Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Volume 11 No 1 January 2012 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 3

Preview of global ballast water 

treatment markets

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES

Dr Dennis King is Research Professor and Director, Natural 

Capital Research Group at the University of Maryland Center 

for Environmental Science (UMCES), Solomons, MD, and 

Managing Owner and Director, King & Associates Inc, consulting and research. He holds a BBA in Corporate Finance/

Economics from the University of Massachusetts (1970), a MS 

degree in Food and Resource Economics from the University 

of Massachusetts (1973) and a PhD in Natural Resource 

Economics from the University of Rhode Island (1977). He has 

thirty years of research and consulting experience in environmental and natural resource economics and is the author of 

over one hundred reports, papers, and book chapters dealing 

with environmental/economic linkages including related policy, 

enforcement and compliance issues and international trade in 

natural resource products.

Mark Riggio is currently a Fleet Manager with Marine Transport 

Lines and a maritime operations and automation consultant. A 

former Senior Surveyor with the American Bureau of Shipping 

and Compliance Manager for an offshore drilling company, he 

is experienced in all aspects of the shipping industry and has 

spent time on many different types of vessels. He is a graduate 

of the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

Patrick Hagan is a Research Associate, Natural Capital Research 

Group at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental 

Science (UMCES), Solomons, Maryland. He holds a BA in 

Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia (1982), and a 

MS degree in Marine-Estuarine-Environmental Sciences from 

the University of Maryland (1996). His research and consulting 

work focuses on marine and coastal environmental enforcement issues, and the intersection of environmental economics 

and science.

Dr David Wright is Emeritus Professor of Environmental 

Toxicology at the University of Maryland, Center for 

Environmental Science and the author of over 100 peerreviewed papers and books and is President of Environmental 

Research Services. He a graduate of the University of Newcastleupon-Tyne where he received a PhD in comparative physiology 

(1973) and a DSc (2001). He has conducted research into 

DM King,1 PT Hagan,1 M Riggio2 and DA Wright1,3

1

 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological 

Laboratory, Solomons MD, USA

2

 Blue Seas Environmental Consulting, Baltimore MD, USA 

3 Environmental Research Services, Baltimore MD, USA

As full ratification of the 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention approaches, the 

size of the world Ballast Water Treatment System (BWTS) market has become a subject 

of intense scrutiny and speculation. Twelve months following full ratification BWTS will 

have to be installed aboard all qualifying vessels according to a timetable depending on 

their ballast water capacity and age. BWTS manufacturers and vendors are interested in 

the commercial opportunities presented by this market, and shipowners are concerned 

about the logistics of installing treatment system aboard vessels within the proposed timetable. In this paper, the world commercial fleet has been sorted according to flag country, 

vessel type, number and deadweight tonnage in order to assess the effort required to 

comply with the convention when it comes into force. The information includes some 

current equipment and installation costs, designed to gauge the market size, which 

appears larger than earlier published estimates. 

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 3 28/01/12 9:35 AM
4 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11 No 1 January 2012

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

problems associated with non-indigenous species for over 

25 years and has made numerous presentations world-wide on 

this subject. He has conducted several ballast water treatment 

trials, both dockside and shipboard. Dr Wright is a Fellow of 

the Institute for Environmental Science and Technology and 

co-Chair of the IMarEST Ballast Water Experts Group. 

INTRODUCTION

After more than a decade of technical analysis 

and political debate, the IMO 2004 International 

Convention for the Control and Management of 

Ships Ballast Water and Sediments is close to 

ratification. The convention is scheduled to take effect 12 

months after ratification by 30 countries representing 35% 

of the world’s commercial tonnage and, as of October 2011, 

has been ratified by 30 countries representing 26.44% of 

the world’s shipping tonnage. Adding to the momentum for 

ratification is the recent determination by IMO that shipboard 

ballast water treatment systems (BWTS) that treat ballast 

water during ballasting, during de-ballasting, during transit, 

or in some combination, can meet the current (D-2) discharge 

standard, and are commercially available.

