Bunker Fuel Quality
VPS: Avoid expensive, catastrophic engine failures with GCMS screening of bunker fuel
Steve Bee, VPS Group Commercial Director, discusses how pre-burn chemical screening of bunker fuels can help prevent costly and catastrophic engine failures.
Published
11 months agoon
By
AdminSteve Bee, Group Commercial Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, talks on the vital importance of pre-burn chemical screening of bunker fuels in preventing catastrophic engine failures:
The past five years have given rise to numerous high-profile, chemically-contaminated marine fuel cases. Hundreds of vessels have experienced costly engine damages during these events, in Houston (2018 and 2023), Europe (2022) and also in Singapore (2022).
In addition to these highly publicised contamination events, there have been many single cases of vessel damage across the world due to the presence of chemical contaminants within fuel. All of these cases, large or small, have shown numerous different chemical contaminants, or combinations of contaminants, which have been identified as being responsible for these damages.
To highlight the consequences of chemically contaminated marine fuel, one recent case study, illustrates perfectly the issues and expense, ship owners and operators can face, when chemicals are present within their fuel.
In April 2023, a Singaporean-owned chemical and product tanker bunkered 415 m/tons of VLSFO in Houston. The vessel began to burn the fuel in May and quickly began to experience numerous issues with the auxiliary and main engines, such as exhaust gas deviating temperatures and the wearing of fuel pumps and plunger barrels. In addition, problems such as start-failure due to insufficient fuel injection, pressure build up, as well as worn out and leaking fuel pumps.
Of greater concern was the complete engine stoppage enroute to the next US port, when the main engine failed. Multiple attempts were made to start the engine, all without success.
Subsequent VPS forensic laboratory testing, utilising a proprietary Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) Acid Extraction methodology, detected the presence of several phenols and fatty acid compounds within the fuel.
The vessel initiated the necessary repairs to both auxiliary and main engine fuel pumps, at a total spares cost of $200,000.
Following these repairs, Class and Engine Manufacturer representatives attended the vessel to assess both auxiliary and main engine performance. A sea trial was then arranged in order to gain USCG approval to berth and manoeuvre the vessel in US coastal waters.
Eventually towards the end of July the contaminated fuel was de-bunkered in Houston.
Captain Subhangshu Dutt, Managing Director of OM Maritime, said: “It seems many more fuel quality details need to be considered while bunkering nowadays in order to avoid such incidents in the future, & chemical screening can be a useful tool to raise the red flag. Prudent testing can also keep us abreast of new contaminants that can enter the bunker market. Using technology and digitalization to trace the upstream history of the fuel could be considered. A perfect world would be when rigorous & relevant testing procedures are completed before the fuel is declared “fit” to be delivered on board”.
Hindsight with this and many other cases, would see ship owners and operators, looking for a more pro-active, pre-burn means of detecting the presence of volatile contaminants within their fuel. The VPS Chemical Screening service provides such a solution and ensures a higher level of vessel protection.
Since 2018, 41% of vessels engaged in the VPS fuel testing programme, have used the numerous Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) services available to detect chemical contaminants within fuel.
Focusing specifically on the GCMS-Head Space Chemical Screening service, 19.9% of applicable marine fuel samples received by VPS since 2018, have undertaken this rapid, pre-burn protection service, with an average 8% of samples tested, giving rise to a “Caution” result, indicating the presence of at least one chemical contaminant.
VPS report GCMS-HS screening results within 24-hours of sample receipt and once a “Caution” result is identified, VPS customers can immediately place their supplier on notice, pending further investigation, avoiding restrictive time-bar agreements.
Further investigation usually begins with a GCMS-HS Extended analysis, followed by more detailed forensic GCMS analysis, if required.
However, the initial GCMS-HS chemical screening service offers great benefits and value to VPS customers, as an inexpensive, rapid detection service, prior to the fuel being burnt. To put this into context, the $200,000 cost of replacement parts highlighted in the above case study, could have provided over 3,500 GCMS-HS screening tests.
A Swedish Club report in 2018, stated the average cost of a single fuel-related damage case is $344,000. With current fuel prices at $700/mt and an average bunker stem of 1,000mt, then a single GCMS-HS screening test to check for the presence of volatile chemicals within that one fuel delivery, equates to less than 0.008% of the cost of the fuel. Yet this service would provide a much greater level of protection to the vessel and avoid the risks associated with volatile chemicals within marine fuel. Which raises a final thought-provoking question, “Can you afford not to screen your fuel for chemicals?”
