CASE STUDIES / EMISSIONS · ANALYSIS · AUG 2024
Replacing spreadsheet scheduling with emissions-aware optimisation cuts fuel burn and CO2 across a 40-vessel book, scaling to twenty million tonnes a year fleet-wide.
-23%
FLEET CO2 VS. MANUAL SCHEDULING, WITH A CO2 OBJECTIVE
01 · THE SETUP
Three portfolios built on identical inputs: 40 vessels, 200 cargoes, six months. They differ only in how the schedule is computed, from feasible-only spreadsheets to profit-and-emissions optimal.
ALL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS FULFILLED IN EVERY CASE
Manual
Industry-standard spreadsheet scheduling. Feasible, but not optimal.
AI-optimised
Profit-based ADP and schedule optimisation.
AI + CO2 objective
Profit maximised and emissions minimised in the same objective.
02 · THE RESULT
Moving from manual to optimised scheduling cuts emissions about 16% through less fuel burn, boil-off and idle loss. Adding the CO2 objective takes a further 11%, for 23% total against the spreadsheet.
03 · THE SCALE
The best case saves roughly 475,000 tonnes of CO2 in six months on 40 vessels. Annualised and extrapolated to the global fleet of about 800 carriers, the potential reaches twenty million tonnes a year.
475K T
SAVED IN 6 MONTHS · 40 VESSELS
~1M T
PER YEAR · 40 VESSELS
20M T
PER YEAR · GLOBAL FLEET
~800M
TREE EQUIVALENT, ILLUSTRATIVE
04 · COMPONENTS
The consumption stack splits into engine fuel, additional boil-off gas and idle loss. Optimisation reduces all three at once, because routing, speed and idle time are decided together rather than cargo by cargo.
05 · THE VERDICT
The same book, scheduled better, burns less: minus 23% CO2 against the spreadsheet, and twenty million tonnes a year at fleet scale.
40 VESSELS · 200 CARGOES · 6 MONTHS · GLOBAL FLEET ASSUMED 800 VESSELS
THIS ANALYSIS RAN ON X-LNG
The whole analysis, priced inside the optimisation that plans your fleet.
X-LNG runs analyses like this on whole portfolios in seconds, so the answer sits in every netback, diversion and charter call rather than in a spreadsheet weeks later.