Connect with us

Analysis

Bureau Veritas answers questions on Chlorinated Compounds in HSFO from Singapore

Singapore situation is linked to chlorinated hydrocarbons whereas, in the Houston case, there is yet to be a definitive culprit, states the bunker fuel testing agency.

Admin

Published

on

Screenshot 2022 04 11 at 1.38.56 PM

Bureau Veritas, a French company specialising in testing, inspection and certification, on Thursday (7 April) dived deeper on the contamination issue of high sulphur fuel oil that was delivered from Singapore recently and answered frequently asked questions on the matter.

What do you need to know about this contamination issue? 

The high sulphur fuel batches with chlorinated compounds from Singapore, were delivered in February and March 2022. The component found in the highest concentration is 1,2-dichloroethane which has been found up to 5000 ppm (=0.5% m/m). 

Chlorinated hydrocarbons are widely used as solvents and raw materials for the synthesis of various products, such as cleaning agents, pesticides and poly vinyl chloride.

 As of today, close to 30 operators are affected (some with multiple vessels). Two suppliers and many barges were involved.

What did the ships observe?

The ships experienced engine fuel pump issues and severe filter clogging issues. In the worst cases, the ships lost power and had to replace fuel pumps at sea.

Screenshot 2022 04 11 at 1.38.56 PM

What does it take to analytically identify the contaminants in the bunker sample?

These components cannot be detected via the standard 8217 analysis but require GC/MS. The only industry acknowledged standardised method for GCMS, ASTM D7845, covers the quantitative determination of a variety of chemical species (including chlorinated hydrocarbons) in marine fuel oil (bunker fuel oil) by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.

Was there any prior experience with these components in bunkers?

 Yes, back in 2004 in Fujairah, about 20 ships experienced damage to fuel valves as well as sticking of the engine fuel pumps, plunger and barrels followed by rapid failure of the fuel pump units. Main components identified at that time were: 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,1,2-trichloroethane. Despite the presence of these components, some ships managed to consume the fuel at the time without any operational issues. In fact, IMO Resolution MEPC.320 (74) – to which VeriFuel contributed – includes these compounds associated with fuel pump seizures. ASTM D7845 was initially released in 2013 and provided the industry with a method to quantitively identify a range of chemical components. Work is currently ongoing to potentially establish the correlation between concentration and issues.

Is there any correlation with the Houston 2018 contamination issue?

As per the statement prepared by CIMAC WG7 Fuels, no final and concrete conclusion could be made as to what specifically in the fuel formulation the Houston incidents.

The Singapore situation is linked to chlorinated hydrocarbons whereas, in the Houston case, there is yet to be a definitive culprit.

Singapore MPA is currently investigating the case, requesting that the specific fuel is no longer supplied and exploring the cause of the contamination.

Both endemic cases were linked to high sulphur fuels.

Are chlorinated compounds normally included in crude oil?

The literature ranges normal values between one and five ppm.

In May 2019, the massive Druzhba pipeline network was contaminated with several hundred parts per million of organic chloride, which is corrosive and  can damage both pipelines and refineries.

During the refining process, organic chlorides transform into hydrochloric acid which can cause intense corrosion. The associated value of the contaminated crude was US$2.7 billion.

Is the problem gone for now?

No one can say for sure. Debunkering operations of the contaminated fuel will take place is various

areas, i.e. spread around the world. In addition, there is a risk (as happened in Houston in 2018) that the remaining fuel batch may be transferred to other geographical areas for further blending in order to dilute.

Taking quality assurance seriously, Singapore MPA is currently investigating the case having contacted the bunker suppliers to ensure that the specific batch of fuel is no longer supplied.

What is VeriFuel’s recommendation?

Seek assurance from the supplier that the fuel is fit for purpose.

Be aware of the time bar limitation for launching a quality claim. If bunkered fuel is not to be used immediately, it is prudent to consume it for a couple of days by closely monitoring any case of adverse effects. Documentation is the key, e.g. photo document parts before/during/after consuming the fuel and take fuel system samples in case needed for analysis later.

