June 10, 2010

Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 10-130

MERC Ballast Water Economics 

Discussion Paper No. 2

Preliminary Overview of Global 

Ballast Water Treatment Markets

Prepared by:

Dennis M. King, Mark Riggio and Patrick T. Hagan

Maritime Environmental Resource Center
1

Introduction

After more than a decade of technical analysis and political debate at the national and 

international level, legislation by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to require 

ballast water management on ships is coming closer to ratification. Proposed rulemaking by the 

United States Coast Guard (USCG), which largely mirrors the IMO requirements, was published 

on August 28, 2009, adding to the momentum for implementation of ballast water discharge 

standards which are expected to be met by installing onboard ballast water treatment systems that 

operate during ballasting, during deballasting, during transit, or in some combination.1

The IMO convention is scheduled to take effect 12 months after ratification by 30 countries 

representing 35% of the world’s commercial tonnage. As of October 31, 2009, 18 countries had 

ratified the convention, representing 15.36% of the world’s shipping tonnage.2 Ratification by 

Panama, with more than 20% of the global shipping tonnage, would be sufficient to meet the 

35% requirement, and a number of European Union countries would be expected to follow suit.

Because of delay in ratification by a sufficient number of countries, IMO granted a delay for the 

first set of ships subject to the regulations, those ships constructed in 2009 or later with a ballast 

capacity of less than 5000m3

. These ships now have until the vessel’s second annual survey, but 

no later than December 31, 2011, to comply.3

 But, by 2016, all ships subject to the regulations 

will be required to have operational ballast water treatment systems (BWTS) on board.

For planning purposes it would be useful for industry leaders and governments in IMO member 

nations to have preliminary answers to questions about: the potential size and value of the global 

markets for BWTS; how they are likely to develop after the ratification and implementation of 

IMO ballast water standards; and how they will be affected by the way IMO and U.S. ballast 

water standards are monitored and enforced.

To develop preliminary answers to these questions we first examined the expected cost of 

purchasing and installing various types of BWTS on representative ships in eight ship type/size 

categories that make up most of the global merchant fleet that will be affected by IMO ballast 

water regulations. That research and preliminary cost estimates are presented in a 2009 

University of Maryland, Maritime Environmental Resource Center (MERC) discussion paper 

titled: “A Preliminary Analysis of Ballast Water Treatment Costs” which is available on-line at 

http://www.maritime-enviro.org/reports/Reports.html/.

We then examined Lloyds global shipping fleet data as of November 9, 2009 to determine the 

size, type, flag, and age of the vessels in the global fleet that are likely to install BWTS to meet 

IMO ballast water discharge standards. With full compliance, we estimate that more than 68,000 

vessels in the global merchant fleet will eventually install on-board BWTS. Depending on a 

number of factors that are still uncertain this estimate of the relevant global fleet may result in 

high or low estimates in the corresponding size of the global BWTS market. For purposes of our 

analysis, for example, we assume that all vessels will comply regardless of their age. However, 

it is likely that some older vessels will either be retired, rerouted so that they are not subject to 

BW regulations, or simply not comply. This would make our estimate of the relevant fleet high. 

On the other hand, we also assume that only one unit will be installed per ship in the relevant 

global fleet when, in fact, some larger vessels may require multiple units. This would make the 
2

market for BWTS larger than what is reflected by our estimate of the number of ships 

complying. And while we include more than 8,000 fishing vessels under 1000 DWT, we assume 

that these smaller vessels in this fleet are likely to comply through use of less expensive products

that are still to be determined and approved and are not considered in our analysis of BWTS.

Even with these caveats, the number of ships in the affected global fleet represents a massive 

global market for BWTS, perhaps 10,000 units per year (or 30 installations per day). This means 

that if the IMO “D-2” regulation timetable is to be met, the capacity to produce and install 

BWTS will need to grow enormously between now and 2016. Of course, once existing ships are 

in compliance, hopefully by 2017 or so, only newly built ships will require the installation of 

BWTS, so global BWTS markets will then shrink to around 2,000 ships per year (five or so 

installations per day).

In anticipation of this large emerging market for BWTS, many entrepreneurs and potential 

vendors have developed a range of technologies that could serve the global BWTS market. As 

of July 2009, however, only eight BWTS had been fully certified by the IMO as achieving levels 

of efficacy at removing or killing organisms that will meet IMO ballast water discharge 

standards. We contacted technology vendors whose systems had been approved by IMO to 

obtain information about the cost of purchasing, installing and operating various BWTS and to 

help understand what types and sizes of ships and on which shipping routes they are most likely 

to be used. Based on information we collected about the range of costs and the suitability of 

these systems, we estimate that the value of the global market for purchasing and installing 

BWTS between 2010 and 2016 will be in the range of US$43 to $74 billion. 

Ballast water treatment vendors will of course be competing with each other in this new global 

market. However, they will also be competing against another factor: ship owners and operators 

who choose not to comply with regulations, or who use various legal, political, and diplomatic 

tools to delay compliance. Because the emerging global markets for BWTS will be regulationdriven, the market information in this report includes descriptions of some significant 

enforcement issues that will arise as the ballast water convention comes into force between now 

and 2016 and will affect implementation and compliance. How these issues are addressed by 

IMO member nations will have an enormous influence on the supply, demand, and price of 

BWTS, and on the effectiveness of U.S. and IMO ballast water discharge restrictions.

The paper has four sections. Section 1 provides a preliminary profile of the global fleet of ships 

that is likely to make up the market for BWTS. Section 2 summarizes our analysis of the cost of 

acquiring and installing BWTS aboard “typical” ships in a variety of ship sizes and classes and 

uses these representative costs and the number of ships in each ship class and the IMO tiered 

compliance schedule. In Section 3, we develop a preliminary assessment of the value and 

pattern of development of global BWTS markets. Section 4 describes some of the monitoring 

and enforcement issues that will strongly influence when and how global BWTS markets will 

evolve. 
3

Part 1: The Potentially Affected Global Fleet

To understand the potential global demand for ballast water treatment systems, we queried the 

Lloyds database of global shipping, most recently on November 9, 2009, and examined data for 

flag of vessel, ship size (in deadweight tonnage), ship type, and ship age.

Vessel Flag Characteristics

We reviewed the Lloyds world merchant fleet data to understand the flag characteristics of the 

fleet, both by size in deadweight tonnage, and by number of ships. Deadweight tonnage is 

significant for implementation of the IMO convention, which is scheduled to take effect 12 

months after ratification by 30 countries representing 35% of the world’s commercial tonnage. 

As of October 31, 2009, 18 countries had ratified the convention, representing 15.36% of the 

world’s shipping tonnage.4 Ratification by Panama, with more than 20% of the global shipping 

tonnage, would be sufficient to meet the 35% requirement, and a number of European Union 

countries would be expected to follow suit.

To illustrate the status of ratification of the convention, we first sorted the data by deadweight 

tonnage for the total world’s commercial fleet (not just for those types of vessels we consider to 

be subject to the IMO ballast water treatment regulations). (See Table 1a for a list of the top 35 

countries by deadweight tonnage.) We also sorted the data by number of merchant ships to 

demonstrate the potential market for ballast water treatment technologies represented by the top 

35 countries as measured by number of ships. (See Table 1b.) Note that the United States, for 

instance, has a much lower number of ships in the latter table. This is largely because we have 

excluded smaller fishing vessels (less than 300 gross tons) from our analysis.
4

Table 1a. Top 35 Flag Countries, by Deadweight Tonnage. Countries that have ratified the 

Ballast Water Convention as of October 31, 2009 are highlighted in bold. 

