Biofuel
ENGINE: Q&A on biofuel bunkering with FincoEnergies
ENGINE spoke to FincoEnergies commercial director Johannes Schurmann to explore some of the more pressing questions and challenges around bio bunker fuels for bunkering.
- The unexpected benefit from tricky biofuel tracers
- New document could unbreak the chain of sustainability
- Triple-stacked regulations and rebates to spur fresh biofuel demand
- Shying away from unfamiliar bio price indexes can be risky
Marine biofuel specialist FincoEnergies has been in the ARA market for several years and established itself as perhaps the world’s biggest supplier of biofuel blends to ships.
Countless shipping firms have grabbed news headlines through trialling GoodFuels’ biofuels supplied by FincoEnergies to their ships. Various feedstocks have been tried and tested, with differences in performances and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potentials recorded.
ENGINE spoke to FincoEnergies commercial director Johannes Schurmann to explore some of the more pressing questions and challenges around biofuels for bunkering. Have there been a lot of teething issues so far, where are we now, and what will a more GHG-regulated marine fuel future look like?
The answers below are highlights from the conversation. Click here to download the full interview or email Johannes Schurmann or Erik Hoffmann.
Erik Hoffmann (EH): We are seeing a wide range of price levels from various biofuel bunker suppliers in the Netherlands. These are given either for fuels based on feedstocks such as cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL), palm oil mill effluent (POME) or used cooking oil (UCO), which have different properties. Are there major differences in the performances of these fuels?
Johannes Schurmann (JS): If you look at POME and UCO, those are indeed different feedstocks that can have different properties. But it’s not a given that they have different properties. POME is of course a waste product from the palm oil industry, but UCO could also be a waste product from palm oil.
We have quite some clients that want solely used cooking oil methyl ester (UCOME), which is biodiesel made from UCO, because they believe they have engine acceptance for UCOME. But in the end, it's impossible to prove that physical UCO ended up in the biodiesel. Only if you control the entire supply chain you could say ok, the physical UCO ended up in the biodiesel.
It’s very hard to base the quality of the biodiesel on the original feedstock if we are working with waste-based products.
CNSL is a totally different ball game. It's a fuel that we don’t have much data about. We know that it has been used for some years in fuel oil blends. Some shipping companies are testing it, but there are also some nasty stories about all kinds of problems that occur with this product.
If you look at the composition of CNSL, it's composed of mainly carbonyls and anacardic acids, and those are different from the fatty acids that we are well known in biodiesels.
It could be an interesting product for the future because there are quite some volumes available. It's much cheaper than the biodiesels that we see today, but from a technical side, there are still quite some challenges that we need to overcome. So to just start using it because it fits in the ISO 8217 specification, that is too easily said.
EH: POME should not be confused with virgin palm oil, but how can a shipowner know that a POME-based biofuel is actually POME and not something else?
JS: We have been looking at POME for a while. In the Netherlands we have worked with this Dutch HBE [hernieuwbare brandstofeenheden] system, that does allow certain feedstocks to be used for international shipping if they are eligible for those HBEs, those bio tickets. And 2-3 years ago, they narrowed down the feedstock list which pushed us towards POME.
We didn't use it before because we were scared of this “palm” word in the feedstock, and if you can use UCO or tallow, why look at POME? Due to the legislation we had to look at POME.
What we did was first looking at where is this POME coming from? It’s mainly coming from Southeast Asia – Malaysia for example, Indonesia as well. To prove that the POME is really a waste product, we need to rely fully on the ISCC [International Sustainability & Carbon Certification]. The ISCC is certifying basically all the parties in the chain, including the ones producing POME.
And when the auditors visit sites that are producing POME, they are checking whether those sites are actually increasing or decreasing the amount of POME that they produce on a yearly basis. They say you cannot produce more than you did in previous years. Those auditors are really looking to make sure that you are not purposely producing POME. We think that this is a good mechanism.
A better way to check that they're not purposely producing POME is to see whether they even have a financial incentive to produce POME. And what we have done over the past years is that we have checked the POME price, so the raw feedstock, compared to palm oil.
What you see is that most of the time, not always but most of the time, the price of palm oil is higher than the price of POME. If the price of palm oil is higher than the price of POME, then for the producers of POME, there is no incentive to optimise the waste products rather than their premium product, which is palm oil.
EH: You have been looking into various ways of tracking feedstocks…Are either physical and blockchain tracers being used to guarantee that a biofuel’s origin and supply chain is what it says on the Proof of Sustainability (PoS)?
JS: Setting up a chain where a lot of mass balancing is done on paper, and setting up a chain with a physical tracer in there is extremely hard because you need to put tracers in all the big pools of feedstocks. You need to be able to track them to the vessel with a bunker sample for example, including what the dilution is of each tracer that you put in the original feedstocks.