Because of delays in ratification by a sufficient number 

of countries, IMO granted a delay of the date when the 

first set of ships subject to the regulations need to comply, 

ie, those ships constructed in 2009 or later with a ballast 

capacity of less than 5000m3

. According to IMO Resolution 

(1005) 25, ships in this category now have until the time of 

their second scheduled annual survey, but ‘no later than 31 

December 2011, to comply.’ This first compliance date will 

be further delayed because the Ballast Water Convention 

was not ratified by the end of 2011. However, most observers expect full ratification of the convention in 2012, with 

implementation twelve months later, which makes it likely 

that by 2016 all ships subject to the regulations will be 

required to have operational BWTS on board. Widespread 

compliance, of course, will depend on the availability of an 

adequate supply of BWTS and installation capacity. The 

success of the IMOs ballast water resolution, therefore, 

depends on the rapid development of a global BWTS market 

before 2016.

With the implementation of the IMO ballast water 

resolution expected to be less than two years away and its 

success dependent on BWTS markets that are still in their 

infancy industry leaders and governments in IMO member nations are looking for at least preliminary answers to 

questions about the potential size (and value) of the global 

markets for BWTS. This paper, based on a longer report 

produced by the Maritime Environmental Resource Center 

(MERC) which includes an analysis of November 2009 

global fleet data, aims to develop preliminary answers to 

these questions, including tentative estimates of the number 

of vessels that will need to install BWTS in various years 

and the expected cost of purchasing and installing various 

types of BWTS.1

The first part of this paper describes the data and 

analysis used to characterise BWTS markets. This research 

focused initially on the costs and logistics of installing 

BWTS on representative ships in eight ship type/size 

categories that make up most of the global merchant fleet 

which will be affected by IMO ballast water regulations. 

In order to gauge the size and characteristics of the overall BWTS market, an examination was made of Lloyd’s

Fairplay global shipping fleet data 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, it was estimated that more 

than 68 000 vessels in the global merchant fleet will install 

on-board BWTS before 2020. Depending on a number of 

factors that are still uncertain, this estimate of the relevant 

global fleet may overstate or understate the size of the global BWTS market. 

For purposes of analysis, for example, it was assumed 

that all vessels will comply regardless of their age, even 

though it is likely that some older vessels will either be 

retired or rerouted so that they are not subject to BW regulations. This would result in lower demand for BWTS than 

what would be expected based on the size of the relevant 

fleet. On the other hand, to be in compliance many larger 

ships in the relevant global fleet will most certainly require 

multiple ballast water treatment units, which would tend to 

make the market for BWTS larger than what is reflected 

by our estimate of the number of ships complying. Also, 

while we did include more than 7000 fishing vessels under 

1000dwt in our analysis of the global fleet, we assumed that 

ships in this category are likely to comply through the use 

of less expensive products that are still to be determined 

and approved, and did not consider them in our analysis of 

BWTS markets. 

The second part of the paper presents a preliminary 

analysis of BWTS costs that is based on data gathered from 

manufacturers and vendors of BWTS about equipment costs 

and from other industry experts who are familiar with the 

most likely cost of installing such systems on various types of 

ships. BWTS vendors are anticipating a large global market 

for their products and have developed a range of technologies 

that could serve different parts of it. As of October 2011, 11 

BWTS had received final approval by the IMO certifying 

levels of efficacy at removing or killing organisms that will 

meet IMO ballast water discharge standards. In a June 2010 

Background and Issue Paper published by the US Coast 

Guard and USEPA, existing data and information from the 

2010 Lloyd’s Register Review were used to project that, by 

2012, 22 BWTS will have achieved final approval from IMO, 

and a similar number will have received type approval from 

a classification society.2

Technology vendors whose systems had been approved 

or were close to approval by IMO were contacted in May 

2009 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. Detailed, 

but preliminary, cost estimates are presented in a 2009 

Marine Environmental Resource Center (MERC) systemcost report. Based on cost information in that report and on 

an analysis of the size and characteristics of the relevant global fleet, a second MERC report was prepared in 2010 that 

concluded that the value of the global market for purchasing 

and installing BWTS between 2011 and 2016 will be in the 

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 4 28/01/12 9:35 AM
5

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Volume 11 No 1 January 2012 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

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%

Table 1a: Top 35 flag countries by deadweight tonnage. (Countries that have ratified the Ballast Water Convention as of 

31 October 2009 are highlighted in bold)

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 5 28/01/12 9:35 AM
6

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11 No 1 January 2012

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%

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 6 28/01/12 9:35 AM
7

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Volume 11 No 1 January 2012 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

range of US$50 to $74 billion.3 Both of these reports are 

available on-line at www.maritime-enviro.org/.

