Business

West P&I: How to limit your exposure to fuel contamination

Making sure crew members that handle bunker fuels have the right training is vital to reducing the risk of contamination, said Capt. Simon Hodgkinson, Head of Loss Prevention.

Published

3 years ago

July 25, 2022

Admin

The following article on steps shipowners and operators can take in preventing fuel contamination issues was written by Capt. Simon Hodgkinson, Head of Loss Prevention at mutual marine insurer West P&I; it was recently shared with Singapore bunker publication Manifold Times:

Fuel contamination remains a huge financial and operational risk for shipowners and operators, as the Singapore incident from earlier this year shows. In April, around 200 vessels visiting the port experienced technical issues such as blackouts and problems with or damage to the fuel pump or engine, forcing some to debunker.

An investigation by the Singapore Maritime and Port Authority has since attributed the contamination to a batch of high sulphur fuel oil with high concentration levels of chlorinated organic compounds.

At the time of writing, it is too early to determine how much the incident, involving US$120 million worth of affected fuel, will cost shipowners and operators. But with vessels experiencing operational problems – causing major delays to cargo delivery – insurance claims could reach millions of dollars and take several years to resolve.

With marine fuel easily the biggest operating cost for shipping companies, they cannot afford to make mistakes. Fortunately, there are measures available to them to limit the risks of a widespread fuel contamination.

Testing can be a crucial tool

Buying good quality fuel from a reputable source is one top line way to reduce risk, although a supplier’s reputation is no guarantee that all fuel will always meet specification. Yet suppliers with exemplary reputations usually charge more – and it can be difficult to understand the relative reputations of suppliers in a port that a shipowner is not familiar with. The high price of fuel oil could understandably prompt some shipowners to go for cheaper, lower-pedigree alternatives.

The risk is that operators get what they pay for when choosing a more affordable option – low-grade or even contaminated fuel that will cost them dear in disruption, delays or damage to the vessel. Owners and operators can be forgiven for buying at the lower end of the market to minimise their outgoings when oil prices are so high, but there are ways to cut risks.

For companies willing to pay more, finding the best product is fairly straightforward. Fuel testing specialists have records on all suppliers around the globe, including data on the quality of their fuel, giving buyers confidence in what they purchase. Continuously updated port-specific fuel standards and compliance data can be obtained by shipowners, and is provided alongside bunker quality alerts to all West members on the Club’s Neptune platform. Guidance on buying quality fuel is also available in this International Maritime Organization document.

Another safeguard for shipping companies is to get the fuel tested by a specialist, which will likely reveal any potential issues or anomalies. If there are concerns, the shipowner or operator should then have a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GCMS) test to check for traces of volatile organic contaminants; the most common being chlorinated solvents, phenols and styrene.

Testing fuel may be an obvious approach, but getting it done within the parameters of the bunker supplier contract is often tricky. Unsurprisingly, the contract is usually heavily weighted in favour of the supplier, with time bar clauses limiting the period for when a shipping company can make a claim.

Contractual issues

The set period in the BIMCO Bunker Terms 2018 is 30 days for concerns around fuel quality and 14 days for issues related to quantity. But in some instances, suppliers set very short time limits, possibly seven days or less, within the contract. That period may have already elapsed by the time the shipowner has sent samples off for testing, received the results and then started burning the fuel – after which time it is too late to make a claim. A claim against a fuel supplier is limited by the total cost of supplied fuel and may not cover all potential losses.

Other contractual issues to be aware of include a financial cap on liability and the quality determination clause, where the shipowner has to respond within a short time to a supplier’s request for joint testing. Failure to do so means the owner must accept the results of the test, even if it was conducted in their absence.

The circumstances for making a claim change when there is a time-charter in place. In that situation, the charterer is obliged to supply a reasonably well-maintained vessel with fuel that is fit for consumption. At the very least, the fuel should comply with ISO 8217, the global standard for marine fuels used in shipping. But even if it does pass routine inspection, the fuel may contain contaminants that remain undetected without GCMS testing – putting the charterer in breach of the fit for consumption clause.

Should a breach occur, leading to engine problems, the shipowner can pass liability to the charterer, requiring them to debunker and to provide compensation for any physical or financial losses. The key thing here is for the owner to have evidence proving contamination or that the fuel has already caused damage.

Building crew awareness

Making sure crew members that handle bunker fuels have the right training is vital to reducing the risk of contamination. Seafarers must understand the basic components and functionality of marine fuel systems and standards. They should also be well versed in the impact of marine fuels on machinery, oil analysis reports and identifying potential problems. Experienced mariners will be able to monitor the vessel’s separators and fuel consumption when fresh fuel is burning, enabling them to spot any issues as early as possible.