Flag Flag % by DWT Number of Ships % Ships of World Fleet

Panama 22.52% 8,881 7.87%

Liberia 10.49% 2,565 2.27%

Marshall Islands 5.93% 1,541 1.37%

Hong Kong 5.47% 1,487 1.32%

Greece 5.36% 1,682 1.49%

Bahamas 5.29% 1,566 1.39%

Singapore 5.07% 2,786 2.47%

Malta 4.22% 1,639 1.45%

China 3.53% 4,347 3.85%

Cyprus 2.46% 1,109 0.98%

Korea (South) 1.73% 3,087 2.74%

Norwegian International Register 1.50% 579 0.51%

Germany 1.46% 1,111 0.98%

United Kingdom 1.43% 2,189 1.94%

United States of America 1.39% 8,257 7.32%

Italy 1.27% 1,812 1.61%

Japan 1.26% 6,555 5.81%

Isle of Man 1.17% 453 0.40%

India 1.15% 1,368 1.21%

Danish International Register 1.02% 500 0.44%

Antigua 1.01% 1,231 1.09%

Bermuda 0.87% 197 0.17%

Malaysia 0.84% 1,375 1.22%

Unknown 0.81% 5,457 4.84%

Indonesia 0.64% 5,100 4.52%

France (FIS) 0.62% 787 0.70%

Netherlands 0.62% 1,746 1.55%

Turkey 0.62% 1,424 1.26%

Russia 0.60% 3,682 3.26%

Philippines 0.57% 2,335 2.07%

St Vincent 0.57% 1,143 1.01%

Belgium 0.56% 373 0.33%

Vietnam 0.43% 1,439 1.28%

Cayman Islands 0.32% 611 0.54%

Taiwan 0.32% 663 0.59%

TOTAL 93.11% 81,077 71.86%
5

Table 1b. Top 35 Flag Countries, by Number of Merchant Ships. 

Flag

Number

of Ships

Flag % of World Fleet 

Subject to Ballast Water 

Treatment Regulations

Flag %

by DWT

Panama 7,484 10.98% 23.10%

Japan 4,376 6.42% 1.29%

China 3,167 4.64% 3.46%

Unknown 3,068 4.50% 0.64%

Indonesia 2,829 4.15% 0.62%

Russia 2,525 3.70% 0.56%

Liberia 2,292 3.36% 10.68%

Korea (South) 1,905 2.79% 1.79%

Singapore 1,793 2.63% 5.13%

Philippines 1,661 2.44% 0.59%

Malta 1,530 2.24% 4.41%

Hong Kong 1,401 2.05% 5.70%

Greece 1,326 1.94% 5.63%

Bahamas 1,289 1.89% 4.87%

Marshall Islands 1,254 1.84% 6.02%

Vietnam 1,252 1.84% 0.40%

United States of America 1,239 1.82% 1.16%

Turkey 1,177 1.73% 0.65%

Antigua 1,112 1.63% 0.99%

Netherlands 1,106 1.62% 0.57%

Italy 1,054 1.55% 1.32%

Norway 979 1.44% 0.15%

United Kingdom 957 1.40% 1.38%

Cyprus 943 1.38% 2.55%

Cambodia 832 1.22% 0.21%

Thailand 730 1.07% 0.32%

Germany 719 1.05% 1.52%

Malaysia 717 1.05% 0.75%

St Vincent 687 1.01% 0.52%

Honduras 659 0.97% 0.06%

India 621 0.91% 1.16%

Spain 557 0.82% 0.05%

Norwegian International Register 494 0.72% 1.53%

Canada 470 0.69% 0.26%

Sweden 389 0.57% 0.19%

TOTAL 54,594 80.06% 90.23%
6

Vessel Types in Potentially Affected Global Fleet

We analyzed data by type of ship for “delivered” ships listed in the Lloyds Fairplay database, 

and our analysis determined that the sub-types listed in Tables 2a and 2b would be subject to 

IMO regulations for ballast water treatment. In the case of fishing vessels, we included only 

vessels of 300 gross tons or more, and we excluded other sub-types we determined were not 

carrying ballast water or would only be operating within one captain of the port zone (COPTZ). 

We then estimated ballast capacity for different sized vessels in each sub-type fleet, using 

information for actual ships listed in the American Bureau of Shipping database as the basis for 

our estimates.

Our analysis indicates that more than 21,000 ships will be subject to the first round of IMO 

retrofit requirements, which includes those ships with ballast water capacity of 1500-5000 m3. 

These ships will be required to have ballast water treatment starting in 2014.5

 Of those ships, the 

vast majority—more than 16,000—are general cargo ships. (See Table 2a.) Of U.S.-flagged 

vessels, we estimate that only 183 ships will be in this first category of vessels required to retrofit 

by 2014, with 131 of those ships either being general cargo or refrigerated cargo ships. (See 

Table 2b.)

About two-thirds of the demand for installation of technology to meet IMO D2 Standard will be 

associated with meeting the 2016 deadline for ships with less than 1500 m3 capacity (more than 

16,000 ships) or with more than 5000 m3 capacity (more than 45,000 ships).
7

Table 2a. Number of Vessels by Vessel Type and Estimated Ballast Capacity

Sub Type Count

Ballast Capacity 

of <1500m3

Ballast 

Capacity of 

1500-5000m3

Ballast Capacity 

of >5000m3

Barges6 574 0 0 574

Bulk Carriers 8,110 0 0 8,110

Container Ship 4,724 0 0 4,724

Crude Oil Tanker 2,160 0 0 2,160

Chemical Tanker 1,474 0 0 1,474

Chemical/Oil Products Tanker 9,323 0 0 9,323

General Cargo Ship 18,187 0 16,535 1,652

Fishing Vessels 8,001 7,970 30 1

LNG Tanker 327 0 0 327

LPG Tanker 1,194 540 0 654

OSVs 2,000 1,923 0 77

Passenger (Cruise) Ship 515 0 479 36

Passenger-Passenger/Cargo (Ro-Ro) 3,359 3,324 35 0

Passenger Ship 2,942 2,941 1 0

Refrigerated Cargo Ship 2,542 0 2,538 4

Ro-Ro Cargo Ship 1,873 0 1,700 173

Livestock Carrier 101 0 90 11

Vehicle Carrier 784 0 196 588

TOTAL 68,190 16,698 21,604 29,888
8

Table 2b. Number of U.S. flag Vessels by Vessel Type and Estimated Ballast Capacity

