Marine fuel brokerage service provider, LQM Petroleum Services on Monday (14 September) said fast growing offshore windfarms expect low carbon service operations by support vessels, but supplying and handling biofuels is a challenge and the development of ammonia and hydrogen powered vessels still has a long way to go.
The global offshore wind industry continues to balloon, adding 6.1 GW capacity in 2019 and has continued to grow through the Covid-19 pandemic, it said.
In Europe, the sector has now reached a scale and size where the operational and contractual complexities are comparable to northern European oil and gas projects. The market is primed for take-off in the Asia Pacific region and significant projects off the US coasts are coming onstream.
The pressure is now on the owners and operators of support vessels who play a critical role in the supply chain to reduce emissions and ensure vessel reliability for the environmentally sensitive wind farm operators, explained LQM.
Panellists, including a bunker vessel operator, ship agent and bunker trader, at a recent LQM webinar discussed the challenges of safe ship-to-ship transfers, the future fuel mix and the difficulties facing smaller bunker traders in securing reliable lines of credit to customers.
Ammonia, along with methanol, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries all have the potential to play their part in the powering of marine engines – but in the short term oil-price volatility could cause headaches for bunker buyers, it noted.
“Biofuels and LNG are the leading lower carbon choices at the moment,” said LQM broker James Hoffman.
“I think the future will be a combination of green-tech and alternative fuels. There’s no definitive silver bullet to this problem, rather more of a silver buckshot.”
LQM noted currently biodiesel enables vessel operators to reduce their carbon footprint by 20-30% without the need for engine modifications. However, the veg-oil derived fuel needs to be stored carefully, is easily contaminated and throws up challenges of lubricity and its flow properties need monitoring.
“We are able to source biofuel supply, but there isn’t as much availability as there is for gas oil, so we need to plan ahead,” added Hoffman.
LQM Chief Executive Daniel Rose noted the banking industry is “falling out of love with the bunker sector.”
However, he stated the provision of credit for bunkers was one of LQM’s key value propositions and a number of smaller bunker traders were exiting the sector.
Photo credit: LQM Petroleum Services
Published: 16 September, 2020
The 15,000 TEU LNG-powered containership received LNG bunker fuel from the 20,000 m3 LNG bunkering vessel “Haigang Weilai” at Yangshan Port.
Japanese power firms that operate oil-fired power generation plants started securing fuel oil earlier than the previous year and even lifted purchases of feedstock.
Annual AGCS report said the shipping industry has been affected by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including likely pushing ships owners to use substandard alternative fuels.
Ro-pax Fior Di Levante to plug into the first shore power facility at Killini port on 20 December 2018.
The shipping industry is rediscovering propulsive potential of wind as IMO 2050 and rising fuel prices underline need to cut fuel consumption and carbon output.
LNG vessel design, in different versions, is ready to accommodate between 5,000 and 7,500 m3 of LNG (gross), and cargo or vapor conditioning systems.
Program introduces periodic assessments, mass flow metering data analysis, and regular training for relevant key personnel to better handle the MFMS to ensure a high level of continuous operational competency.
U.S. Claims Register Summary recorded a total USD 833 million claim from a total 180 creditors against O.W. Bunker USA, according to the creditor list seen by Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times.
Glencore purchased fuel through Straits Pinnacle which contracted supply from Unicious Energy. Contaminated HSFO was loaded at Khor Fakkan port and shipped to a FSU in Tanjong Pelepas, Malaysia to be further blended.
Individuals were employees of surveying companies engaged by Shell to inspect the volume of oil loaded onto the vessels which Shell supplied oil to; they allegedly accepted bribes totalling at least USD 213,000.
MPA preliminary investigations revealed that the affected marine fuel was supplied by Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd who later sold part of the same cargo to PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
‘MPA had immediately contacted the relevant bunker suppliers to take necessary steps to ensure that the relevant batch of fuel was no longer supplied. Further investigations are currently on-going,’ it informs.
