Analysis

FOBAS suggests ‘quick solution’ to spot contamination, such as US Gulf bunker issues

‘This suggested way may be good as a quick solution than developing a new test method,’ says Global Operations Manager.

Published

7 years ago

June 21, 2018

Admin

A quick, but yet untested, method of finding out potential issues with marine residual fuels loaded at the US Gulf will be to introduce stricter limits for the total acid number (TAN) of the loaded fuel, suggests the Global Operations Manager of Lloyd’s Register Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS).

“The recent cases question the validity of acid number test. Acid number test on its own, even at present, is not a guarantee that fuels with low TAN is free from problem,” said Naeem Javaid during concluding remarks of a recent report Closing the gap – external contamination of marine fuels.

“It’s clear that even fuels with TAN as low as 0.14 have the potential to cause operational problems and/or component damage.

“In view of this we propose to either lower the limit of TAN in ISO 8217 marine fuel standard to ensure appropriate assurance to end user. However, this suggestion needs further in-depth analysis of the data available on historic TAN values.

“This suggested way may be good as a quick solution than developing a new test method.”

FOBAS found all bunkers loaded from the US Gulf having TAN at low levels (i.e. from 0.14 – 0.97 mg KOH/g) after studying approximately 50 cases of suspected contamination.

Analysis found the most common contaminants in these suspect fuels tested to be different fatty acids, bisphenol F isomers glycol, diethylene glycerol, tall oil (a by-product of wood pulp industry) and other complex waste components of acidic nature.

A large number of unknown oxygenates also contributed to 6% of the overall contaminants found in these fuels.

“The data of the detailed examination of suspected fuels suggest that these fuels contain over 40 contaminants which are consistently found in almost all the fuels analysed recently when investigating reported problems,” says Javaid.

“The numbers of contaminants detected and low acid number results means that the range of acids detected were all to be present at low levels.

“Overall, as stated before, we did not find any component in very high quantities rather all components detected were present at low quantities.”

FOBAS investigations of the recent off-spec fuel cases also supports the notion that it remains difficult to point to any specific individual contaminant with operational problems when the fuels are consumed on ships.

“Rather empirically, it stands out strongly as evidence that certain specific waste components have the potential to cause operational problems of varying degrees and thus should be the basis of any quality debates in marine supply chain,” notes Javaid.

“In these specific incidents, a group of 40 or so contaminants found in almost all samples that gave problems to different ships fitted with different fuel injection equipment /systems.

“We must highlight here that we anticipate the contaminants found in these fuels are not mixed with marine fuels in their pure form; rather, such a gross contamination may be a result of cross contamination, procedural errors or intentional waste dumping.”

Javaid, quoting MARPOL Annex VI, notes that port authorities have a role to play to ensure a good quality of fuel is supplied from their jurisdiction via the rigorous implementation of supplier’s registration schemes.

MARPOL Annex VI regulation 18 also clearly lays down the requirements of fuel quality by stating that the fuel shall be free from any material that is harmful to machinery, environment or people.

“FOBAS has never experienced external contamination of this scale where within span of few weeks in excess of hundred ships are affected and almost all ships reported same problems and as discussed before all have almost identical contaminants in the fuels tested,” he concludes.

“FOBAS is happy to lead and facilitate working group of interested stakeholders to study these incidents in more detail with a view to assist with relevant bodies to minimise such risks.”

Published: 21 June, 2018

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.

Published

3 months ago

December 31, 2024

Admin

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

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.

Published

3 months ago

December 26, 2024

Admin

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

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.

Published

3 months ago

December 26, 2024

Admin

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