How to de‑risk ship retrofits: verification, design, and execution

I think we may divide the retrofit projects into two. Firstly, there could be a kind of mandatory retrofit driven by international regulations such as for ballast water tank systems or scrubber systems. For these, the decision-making process for the shipowners, I think, is relatively straightforward, and it's definitely cost-driven, with owners typically leading the execution. Secondly, there are retrofits for performance enhancement, such as adding or modifying energy-saving devices like air lubrication systems, wind-assisted propulsion systems, or any kind of hydrodynamic devices. For this, I think verification of effectiveness is paramount. While the theoretical benefits are quite clear, the burden to prove real-world gains is on the technology providers. I think third-party verification could be also one meaningful approach, helping both parties, the suppliers and the owner’s side. From the perspective of a full engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) provider like us, I think it is equally important to provide intelligent and automated operating systems that can ensure these devices perform optimally under any fluctuating environmental conditions.

The challenges vary depending on whether we are at the negotiation stage or at the execution stage. Until the firm contract is made, the primary hurdle is how we can provide the owner with efforts on the ROI. Crucially, the owners need to know if they can recover their Capex through adjusted charter rates from charterers. And as a solution provider, our job is to reassure the client by demonstrating superior technical expertise and robust project management capabilities. During the execution stage, one of the most frustrating cases I have experienced is a discrepancy between the provided as-built drawings and the actual status of the vessel. We've seen cases where some stiffening structures were applied differently than indicated on the provided drawings. If the case is on the external, visible sight, it could be prevented by 3D scanning before detailed engineering starts. But if that happens to internal structures, I think there is no way but to rectify during the construction stage, which means additional cost.

There are many kinds of retrofit projects. For major projects, like LNG carrier to FSRU conversion, the total timeline is spread about 24 to 27 months, which is from detailed design to delivery. However, the actual installation or construction period, which is more important to the owner, is about six to seven months. To minimize off-hire time, we front-load the design and procurement phases so that construction work begins from the moment that the vessel enters the yard. Constant communication regarding the delivery window is vital to ensure minimum loss of time. For smaller projects such as liquefaction enhancement for LNG carriers, it takes about one and a half months. Increasing container-carrying capacity by expanding lashing bridges on large container carriers; it takes just slightly over a month. Since these projects are usually executed during the scheduled dry docking, simple application of equipment such as pre-water-cooling systems, et cetera, can be done within the scheduled docking period. Anyway, I think we must coordinate firmly with the shipyard and ensure the design is flawless to avoid any rework.

I can say in the short to medium term, we see steady demand for FSU or FSRU convergence of aging energy carriers. Dual-fuel engine retrofits for conventional vessels are also high-interest items. But currently, decision-making is slowing down recently as owners digest the last MEPC meeting outcomes. We are also closely watching the regulation-system upgrades for the entire LNG fleet. And looking further ahead, once regulations become more defined, I anticipate a surge in onboard carbon‑capture system (OCSS) installations. For the short-sea shipping segment, I'm monitoring the demand for electrification and energy-storage-system applications quite closely.