Even with all the necessary caveats due to uncertainty 

about implementation, enforcement, and compliance, the 

number of ships in the affected global fleet represents a massive potential global market for BWTS, perhaps 10 000 units 

per year (or 30 installations per day) for multiple years. This 

means that if the IMO ‘D-2’ regulation timetable is to be 

met, the capacity to produce and install BWTS to meet market demand will need to grow enormously between now and 

2016. Of course, once all 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 2000 ships per year (five or so installations 

per day). This unusual regulation-driven pattern of a few 

years of steep growth in the global BWTS market followed 

by a steep market decline is likely to result in highly abnormal 

pricing behavior on the part of BWTS vendors. If demand 

outstrips supply during peak market years, for example, 

BWTS suppliers are likely to exert their market power and 

price their products high in anticipation of sharply reduced 

sales once the market is supported only by newly built ships. 

This would mean that our current estimates of the value of the 

global BWTS, which are based on equipment and installation 

costs without regard to market power and pricing strategies, 

are likely to be low.

THE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED GLOBAL 

FLEET

To understand the potential global demand for ballast water 

treatment systems, the Lloyd’s Fairplay database of global 

shipping, dated 9 November 2009, was examined for data on 

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

and age of vessels.

Vessel flag characteristics

Lloyd’s world merchant fleet data were examined in order 

to characterise the size of the global fleet by flag, size in 

deadweight tonnage, and number of ships. To illustrate the 

status of ratification of the convention, data were first sorted 

by deadweight tonnage for the total world’s commercial 

fleet, not just for those types of vessels considered to be 

subject to the IMO ballast water treatment regulations. (See 

Table 1a for a list of the top 35 countries by deadweight 

tonnage.) Information was also gathered on the number of 

merchant ships in order to demonstrate the potential market 

for ballast water treatment technologies represented by the 

top 35 countries as measured by number of ships (Table 1b). 

Note that the United States, for instance, has a much lower 

number of ships in the latter table because many smaller 

US fishing vessels (less than 300gt) were excluded from 

analysis.

Sub Type Count Ballast capacity 

of <1500m3

Ballast capacity 

of 1500–5000m3

Ballast capacity 

of >5000m3

Barges 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

Table 2a: Vessel type by estimated ballast capacity

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 7 28/01/12 9:35 AM
8

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Vessel type

Data were analysed by type of ship for ‘delivered’ ships listed 

in the Lloyd’s Fairplay database. It was 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, only vessels of 300gt or more were included. Other 

sub-types that were determined as not carrying ballast water 

or that would only be operating within one ‘Captain-of-thePort Zone’ (COPTZ) were also excluded. Ballast capacity 

was then estimated for different sized vessels in each sub-type 

fleet. Information for actual ships listed in the American 

Bureau of Shipping database were used as the basis for estimating ballast capacity for ships of various sizes in various 

ship classes.

Analyses indicated 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 

1500–5000m3

. These ships will be required to have ballast water treatment starting in 2014. Of those ships, the 

great majority – more than 16 000 – are general cargo 

ships (Table 2a). Of US-flagged vessels, it was estimated 

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 (Table 2b). 

About two-thirds of the demand for installation of technology to meet IMO D-2 Standard will be associated with 

meeting the 2016 deadline for ships with less than 1500m3

capacity (more than 16 000 ships) and with more than 

5000m3 capacity (more than 29 000 ships).

While naval ships are exempt from the ballast water 

management requirements and are not included in these 

statistics, it appears that the navies of several countries 

will choose to comply with IMO regulations at least for 

non combat operations. All NATO navies have agreed in 

principal to comply, so this represents a significant market 

segment. If US and NATO navies fitted BWT systems to 

all classes of surface warships 5000mt and larger, over 

200 vessels would be included, totaling approximately 

3 000 000mt. 