Anything else to be cautious of when consuming fuels with chlorinated hydrocarbons?

The fuels containing these components have viscosities (@50 ⁰C) in the 300-380 cSt range and therefore require heating to 98 ⁰C in the separators and about 130 ⁰C at engine inlet. 

The boiling point of 1,2-dichloroethane is 83 ⁰C. At above temperatures, and given the high concentration, the component may be found in the surroundings, especially around the separators. Short-term exposure to the component can cause irritation to eyes, respiratory system and skin.

Caution should always be taken around marine fuel oils, irrespective if contaminated by unusual components or not, however, it is recommended to ensure good ventilation when these fuels are consumed.

How often do you find chlorinated hydrocarbons ?

Chlorinated hydrocarbons are seldom found in marine fuels and when found it is at significantly lower concentrations than the recent problematic Singapore deliveries of HSFO. 

Does Clause 5 / MARPOL Annex VI, reg 18.3 apply ?

ISO 8217:2017 clause 5.2 as well as MARPOL Annex VI reg 18.3 say that fuels must not be harmful to personnel, jeopardise the safety of the ship, or adversely affect the performance of the machinery.

Contaminated fuels that have adversely affected performance of the machinery therefore violate clause 5 and MARPOL Annex VI, reg. 18.3.

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Source: Bureau Veritas
Published: 11 April, 2022

Continue Reading

Research

Yamna identifies five potential global ammonia bunkering hubs

Unlike methanol, ammonia is not constrained by biogenic CO2 availability, and its production process is relatively simple.

Admin

Published

on

By

Yanma projected ammonia bunkering hubs

Specialised green hydrogen and derivatives platform Yamna in early December identified several potential ammonia bunkering hubs around the world.

The hubs are Port of Rotterdam, Port of Algeciras, Suez Canal, Jurong Port, and Port of Salalah.

“The shipping industry faces an ambitious challenge: reducing emissions by 20% by 2030 (compared to 2008 levels) and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, in alignment with IMO targets,” it stated.

“Achieving these goals in the medium to long term depends on the adoption of alternative low-emission fuels like green ammonia and methanol.

“Among these, ammonia is attracting growing interest as a viable option. Unlike methanol, it is not constrained by biogenic CO2 availability, and its production process is relatively simple.”

However, the firm noted kickstarting ammonia bunkering on a large scale required four enablers to align:

  • Ammonia fuel supply
  • Application technology
  • Bunkering infrastructure
  • Safety guidelines and standards

It believed ammonia bunkering hubs will first emerge where affordable and scalable ammonia supply is available.

Yanma Why use ammonia for bunkering fuel

 

Photo credit: Yanma
Published: 31 December 2024

Continue Reading

Research

Port of Long Beach releases Clean Marine Fuels White Paper

Document intended to prepare and position the port and its stakeholder for adopting low carbon alternative fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

Clean Marine Fuels Port of Long Beach (December 2024)

The Port of Long Beach (PLB) in late December released the Clean Marine Fuels White Paper as part of efforts to identify solutions capable of reducing emissions from ships.

“To understand the opportunities and challenges related to the adoption of clean marine fuels, the Port of Long Beach hired ICF Consulting to develop this white paper as an educational resource and guidance document,” stated PLB

“This document is also intended to prepare and position the port and its stakeholder for adopting low carbon alternative fuels.

“The white paper provides high level information on the array of currently available low carbon marine fuels, along with an exploration of the potential infrastructure needs for their deployment.”

The document covers the use of different types of clean bunker fuels such as green hydrogen, green methanol, green ammonia, renewable LNG and biofuels for shipping.

“The shift to clean marine fuels is no longer optional but a necessity for the sustainability of the maritime industry,” stated PLB in its closing remarks.

“This transition, while presenting challenges such as high costs, limited fuel availability, and the need for extensive infrastructure development, is advancing due to evolving policy frameworks and growing industry commitment.

