Op-Ed: What the Strait of Hormuz backlog reveals about operational readiness

Dimitris Avdelopoulos

Every shipowner understands the cost of waiting. Delayed cargoes, disrupted schedules, charter implications, and idle assets are all visible consequences of the oil tanker backlog in the Strait of Hormuz.

The less visible consequence of this event is what is developing underneath the waterline.

With hundreds of vessels spending extended periods at anchor, ideal conditions have emerged for marine growth to establish itself on propellers, within sea chests, seawater piping, strainers, and cooling systems. While the industry’s attention is focused on geopolitics and supply chains, the biological processes taking place continues uninterrupted. Every single period of inactivity creates an opportunity for fouling to gain a foothold.

That is what makes biofouling fundamentally different from many other maintenance issues. It follows environmental conditions—not commercial schedules. Aside from the Strait of Hormuz, vessels around the world spend extended periods alongside or at anchor because of congestion, maintenance delays, seasonal trading patterns, weather, or changing market conditions.  

Understanding that progression of fouling is key to comprehending why prevention is so much more effective than reaction. The biofouling process begins with microscopic organisms forming a thin biofilm on submerged surfaces within hours in the water. Left unchecked, that biofilm develops into more complex marine growth that restricts seawater flow, reduces vessel efficiency, and accelerates equipment wear. Because these changes occur gradually, the crew may not recognize the impact until operational disruptions or additional fuel or maintenance costs begin to emerge.

Responding to these issues has become increasingly difficult in today’s operating environment. Drydock availability remains constrained in many regions, maintenance schedules are compressed, and underwater service providers continue to experience high and very costly demand. Additionally, any vessels delayed by geopolitical or other maritime occurrences may miss planned maintenance windows altogether.

This is where the conversation around biofouling needs to change. For decades, the industry has largely accepted a reactive approach—allow marine growth to develop, then remove it during the next maintenance period. That model assumes operators will have timely access to maintenance service providers within a timely manner. Increasingly, those assumptions no longer reflect reality.

When opportunities for intervention become less predictable, preventing biofouling before it develops becomes a more practical strategy than reacting after the damage has already begun.

That shift is reflected in the IMO’s revised 2023 Biofouling Guidelines. While developed to reduce the transfer of invasive aquatic species, the guidelines also recognize that effective biofouling management can “improve ship performance, enhance energy efficiency, and reduce air emissions.” The emphasis is no longer simply on removing fouling once it exists, but on managing biofouling proactively throughout a vessel’s operating life.

The Strait of Hormuz backlog will eventually clear, but the lesson should not. The next disruption may come from a different part of the world. It may be caused by geopolitics, port congestion, weather, or changing trade patterns. The cause is almost irrelevant, but more so than ever, it is important to control how prepared vessels are when those disruptions occur.

For too long, biofouling has been viewed as something to remove after it becomes a problem. Today’s operating environment suggests a different approach.

When maintenance opportunities are no longer guaranteed, prevention becomes more than good business—it becomes the most practical way to protect vessel reliability, efficiency, environmental compliance and operational readiness.

Dimitris Avdelopoulos is the managing director of HASYTEC, part of ERMA TECH GROUP.