Vessel size

The Lloyd’s database was further sorted by deadweight 

tonnage to develop a more comprehensive view of the 

various-sized vessels in the world merchant fleet subject 

to ballast-water regulations (Table 3). Again, in the case of 

fishing vessels, only those of 300gt or more were included 

in the analysis. More than 92% of an estimated 8001 fishing 

vessels subject to IMO ballast water regulations are less than 

1000dwt. 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 this research, or will 

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11 No 1 January 2012

Table 2b: Vessel type by estimated ballast capacity (US-flagged vessels)

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

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 8 28/01/12 9:35 AM
9

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

have room aboard to accommodate them. It is assumed that 

these smaller fishing vessels will need to find some other way 

to comply with IMO ballast water regulations. 

Age of the merchant fleet

In addition, the Lloyd’s merchant fleet data were sorted 

according to age of ship. 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. 

The Table includes 2009 new-builds (1804 ships) listed in the 

database as of November 2009. Because the 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 to comply although the ‘no later than 31 December 

2011.’ This deadline will slip again because full ratification 

did not occur before that date. More than 60% of the new 

vessels listed as under construction in 2009 were bulk carriers, 

container ships, or tankers that are estimated to have greater 

than 5000m3 ballast water capacity, which do not require 

treatment technology for new builds until 2012. 

BWTS EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION 

COSTS

In order to assess and compare the cost of various BWTS, 

technology vendors whose systems had been approved or 

were close to approval by IMO as of May 2009 were contacted by email and telephone. Additional information about 

installation costs and logistics, and potential bottlenecks in 

supply was collected through follow-up communications with 

vendors and other industry representatives.

The following types of systems were evaluated:

l	 Filtration and UV,

l	 Filtration and chemical,

l	 Deoxygenation and cavitation,

l	 Electrolysis and electrochlorination,

l	 Filtration, deoxygenation and cavitation.

Costs associated with purchasing, installing, and operating 

each of these systems were estimated for a ‘typical’ ship in 

each of the following ship type/size categories:

l	 Bulker: Cape-sized vessel,

l	 Bulker: Panamax,

Volume 11 No 1 January 2012 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

Table 3: Vessel type by 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

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 9 28/01/12 9:35 AM
10

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11 No 1 January 2012

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%

Table 4: Vessel age by ship type

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 10 28/01/12 9:35 AM
11

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Volume 11 No 1 January 2012 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

l	 Container: 2500TEU,

l	 Container: 8000TEU,

l	 General Cargo: breakbulk,

l	 General Cargo: ro-ro,

l	 Tanker: TAPS trade,

l	 Tanker: VLCC.

This list of eight ship type/size categories is not comprehensive with regard to the scope of global fleet affected by the 

proposed IMO regulations, but provides a fair representation 

of the cost profiles for purchasing, installing, and operating 

the BWTS that were analysed over a range of typical applications. No examination was made of 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.

Base and bulk prices for different types of units were 

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.

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 (Table 5). 

For all types of systems, there are some economies of 

scale when purchasing bulk orders (eg, 10 ships), reducing 

the cost of a system by $40 000 to $100 000 per unit, depending on the system type. It is important to note that installation 

costs will vary widely even within a particular ship type/size 

depending on the characteristics of individual ships and the 

space and other requirements of specific types of BWTS. A 

significant factor affecting cost will be the number of BWTS 

required for a particular vessel. As a general rule it has 

been assumed in the majority of cases that a system will be 

installed aboard each qualifying vessel. However, depending 

on the number of ballast pumps aboard, at least two BWTS 

may be required. Additionally, on larger vessels containing 

very large volumes of ballast water, multiple BWTS may be 

required to handle the huge flow rates involved. This will 

significantly affect the amounts shown in Table 5, which 

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** $ - $ - 

Table 5: Ballast water treatment system installation purchase cost

* More recent data from vessels requiring 2BWTS raise this figure to appx..$1,800,000 (Bulk Price)

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

New construction Retrofit Retrofit in service

US yard non-US yard US yard non-US yard US vessel non-U.S. 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

Table 6: Installation cost ranges (in thousands US$) by vessel type

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 11 28/01/12 9:36 AM
12 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11 No 1 January 2012

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

were estimates based on the installation of a single system on 

each ship. For example, since these figures were compiled, 

the authors received new information about a fleet installation 

involving two systems per ship and a bulk-equipment only 

price of approximately $1 800 000 per vessel.