“Addressing these obstacles will require targeted initiatives and robust collaboration between public and private sectors. Continued policy support, government funding, and sustained industry commitment will be essential to driving this progress and ensuring the long-term sustainability of maritime operations.”

Editor’s note: The 123-page Clean Marine Fuels White Paper may be downloaded from the hyperlink here.

 

Photo credit: Clean Marine Fuels White Paper
Published: 26 December 2024

Continue Reading

Port & Regulatory

Clyde & Co: FuelEU Maritime Series – Part 6: Legal issues

Bunker purchasers should consider the wording of their bunker supply contracts carefully and ensure that they are comfortable with the contractual provisions.

Admin

Published

on

By

CHUTTERSNAP MT

Global law firm Clyde & Co on Thursday (19 December) released the final instalment of its six-part series uncovering the FuelEU Maritime Regulation.

In it, the firm looked at the legal issues that could potentially arise between various parties, such as owners, charterers, ship managers, bunker suppliers, and ship builders, as a result of the compliance requirements imposed by the Regulation.

The following is an excerpt from the original article available here:

Bunker supply contracts - legal issues

Both vessel owners and bunker purchasers will want to ensure that they are able to take advantage of the preferential treatment provided under the FuelEU Regulation for consuming renewable fuels, including biofuels and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) (such as methanol and ammonia).

Article 10 of the FuelEU Regulation states that such fuels must be certified in accordance with the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) 2018/2001. If the fuel consumed by the vessel does not meet the applicable standards or have the appropriate certification, then it “shall be considered to have the same emissions factors as the least favourable fossil fuel pathway for that type of fuel[1].

In order to confirm that the fuel complies with greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity and sustainability requirements, the vessel owner and bunker purchaser will want to ensure that the bunker supplier provides the appropriate certification required under the FuelEU Regulation. The EU has required certification of such fuels, with the aim of guaranteeing “the environmental integrity of the renewable and low-carbon fuels that are expected to be deployed in the maritime sector.”[2]

The FuelEU Regulation provides that the GHG intensity of fuel is to be assessed on a “well-to-wake” basis, with emissions calculated for the entire lifespan of the fuel, from raw material extraction to storage, bunkering and then use on board the vessel.

Vessel owners and bunker purchasers will, therefore, need to be mindful of the importance of establishing how “green” the fuel actually is, and of the risk of bunker suppliers providing alternative fuels that will not allow for preferential treatment under the FuelEU Regulation.

It would, therefore, be advisable for bunker purchasers to consider whether the wording of their bunkering supply contracts is sufficient to ensure that the fuel is properly certified under the FuelEU Regulation. This could include contractual provisions that require the supplier (i) to provide a bunker delivery note (BDN), setting out the relevant information regarding the supply (such as the well-to-wake emission factor), and (ii) to provide the necessary certification under a scheme recognised by the EU.

Bunker purchasers should also be mindful that bunkering supply contracts often contain short claims notification time bars and provisions restricting claims for consequential loss. Issues could therefore arise where a purchaser tries to advance a claim against the supplier for consequential loss due to a lack of certification, but the bunker supplier argues that such losses are excluded under the terms of the bunker supply contract.

Bunker purchasers should therefore consider the wording of their bunker supply contracts carefully and ensure that they are comfortable with the contractual provisions.

 

Photo credit: CHUTTERSNAP from Unsplash
Published: 26 December 2024

Continue Reading
Advertisement
  • Zhoushan Bunker
  • Sea Trader & Sea Splendor
  • Aderco advert 400x330 1
  • Consort advertisement v2
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan
  • SBF2
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • E MARINE LOGO
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • HL 2022 adv v1


  • Energe Logo
  • Mokara Final
  • PSP Marine logo
  • MFA logo v2
  • Auramarine 01
  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • Kenoil
  • pro liquid
  • Uni Fuels oct 2024 ad
  • 300 300
  • Headway Manifold
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • LabTechnic
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • 400x330 v2 copy

Trending