Connect with us

Analysis

Skuld: Cat fines causing claims

Skuld issues advice on preventing engine damage from catalytic fines found in low sulphur fuel oil.

Admin

Published

on

5b3da63cec94d 1530766908

The following is an article written by Margrete A. Nordahl, Claims Director, Master Mariner H&M, at marine insurance provider Skuld on preventing engine damage from catalytic fines in marine fuel oil:

Introduction
The demand for low sulphur fuel oil has steadily increased over the years, concurrent with the changing and more stringent requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) concerning air pollution.

Low sulphur fuel oils (LSFO) typically have a higher content of catalytic fines (cat fines) than high sulphur fuels, as fines end up in the low-sulphur by-products from refining processes and the by-products are blended with residual fuels to reduce their sulphur content.

ISO Standard 8217:2012 introduced a maximum permissible 60 ppm level of cat fines, expressed as Aluminium + Silicon, for marine residual fuels, a reduction from the 80 ppm levels in ISO 8217:2005. The level of 60 ppm Al+Si is maintained in the latest published ISO 8217:2017 Fuel Standard.

Engine manufacturers generally recommend a maximum of 15 ppm level of cat fines in the fuel entering the engines. As this level is significantly lower than the levels specified in the ISO Standards, it is essential to ensure adequate fuel handling and purification equipment and procedures are in place onboard to effectively bring the levels of cat fines in the fuel below 15 ppm.

As catalytic fines are very hard, they embed in the softer metal surfaces of cylinder liners, piston grooves and rings. Cat fines are particularly damaging to cylinder liners, because their surfaces are not polished or smooth.

Included below is a summary of recommendations on what the vessel should do to reduce the risk of damage to engines due to catalytic fines in marine bunker fuel [1] (Joint Hull Committee JH2013/006).

Before delivery of bunker fuel
It should be ensured that sufficient numbers of empty and clean tanks are ready to receive the new fuel and that there is sufficient existing fuel onboard to allow time for testing and receipt of analysis reports, in order that engineering advice can be acted on before the new fuel is used.

Drip samplers and equipment needed for taking representative samples of the fuel during bunker should be prepared and ready for use.

During and after bunkering

  • Draw continuous and representative bunker samples from each bunker source, barge or tanker during bunkering.
  • Arrange quickest possible dispatch of fuel samples from the bunker port to a laboratory for analysis.
  • Testing should preferably be against the latest ISO 8217 specification.
  • Await return of the fuel analysis report before using the new bunkers.

Storage of bunker fuel
Newly received fuel should, as far as practicable possible, be placed in empty tanks and blending of different parcels of bunkers should be avoided. If blending is unavoidable, it is strongly recommended that compatibility tests are carried out in advance of the fuels being blended.

Water and settled bottom sediments from fuel storage, settling and service tanks should be drained frequently. Settling and service tanks should also be cleaned regularly, at least once a year, to avoid long term build-up of cat fines and sediments at the bottom of the tanks [2] (Maurstad Marine Consult 2018). Cleaning of fuel oil storage tanks (bottom tanks) should as a minimum be done during each dry docking.

Fuel oil settling tanks should be drained for water at frequent intervals during periods of operation on heavy fuel, as cat fines are hydrophilic (dissolve/mix with water).

It is essential that oil drained from the fuel oil backwash filters is not reintroduced into the fuel treatment system.

Fuel oil purification
Never by-pass fuel filtering equipment! It could result in introduction of contaminated fuel to the engines.

  • Monitor and optimize fuel separator performance.
  • Where possible, run two purifiers in parallel with minimum flow.
  • Keep the HFO fuel inlet temperature at the optimal temperature of 98?C to ensure efficient purification.
  • In a conventional purification plant ensure the optimal gravity disc corresponds with the actual fuel.
  • Purifier capacity should be sufficient to deal with daily consumption plus 10% allowing some recirculation of fuel in the settling tank.
  • Arrange regular efficiency tests, by fuel specialist bodies.

Maintenance of equipment

  • Fuel system filters should be inspected and cleaned regularly – not only when alarms are activated.
  • Fuel treatment heaters to be regularly opened and cleaned to maintain optimal purification temperature.
  • Purifiers opened and cleaned at scheduled intervals, as per manufacturers recommendations.
  • More frequent cleaning if fuel quality is suspected to be poor.
  • If "dirty" fuels have been bunkered a few times, tanks should be cleaned at shorter intervals to avoid high concentration of cat fines at the engine inlet.
  • Adequate stock of spares onboard, necessary to maintain purifiers in good working condition.
  • If in doubt, ship's staff should seek advice from their superintendent or technical department.

PREVENTION BETTER THAN CURE!
It is recommended that ship's staff treat all residual fuel oils as if they contain cat fines. Bunker management plans should be available onboard the vessels and it must be ensured that responsible personnel is sufficiently familiarized and trained to fully and independently operate and maintain the fuel handling and treatment systems and that ship officers are familiar with requirements and recommendations by owner, operator and Industry Standards.

Take regular oil samples from the fuel oil settling- and service tank(s) and forward these to laboratory for analysis. The results received will give an indication of purifier performance and condition of fuel oil fed to the engine(s).

If ship's engineers see any signs or have suspicions that damaging levels of cat fines have entered the engine(s), they must take immediate actions necessary to prevent damages or escalation of damages in the vessels machinery. In the event cat fines have contaminated the low-pressure fuel oil system. – also the low-pressure fuel oil piping system must be thoroughly flushed [2].

Case study
The cargo vessel was on a laden voyage when heavy smoke started rising from the funnel. Her main engine was stopped and inspections revealed scratch marks and cracks in one of the cylinder liners (pictured). A new piston was fitted and the voyage continued to the destination port. On arrival, further inspections revealed cracks in another cylinder liner, worn piston ring grooves and broken / seized piston rings, despite the units only having 1,000 running hours.

High and low sulphur Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) had been bunkered recently and samples had been sent for testing. The Aluminium + Silicon level in the fuel was found to be high, but within the ISO specification. An attention warning was given by the fuel testing laboratory on how to handle and pre-condition the low-sulphur fuel before entering the engine.

The vessel's engineers increased the temperature and lowered the feed rate of separators, but did not run separators in series, as advised. One separator was running while the other was kept in stand-by.

Investigations revealed that the primary cause of the very costly engine damages was the failure in correctly handling and purifying the fuel in order to reduce the presence of cat fines to the level recommended by engine manufacturers.

[1] Joint Hull Committee (2013), "Marine Engine Damage due to Catalytic Fines in Fuel", London
[2] Maurstad Marineconsult (2018)

Photo credit: Skuld
Published: 5 July, 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
Advertisement
  • Aderco Manifold Website Advert EN
  • Consort advertisement v2
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF
  • SBF2
  • Sea Trader & Sea Splendor
  • Zhoushan Bunker

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • HL 2022 adv v1
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • MFT 25 01 E Marine Logo Animation
  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF


  • Mokara Final
  • PSP Marine logo
  • Auramarine 01
  • MFA logo v2
  • Innospec logo v6
  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • NW Logo advertisement
  • endress
  • Energe Logo
  • Trillion Energy
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • LabTechnic

Trending