Sub Type Count

Ballast 

Capacity of 

<1500m3

Ballast 

Capacity of 

1500-5000m3

Ballast 

Capacity of 

>5000m3

Barges 9 0 0 9

Bulk Carriers 73 0 0 73

Container Ship 87 0 0 87

Crude Oil Tanker 17 0 0 17

Chemical Tanker 5 0 0 5

Chemical/Oil Products Tanker 100 0 0 100

General Cargo Ship 89 0 62 27

Fishing Vessels 334 332 2 0

LNG Tanker 0 0 0 0

LPG Tanker 0 0 0 0

OSVs 121 103 0 18

Passenger (Cruise) Ship 31 0 31 0

Passenger-Passenger/Cargo (Ro-Ro) 104 103 1 0

Passenger Ship 114 113 1 0

Refrigerated Cargo Ship 71 0 71 0

Ro-Ro Cargo Ship 62 0 15 47

Livestock Carrier 0 0 0 0

Vehicle Carrier 22 0 0 22

TOTAL 1239 651 183 405

Vessel Size

We further sorted the Lloyds data by deadweight tonnage to develop a more comprehensive view 

of the various-sized vessels in what we consider to be the world merchant fleet subject to ballastwater regulations (Table 3). Again, in the case of fishing vessels, only those of 300 gross tons or 

more were included in our analysis. More than 92% of our estimated 8,001 fishing vessels 

subject to IMO ballast water regulations are less than 1000 DWT. Given the slim operating 

profit margins of smaller fishing vessels, it is unlikely that they will be able to afford the types of 

BWTS that are the focus of our research, or will have room aboard to accommodate them. Our 

assumption is that these smaller fishing vessels will need to find some other way to comply with 

IMO ballast water regulations. 
9

Table 3. Number of Vessels by Vessel Type and Deadweight Tonnage.

Vessel Type

World Fleet DWT

0 –

999

1,000 -

9,999

10,000 -

29,999

30,000 -

49,999

50,000 -

69,999 >=70,000 Total

Barges 274 275 15 8 2 574

Bulk Carriers 392 878 1703 1743 1264 2130 8110

Container Ships 6 788 1628 1013 812 477 4724

Crude Oil Tankers 16 112 37 163 120 1712 2160

Chemical Tankers 423 806 164 79 1 1 1474

Chemical/Oil Products Tankers 1665 4621 1206 1249 245 337 9323

General Cargo Ships 5921 10612 1409 223 22 0 18187

Fishing Vessels 7395 604 2 0 0 0 8001

LNG Tankers 1 5 12 11 36 262 327

LPG Tankers 193 678 154 71 98 0 1194

OSVs 600 1399 1 0 0 0 2000

Passenger (Cruise) Ships 243 227 45 0 0 0 515

Passenger -Passenger/Cargo (Ro-Ro) Ships 2327 997 35 0 0 0 3359

Passenger Ships 2883 58 1 0 0 0 2942

Refrigerated Cargo Ships 832 1453 254 3 0 0 2542

Ro-Ro Cargo Ships 840 726 292 15 0 0 1873

Livestock Carriers 22 68 9 2 0 0 101

Vehicle Carriers 13 183 558 28 2 0 784

TOTAL 24,046 24,490 7,525 4,608 2,600 4,921 68,190

Age of the Merchant Fleet

We queried the Lloyds merchant fleet data by age of ship, as well. Table 4 shows the world fleet 

by vessel type and age. The general cargo ship and fishing vessel fleets are the oldest, which 

suggests they would be less likely to adopt the treatment technologies approved by IMO to date. 

More than half of the ships comprising these two sub-types are 25 years or older. 

The table includes 2009 new-builds (1,804 ships) listed in the database. Because of delay in 

ratification by a sufficient number of countries, IMO granted a delay for the first set of ships 

subject to the regulations, those ships constructed in 2009 or later with a ballast capacity of less 

than 5000m3. These ships now have until the vessel’s second survey, but no later than December 

31, 2011 to comply. However, more than 60% of the new vessels under construction in 2009 are 

bulk carriers, container ships, or tankers that we estimate to have greater than 5000 m3 ballast 

water capacity, which do not require treatment technology for new builds until 2012.
10

Table 4. Number of Vessels by Vessel Type and Vessel Age

Vessel Type 0-4 years 5-14 years 15-24 years 25+ years 2009 Builds Total

# % # % # % # % # % # %

Barges 27 0.3% 30 0.2% 125 0.8% 387 1.4% 5 0.3% 574 0.8%

Bulk Carriers 1592 15.7% 2328 16.5% 1894 12.3% 1938 7.2% 358 19.8% 8110 11.9%

Container Ships 1650 16.3% 1881 13.3% 675 4.4% 323 1.2% 195 10.8% 4724 6.9%

Crude Oil Tankers 624 6.2% 788 5.6% 473 3.1% 127 0.5% 148 8.2% 2160 3.2%

Chemical Tankers 281 2.8% 278 2.0% 501 3.3% 338 1.3% 76 4.2% 1474 2.2%

Chemical/Oil Products Tankers 2088 20.7% 1781 12.6% 1748 11.4% 3283 12.2% 423 23.4% 9323 13.7%

General Cargo Ships 1705 16.9% 2692 19.1% 3779 24.6% 9794 36.5% 217 12.0% 18187 26.7%

Fishing Vessels 283 2.8% 1119 7.9% 2454 16.0% 4132 15.4% 13 0.7% 8001 11.7%

LNG Tankers 18 0.2% 78 0.6% 151 1.0% 52 0.2% 28 1.6% 327 0.5%

LPG Tankers 217 2.1% 322 2.3% 289 1.9% 320 1.2% 46 2.5% 1194 1.8%

OSVs 491 4.9% 245 1.7% 220 1.4% 889 3.3% 155 8.6% 2000 2.9%

Passenger (Cruise) Ships 58 0.6% 157 1.1% 109 0.7% 183 0.7% 8 0.4% 515 0.8%

Passenger -Passenger/Cargo (Ro-Ro) 287 2.8% 674 4.8% 670 4.4% 1702 6.3% 26 1.4% 3359 4.9%

Passenger Ships 222 2.2% 788 5.6% 776 5.1% 1128 4.2% 28 1.6% 2942 4.3%

Refrigerated Cargo Ships 62 0.6% 298 2.1% 945 6.2% 1232 4.6% 5 0.3% 2542 3.7%

Ro-Ro Cargo Ships 283 2.8% 441 3.1% 333 2.2% 785 2.9% 31 1.7% 1873 2.7%

Livestock Carriers 0 0.0% 7 0.0% 6 0.0% 88 0.3% 0 0.0% 101 0.1%

Vehicle Carriers 221 2.2% 213 1.5% 191 1.2% 117 0.4% 42 2.3% 784 1.1%

TOTAL 10,109 100.0% 14,120 100.0% 15,339 100.0% 26,818 100.0% 1,804 100.0% 68,190 100.0%
11

Section 2: BWTS Equipment and Installation Costs

In order to assess and compare the cost of various ballast water treatment (BWT) systems, we 

contacted by email and telephone the technology vendors whose systems had been approved by 

IMO as of May 2009, and conducted follow-up telephone interviews and email exchanges with 

industry representatives.

