Analysis

FuelTrust: Data shows energy density diff of up to 3% between batches of bunkers

Analysis based on 14 million barrels of VLSFO fuel across 28 batches was carried out using FuelTrust’s AI-powered Digital Chemist, it says.

Published

3 years ago

November 19, 2021

Admin

Research from FuelTrust, showed different batches of the same grade of marine fuel (such as VLSFO or HFO) having radically different degrees of energy intensity.

As such, knowledgeable fuel buyers have an opportunity to pick up 3% BTU of extra energy by bunkering with a different batch of fuel - saving ship owners thousands of dollars in fuel costs.

The analysis of different fuel batches was carried out using FuelTrust’s AI-powered Digital Chemist, which simulates combustion on a molecular level to identify differences in fuel properties such as fuel quality, energy, and emissions profiles. Digital Chemist combines the known characteristics of a fuel batch, with class data on the vessel engine, and data from the day logs to accurately establish what happens when fuel is burned.

Based on analysis of 14m barrels of VLSFO fuel across 28 batches, FuelTrust found that different batches of fuels could essentially provide higher energy, without the supplier or buyer realising for a fully laden Panamax container ship, this would equate to a 50MT saving of fuel on a voyage from Vancouver, Canada to Portsmouth, UK, or the equivalent of up to 469 nautical miles of additional sailing distance on a typical bunker.

“This isn’t like saying there’s a difference between gas stations – it’s more like there being a huge difference in the fuel you could buy at different pumps,” explained Jonathan Arneault, CEO of FuelTrust.

The energy intensity delta could be operationally challenging as regulations on fuels tighten, and particularly if, as expected, zero carbon fuels such as methanol become widely used. Because zero-carbon fuels are less energy-dense than currently used fuels, vessels will need to carry more fuel to continue to operate in the same way.

“Energy intensity matters. We’re about to see fuels come through with much a lower energy density than we’re used to,” continued Arneault.

Dr. Ram Vis, founder and director at the Viswa Group and advisor to FuelTrust, emphasised how energy density will become a major concern for fuel purchasers;

“If, as expected, you need twice the amount of methanol to do the same work as a tonne of HFO, buyers are going to have to pay a lot more attention to the BTUs that they are buying, as they’ll have to squeeze every drop of energy out of their fuel.”

“If we see the same batch-to-batch variation in zero carbon fuels as we do today with conventional fuels, that will be a real issue. Fuel buyers will need to start thinking more in terms of energy, and less in terms of volume”.

FuelTrust’s research indicates that differences in energy intensity will be matched by differences in emissions. With the proposed introduction of carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, this could add up to thousands of dollars in taxes saved or lost, purely based on which batch of a fuel ends up in a vessel.

Launched in September this year, FuelTrust’s Bunker Insights platform uses a combination of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies to establish an unalterable record of fuel transactions and to analyse and identify chemical risks and changes in fuel.

In doing so, Bunker Insights makes it simple for ship owners and charterers to monitor and manage fuel risk, allowing the industry to adopt more sustainable practices backed by meaningful insights into the fuel lifecycle.

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 19 November, 2021

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