Connect with us

Analysis

FOBAS: Cat fines plagued Singapore off-spec bunkers in April

Recent off-spec and debunkering cases have caught the eye of Singapore’s MPA, says local source.

Admin

Published

on

5af0fd2b88d21 1525742891

Off-specification bunkers at Singapore port were affected by excess aluminium and silicon content, also known as cat fines, between 15th and 30th April 2018, according to Lloyd’s Register Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) data.

In total, the report identified 83 instances where a result was outside the 95% confidence limit of either ISO 8217:2017 test parameter.

At Singapore port, there were 21 cases of off-spec bunkers; seven of these recorded excessive cat fines.

A local source with knowledge of the matter notes recent off-spec cases have caught the eye of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA).

“Quality issues for the past weeks in Singapore are widely reported and is pretty serious,” he told Manifold Times.

“I do believe MPA is looking into this. But understand from the industry this could be a thing in the past as we heard that new on spec stocks are or have arrived Singapore.

“The past two to four weeks there was lots of debunker carried out in Singapore or overseas due to these off specs.”

An industry veteran, meanwhile, points out the majority of Singapore bunker contracts are currently based on ISO 8217:2005 standards.

“The ISO 8217:2005 standard specifies a limit of 80 mg/kg for cat fines and Singapore bunker suppliers mostly guaranteed specs based on 2005,” he states.

“Taking this into consideration, the cat fine off-spec cases highlighted by FOBAS are all within spec under ISO 8217:2005 standards.”

The top three off-spec bunker ports for the period between 15th and 30th April 2018 are as follows:
 

 Port Characteristic ISO 8217 Limit or Advised Value Final result Unit

 

Singapore Aluminium + Silicon 60* 75 mg/kg
Singapore Aluminium + Silicon 60* 79 mg/kg
Singapore Aluminium + Silicon 60* 74 mg/kg
Singapore Aluminium + Silicon 60* 79 mg/kg
Singapore Aluminium + Silicon 60* 79 mg/kg
Singapore Aluminium + Silicon 60* 74 mg/kg
Singapore Aluminium + Silicon 60* 76 mg/kg
Singapore Density at 15oC 0.9902** 0.9937 kg/l
Singapore Flash point 60.0*** 35.00 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 9 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 9 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 9 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 9 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 9 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 6 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 6 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 6 oC
Singapore Pour point 0* 6 oC
Singapore Viscosity at 50oC 369.2** 414.4 cSt
Singapore Viscosity at 50oC 369.2** 403.7 cSt
Singapore Water 0.50* 0.70 % Volume

 

Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 379.8** 426.7 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 691.4** 733.7 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 691.4** 738.4 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 367.0** 401.3 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 380.0** 402.2 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 369.0** 398.7 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 377.0** 402.4 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 376.6** 403.2 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 367.0** 397.7 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 379.3** 405.2 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 699.7** 735.1 cSt
Rotterdam Viscosity at 50oC 380.0** 400.2 cSt

 

Antwerp Viscosity at 50oC 177.0** 204.5 cSt
Antwerp Viscosity at 50oC 377.0** 399.1 cSt
Antwerp Viscosity at 50oC 691.4** 734.8 cSt
Antwerp Viscosity at 50oC 380.0** 399.8 cSt

Related: INSIGHT: Off-spec issues reveal 'missing piece' of Singapore bunker supply chain

Published: 8 May, 2018
 

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

Trending