Business

The Lab: Why bunker fuel oil analysis is more important than ever

Bunkers which are compliant with ISO 8217, may in fact contain contaminants, which can result in significant operational difficulties, including engine damage.

Published

1 year ago

August 16, 2022

Admin

The Lab, the independent laboratory facility opened by leading multi-disciplinary technical and scientific consultancy Brookes Bell, on Tuesday (9 August) released an article elaborating the greater importance of bunker fuel analysis today following a surge in bunker fuel quality issues in recent months:

With rising fuel costs, supply chain disruptions resulting from the war in Ukraine, and the entry onto the market of sanction-breaking oil, fuel quality issues are becoming an increasing concern for vessel owners and operators. It’s an issue we’ve seen firsthand here at The Lab. As a result, bunker fuel oil analysis is becoming more important than ever.

The rise of bunker fuel oil quality issues

It’s difficult to discern one specific reason as to why there has been a surge in bunker fuel quality issues in recent months. Certainly, the current geopolitical issues, supply chain disruptions and impacts on oil and gas producers detailed at the outset of this article won’t be helping matters.

One potential reason for the rise in bunker fuel oil quality issues could be the use of cheaper, possibly sub-standard blending components which render bunker fuel off-specification. We’ve also seen instances where insufficient clarity concerning the clauses of ISO 8217, which leads to confusion as to what levels of contaminants are ‘acceptable’.

The point is that, no matter how bunker fuel quality issues arise, the fact is that they are arising - and vessel owners and operators should be aware and prepared.

Bunker alerts

When these contaminated bunkers are identified, a bunker alert is issued by VPS - who continually monitor global fuel quality and fuel oil trends in various ports around the world.

It’s these bunker alerts which prove there has been a noticeable surge of contaminated bunkers onto the world market - with 60% more bunker alerts issued this year compared to last (note - VPS will issue a bunker alert when they have identified an off-spec parameter for three vessels within one week for the same port).

Of the bunker alerts issued by VPS in 2022, these have covered eight different ports for nine different parameters.

Some of these bunker alerts have been related to sizable incidents. Arguably the largest occurred in Singapore in March of this year, where chemically-contaminated bunker HSFO fuel was delivered to over 200 vessels.

According to reports, this resulted in major operational problems for 80 vessels - which has resulted in ongoing litigation over claims for compensation.

Bunker testing and specifications

What’s perhaps most shocking about the large-scale bunker contamination outlined above, is the point that Singapore - as the world’s largest bunkering port - has rigid sample testing procedures, governed by the Singapore Code of Practice for Bunkering (SS 600).

What’s more, these testing procedures were developed by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and the Technical Committee for Bunkering under the purview of the Singapore Chemical Industry Council.

According to reports, the contamination has its roots in ‘Estonian type oil shale’ and ‘US type fracked shale oil’, with the principal contaminants being styrene and phenol.

Even more concerning, the off-spec, contaminated bunkers were not detected by the ISO 8217 testing requirements.

This is a crucially important point for vessel owners, operators and charterers to absorb - even bunkers which are compliant with ISO 8217, may in fact contain contaminants, which can result in significant operational difficulties, including engine and other component damage.

A note on biofuels

Contaminants from poor cutter stocks or bad (or deliberate) blending practices aren’t the only thing vessel owners need to worry about.

With an increasing volume of biofuels making their way onto the open market we are seeing a rise in cases of microbial contamination - this is because the fatty acid methyl esters in biofuels are hygroscopic, meaning they attract and absorb moisture.

Should your vessels be using biofuels then, it’s vital that the fuel system is kept as clean and dry as possible.

The consequences of bunker contamination

It’s important not to understate the potential negative consequences of taking on off-spec bunker fuel. Although it can be possible to burn off contaminated fuel, this isn’t always possible depending on the level and type of contamination.

In the worst case scenarios, taking on off-spec bunker fuel can result in asset damage, such as piston ring failure, cylinder liner damage, the deterioration of rubber seals, the accretion of solids on cylinder heads, the failure of gaskets and more. All of which can result in significant costs to remediate.

Damage to critical components can also lead to severe secondary consequences such as loss of propulsion, placing both the ship and crew at risk. This can impact on the safety of other vessels which may be navigating nearby, risking collisions and even groundings.

As you can see, what may seem like a single incident can quickly compound into several more.

It pays to take bunker contamination seriously.

What’s the solution?

If vessel operators must treat ISO 8217 with caution, what then is the solution?

Whilst there is talk of overhauling ISO 8217 to bring about stricter testing to identify contaminants before they pass a vessel’s manifold, as well as discussions concerning a bunker supplier licensing scheme - vessel owners and operators are advised not to wait for these developments.

Instead, prevention should be the order of the day.

Here at The Lab we strongly recommend a proactive approach to fuel management and testing.

We can carry out the full range of ISO 8217 Table 2 testing, supplemented by gas chromatography - mass spectrometry analysis (GC-MS), fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), cleanliness and compatibility testing, and more.

Photo credit: The Lab at Brookes Bell
Published: 16 August, 2022

Vessel Arrest

Malaysia: MMEA detains tanker for illegal anchoring in East Johor waters

Panama-registered vessel was operated by 17 crew members, aged between 21 to 58 years, from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

Published

22 hours ago

November 29, 2023

Admin

Malaysia: MMEA detains tanker for illegal anchoring in East Johor waters

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) on Tuesday (28 November) said a Panama-registered tanker has been detained for illegally anchoring in East Johor waters on 27 November.

MMEA Tanjung Sedili Zone acting director Maritime Cmdr Mohd Najib Sam said the tanker was detained by a patrol boat at 11am at 15.8 nautical miles northeast of Tanjung Penawar.

The captain of the vessel failed to produce any documents that permission had been obtained to anchor in Malaysian waters.

