – to form a working group to study the problem and look for solutions that could be implemented fleet wide. They came up with slow steaming. The idea was to sail at 12 knots as opposed to 24 knots. Maersk introduced slow steaming into several vessels in its fleet in 2008 as part of its own research to prove that it was a viable option to cut fuel usage and cut CO2 without damaging the engine. The success of that research led to the widespread use of slow steaming in the worldwide fleet of container, bulk and tanker ships …

“Survey results also indicate that respondents felt that slow steaming is an effective way of achieving greater utilization of capacity.

“On the environmental side, several respondents noted that a reduction in fuel consumption automatically meant a reduction in emissions of CO2. This advantage is obviously a secondary benefit, but is still rated as the second-most important reason for slow steaming.

“As the survey points out, slow steaming does offer many mechanical challenges such as fouling of the gas boiler, soot deposits on moving parts, performance and efficiency loss to low quality fuel, etc. These issues, however, can all be addressed through best practices such as pro-active onboard servicing, manual cleaning, manual adjustments, enhanced engine room staff training and engine upgrade kits. Furthermore, there are a significant number of ways to increase the financial return from slow steaming, such as slide fuel valves, turbo-charger cut-out solutions, lubrication oil system upgrading, engine derating and propeller upgrading. All of these measures achieved significant additional fuel savings and increased engine performance, according to the survey, with rapid payoff period.” —

[Notice how the “survey” ranks fuel savings as the primary benefit, reduced CO2 emissions as the second-most important benefit, and we’re supposed to believe that overcapacity is somewhere down the line. But aren’t these the same guys who were so sure that higher speeds of “newbuild” megaships would generate “economies-of-scale”? What happened to that sales pitch?]