Published at Friday, September 11, 2026 10:47 AM on the BLUEPULSE organization's page
Reefer Vessel Routing: 90 of 91 Crossings Ahead on Fuel with ABB Ability™ Vessel Routing
About $3.3M of fuel identified across 91 replayed Atlantic crossings. 90 of them came out ahead, with savings of 2.7% to 32.8% per voyage. Blueroutes by Greensee prices the fuel that keeps reefer cargo cold, and delivers the route through ABB Ability™ Vessel Routing, the engine many bridges already run.
Greensee × ABB — September 2026 · Reefer vessel routing & fuel savings
What we replayed
Two fleets, two very different trades, one method. Every voyage was replayed against the vessel’s actual sailed track from AIS, held to the same schedule, and compared on total ship fuel. Nothing was surveyed, modelled from averages or taken from a vendor brochure. The numbers below are what the ships would have burned had they followed the recommended route instead of the one they sailed.
- 29 crossings, six reefer container vessels, Europe–South America, H1 2026. The original Blueroutes validation: reefer-heavy ships where cargo cooling is a large share of the fuel bill.
- 62 crossings, North Atlantic, 2026. A second operator’s voyages, where severe weather forces captains to choose between sailing south of the storms and holding a direct track.
The results
2.7–32.8%
~$3.3M
Sail south or sail short, the saving is still there
Every North Atlantic crossing starts with the same decision. Some captains add distance to route around the storm systems, trading fuel for safety. Others hold the direct track and accept the weather penalty. A routing engine that only “wins” by overruling that decision is not one a fleet manager can trust.
So the 62-voyage replay was constrained. Where the captain sailed south, a mandatory waypoint near the Azores forced every alternative route through the same southern corridor. What was measured is optimisation within the captain’s own strategy, not credit for a north–south call the captain never considered.
The saving held up on both sides. Longer, weather-avoidance voyages averaged 8.1% less fuel. Shorter, direct voyages averaged 11.8%. At the extremes, an already-short 4,702 km voyage still gave up