Then you need to link those together - the tracers you find in the bunker sample and the tracers you've put in the original feedstock. In reality, we see that it is insanely hard to organise that. And it is quite costly because you need to physically put tracers in all those feedstocks. Because they're coming from all over the world, it's quite costly to organise that. From a physical side, we are not yet convinced that such a system would work.
GoodFuels tested isotopic tracers as a 'unique fingerprint' in a biofuel stem delivered to a Norden-owned tanker in 2022. GoodFuels
The only benefit we found during trials, is that onboard the ships you have many different fuel tanks, and to have a tracer in the bunkers that you actually supplied to the ship could be beneficial because then onboard you can prove that if some problems occur, for example with the separator or in the engine, you can prove whether it was your fuel or not that led to a problem.
Regarding the digital tracers, we have been looking into blockchain solutions already for years. But we also see that this ISCC chain is quite solid. In Europe, we will start working with the Union Database soon. It’s a European-wide database for all biofuel streams and everybody participating in the European schemes will need to fill in their mass balance in that system, so that they can basically keep track of all movements of biofuels.
If you at some point adopt such a system globally, that would be very strong, but it's definitely a good start that we have this unified database in Europe. I would say such a database is stronger than if we had worked independently as companies with blockchain technologies.
EH: Rotterdam’s total bio-blended bunker sales surged from 301,000 mt in 2021 to 791,000 mt in 2022, but then they unexpectedly dipped to 751,000 mt last year. Why was there a declining trend?
JS: It's based on multiple factors. And what we have seen, and we think has the biggest impact, is that Singapore biofuel bunker sales spiked a lot. There has been some movement away from the Netherlands to Singapore. Of course, what we also see in the Netherlands is that general bunker fuel consumption declined year-over-year from 2022 to 2023. The share of biofuel, or at least the absolute consumption of biofuel, went down in those years. And fossil as well.
We see a tendency that LNG has better economics. I think the LNG business has had quite some tough years in 2022-2023, and in 2021 as well a bit. But we see a lot of new vessels with LNG engines. We see that the LNG business is getting more traction again. So that is definitely an impact.
And maybe the last impact is that in the early years of biofuel adoption, especially in 2022, there were a lot of cargo owners pushing biofuel consumption because they wanted to decarbonise their supply chains in shipping.
Since last year, and especially this year, we have seen some economic headwinds. We see that there is less interest from cargo owners to pay extra for sustainable supply chains. Therefore we are lacking a push from the cargo owner side to bunker more sustainable fuels. We know from a lot of our customers that they are struggling to sell the emission reductions of their consumed biofuels to their cargo owners.
Photo credit: GoodFuels and ENGINE
Published: 18 June 2024
Bunker Fuel
Singapore: KPI OceanConnect, partners deliver first renewable diesel to cruise industry
Delivery of bunker fuel from Neste was made at Singapore Cruise Terminal, with the fuel sourced from Vopak Penjuru Terminal and transported to a cruise ship via barge “Maple”, operated by Global Energy.
Biofuel
CTI-Maritec: Why accurate testing of energy content is essential for bio bunker fuels
Owing to the composition of bio-marine fuels, accurate measurement of NSE / Net Heat of Combustion to correctly gauge energy content of bio-marine fuels is key for efficient fuel management onboard ships.
Marine environmental services and fuel testing solutions company CTI-Maritec on Wednesday (8 January) shared on why one of the most important testing parameters or properties of bio-marine fuel is energy content.
Owing to the composition of bio-marine fuels, the accurate measurement of Net Specific Energy (NSE) / Net Heat of Combustion to correctly gauge energy content of bio-marine fuels is key for efficient fuel management onboard ships:
Introduction
Bio-marine fuel is widely adopted as a drop-in fuel to achieve the current emission requirements in the shipping industry. ISO 8217:2024 specification allows bio-marine fuels to contain up to 100% fatty acid methyl ester (FAME). The major production route of FAME is transesterification of vegetable oils, animal fats or used cooking oils with methanol using alkaline catalysts. The ISO 8217:2024 version has included additional test parameters to measure FAME content, energy content and oxidation stability for bio-marine fuels.
Accurate Net Specific Energy (NSE) assists with efficient fuel consumption management
In this newsletter article, we review why one of the most important testing parameter or property of bio-marine fuel is Energy Content. Accurate measurement of NSE for energy content of bio-marine fuels is essential for efficient fuel management onboard ships with respect to:
- Fuel consumption
- Voyage planning
- Operating cost
- Machineries or equipment performance
- Emission & environmental implications
Why accurate testing of Energy Content is an essential test parameter for Bio-marine fuel
Marine fuel containing FAME typically has lower energy content compared to conventional marine fuels.