Well-trained seafarers will also know that isolating new fuel in separate tanks until the samples have been tested is critical. Not isolating the new fuel leaves the shipowner in a weak position when making a claim, as combining fuels could be the source of the contamination – something that they may be unable to dispute in a legal claim. Even for off-spec problems, using additives or blending fuels to bring it back on-spec can invalidate the supplier’s contract.

Bunkering remains an essential, but challenging, practice for shipowners and charterers who will likely face a huge bill if things go wrong. For more advice on how to limit the risks of fuel contamination, West P&I’s Loss Prevention team can provide expert guidance.

Photo credit: CHUTTERSNAP from Unsplash
Published: 25 July, 2022

Alternative Fuels

South Korea launches USD 696 million green bunker fuel infrastructure fund

Out of KRW 1 trillion, KRW 600 billion will be invested to build port storage facilities capable of supplying alternative marine fuels while KRW 400 billion will be used for constructing four bunkering vessels.

Published

16 hours ago

January 22, 2025

Admin

South Korea launches USD 696 million green bunker fuel infrastructure fund

South Korea’s Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and Korea Ocean Business Corporation recently held a launch ceremony in Seoul for a KRW 1 trillion (USD 696 million) infrastructure fund that will be used to support the development of storage facilities for green marine fuels and bunkering vessels.

Out of the KRW 1 trillion, KRW 600 billion will be invested to build port storage facilities capable of supplying LNG, methanol, and ammonia, and the remaining KRW 400 billion will be invested in constructing four new LNG and ammonia bunkering vessels by 2030.

The move is expected to meet growing demand for green bunker fuels for domestic vessels and ensure reliable fuel supplies for foreign ships calling at domestic ports.

The ministry also announced that the Ulsan Hyundai Liquid Cargo Terminal Expansion Project was selected as the new fund’s first project to support the demand for methanol bunker fuel for domestic and foreign vessels. The total cost of the project is KRW 240 billion, of which KRW 130 billion will be provided by the infrastructure fund.

In addition, the government plans to strengthen LNG supply capabilities through the Yeosu Myodo LNG Hub Terminal Project scheduled as the second project to be supported by the fund.

Minister of Oceans and Fisheries Kang Do-hyung, said: “Through the infrastructure fund, the government will flexibly expand the eco-friendly ship fuel supply infrastructure in line with future demand so that our ports can continue to secure a competitive edge as a global hub port.”

Photo credit: Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of South Korea
Published: 22 January, 2025

Alternative Fuels

UECC green bunker fuel investments avert FuelEU surcharges for customers

UECC said it has been able to eliminate surcharges for its customers under FuelEU Maritime as proactive adoption of green marine fuels has drastically reduced its financial exposure to the regulation.

Published

17 hours ago

January 22, 2025

Admin

UECC and Titan team up on bio-LNG bunkering operations in Port of Zeebrugge

United European Car Carriers (UECC) on Monday (20 January) said it has been able to eliminate surcharges for its customers under FuelEU Maritime as proactive adoption of green fuels has drastically reduced its financial exposure to the newly implemented regulation.

Currently, switching to low-carbon biofuels is generally seen as the most effective route to achieve compliance with progressively tighter carbon intensity reduction targets and thereby avoid penalties under FEUM, which is designed to promote uptake of alternative fuel technologies towards the goal of net zero.

However, this approach will typically entail higher fuel costs for shipping companies given that biofuels - which can deliver respective reductions of 85% and 100% in well-to-wake and tank-to-wake emissions - cost between 50-150% more than conventional fossil fuels, while there is also limited feedstock supply.

An additional ‘Energy Surcharge’ levied on shippers to compensate for this price differential can be as much as 2-5% with the use of biofuel, according to UECC’s Energy & Sustainability Manager Daniel Gent.

But he said: “UECC will change absolutely nothing about its pricing structure in relation to FEUM.”

Gent explained this is largely due to the fact that UECC has already achieved significant reductions in carbon intensity by expanding the use of biofuels across its 15-vessel fleet since 2020.

It has also adopted liquefied biomethane (LBM) on its five dual and multi-fuel LNG Pure Car and Truck Carriers under the Sail for Change sustainability initiative launched last year that is supported by several major vehicle manufacturers.

“Consequently, we are already running a compliance surplus in relation to FEUM with our current energy mix and this is expected to extend into the early 2030s,” he says.

“We have previously informed our customers that their support for our investment in multi-fuel LNG vessels would insulate them against regulatory penalties and this is exactly what is happening here. This demonstrates the clear benefits of being ahead of regulation, investing in progressive technology and in the process of generating savings for our customers.”

UECC’s fleet decarbonisation effort has focused on investments in eco-friendly newbuilds - with two more multi-fuel LNG battery hybrid PCTCs currently on order - as well as piloting alternative fuels, in addition to operational efficiencies and technical measures such as waste heat recovery and hull anti-fouling.