The following types of systems were evaluated:

 Filtration and UV

 Filtration and Chemical

 Deoxygenation and Cavitation

 Electrolysis and Electrochlorination

 Filtration, Deoxygenation and Cavitation

We examined the costs associated with each of these systems installed and operated aboard ships 

in the following types/size categories:

 Bulker: Cape-sized Vessel

 Bulker: Panamax

 Container: 2500 TEU

 Container: 8000 TEU

 General Cargo: Breakbulk

 General Cargo: Ro-Ro

 Tanker: TAPS Trade

 Tanker: VLCC

This list of eight ship types/sizes is not comprehensive with regard to the scope of the proposed 

IMO regulations, but it provides a fair representation of the cost profiles for the BWTS we 

analyzed, over a range of typical applications. We did not examine vessels that routinely treat 

less than 70,000 metric tons of ballast water annually, since these vessels are likely to end up 

using alternative methods to be in compliance with regulations, such as continuing to use ballast 

water exchange if allowed, taking on fresh water for use as ballast, or foregoing ballasting when 

in restricted or regulated waters.

Based on analysis that incorporated information from vendors and other sources, the range of 

expected BWTS purchase costs across system types and categories of ship types/sizes listed 

above was estimated to be $640,000 to $947,000. For all types of systems, there are some 

economies of scale when purchasing, with bulk orders reducing the cost of a system by $40,000 

to $104,000 per unit, depending on the system type.

7
12

Table 5. Estimated Purchase Price of Ballast Water Treatment Systems

Type of Unit Base Price Bulk Price

Filtration and UV Light $ 933,333 $ 840,000 

Filtration and Chemical $ 946,667 $ 852,000 

Deoxygenation and Cavitation $ 640,000 $ 600,000 

Electrolysis & Electrochlorination $ 666,667 $ 600,000 

Filtration, Deoxygenation & Cavitation** $ - $ - 

**Not enough data found on Filtration, Deoxygenation & Cavitation Systems to include

We also analyzed the range of costs to install these systems. The range of costs outlined in Table 

6 is based on an analysis of six installation options, including:

 New Build - U.S. Yard

 New Build - Foreign (Asian) Yard

 Shore-based Retrofit -U.S. Yard

 Shore-based Retrofit - Foreign (Asian) Yard

 Retrofit While Ship is in Service - U.S. Vessel/Installation

 Retrofit While Ship is in Service - Foreign Vessel/Installation

It is important to note here that installation costs will vary widely even within a particular ship 

type/size depending on the characteristics of individual ship and space and other requirements of 

specific types of BWTS. The installation cost estimates provided here can be viewed as 

“typical,” but they were based on installing a single system aboard eight particular ships that 

were selected as being “typical” of ships in each of our eight ship categories.

The most critical factor affecting BWTS installation costs is the space requirements of the 

BWTS and whether various components of a particular BWTS can be located in a single location 

on the ship or need to be placed in separate locations and linked together. Because of “footprint 

problems” many BWTS vendors offer modular systems that can be installed wherever there is 

adequate space and connected together. While these modular features make them potential 

candidates for installation aboard more types and sizes of ships, taking advantage of these 

modular features can add significantly to installation costs.
13

Table 6. Range of Installation Costs by Vessel Type (in thousands of US$).

8

New Construction Retrofit Retrofit in Service

US Yard

Foreign 

Yard US Yard

Foreign 

Yard US Vessel

Foreign 

Vessel

VLCC 32-70 23-62 78-147 67-136 111-210 96-197

Tanker TAPS Trade 27-60 18-58 72-131 63-119 106-170 92-100

General Cargo RO-RO 27-67 18-61 48-132 33-120 29-185 24-170

General Cargo Breakbulk 27-57 18-50 48-114 33-97 29-140 24-131

Container 8000 TEU 30-67 23-62 65-143 57-128 103-197 91-180

Container 2500 TEU 22-62 18-56 51-115 47-106 74-140 67-131

Bulker Panamax 22-64 18-56 60-125 54-115 93-155 85-142

Bulker Cape Size 22-68 18-62 62-173 73-143 85-190 74-169

Retrofit in Service based on use of riding crew

A separate MERC report titled: “Preliminary Analysis of Ballast Water Treatment Costs”

includes detailed analyses of purchase, installation, and fixed annual operating costs (e.g., 

maintenance) and variable annual operating costs (per metric ton of ballast treated) for selected 

ships in the eight types/sizes of vessels. This report is available at http://www.maritimeenviro.org/reports/Reports.html and presents all of the assumptions used to develop preliminary 

cost estimates and the vessel-specific cost development spreadsheets that were used to develop 

the cost estimates and resulting market value estimates presented here. The cost spreadsheets 

presented in that earlier report can be modified and refined easily to accommodate new cost data 

or different ship types/sizes/patterns of use. A summary of our preliminary cost analysis of fixed 

annual maintenance costs is in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Annual Operating Costs associated with BWTS Types*

Vessel Type Filtration/UV

Filtration/

Chemical

Deoxygenation/

Cavitation

Electrolysis/

Electrochlorination

General Cargo, Breakbulk $11,000 $31,000 $9,000 $17,000 

General Cargo, RO-RO $11,000 $37,000 $9,000 $17,000 

Container, 2500 TEU $11,000 $44,000 $9,000 $17,000 

Bulker, Panamax $11,000 $56,000 $9,000 $17,000 

Container, 8000 TEU $11,000 $82,000 $9,000 $17,000 

Bulker, Cape Sized $11,000 $100,000 $9,000 $17,000 

Tanker, TAPS Trade $11,000 $142,000 $9,000 $17,000 

VLCC $11,000 $296,000 $9,000 $17,000 

* Includes fixed annual costs (e.g., BWTS maintenance) as well as annual costs that vary with the amount 

of BW treated. Filtration/Chemical system cost estimates vary significantly by ship type and by the 

amount of ballast treated because of the the cost of consumables. (e.g., chemicals).

Using life-cycle costs per metric ton of ballast treated, we estimate that Filtration/UV and 

Electrolysis/Electrochlorination appear to be the least expensive solutions for most types/sizes

(Table 8). For all ship types/sizes, not enough data were found on Filtration, Deoxygenation and 

Cavitation systems to include this treatment system type in our analysis.
14

Table 8. Life Cycle Cost per MT of BW treated (Based on an expected 25-year life cycle).

Type of Ship

Filtration and 

UV Light

Filtration and

Chemical

Deoxygenation 

and Cavitation

Electrolysis 

and Electrochlorination

Bulker Cape Sized $0.14 - 0.15 $0.36 - 0.38 $0.27 - 0.28 $0.14 - 0.16 

Bulker Panamax $0.25 - 0.29 $0.51 - 0.55 $0.36 - 0.39 $0.27 - 0.30 

Container 2500 TEU $0.34 - 0.39 $0.61 - 0.67 $0.44 - 0.47 $0.32 - 0.37 

Container 8000 TEU $0.15 - 0.17 $0.38 - 0.41 $0.29 - 0.31 $0.14 - 0.16 

General Cargo 

Breakbulk $0.67 - 0.75 $1.00 - 1.12 $0.70 - 0.77 $0.65 - 0.74 

General Cargo RO-RO $0.45 - 0.51 $0.74 - 0.83 $0.53 - 0.59 $0.44 - 0.51 

Tanker TAPS Trade $0.10 - 0.11 $0.31 - 0.33 $0.24 - 0.25 $0.11 - 0.12 

Tanker VLCC $0.07 - 0.08 $0.28 - 0.29 $0.22 - 0.23 $0.08 - 0.09 

Not enough data found on Filtration, Deoxygenation & Cavitation Systems to include

Our preliminary interviews suggest that there will be minimal or no lost revenue from retrofitting 

a merchant ship with a BWTS as long as installation time fits within normal shipyard time. Hull 

painting is typically the critical path item in terms of shipyard capacity availability and usually 

requires a minimum of seven days, while preliminary interviews indicate that ballast water 

treatment retrofit should take fewer than seven days to complete. With large, modern fleets in 

particular, ships may utilize Underwater Inspection in Lieu of Drydocking (UWILD) to meet 

their periodic hull exam requirements. This would extend the time between dockings to once 

every five to seven years, which may make it more suitable for some ships to have BWTS 

installed while a ship is in service (at sea). While the cost of having a dedicated crew install a 

BWTS while the ship is at sea is slightly more expensive than having the system installed at a 

shipyard, our research did not indicate that this would be a cost-prohibitive option for most 

vessel types if BWT installation needs did not correspond with a routine shipyard visit. Our 

interviews indicated that such installations have been successfully completed with no vessel 

down-time recorded.