Estimates were also made of 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:

l	 New Build – US yard,

l	 New Build – Asian yard,

l	 Shore-based Retrofit – US yard,

l	 Shore-based Retrofit – Asian yard,

l	 Retrofit While Ship is in Service – US vessel/installation,

l	 Retrofit While Ship is in Service – Non-US 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 ships and space and other 

requirements of specific types of BWTS. The installation 

cost estimates provided here can be viewed as ‘typical,’ but 

most were based on installing a single system aboard eight 

particular ships that were selected as being typical of ships in 

each of the eight ship categories considered.

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 it possible for more 

BWTS to be considered potential candidates for installation 

aboard more types and sizes of ships, taking advantage of 

these modular features can add significantly to installation 

costs. Installation costs shown here can only be regarded as 

approximate values. As a general ‘rule of thumb’ it might be 

assumed that installation costs would be approximately half 

the equipment cost. However, this 2:1 ratio could approach 

4:3 if substantial footprint problems and increased fabrication 

needs are encountered. Note that, in Table 5, a more recent 

cost comprising two BWTS instead of one, involves little or 

no economy of scale.

The 2009 MERC system-cost report includes detailed 

analyses of purchase, installation, and fixed annual operating 

costs (eg, 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 www.

maritime-enviro.org/ 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 preliminary 

cost analysis of fixed annual maintenance costs is summarised in Table 7.

Using life-cycle costs per metric ton of ballast treated, 

it was estimated that Filtration/UV and Electrolysis/electrochlorination systems 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 

the analysis.

Preliminary surveys of vendors and shipowners 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 limited shipyard capacity 

and usually requires a minimum of seven days. Interviews 

and follow-up discussions indicated that ballast water treatment retrofit could take between seven days and one month 

to complete, depending on the degree of fabrication required. 

With large, modern fleets in particular, ships may utilise 

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 

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 

Table 7: Annual operating costs*

* Includes fixed annual costs (eg, BWTS maintenance) as well as annual costs that vary with the amount of BW treated. Filtration/chemical system cost estimates 

vary by ship type and also by the amount of ballast treated which determines the cost of consumables. (eg, chemicals).

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 12 28/01/12 9:36 AM
13

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Volume 11 No 1 January 2012 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

Type of ship Filtration 

and UV light

Filtration and 

chemical

Deoxygenation and 

cavitation

Electrolysis and 

electro-chlorination

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

Table 8: Life cycle cost/MT of BW treated (Based on an expected 25-year life cycle)

Table 9: Ballast water treatment technology installation checklist

l How/where will systems be installed (ie, drydock, in water, during a voyage)?

l How long will installation take? 

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

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

lAre there any restrictions on the location of different parts of the equipment and their location relative to other parts of 

the installation? 

lAre any alterations to existing ship equipment required beyond installation of the treatment system, ie, to plumbing or 

electrical systems?

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

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

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

lAre there any physical or environmental conditions that might limit or reduce the effectiveness of the treatment 

(eg, turbidity/sediments, temperature, vessel service)? 

lIf 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?

l What types of spares would be required to be maintained onboard for 180 days of continuous operation of the vessel?

l Are there any shoreside storage requirements, ie, for chemicals or filter replacements, at each load port?

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

lWho provides on-site service support and telephone support for maintenance and onboard repairs of the units? 

How extensive is their technical service network?

l Are there special crew or vessel safety requirements when operating the equipment or handling associated materials?

lAre there special environmental safety requirements relating to the equipment or supporting materials? (ie, active 

ingredient getting wet, humidity, etc)?

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

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

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

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

lDoes the equipment contain proprietary equipment or closed-source system architecture or does the system use an 

open source platform?

l What is the expected service life of the vessel?

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

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

lHow much training is required for crew members to successfully operate, maintain and conduct routine repairs to the 

system?