Photo credit: VPS
Published: 2 November, 2023
Bunker Fuel Quality
VPS: Is your vessel fully protected from dangers of poor-quality bunker fuel?
VPS have issued 21 Bunker Alerts this year, which have highlighted witnessed quality issues with the three main fuel types of HSFO (6 alerts), VLSFO (9 alerts) and MGO (6 alerts), says Steve Bee of VPS.
Published
4 days agoon
October 2, 2024By
AdminSteve Bee, Group Commercial Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Tuesday (1 October) wrote about mitigating fuel quality risks and safeguarding vessel operations against poor-quality bunker fuels:
As the global marine fuel mix grows, becoming more varied and consequently more complex in terms of fuel management, there is a potential increasing risk to vessels, crew and the environment, from the possible impact of poor-quality fuels.
Yet, whilst shipping looks to decarbonise, with a view to introducing low-to-zero carbon fuels, such as biofuels and methanol, these fuels currently account for approximately 1% of the fuel mix. The more traditional fossil fuels are continuing to satisfy the day-to-day demand in terms of fuels supplied to vessels at this time, with almost 230 million MT of marine fuels being bunkered last year.
The VPS database shows for all fossil fuels tested the following current Off-specifications have been identified:
VPS Bunker Alerts, are also a good indication of current fuel quality and so far to date, VPS have issued 21 Bunker Alerts this year. These alerts have highlighted witnessed quality issues with the three main fuel types of HSFO (6 alerts), VLSFO (9 alerts) and MGO (6 alerts). The 2024 alerts show significant off-specifications for 8 different test parameters, from 11 different locations, across Europe, Middle-East, Asia and the Americas. This proves fuel quality issues can arise anywhere at any time, for any fuel type or test parameter.
June 2024, saw the 7th revision of the marine fuel standard ISO8217, released to the industry. ISO8217:2024 is seen as a major step forward in terms of setting specifications for marine fuel quality. This latest revision has moved from two fuel specification tables, to four. It now includes, for the first time, specifications for VLSFO and ULSFO fuels containing 0.50% or 0.10% sulphur respectively, plus biofuels containing FAME, HVO, GTL, BTL, bio-components.
Acknowledging that ISO8217:2024, is an improvement on previous revisions of the standard, it still does not cover enough of the further potentially problematic issues of chemical contamination, cold-flow properties, microbial-growth, plus wider bio-components such as Cashew Nut Shell Liquid (CNSL), to name but a few areas of concern.
In addition, the industry has a very poor track record of purchasing fuel against the very latest revision of the ISO8217 standard. To date, VPS as the world’s largest marine fuel quality testing company, still see 12.6% of samples received for quality testing, being purchased against the 2005 revision of the standard. So, vessels are purchasing fuel against a standard which is actually only 3 months off being 20 years old? That revision has since been replaced by four further revisions of the standard over the years and it bears very little relevance to today’s fuels. Therefore, these vessels are really operating at a significantly increased level of risk, if they are relying on ISO8217:2005 to fully protect them.
The most common revision against which marine fuel is purchased today, is still ISO8217:2010. 48% of all fuel samples received by VPS, are being tested against this revision. Again, ISO8217:2010 is almost 15 years old, so why is almost half of the fuel being purchased to it? There is no consideration of VLSFO, or ULSFO fuels, with FAME also being classed as a contaminant.
The 2017 revision, still only accounts for 20% of the fuel samples VPS receive for testing, even though its nearly eight years old. However, it does consider the presence of FAME within certain distillate grades, but still offers no specification for the lower sulphur grades of residual-based fuels, where VLSFOs are the most widely purchased fuel type.
All this means is the global fleet is buying fuel and testing its quality against a standard which is between 8-20 years old?
To date, VPS have not received a fuel sample, fossil fuel, or biofuel, purchased to the 2024 revision. Based on past history it maybe sometime before such a sample is received? Even then ISO8217:2024, whilst a major improvement to previous revisions, is not an all-encompassing standard.
As far back as 2018, The Swedish Club released their independent report, “Main Engine Damage”. This report highlighted how to avoid engine damage, including information showing the average cost of a single fuel management incident onboard a vessel was $344,069. It also stated the average cost of a single lubrication failure was $763,320.
The Swedish Club’s advice and recommendations were:
Back in 2019, in the lead up to IMO2020 and the reduction in the global sulphur cap to 0.50%, VPS foresaw potential quality issues with the new incoming VLSFO fuels. These fuels would be of higher paraffinic content, leading to poorer cold-flow behaviour, potential wax precipitation and major stability issues. VPS recognised that the ISO8217 standard did not provide sufficient protection to a vessel, when using VLSFO, or even HSFO and MGO fuels.
