Navigating Change Risks: Balancing Innovation and Tradition
In the ever-evolving maritime industry, the integration of new technologies demands a delicate balance with traditional maritime skills to effectively manage risks. Many historical incidents underscore the importance of finding this balance. Moreover, some seemingly innovative solutions have revealed unintended consequences, such as seen in anti-fouling coatings containing tributyltin (TBT) and the use of lead in gasoline to reduce engine knocking.
The industry's current innovation rate feels unparalleled, marked by a proliferation of energy-saving technologies. The list of advancements has grown substantially, with our own list now totalling 32 separate innovations (and counting). Interestingly, the adoption of specific technologies appears more influenced by the highest Net Present Value (NPV) than by the magnitude of potential savings. While a logical approach, it may not always yield the most significant impact on the 'decarb needle’ or longer-term fuel and emissions reduction opportunities.
Introducing anything new, regardless of size, brings inherent risks. Thorough risk assessments are imperative, requiring diverse expertise around the meeting table. Evaluating the maturity level and proven performance of innovations, coupled with financial considerations, is prudent. Notably, the adoption of 'new fuels,' such as Methanol, Ammonia, and LNG, merits additional caution and regulation. Considerations extend beyond inherently safe designs and crew training regimes, encompassing factors like dry docking, lower flash points, and saturated vapor pressure. However, proven innovations, like air lubrication and silicone-based paint systems (at least the ones with independent verification!), reside at the lower end of the innovation risk spectrum, offering reliability, performance, and safety.
Beyond technological considerations, a lesser-explored challenge looms for some: the security of a fresh water supply meeting WHO/MLC standards. The rise in floating assets, including Floating Storage Units (FSU), Floating Regasification Units (FSRU), and Floating Storage Offloading (FSO) units, poses challenges in maintaining a frequent abundance of waste heat for efficient freshwater generation. This challenge is further complicated by a newfound reluctance to conduct periodic high-speed runs, impacting Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) ratings. In response to these challenges, solutions are emerging, emphasizing the industry's resilience and adaptability.
If you are interested in swapping notes or discussing potential options, we invite you to reach out—collaboration remains key in navigating the complex landscape of maritime innovation and risk management.