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 13 28/01/12 9:36 AM
14 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11 No 1 January 2012

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

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, survey information did not 

indicate that this would be a cost-prohibitive option for most 

vessel types if BWTS installation needs did not correspond 

with a routine shipyard visit. Interviews indicated that such 

installations have been successfully completed with no vessel 

downtime recorded. However, several ships may not have 

sufficient accommodation for the extra crew required for 

installation. This could mean installation would have to be 

done in stages, which would add to time and cost.

Further to this, fitting a BWTS during a ships operational 

service raises some important safety management issues such 

as the possible introduction of prolonged hot work undertakings in critical machinery spaces. Such work may also call for 

the penetration of watertight bulkheads at sea. Hull integrity 

may also be temporarily breached where additional overboard 

lines are required to be fitted for items such as new high level 

ballast suctions or filter back-flushing sludge lines. When 

such activities are planned, a formal method statement may 

need to be submitted to both Class and Insurers.

For most technologies, interviews and other research 

indicated that annual fixed operating costs for maintenance of BWT systems would typically be in the $9000 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 were estimated to 

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

For all ship types analysed, analyses 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 

labour 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.

From a supply perspective, interviews and analysis 

indicate 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 global shipyard 

capacity to install them. Table 9 describes 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.

CONCLUSIONS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2012 the global market for ballast water treatment technologies is at a critical juncture. Two more European countries are likely to ratify the IMO convention in early 2012. If 

Panama follows suit, the IMO D-2 treatment standard will 

probably enter into force by 2013. However, it is unlikely that 

IMO member nations will be willing or able to enforce these 

regulations unless it is possible for most ships to comply. This 

will require investments in the fledgling global BWTS industry (which is currently producing only a few hundred units 

per year) allowing production of tens of thousands of BWTS 

per year. In most emerging industries there is a multi-year 

lag between the time investors recognise a growing market 

and invest to increase production capacity, and the time when 

increased supplies reach market.

In the case of BWTS markets, this lag will have a tendency 

to be longer than usual because prospective investors in 

BWTS supplies understand that the size and timing of BWTS 

markets depends on international regulations, technical standards, and national implementation programmes that are not 

yet in place. This lag is made even more uncertain by the 

fact that IMO member nations may wait for more certainty 

about BWTS supplies before firming up their commitments 

to enforce IMO ballast water regulations, while investors in 

BWTS supplies wait for more certainty about the commitment of IMO ballast water regulators. A major commitment 

to providing universal sampling and analytical standards is 

represented by a paper submitted to BLG 16 by the European 

Commission in January 2012.4

Potential BWTS 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. The current study estimates 

that more than 68 000 ships will be subject to the IMO regulations between now and 2016. About 8 000 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 of the other 

61 000 or so ships that will need to comply are larger merchant 

ships with large ballast water capacities that will need to install 

more than one BWTS in order to meet IMO ballast water discharge standards. Some recent industry reports estimate future 

BWTS markets based on 57 000 or so vessels needing BWTS.5

However, taking into account the likelihood of many large vessels will need multiple systems, an estimate of global demand 

for BWTS of 70 000 units does not seem unreasonable. 

In the United States ballast water regulation will be 

administered through a partnership between the US Coast 

Guard (USCG) and the US Environmental Protection 

Agency. While the USCG federal ballast water standards are 

still pending, they are expected to mirror the IMO standard 

for the foreseeable future. The US Environmental Protection 

Agency has enrolled in its Vessel General Permit programme 

approximately 68 000 vessels plying the inland and coastal 

waterways of that country. While few of these will merit 

BWTS, final decisions on which might qualify as a result 

of their sizes and routes, have yet to be made. Several other 

countries face similar questions. 

Practical issues, such as what to do about the non-ocean 

going (‘laker’) fleet plying the North American Great Lakes 

trade remain in review. A particular dilemma relates to the 

fact that many of the largest ships in this fleet frequently take 

up and discharge water at very high rates (10–20 000m3

/h) 

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 14 28/01/12 9:36 AM
15

Preview of global ballast water treatment markets

Volume 11 No 1 January 2012 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

through multiple tanks served by independent sea lockers and 

pumps. Other ‘special issues’ under consideration include the 

possible use of freshwater or drinking water as ballast in the 

case of destinations where potable water or water for agricultural use is at a premium.