Therefore, the VPS Additional Protection (APS) service was launched prior to 2020. This service offers the full ISO8217 test scope, plus a number of additional tests, in one package offering, at a significantly reduced price, in order to ensure a greater level of protection to vessels and enhanced peace-of-mind to the, now more informed operator, using this service.
The APS Package is customised by fuel type, to cover, HSFO, VLSFO, or Distillates. The additional tests included, will provide much more information and greater understanding of the fuel in relation to stability, chemical contamination, cold-flow properties, lubricity and microbial-activity. The package can also be further customised to individual customer requirements. Many VPS customers have used and continue to use APS, to mitigate the potential risks from poor quality fuel and benefit from the added-value and cost savings, the service delivers.
In 2022, the incoming range of marine biofuels, warranted VPS to research a number of different additional tests to assist in identifying biofuel management issues and understanding their behaviour and operational risks. As a consequence, VPS launched the APS-BIO packages. Once again, these include the ISO8217 as a base test slate, but also include additional tests to measure energy content, stability, renewable content, microbial-activity, corrosivity and cold-flow properties. The APS-BIO suite of test slates cover different bio-components such as FAME, HVO, CNSL, plus the fossil fuels used in a bio-blend, eg HSFO, VLSFO, MGO.
Once again VPS customers, are seeing real benefits and added-value, as they look to use biofuels as their decarbonisation option, knowing that in VPS they have an experienced, expert fuel management partner.
Photo credit: VPS
Published: 2 October, 2024
Bunker Fuel Quality
NorthStandard includes VPS bunker fuel quality data in new platform
Fuel Insights app, powered by VPS PortStats, offers NorthStandard account holders with a view on fuel quality trends, based on data generated by VPS in key bunkering hubs across the globe.
Published
4 weeks agoon
September 11, 2024By
AdminMarine fuels testing company VPS on Tuesday (11 September) said it has been collaborating with global marine insurer NorthStandard over the past few months on incorporating fuel quality analytics into NorthStandard’s new Get SET! digital portfolio.
This collaboration has culminated into the launch of the NorthStandard Fuel Insights platform.
The NorthStandard Fuel Insights app, powered by VPS PortStats, offers NorthStandard account holders with a customised and exclusive view on fuel quality trends, based on the data generated by VPS’ laboratories located in key bunkering hubs across the globe.
Bunker procurement professionals can use this data to improve decision-making, by including off-specs and calorific value to the rationale, whilst technical managers can use the data to anticipate fuel quality risks to avoid bad bunkers.
The digital platform also provides insights beyond off-specs, by highlighting cautionary cases that may require additional treatment or operational advice.
With the advent of various types and blends of biofuels in the marine industry, VPS is committed to enriching this platform with relevant and actionable insights now and in the future.
“This is a unique collaboration in marine insurance,” said Colin Gillespie, Global Head of Loss Prevention, NorthStandard.
“It offers NorthStandard members easy access to global fuel statistics, as well as the tools to trade with confidence by managing risk and reducing claims in one of the most challenging areas of ship management.”
John Oosthoek, VP Operations Digital & Decarbonisation, VPS, said: “The launch of the Fuel Insights platform is the culmination of a growing partnership between NorthStandard and VPS over the past few years. By utilising reliable fuel quality data owners and operators can anticipate and mitigate the risks associated with fuel quality, such as cat fines, cold-flow, and stability.
“Testing remains essential for verifying quality, but accumulated data also helps vessel owners and operators make informed fuel procurement decisions,” said Steve Bee, Group Commercial & New Business Development Director, VPS.
“VPS services provide help in ensuring engines and fuel delivery systems do not suffer damage, crews stay healthy and safe, and ships achieve the required environmental legislation demands. For NorthStandard, Fuel Insights, powered by VPS will help ensure members and shipowners know what to look out for and subsequently enhance their ability to plan preventive maintenance.”
“Beyond mitigation, data could be invaluable to a claim or contract dispute,” added Gillespie. “For example, if substandard fuel was repeatedly linked to a single port, or if fuel issues on board had an onward impact of cargo delays. Shipowners and operators also need full transparency on fuel availability and quality, especially given the rapid rise of alternative fuels,” he said.
VPS controls shipping’s largest and most comprehensive marine fuel quality database, including the most extensive analysis of newer products, such as biofuels and methanol.
“Given that NorthStandard and VPS have the same forward-looking position on digitalisation, this partnership is a natural fit,” commented Bee.