For most technologies our interviews and other research indicate that annual fixed operating 

costs for maintenance of BWT systems would typically be in the $9,000 to $17,000 range, 

depending on vessel type and size. The exception among approved technologies is for 

filtration/chemical systems which have a much wider range of annual operating costs--an 

estimated $31,000 to $296,000--because of the use of consumables (chemicals) that will vary 

widely based on vessel type and size.

For each vessel type/size, operating costs were estimated to amount to two to five cents per 

metric ton of ballast water treated. The exception is for deoxygenation/cavitation systems, which 

we estimated to cost 19 to 20 cents per metric ton due to fuel costs.

For all ship types analyzed, our analysis indicated that the installation of BWTS during new ship 

construction, on average, is about $100,000 lower than the cost of a comparable retrofit. Due to 

variations in individual ships, shipyard labor rates, new construction price guarantees, and 

shipyard volume price incentives, this number will vary widely. Subsequent interviews suggest 

that this estimate of $100,000 in cost savings associated with new builds is probably low.
15

From a supply perspective, our interviews and analysis indicates that the biggest potential 

bottleneck in response to the IMO timetable will most likely be related to production of systems 

and the availability of engineers to design and oversee installation, not from insufficient capacity 

in shipyards to install them. In Figure 1, we describe some of the issues other than costs that 

shipowners will be considering when they choose which types of BWTS to install and how to 

install them. 
16

Figure 1. Ballast Water Treatment Technology Installation Checklist

 How/where will systems be installed (i.e., dry dock, in water, during a voyage)?

 How long will installation take? 

 What are the dimensions (in particular the footprint) of the required equipment?

 Are there any restrictions on where the required equipment should be placed?

 Are there any restrictions on the location of different parts of the equipment and their 

location relative to other parts of the installation? 

 Are any alterations to existing ship equipment required beyond installation of the treatment 

system, i.e., to plumbing or electrical systems?

 Is the system scalable to allow for different flow rates and different vessel configurations? 

 What lead times should be expected for receipt of the system? 

 What kinds of man-hours, material, and equipment are estimated for installation?

 Are there any physical or environmental conditions that might limit or reduce the 

effectiveness of the treatment (e.g., turbidity/sediments, temperature, vessel service)? 

 If chemicals are used, what is the anticipated amount of chemicals required per 1000m3 of

ballast treated. What, if any, storage requirements and cargo-segregation of the active 

ingredient is needed to allow for safe operation of the vessel? 

 What types of spares would be required to be maintained onboard for 180 days of continuous 

operation of the vessel?

 Are there any shoreside storage requirements, i.e., for chemicals or filter replacements, at 

each load port? 

 Who provides spare parts and shore-based equipment repairs, and how extensive is their local 

service network? 

 Who provides on-site service support and telephone support for maintenance and onboard 

repairs of the units? How extensive is their technical service network?

 Are there special crew or vessel safety requirements when operating the equipment or 

handling associated materials? 

 Are there special environmental safety requirements relating to the equipment or supporting 

materials? (i.e., active ingredient getting wet, humidity, etc.)?

 Do storage, use and handling of active ingredients require special training?

 What method/s will be used to monitor performance and report about compliance? 

 Does any similar equipment onboard have common spares and operating procedures?

 What salinity water is expected during the service life of the vessel?

 Does the equipment contain proprietary equipment or closed-source system architecture or 

does the system use an open source platform?

 What is the expected service life of the vessel?

 What are the operational requirements restricting ballast exchange or retention of all ballast 

onboard?

 What penalties may be expected due to non-compliance with the regulations?

 How much training is required for crewmembers to successfully operate, maintain and 

conduct routine repairs to the system?
17

Part 3: Pattern of Global Market Development

In this section, we develop estimates of how the global market for ballast water treatment 

systems is likely to develop through 2020. These estimates are based on the following 

assumptions: (1) the IMO Convention will be ratified in 2011, and be enforced by IMO member 

nations one year later, starting in 2012; (2) upon ratification, vessels will begin to comply with 

IMO BW treatment guidelines starting in 2011; and (3) all ships required to comply with IMO 

regulations will comply by proposed IMO deadlines. We then estimated that the percentage of 

ships in each IMO designated BW capacity category that will comply each year prior to the 

proposed IMO deadline will be as shown in Table 9 until all ships in all categories have 

complied.

Table 9. Assumed compliance scheduling

BW Capacity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

<1,500 m3 5% 10% 10% 25% 50%

1,500 - 5,000 m3 15% 35% 50% 0% 0%

>5,000 m3 5% 10% 10% 25% 50%

Our estimates of the numbers of vessels built in 2009 or before are based Lloyd's Fairplay

Database, November 2009. The estimated numbers of vessels built from 2010 through 2020 are

based on the average number of new vessels delivered per year from 2005 through 2009

(datasource: Lloyd's Fairplay Database, November 2009).
18

Figure 2. BWTS Installation 2011-2020.

0 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35,000 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

# of Vessels 

Year 

New Builds 

Retrofits 
19

Figure 3. BWTS Retrofits and New Builds 2011-2020.

Annual Dollar Value of the Global BWTS Market 

Based on the equipment and installation cost estimates developed in Part 2 of this report and the 

detailed cost analysis presented in a MERC report titled: “Preliminary Analysis of Ballast Water 

Treatment Costs” (available at http://www.maritime-enviro.org/reports/Reports.html) we 

determined that for general planning purposes it is reasonable to project that the “typical” cost 

per ship of purchasing and installing a BWTS will be about $1 million. Based on the number of 

ships in various ballast water capacity and age categories described above, and the assumptions 

listed above regarding when ships in those categories are likely to comply with the tiered IMO 

implementation schedule, we estimate the annual value of the global BWTS market to follow the 

pattern as shown in Figure 4.

The market is expected to spike in 2015 with annual equipment and installation costs for existing 

ships and new builds in all ship categories totaling more than $28 billion. In 2016, when the 

0 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35,000 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

# of Vessels 

Year 

Vehicle Carriers 

Livestock Carriers 

Ro-Ro Cargo Ships 

Refrigerated Cargo Ships 

Passenger Ships 

Passenger -Passenger/Cargo (Ro-Ro) Ships 

Passenger (Cruise) Ships 

OSVs 

LPG Tankers 

LNG Tankers 

Fishing Vessels 

General Cargo Ships 

Chemical/Oil Products Tankers 

Chemical Tankers 

Crude Oil Tankers 

Container Ships 

Bulk Carriers 

Barges 
20

above analysis results in all existing ships having installed BWTS, the global BWTS market is 

then expected to drop to about $2 billion per year and to remain at that level until 2020 and, 

presumably, beyond.