Assuming that IMO regulations are ratified in 2012 and 

implemented a year later, and that all relevant ships attempt 

to comply, the review of the relevant statistics in the Lloyd’s 

Fairplay world merchant fleet database and the tiered IMO 

implementation schedule suggests that there will be a large 

spike in demand for BWTS around 2016 as vessels attempt 

to meet IMO standards for 2016. However, a review of current global BWTS supply capacity indicates that it will not 

be able to meet this surge in demand unless significant new 

investments in BWTS supply capacity are made soon. These 

new investments in BWTS supply will depend on investor 

confidence in the size of future BWTS markets. However, 

these investors understand that the size and timing of BWTS 

market will depend on when IMO member nations decide to 

enforce IMO ballast water regulations, which will depend in 

part on their assessment of whether enough BWTS supplies 

are available to allow widespread compliance. This interdependent policy/market loop may need to be addressed explicitly by international and national ballast water regulators to 

increase the likelihood that IMO ballast water regulations will 

succeed and have the intended effect on ocean health.

The success of IMO regulations to reduce the environmental and economic risks from harmful aquatic invasive 

species depends on three factors:

(1) The limits they place on allowable concentrations of 

living organisms in ballast water discharge water; 

(2) The availability of technologies to meet those limits; 

(3) The willingness and ability of ship operators to use those 

technologies in order to comply with the regulations. 

For the past ten years or so efforts to develop ballast 

water regulations have focused on the first two factors 

which involve science (identifying allowable concentration 

standards) and technology (certifying effective treatment 

methods). As we approach ratification and implementation, attention is beginning to shift to the third factor which 

involves creating incentives and opportunities for ship operators to comply. So far this shift has focused on compliance 

monitoring, measurement, and verification methods which 

are the topics of several recent papers that address how to 

define and detect noncompliance.6

 However, the most crucial factor in determining the success of IMO ballast water 

regulations is the ability of ship operators to comply, which 

depends nearly totally on the emergence of adequate and 

effective global BWTS markets.

This paper characterises the size and value of the global 

BWTS market that will need to emerge over the next few 

years to create opportunities for ship operators to comply 

with IMO ballast water regulations and to allow those regulations to succeed. The kinds of BWTS supply and demand 

conditions described in this report should be viewed as leading indicators of whether IMO ballast water regulations are 

likely to succeed, and what might be done to improve the 

situation if they are failing. Over the next few years there will 

be nothing more important to the success of international ballast water regulations than conditions in BWTS markets. The 

kinds of preliminary market measures presented in this paper 

should be refined and routinely updated to provide international and national ballast water regulators the information 

they need to understand compliance problems and to design 

fair and effective enforcement strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to our colleagues at the Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center for providing data that informed this 

research. We gratefully acknowledge Tom Mackey, co-Chair 

of the IMarEST Ballast Water Experts Group (BWEG), Capt 

David Smith and Jurrien Baretta of BWEG for their input and 

perspectives on this subject. Contribution No. 4567 of the 

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

REFERENCES

1. King DM, Riggio M and Hagan PT. 2009. Preliminary 

analysis of cost of ballast water treatment systems. MERC 

Ballast Water Economics Discussion Paper No. 1. Available 

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

2. Albert R, Everett R, Lishman J and Smith D. 2010. 

Availability and efficacy of ballast water treatment technology: Background and issue paper. US Environmental 

Protection Agency and US Coast Guard. Available at www.

dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.

pdf&AD=ADA526423 

3. King DM, Riggio M and Hagan PT. 2010. Preliminary 

overview of global ballast water treatment markets. MERC 

Ballast Water Economics Discussion Paper No. 2. Available 

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

4. European Maritime Safety Agency, 2011. Guidance 

on ballast water sampling and analysis for compliance with 

BWM convention. Additional PSC Guidance (in preparation).

5. Frost and Sullivan. 2009. Available at www.frost.com/

reg/file-get.do%3Fid%3D73927%26file%3D1

6. King DM and Tamburri M. 2010. Verifying compliance 

with ballast water discharge regulations. Ocean Development 

and International Law, 1521–0642, 41[2]: 152–165.

Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 15 28/01/12 9:36 AM
Wright - Ballast_JMET_Jan.indd 16 28/01/12 9:36 AM