Analysis

Singapore bunker samples ‘treading dangerously’ near sulphur limit prior to IMO 2020

Eurofins shares rule of thumb to determine ‘new generation’ or ‘traditional’ bunker blends and highlights potential hydrowax entering local bunker stream.

Published

5 years ago

December 24, 2019

Admin

Singapore bunker samples recently processed by international laboratory testing services firm Eurofins have been found to be “treading dangerously” close to the sulphur limit of 0.50% prior to IMO 2020, says the Bunker Business Unit Manager of Eurofins Singapore.

“The bunkering industry and their clients may want to note that we [Eurofins] have been encountering an increasing number of off spec cases related to the sulphur content of IMO 2020 compliant marine fuel,” Bryan Quek told Manifold Times on Monday.

“We have found a lot of suppliers trying to blend cargoes into marine fuel close to 0.50% sulphur content at 0.48% or 0.49%, in some cases with the figure exactly at 0.50%, which we believe is a dangerous practice.

“If shipowners have no intention to get their bunkers fully tested, we recommend the least is to check for the exact sulphur content of fuel purchased prior to consumption to guarantee the sulphur limit is not off-spec.”

Quek, meanwhile, shares stakeholders are able to determine if the bunker stem is a ‘new generation’ or ‘traditional’ bunker blend by simply referring to a general rule of thumb used by members of the fuels testing industry – that is to simply analyse the sample’s Total Acid Number (TAN).

“Bunkers in the older days usually have a TAN of either 0.1 or 0.2 but with the new types of fuels these days we are picking up a range of between 1.0 to 1.5 which is quite an obvious difference,” he says.

“Even if not off-spec [the limit is at 2.5] the increased TAN should serve as an indicator to owners and stakeholders that this fuel sample is made from a blend which includes highly acidic components and needs to be further tested.

“Acidic fuel samples [between 1.0 to 1.5] are a logical giveaway that the product has been blended with paraffinic cutter stocks [usually high in acid number] that results in more instability for the fuel.”

Other laboratories will usually recommend Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) tests when discovering fuels with high TANs; however, Quek believes otherwise.

“There is currently no standard method for GCMS tests so every lab has developed their own in-house method for GCMS testing in order to meet clients’ needs,” he notes.

“However, this gives different parameters when comparing results from lab ‘A’ to ‘B’ and adds complications when dealing with disputes as no co-relationship can be concluded with different methods.

“As such, we always follow the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method standards [ASTM D 7845] for further testing and we think this should be adopted by all fuel testing labs. Unsurprisingly, this is also the method that is recommended in the PAS 23263 document most recently published by ISO.”

Moving forward, Quek highlights that Eurofins Singapore have also discovered hydrowax being used for blending into a 0.3% sulphur fuel that is being consumed by power stations for energy in recent sample tests.

“The final product of this fuel blend, even though low in sulphur, consists of between 30% to 35% hydrowax,” he warns.

“This is the kind of substances which the shipping industry should be aware of as they cause possible engine issues when blended into bunkers. Bunker suppliers on the lookout for components are advised to stay clear of such products for blending.”

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 24 December, 2019

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

4 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

4 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

4 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