“Accurate monitoring and reporting also help reduce emissions and will improve vessel performance against carbon intensity indices to ensure owners are on the right side of history.”
Photo credit: NorthStandard
Published: 11 September, 2024
Fuel Testing
FOBAS: Joint circular from MSC and MEPC on bunker fuel oil sampling guidelines
Joint circular extends the use of the MARPOL Delivered Sample to also be available for checking of the flash point requirement under SOLAS Chapter II-2/4.2.1.
Published
4 weeks agoon
September 11, 2024By
AdminLloyd’s Register Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) on Tuesday (10 September) released a bulletin on IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) jointly approving the fuel oil sampling guidelines during recent sessions (MSC 108 and MEPC 81):
IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) during recent sessions (MSC 108 and MEPC 81) jointly approved the fuel oil sampling guidelines MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.18 for compliance verification with MARPOL Annex VI and SOLAS chapter II-2.
This joint circular from MSC and MEPC was issued 11 July 2024 and revokes the previous MEPC resolution 182(59) titled ‘2009 Guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil for determination of compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex VI’.
In essence, this Circular simply extends the use of the MARPOL Delivered Sample to also be available for checking of the flash point requirement under SOLAS Chapter II-2/4.2.1 where it is referred to as the Representative Sample. The basic requirements as given by the 2009 Guidelines as regards the sampling location, arrangements and procedures are unchanged apart from the minimum sample size has been increased from 400ml to 600ml. Also unchanged are the sample labelling and sample storage aspects.
The joint circular now provides explicit references in the text to the need that personnel undertaking the sampling and the subsequent MARPOL Delivered Sample preparation, should be familiar with the use of the equipment and the Guidelines. Also, that the sampling operation itself should be witnessed by both the ship’s and supplier’s representatives.
The one particular addition is the new Section 10 which covers the procedures and documentation requirements in those instances where the fuel oil’s flash point is to be checked. This in no way impacts on the MARPOL Annex VI Appendix VI requirements in respect of the sulphur verification procedures which are unaltered.
Moreover, with regard to the key point of keeping track of these MARPOL Delivered Samples, this is now given as being the company’s responsibility rather than the ship’s master as previously. This will be important where samples are taken off the ship for testing, but the remaining material is not subsequently returned.
It should be noted that it is the sole prerogative of the representatives of the Parties to either MARPPOL Annex VI or SOLAS, as applicable, to take a MARPOL Delivered Sample for testing. Those sample cannot be opened or tested for any other purposes such as the resolution of commercial quality disputes.
Photo credit: Louis Reed from Unsplash
Published: 11 September, 2024
Argus Media: Bunkering sector needs deeper dive into B24 bio bunker fuel market
Brazil: Raízen launches new bunkering operation in Itaqui
Rahim Oberholtzer named as new Infineum Chief Financial and Strategy Officer
Report: E-Fuels projected to be available for next ZEMBA tender
Greece joins Clean Energy Marine Hubs to support low-carbon fuels
National Oceanography Centre conducts HVO biofuel trial on RRS duo
ENGINE: Americas Bunker Fuel Availability Outlook (3 Oct 2024)
Nunchi Marine: Big opportunities and challenges await bunker trading sector
Green bunker fuel demand on Rotterdam-Singapore could reach 5 mil mt by 2028
Interview: IRClass answers key questions on alternative bunker fuels
Pertamina International Shipping to invest in low-emission bunker fuels
DNV awards AiP to HD Hyundai for OOCS system retrofit design
DNV on IMO CCC 10: Interim guidelines for ammonia and hydrogen as bunker fuel
Trafigura appoints Richard Holtum to succeed Jeremy Weir as CEO
Trending
-
Interview5 days ago
Nunchi Marine: Big opportunities and challenges await bunker trading sector
-
Shipping Corridor2 weeks ago
Green bunker fuel demand on Rotterdam-Singapore could reach 5 mil mt by 2028
-
Alternative Fuels2 weeks ago
Interview: IRClass answers key questions on alternative bunker fuels
-
Alternative Fuels2 weeks ago
Pertamina International Shipping to invest in low-emission bunker fuels
-
Decarbonisation2 weeks ago
DNV awards AiP to HD Hyundai for OOCS system retrofit design
-
Alternative Fuels1 week ago
DNV on IMO CCC 10: Interim guidelines for ammonia and hydrogen as bunker fuel
-
Business2 weeks ago
Trafigura appoints Richard Holtum to succeed Jeremy Weir as CEO
-
Bunker Fuel5 days ago
Sea Trader subsidiary opens third Asia bunker trading office in Singapore