405967750 732918675528527 4979715291480286806 n

The vessel was operated by 17 crew members, aged between 21 to 58 years, from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

The case will be investigated under Section 491B(1)(L) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952 for anchoring without permission. If found guilty, individuals may be fined not exceeding MYR 100,000 or face an imprisonment term of not more than two years, or both.

Manifold Times previously reported law firm Oon & Bazul LLP sharing on steps shipowners should keep in mind before anchoring and conducting STS operations in Malaysian waters to avoid detention.

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 29 November, 2023

Alternative Fuels

DNV paper outlines bunkering of alternative marine fuels for boxships

Third edition of its paper series focuses on LNG, methanol and ammonia as alternative bunker fuel options for containerships; explores bunkering aspects for LNG and methanol.

Published

22 hours ago

November 29, 2023

Admin

DNV paper outlines bunkering of alternative marine fuels for boxships

Classification society DNV recently released the third edition of its paper series Alternative fuels for containerships, focused on LNG, methanol and ammonia as alternative bunker fuel options for containerships.

In its updated paper series, DNV examined the different alternative marine fuel options and provided an overview of the most important technical and commercial considerations for the containership sector.

It explored the bunkering technology for LNG, bunkering infrastructure for methanol, and availability and infrastructure of ammonia.

Building on the foundation laid in the second edition, which focused on the most important aspects of methanol as a fuel, this latest third edition delves deeper – exploring the technical intricacies and commercial considerations associated with adopting methanol as an alternative fuel for containerships.

Furthermore, it provides an overview of crucial aspects related to ammonia and discusses its potential as an alternative fuel for containerships.

Amongst others, the new edition of the paper looks at the following aspects:

Technical design considerations for methanol
Commercial implications of adopting methanol as an alternative fuel
Ammonia's potential as an alternative fuel
Availability, infrastructure and ship fuel technology for ammonia
Major updates based on the latest IMO GHG strategy decisions at the MEPC 80 meeting

Note: The third edition of DNV’s full paper titled Alternative Fuels for Containerships can be found here.

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 29 November, 2023

Alternative Fuels

EDF, LR and Arup launch tool scoring ports’ potential to produce and bunker electrofuels

Tool is also applied to three different port scenarios, including ports exploring fuel production and bunkering, ports exploring fuel exports, and ports exploring fuel imports and bunkering.

Published

22 hours ago

November 29, 2023

Admin

EDF, LR and Arup launch tool scoring ports’ potential to produce and bunker electrofuels

Lloyd’s Register (LR) Maritime Decarbonisation Hub and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in collaboration with Arup, on Tuesday (28 November) introduced the Sustainable First Movers Initiative Identification Tool, a system to help shipping stakeholders align investment decisions that support the maritime energy transition away from fossil fuels.

The tool, which is presented in a preliminary findings report – The Potential of Ports in Developing Sustainable First Movers Initiatives – scores a port’s potential to produce and bunker electrofuels while delivering local environmental and community benefits in alignment with the global temperature target of 1.5 degrees Celsius set by the Paris Agreement.

“Ports can play an important role in kickstarting shipping’s decarbonisation process even before global policies are established,” said Marie Cabbia Hubatova, Director, Global Shipping at Environmental Defense Fund.

“By considering the impact sustainable first mover initiatives can have on port-side communities, climate, environment and economies, resources can be better directed to locations where these initiatives will make the biggest difference.”

With close to two billion people living near coastal zones globally, the role of, and impacts on local port communities must be intentionally considered as the sector decarbonises globally. Ports can play a crucial role in ensuring shipping decarbonisation efforts are done in a way that has positive impacts on port communities.

The preliminary phase of the Sustainable First Movers Initiative Identification Tool analyses 108 ports in the Indo-Pacific region according to five criteria including land suitability, air quality, renewable energy surplus, economic resilience and ship traffic.

It is also applied to three different port scenarios, including ports exploring fuel production and bunkering, ports exploring fuel exports, and ports exploring fuel imports and bunkering. The combined criteria and scenario evaluation determines which ports have the greatest potential (high potential) for sustainable first mover initiatives to lead to significant emissions reductions and positive impacts in nearby communities, such as improved air quality and economic resilience.

“The transition to clean energy supply for shipping can be achieved only if stakeholders act together. Identifying potential port locations is the first step in this process,” said Dr Carlo Raucci, Consultant at Lloyd’s Register Maritime Decarbonisation Hub. “This approach sets the base for a regional sustainable transition that considers the impacts on port-side communities and the need to avoid regions in the Global South lagging behind.”

Regions in the Global South are fundamental in driving the decarbonisation of shipping. To make this transition effective, the rate at which different countries adopt and scale up electrofuels must be proportional to the difference in capital resources globally to avoid additional costs being passed on to local communities. Sustainable first mover initiatives can play an important role in making this happen by ensuring the sector’s decarbonisation is inclusive of all regions and by engaging all shipping stakeholders, including port-side communities.

“There’s a huge opportunity for early adopter shipping decarbonisation initiatives to unlock benefits for people and planet – shaping the way for a more equitable transition in the 2030s,” said Mark Button, Associate, Arup. “Our collective approach shows that taking a holistic view of shipping traffic, fuel production potential and port communities could help prioritise action at ports with the greatest near-term potential.”

The tool can be customised according to stakeholders’ needs and goals and is dependent on scenario desirability. The next phase of this work will include the selection and detailed assessment of 10 ports to help better understand local needs and maximise the value offered by sustainable first mover initiatives.

LR and EDF carried out a joint study on ammonia as shipping fuel, and LR and Arup have collaborated on The Resilience Shift study focused on fuel demand for early adopters in green corridors, ports, and energy systems, amongst many other projects.

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 29 November, 2023