The company has rigorous fuel selection criteria based on sustainability, technical suitability and commercial viability. Its bio-products are compliant with Renewable Energy Directive (RED) criteria and sourced from Annex 9 feedstocks in line with regulatory requirements, while all fuels used are ISCC-certified.

Through a proactive fuel procurement strategy, UECC has secured volumes of alternative fuels for the longer term through agreements with suppliers like Titan Clean Fuels for LBM and ACT Commodities for biofuels to promote green fuel bunkering infrastructure. It is also diversifying its sources of supply, such as through a recent first truck-to-ship LBM refuelling operation with Naturgy in Spain.

“LBM from certain feedstocks or including carbon capture are the ‘heavy lifters’ on our decarbonisation journey and we see huge potential in these fuels,” Gent says.

UECC is firmly on track to achieve a minimum 45% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 to surpass the IMO target, while it is also set to exceed the required FEUM reduction of 31% by 2040 versus a 2020 baseline of 91.16 grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule.

This means that UECC will have a sufficient compliance surplus to provide a pooling opportunity for third-party vessels under FEUM “so that all stakeholders can benefit from our investments”, according to Gent. But he says the company is not resting on its laurels and intends to make further alternative fuel investments with the aim of phasing out oil-based fossil fuels by 2040.

“As we are going ‘above and beyond’ in terms of our commitment to alternative fuels such as LBM and biofuel, we expect to have a significant compliance surplus under FEUM. With the investments we are planning in such fuels, UECC will never be in a position of needing to buy or borrow compliance units,” Gent concluded.

Photo credit: United European Car Carriers
Published: 22 January, 2025

Research

Safetytech Accelerator trials show strong potential to cut methane emissions in shipping

Three technologies from Framergy, Sorama, and Xplorobot, which were selected by MAMII, show potential to detect, measure, and mitigate methane emissions on LNG-powered ships.

Published

17 hours ago

January 22, 2025

Admin

Safetytech Accelerator on Tuesday (21 January) said it has successfully completed three technology feasibility studies as part of its flagship Methane Abatement in Maritime Innovation Initiative (MAMII).

The studies were done in collaboration with Chevron, Carnival Corporation, Shell and Seapeak.

The results of these feasibility studies showed strong potential to cut fugitive methane emissions in the maritime industry.

MAMII is exploring options to advance these research projects to on-ship trials as soon as possible. 

While methane slip - unburnt methane released during the combustion process - remains the largest source of methane emissions on ships, emissions across the LNG supply chain, from loading to engine delivery, are also a concern.

These fugitive emissions are often unintended and short-lived, but identifying, quantifying, and mitigating them is essential to achieving industry-wide decarbonization goals.

Xplorobot, Sorama and framergy were selected by MAMII to help address the vital need to detect, measure and capture fugitive methane emissions from LNG-fuelled ships.

Each provider selected for the trials brings expertise in a different technology, including:

Xplorobot: Provides a handheld device and AI-powered platform to detect and measure fugitive methane on ships using computer vision to pinpoint leak locations, overlay real-time emission rate data, and integrate seamlessly with existing systems for quick issue resolution without requiring specialised training.
Sorama: Develops acoustic cameras that detect fugitive gas by visualizing sound and vibration fields in 3D. Integrated AI and onboard software identify anomalies and classify sounds, enabling direct leak localization without complex analysis.
framergy: Specialises in adsorbents and catalysts for methane emission management. Their product, AYRSORB™ F250GII, captures and stores fugitive methane by selectively filtering methane from the air, leveraging its ultra-high surface area and coordination chemistry.

Feasibility Study Results Show Promise For Methane Abatement

Xplorobot conducted a detailed evaluation of their Methane Compliance Solution, focusing on its efficacy in detecting and quantifying methane emissions on LNG carriers and LNG-powered vessels.

The study targeted emissions from the warm side of the gas fuel line and both planned and unplanned venting events. Utilising comparable on-land data, this desktop analysis assessed how the technology would perform in maritime settings.

The technology demonstrated accuracy levels of +/-30% for emissions over 500 grams per hour and +/-50% for emissions between 100 and 500 grams per hour, thanks to a refined neural network algorithm calibrated through controlled release experiments. Xplorobot's solution promises to reduce inspection time dramatically with the ability to inspect 50 to 100 components in under an hour—sometimes as quickly as 10 minutes.

This efficiency, combined with automated digital emission tracking and compliance reporting, make the solution cost-effective. The next step is to deploy the kit in the field to further validate and optimise the technology for widespread adoption across the maritime industry.

Photo credit: CHUTTERSNAP from Unsplash
Published: 22 January, 2025