Figure 4. Estimated Value of Global BWTS Market: 2011-2020.

$0 

$5 

$10 

$15 

$20 

$25 

$30 

$35 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Purchase/ Installation Costs Billions 

Year 

New Builds 

Retrofits 
21

Part 4: Affects of Enforcement/Compliance on 

Emerging BWTS Markets

The sizable global market for ballast water treatment technologies described in the previous 

section demonstrates the large opportunity for ballast treatment technology vendors. These 

vendors will be competing with each other to claim a share in this new global market. However, 

they will also be competing against another factor: ship owners and operators who choose not to 

comply with regulations, or who delay compliance. In this regulation-driven market, we 

highlight some significant enforcement issues that regulators in IMO member nations and 

suppliers of BWTS will face as the ballast water convention comes into force between now and 

2016. 

There are a number of long-term questions with regard to liability once a BWTS is installed and 

is operational and pumping water. All of these technologies are in their relative infancy, so the 

question remains, what if it turns out an approved system doesn’t work over time? At least two 

systems have been running on ships since 2006 or earlier. However, should one of these systems

or one used on another ship be found not to be operating properly, will a port regulator’s 

response be to prohibit a ship from discharging ballast? Our interviews indicate that, within the 

industry, there is little if any questioning of the “magic box” approach to monitoring compliance 

—if the equipment is turned on and functioning, it should be sufficient evidence that the ship 

meets regulatory requirements. At this time there is little regulation developed to establish the 

long-term reliability of systems or methodologies for determining the continued effectiveness of 

a system. In time, this will likely change and a metric will have to be developed to verify the 

continued function of an installed system. 

In this sense, there is an analogy to the experience with implementation of oil/water-separator 

regulations in the 1980s. Experience showed that the separators were initially unreliable, but as 

long as a device passed a standard test, it was considered acceptable. Both technology and 

enforcement regimes for oil/water separators have evolved since that time, and now there are 

requirements for more stringent testing as well as requirements for off-site calibration of the oil 

content sensing equipment. These changes and improvements of the technologies, as well as 

more meaningful penalties for non-compliance have caused numerous older vessels to be 

retrofitted with newer oil/water separators even though their existing older units were still 

functional and may have been considered acceptable under older regulations.

For each of the technologies other than ultraviolet filters, there appears to be a straightforward 

way to measure effectiveness, such as water temperature or the percentage of chemical in the 

water. But for UV filters, it is difficult to determine when a filter is not working or has not been 

working. Is there a method to analyze when a new filter is needed without having to test the BW 

discharge water? Most importantly, how can a ship owner/operator prove compliance with the 

IMO guidelines to regulatory inspectors and flag-state officials during routine inspections?

The USCG proposed rulemaking notes that for its proposed (stricter) Phase Two standards, there 

is not currently a testing protocol capable of establishing that a given technology consistently 

meets the standard. Because of this uncertainty, USCG has proposed a practicability review to 
22

determine whether technology can in fact meet the Phase Two standard, which is potentially 

1,000 times more strict than Phase One standards. The USCG proposed rules suggest that an 

initial review be completed by 2013. 

The USCG proposed rules also suggest that a five-year grandfather clause be instituted for those 

vessels adopting Phase One treatment technologies on schedule. Our initial analysis of the 

global merchant fleet suggests that this will have little impact (either positively or negatively) on 

adoption of Phase One technologies.

A key challenge for enforcement of ballast water treatment regulations will be the cost and

technical problems that may be associated with verifying compliance. King and Tamburri 

(2009) assessed the challenges involved with verifying compliance with proposed U.S. ballast 

water regulations, and applied an economic deterrence model to BW regulations.9

 

Noncompliance with U.S ballast water regulations involves discharging ballast water into U.S. 

waters that does not meet U.S. discharge standards. Assessing enforcement deterrence in this 

case involves comparing the expected benefits and expected costs of noncompliance under 

various enforcement regimes, where

Expected Cost = C = a x b x c x d x e

where:

a = Probability that a discharge violation will be detected

b = Probability of a detection resulting in a citation

c = Probability of a cited violation being prosecuted and resulting in a penalty

d = Average assessed or schedule-based penalty for a violation

e = Average “final settlement” amount expressed as the % of the average “assessed or 

schedule-based penalty” the ship owner/operator expects to pay.

Expected Benefits = B = cost savings of not properly installing, operating, and maintaining a 

certified BWTS.

So, for example, if someone had a...

 50% probability that a discharge violation would be detected

 and a 50% probability of an enforcement action, if in fact the violation is detected

 and a 50% probability of prosecution, if there is an enforcement action for a detected 

violation

 and a 50% probability of conviction, if the detected violation is prosecuted...

...then the probability of conviction, if there is a violation, would be .0625 (.50 x .50 x .50 x 

.50). If the expected penalty is $10,000, then the cost of not complying would be $10,000 x 

.0625, or $625. If the individual can expect a delay between initial detection and payment of 

penalty, the $625 cost of not complying could be discounted further.

There is a big gap between proving that ballast water treatment technologies work in the 

laboratory and in field trials and are "certified," and having full-blown markets emerge that will 
23

allow these technologies to be purchased, installed, and employed on vessels in sufficient 

numbers to meet regulatory timetables or have any significant impact on ballast water 

management problems.

While it is too early to fully assess and compare the costs and risks associated with implementing 

available technologies under various circumstances, it is not too early to consider the one 

treatment option with which all technology vendors are competing: no treatment. To succeed, 

markets for ballast water treatment technologies, like all other markets, require only two things: 

willing buyers and willing sellers. However, markets for these technologies are regulationdriven, and the nuances of when and how the regulations are written, implemented, and enforced 

determines when there will be willing buyers and whether willing sellers will be able to 

accommodate them.

In the previous section, we outlined the likely pattern of demand over time for ballast water 

treatment technologies under the assumption that all ships will comply with IMO regulations, 

once ratified by a sufficient number of countries and percentage of the world’s fleet. However, 

this would require that these regulations be fully implemented, enforced and, most critically, that 

enforcement provisions provide penalties and/or sanctions that are certain enough and 

meaningful enough to provide incentives for shippers to comply. What kinds of penalties do we 

expect, and who will pay? 

Role of Protection and Indemnification (P&I) Clubs

The demand-side may also be complicated because of the way shipowners deal with liability 

issues. An estimated 95% of the global shipping fleet is insured through protection and 

indemnity, or “P&I” clubs, which are associations of shipowners who share each other’s 

liabilities. In effect, the members of P&I clubs are both the insurers and the insured. There are 

currently 13 P&I clubs, mostly based in the United Kingdom and Norway.10 How will liability 

for penalties for violating IMO BW regulations be distributed across the fleet? How will P&I 

clubs discipline shippers and/or ship owners and/or ship operators or ship engineers who are 

responsible for a ship failing to comply with ballast water regulations?