The heating value of a fuel is the total energy released as heat when a fuel undergoes complete combustion with oxygen under standard conditions. The chemical reaction is typically a hydrocarbon reacting with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, water and heat as shown in the equation below:
Hydrocarbon + Oxygen à Carbon Dioxide + Water + Heat Released
Conventionally, NSE of marine fuels (which consist of predominantly hydrocarbons from petroleum sources) is calculated using a formula specified in Annex of ISO 8217 (Annex J of ISO 8217:2024) with acceptable accuracy. For marine fuels containing FAME, the NSE cannot be calculated using the formula specified in Annex J of ISO 8217:2024 and shall be measured using ASTM D240 method. FAME molecules contain the Carbonyl group and Ester bonds as shown in Figure 1 below and do not consist purely of carbon and hydrogen atoms.
Figure 1: An Ester of a Carboxylic Acid
The density of potential energy of a hydrocarbon is determined by the number of carbon to hydrogen bonds that can be replaced by oxygen to carbon (CO2) and oxygen to hydrogen bonds (H2O), in other words, the amount of energy released is dependent on the oxidation state of the carbons in the hydrocarbon. For marine fuel containing FAME, the FAME molecule itself contains oxygen atoms in the Carbonyl group and Ester bond. The Ester group of FAME has a carbon forming 3 bonds with oxygen atoms, this means esters are more oxidised than hydrocarbons and esters release less energy content when compared to hydrocarbon since higher oxidation reactions are needed for hydrocarbons.
The paragraphs above explain the reasons marine fuel containing FAME typically have lower energy content compared to conventional marine fuels, which consist of predominantly hydrocarbons and the calculated formula for NSE is not applicable to marine fuel containing FAME.
According to ASTM D240 test method, heat of combustion is determined by burning a weighed sample in an oxygen bomb calorimeter under controlled conditions. The heat of combustion is computed from temperature observations before, during, and after combustion, with proper allowance for thermochemical and heat transfer corrections. The average of gross specific energy (GSE) or gross heat of combustion, and NSE or net heat of combustion of MGO, VLSFO, HSFO and Bio-marine Fuels are tabulated in Table 1 below:
Note: The average GSE and NSE for each of the fuel types was obtained from at least 50 samples.
Based on Table 1, bio-marine fuel B30 has 8% lower energy content when compared to MGO. The energy content of bio-marine fuel will become lower when the FAME content is higher.
Energy content of marine fuel containing FAME shall be determined by ASTM D240 method and cannot be calculated using the current NSE formula, which is commonly used for the conventional marine fuels.
Note: The full article by CTI-Maritec can be found here.
Photo credit: Louis Reed from Unsplash
Published: 9 January, 2025
Bunker Fuel
Revitalising JCT Oil Bank will be key to unlock Sri Lanka potential in bunkering
Dr. Prabath Weerasinghe, a Senior Lecturer at University of Ruhuna, says analysts predict the country can generate about USD 5 billion annually from bunker fuel operations by 2030 if improvements are made to JCT Oil Bank.
OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS
China: Ningbo Zhoushan Port completes first LNG bunkering operation for 2025
Shandong Port Group bans US-sanctioned tankers from entering its ports
US DoD designates COSCO Shipping and CNOOC as ‘Chinese military companies’
ICS and 47 governments submit GHG pricing mechanism proposal to IMO
VARD and partners team up to explore nuclear propulsion for shipping
Voting for IBIA Board Elections 2025 open till 14 February
ENGINE: Americas Bunker Fuel Availability Outlook (9 Jan 2025)
Danish Shipping: FuelEU Maritime Comes into Force on 1 January
Al Seer Marine receives future marine fuels ready MR tanker duo
MPA announces incentives for newbuild harbour crafts using alternative bunker fuels
China: Xiushandong Anchorage records over 1 million mt annual bunker volume
Malaysia: MMEA detains cargo vessel for illegal anchoring off Sekinchan
VPS observes increase in demand for bio bunker fuel based on samples received in labs
Helmsman expands legal services into IP and Technology, Media and Technology
-
Port & Regulatory2 weeks agoDanish Shipping: FuelEU Maritime Comes into Force on 1 January
-
Newbuilding2 weeks agoAl Seer Marine receives future marine fuels ready MR tanker duo
-
Alternative Fuels2 weeks agoMPA announces incentives for newbuild harbour crafts using alternative bunker fuels
-
Bunker Fuel2 weeks agoChina: Xiushandong Anchorage records over 1 million mt annual bunker volume
-
Vessel Arrest1 week agoMalaysia: MMEA detains cargo vessel for illegal anchoring off Sekinchan
-
Biofuel7 days agoVPS observes increase in demand for bio bunker fuel based on samples received in labs
-
Legal1 week agoHelmsman expands legal services into IP and Technology, Media and Technology
-
Port & Regulatory2 weeks agoPhilippines to mandate 0.50% sulphur cap for domestic shipping industry in 2025