The “mutual” nature of P&I Clubs suggests that there is a joint interest among members in 

working toward risk minimization, such as a high rate of compliance with ballast water treatment 

regulations. If something with safety and environmental benefits also has economic self-interest 

benefits for the members, this makes sense.11

Owners reluctant to comply with international regulations are less likely to be allowed to join 

P&I Clubs, and there is reduced incentive to switch clubs because the 13 major clubs also belong 

to the International Group of P&I Clubs, which spreads the risk among the 13 clubs for larger 

claims. An agreement between these clubs limits competition by not undercutting rates for a full 

year after switching from one club to another. 

However, the rise of Asian shipping and newly emerging Asian P&I clubs suggests that there 

might be an incentive for London or Norway-based P&I Clubs to keep these shipowners in the 

fold by lowering premiums, rather than having new P&I Clubs established in Asia.

12 We 
24

estimated the number of ships by flag of vessel that are likely to be subject to IMO ballast water 

treatment regulations and found that seven of the top eleven flag countries are Asian, 

representing more than 25% of the vessels we consider to be subject to the regulations (See 

Table 1b).

Despite the role that P&I Clubs might play in risk minimization, or high compliance with health 

and safety regulations, some observers have argued that these clubs may play a strong role in the 

opposite direction in the case of ballast water regulations by spreading the deterrent effect of 

fines imposed for lack of compliance. A persistent offender of these regulations, for example, 

might find his “calls” (premiums) rise as a P&I Club member. However, the increase in these 

“calls” may not be enough to serve as a significant deterrent.13 If this is the case, chronic 

noncompliance could be the least cost solution for some ship owners and ship operators to deal 

with ballast water regulations.

This could be a particular problem if ballast water regulators have difficulty distinguishing 

between violations that are accidental and those that are intentional. P&I Clubs are unlikely to 

spread risk of fines for violating regulations, but if a discharge is considered “accidental,” the 

cost of a fine could be covered under some club risk sharing arrangements unless there is 

evidence of gross negligence. If the “magic box” doesn’t work, then blame would be included in 

an inspection report where a decision will need to be made about how blame should be shared 

among the vessel owner, the ship master, the responsible crewmember, or the manufacturer or 

company hired to service the BWTS. If the crew and owner have acted in good faith, but the 

unit is found to have lost effectiveness, who will bear the cost of repairs or replacement? 

Additionally, what penalties will be levied against a vessel or owner who does not knowingly 

violate the standards, but has a unit that is faulty? Of course, competition means that it is still 

possible for substandard ships to obtain coverage from less discriminating clubs/insurers, but the 

central question remains: how will P&I Clubs evaluate and share the risks associated with new 

IMO ballast water regulations.

Despite these caveats, our assessment is that P&I Clubs are positioned to be a positive force for 

supporting the development of healthy BWTS markets and widespread compliance with IMO 

ballast water regulations.

Figure 4 outlines some of the possible players involved with compliance with international, 

national, and state ballast water treatment regulations.14 Penalties for non-compliance can be 

expected to be imposed on shipowners and masters, unless it can be demonstrated that there is 

specific fault assigned to a crew member (who would have little reason to risk such penalties). If 

there is any incentive to cut corners, it would be by the vessel Master or Chief Engineer who 

may be looking for cost savings when compared to other ships in his company’s fleet.
25

Figure 4. Ballast Water Liability and Enforcement: Possible Players15

 Shipowners and Operators

 Charterers and Cargo Owners

 Masters

 P&I Clubs 

 Other Marine and Specialty Insurers

 Classification Societies (IACS)

 Flag States and Open Registries (“flags of convenience”)

 IMO

 National enforcement (USCG, EPA) 

 State enforcement (i.e., California, Great Lakes states)

 Individual Ports

 Trade associations, i.e., Intertanko

 Databases for tracking compliance (i.e., Globallast, Equasis, NBIC)

Role of Classification Societies

Classification societies are likely to have a significant inspection role in implementing the 

regulations, particularly through enforcement of the flag-state and IMO requirements. Similar to 

the P&I club discussion above, most classification societies belong to the International 

Association of Classification Societies (IACS) which helps eliminate the advantages of ship 

owners shifting between Societies to avoid regulations. The largest class societies form a more 

stringent group, colloquially known as “Super IACS”, which insures that calls for strict 

compliance with international standards are uniformly applied across the IACS members. 

Regardless of which entity has inspection responsibility, the addition of ballast water treatment 

technology inspections potentially compounds a problem at times for ship crew distracted by 

multiple inspections (from insurers, classification societies, ports, etc.).16 Another open question 

is the extent to which state and national regulators will be sufficiently staffed to handle 

inspection regimes that would be required. Sensor technologies may provide the answer to that 

question.

Flag States will play an important role as well. With open registries (“flags of convenience”) 

financially dependent on foreign ships registering under their flags, they have little incentive to 

enforce pollution regulations. Similarly, individual ports, even within nations, compete with one 

another for shipping business. This also may affect their willingness to enforce new ballast 

water regulations

Trade Associations

Trade associations, i.e., Intertanko, have a possible role in helping members decide which 

technology to use. With regard to enforcement questions, their members will simply want to 

know about the easiest way to be in compliance.
26

Explicit inclusion of ballast water treatment information in global databases might also play an 

important role in encouraging compliance. Other compliance information on the Equasis 

website, for example, can be searched not only by ship, but also by fleet manager or operator, 

which helps the insurer evaluate both the quality of the operator and of the ship.17

Alternative Verification Approaches

King and Tamburri (2009) outline three basic alternatives for validating that ballast water meets 

discharge standards: reporting, monitoring, and measurement. These alternatives have different 

costs and will result in different levels of confidence that discharge violations are being detected. 

Their preliminary analysis of alternative verification approaches suggests that verification based 

on mandatory reporting and/or inspection alone will not achieve acceptable levels of confidence 

that regulations are meeting their goals. Verification based on direct measurements (sampling of 

ballast water) requires sampling a high enough volume of water to provide an acceptable level of 

confidence; but it appears that for this option to provide acceptable levels of confidence the 

amount of ballast water sampling will be prohibitively costly. Verification based on indirect 

monitoring using sensors appears to be the best alternative, because it has the potential to provide 

a high level of confidence at a far lower cost than even the lowest-cost, least-reliable biological 

sampling strategies. The key to this option, of course, is the development of accurate, reliable 

sensors that can meet enforcement goals and pass, what the USCG is calling a “practicability” 

test. 

Ultimately, the success of any monitoring, reporting, and verification regime will depend on 

whether detected violations result in penalties and sanctions that are certain and meaningful, and 

how these sanctions are shared by ship operators, ship owners, equipment vendors, insurance 

companies and clubs, and other factors.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The global market for ballast water treatment technologies is at a critical juncture. If Panama 

ratifies the International Maritime Organization regulations, sufficient other countries are likely 

to follow suit so that the “Phase One” treatment standards will enter into force between now and 

2016. The United States of course is a critical player in this regard and with the comment period 

for the U.S. Coast Guard proposed rulemaking having passed on December 4, 2009, the United 

States moves one step closer to implementing its own regulations that largely mirror the IMO 

standards.

Potential suppliers are positioning themselves to meet the high level of global demand for BWTS 

that is expected to begin once IMO regulations are ratified and it becomes clear that they will be 

implemented and enforced on schedule by IMO member nations. We estimate that more than 

68,000 ships will be subject to the IMO regulations between now and 2016. Many of these ships 

are relatively small fishing vessels that are not likely to be in a financial position to adopt the 

technologies that have been approved by IMO or that are close to receiving approval. This 

suggests that other technologies will be developed to meet this segment of the market. On the 

other hand, many larger merchant ships will need to install more than one BWTS in order to treat 
27

their large volume of ballast water and meet IMO ballast water discharge standards. Some

observers are placing the number of ships that will need to comply with IMO ballast water 

regulations at around 50,000.18 This may mean that demand for BWTS will be significantly 

higher than 50,000 units.

Assuming that the regulations receive 100% compliance, our review of the Lloyds Fairplay 

world merchant fleet database suggests that there will be a spike in demand for treatment 

systems as vessels attempt to meet Phase One standards for 2016. Whether the system supply 

capacity will have been developed in time has yet to be determined. 

International success in achieving the goal of reducing the environmental and economic risks 

from harmful aquatic invasive species depend on three factors: 1) the limits regulations place on 

allowable concentrations of living organisms in ballast water discharge water; 2) the availability 

of technologies to meet those limits; and 3) the willingness of ship operators to comply with the 

regulations. A major challenge in understanding the size of the ballast water treatment 

technology global market is the extent to which regulators will meet their goal of 100% 

compliance. In this sense, technology vendors are competing with each other, but also with a 

market share consisting of those shipowners who decide not to comply. Compliance monitoring, 

measurement, and verification methods require further analysis and development to ensure that 

the goals of international and national ballast water regulations are achieved.

If enforcement and penalties are significant enough to provide real incentives for shippers to 

compete with each other to have BWTS installed in anticipation of implementation, will demand 

for BWTS be spread out enough to avoid supply bottlenecks? How are vendors and shipyards 

likely to change their pricing strategies as demand grows and begins to outstrip supply and 

installation capacity? How will their pricing strategies be affected by the knowledge that a spike 

in demand by the existing fleet to meet Phase 1 standards will be followed by a crash in demand 

as only newly-built vessels need to install systems in subsequent years? Will the market be 

driven by expectations of high demand, or of low supply; and will venture capitalists be willing 

to invest significantly in manufacturing capacity to satisfy a temporary rush in demand for 

equipment that is predicted based on expectations of strong political will to support a costly 

international environmental program? If the regulations are successful, will the market crash 

after the global fleet is outfitted? These questions merit further research, particularly in light of 

the proposed stricter “Phase Two” regulations anticipated after 2016.
28

 1 The U.S. Coast Guard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water 

Discharged in U.S. Waters,” is available at 

http://openregs.com/regulations/view/99303/standards_for_living_organisms_in_ships_ballast_water_discharged_in

_u.s._waters

2 Sources: http://www.imo.org/TCD/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247

http://www.imo.org/TCD/mainframe.asp?topic_id=248

Last reviewed November 23, 2009, 2009 

The 18 countries are as follows: Albania, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Egypt, France, Kenya, Kiribati, Liberia, 

Maldives, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, 

Tuvalu.

3 IMO Resolution A.1005(25) of November 29, 2007 delayed the compliance deadline for 2009-built vessels until 

the vessel’s second annual survey, but no later than December 31, 2011. Source: California State Lands 

Commission 2009. See also Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status. Lloyds Register. September 

2008; CSLC 2009; IMO Globallast at http://globallast.imo.org/index.asp?page=mepc.htm; and Silent Invaders 

(World Wildlife Fund 2009) for discussion of ratification timetables. 

4 Sources: http://www.imo.org/TCD/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247

http://www.imo.org/TCD/mainframe.asp?topic_id=248

Last reviewed November 23, 2009, 2009 

The 18 countries are as follows: Albania, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Egypt, France, Kenya, Kiribati, Liberia, 

Maldives, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, 

Tuvalu.

Of the 35 flags of registration with the largest deadweight tonnage, representing 92% (chk) of the global fleet’s 

deadweight tonnage, only Liberia, Antigua, Norway, France, and Spain had ratified the convention as of June 30, 

2009.

5 See Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status. Lloyds Register: September 2008.

6 Barges include the following subcategories: Barge, Barge Carrier, Cement Storage Barge, Container Barge, 

Hopper Barge, Offshore Cargo Barge.

7 See King, Dennis M., Mark Riggio and Patrick T. Hagan. 2009. Preliminary Analysis of Cost of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems for detailed preliminary purchase cost summaries. Available at www.maritimeenviro.org/reports/Reports.html/. Base and bulk prices for different types of units are calculated as averages of 

quoted purchase prices for that type of system. For Filtration/UV Light, three quotes were received; for 

Filtration/Chemical, three quotes were received; for Deoxygenation/Cavitation, one quote was received; for 

Electrolysis/Electrochlorination, three quotes were received. The lowest quote received for purchase of any type of 

system was $400,000, for one of the Filtration/Chemical systems; the highest quote was $1,670,000, for a Filtration 

Chemical system from another vendor. 
29

 8 See King, Dennis M., Mark Riggio and Patrick T. Hagan. 2009. Preliminary Analysis of Cost of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems for detailed installation cost summaries of ballast treatment systems for these eight categories of 

vessels. Available at www.maritime-enviro.org/reports/Reports.html/

9 King, Dennis M. and Mario Tamburri. 2010. Verifying Compliance with Ballast Water Discharge Regulations. 

Ocean Development & International Law, 1521-0642, Volume 41, Issue 2, pages 152-165. 

10 http://www.intertanko.com/pubupload/protection%20%20indemnity%20HK%202002.pdf

11 For a discussion of cooperative self-regulation, or co-management, in safety and environmental regulation in the 

shipping industry, see Bennett, Paul. 2000. Mutual risk: P&I clubs and maritime safety and environmental 

performance. Marine Policy 25 (2001) 13-21.

12 See Bennett, Paul. 2000. Mutual risk: P&I clubs and maritime safety and environmental performance. Marine 

Policy 25 (2001) 13-21.

13 See “Compliance with Victoria’s Ballast Water Management System” in Report on Ballast Water and Hull 

Fouling in Victoria. Submitted to Parliament by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Web site last 

updated March 1, 2002: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/inquiries/old/enrc/ballast/Ballast-60.htm

14 For a review of U.S. national and state ballast water regulations, see Read D. Porter and Jordan Diamond, New 

Tools for Responsible Shipping in the Great Lakes: Using Financial Responsibility Policies to Prevent BallastBorne Biological Pollution. Environmental Law Institute White Paper. July 2009.

15 For a detailed discussion of the actors in the regulation of vessel-source marine pollution, see Tan, Alan Khee Jin. 

2006. Vessel-Source Marine Pollution: The Law and Politics of International Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

16 See further discussion of this inspection issue in The World Merchant Fleet in 2007: Statistics from Equasis. 

https://extranet.emsa.europa.eu/index.php?option=com_docman

17 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2004. Maritime Transport Committee Report on the 

Removal of Insurance from Substandard Shipping.

18 See for example Frost and Sullivan report, which suggests a market size of 57,000 vessels or more 

(http://www.frost.com/reg/file-get.do%3Fid%3D73927%26file%3D1).