Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

MARITIME

DECARBONISATION 2019 • A supplement to Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery

LUBRICANTS: A SMOOTH RIDE TO 2020

ALL AT SEA OVER SCRUBBERS

FUEL CONTAGION: REDUCING THE RISKS

www.mpropulsion.com

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR HYDROGEN

Performance you can rely on.

WHEN YOU SOLVE THE LOW SULPHUR CHALLENGE SUCCESS FLOWS

Infineum B series. The power to deliver high quality, low sulphur bunker fuels in a robust and cost-effective way.

Our advanced additive technology works to prevent wax crystal growth, so bunker fuel providers can meet today’s cold flow performance challenges.

Infineum B series. When low sulphur fuels flow, so does business success.

To find out more visit InfineumInsight.com/InfineumBseries INFINEUM, 润英联, and the interlocking ripple device are Trade Marks of Infineum International Limited. © 2017 Infineum International Limited. All rights reserved. 2017172

contents Regular

MARITIME

DECARBONISATION Published January 2019

3 COMMENT

Lubricants 4 Performance issues affecting stern tube lubricants 6 Digital lube oil sensor trial spurs patent; Rivertrace adds new sensor to portfolio

Additives 8 Additives will help the industry address concerns over 2020-compliant fuel

Fuel sampling 12 Contaminated fuel presents serious risks for vessel operators

Fuel testing 14 The difficulties of accurately testing fuel 16 Searching for the cause of contamination at Houston

Emissions monitoring 18 Compliance with the sulphur cap will be a challenge, but what about the competitive advantage gained from illegal non-compliance?

Scrubbers 23 Are politics at play amid the EU environmental regulation?

24 Taiwan steals a lead on sulphur cap; no shortage of 0.5% fuel 25 China extends EMA; IMO agrees 2020 fuel carriage ban deadline 26 Stop knocking IMO and get it done; Scorpio Tankers joins the scrubber fleet 27 Hunter Group to supervise scrubber-equipped VLCC newbuildings

Clean fuel – updates 28 Singapore bans use of open-loop scrubbers in port 29 Not-for-profit group urges maritime industry to unearth greater efficiencies

Alternative fuels 30 Could hydrogen fuel-cells revolutionise maritime propulsion?

32 The business case for hydrogen

Head of Content: Edwin Lampert t: +44 20 8370 7017 e: edwin.lampert@rivieramm.com Production Editor: Kevin Turner t: +44 20 8370 1737 e: kevin.turner@rivieramm.com Brand Manager – Sales: Tom Kenny t: +44 7432 156 339 e: tom.kenny@rivieramm.com Sales Manager: Rob Gore t: +44 20 8370 7007 e: rob.gore@rivieramm.com Sales: Paul Dowling t: +44 20 8370 7014 e: paul.dowling@rivieramm.com Sales: Jo Lewis t: +44 20 8370 7793 e: jo.lewis@rivieramm.com Head of Sales – Asia: Kym Tan t: +65 9456 3165 e: kym.tan@rivieramm.com Production Manager: Ram Mahbubani t: +44 20 8370 7010 e: ram.mahbubani@rivieramm.com Chairman: John Labdon Managing Director: Steve Labdon Finance Director: Cathy Labdon Operations Director: Graham Harman Head of Production: Hamish Dickie Published by: Riviera Maritime Media Ltd Mitre House 66 Abbey Road Enfield EN1 2QN UK

LNG as fuel 34 LNG’s impressive credentials as a transitional fuel

Bunkering 38 How best to comply with the sulphur cap

Regulation

www.rivieramm.com ISSN 1742-2825 (Print) ISSN 2051-056X (Online) ©2019 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd

42 Regulatory clarity is required to meet the challenges of 2020

Subscribe from just £299 Subscribe now and receive six issues of Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery every year and get even more: • supplements: Worldwide Turbocharger Guide, Maritime Decarbonisation and Ballast Water Treatment Technology • access the latest issue content via your digital device • free industry yearplanner including key dates • access to www.mpropulsion.com and its searchable archive.

Subscribe online: www.mpropulsion.com

www.mpropulsion.com

Disclaimer: Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information in this publication is correct, the Author and Publisher accept no liability to any party for any inaccuracies that may occur. Any third party material included with the publication is supplied in good faith and the Publisher accepts no liability in respect of content. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, reprinted or stored in any electronic medium or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

STREAMLINE YOUR VESSEL EFFICIENCY VISUALIZE YOUR LUBRICATION CHART

DISCOVER THE RIGHT PRODUCT FOR YOUR NEEDS

Harness the power of knowledge

Lube-On-Ship Total Lubmarine newest service allows customers to choose the right product for their ship’s lubrication needs. Lube-On-Ship highlights our continued dedication to innovative solutions.

Visit our app at www.totallubmarine.com/lube-on-ship

COMMENT | 3

DOING WHAT’S RIGHT AND GETTING IT DONE

W Edwin Lampert Head of Content

www.mpropulsion.com

here Maersk leads, others tend to follow. The Danish behemoth intends to be a carbon-neutral conglomerate by 2050. To achieve this goal, commercially viable, carbonneutral vessels need to be sailing by 2030 and overall there needs to be “an acceleration in new innovations and adaption of new technologies”.

The statement by Maersk underlines the timeliness of this publication. New legislation is raising the environmental bar for our industry.

The good news is that we are living in a golden age in terms of technology and technical possibility. The new environmental imperative is driving outstanding innovation; a prime example is GoodFuels of Rotterdam, which is supplying a non-fossil-based main-engine fuel refined from recycled cooking oil that meets ISO standards for low sulphur fuel. A live trial was conducted in September on board Nord Highlander; the main engine was inspected after running ‘normal’ fossil fuel, and then steamed to Estonia using a range of engine loadings with the alternative fuel. After the voyage, the engine was inspected and was found to be unaffected by running the recycled cooking oil.

The primary challenges involve developing a smart, realistic and timebound regulatory framework and having the commercial conditions available to support the uptake of new technologies. Can manufacturers devise affordable technologies that pay for themselves within two years? Not everyone has Maersk’s deep pockets.

This product will tackle these core questions in the same spirit it has approached the pending IMO low-sulphur regulation. This has found its fullest expression in the two-day Sulphur Cap 2020 conferences we have organised for the last two years and which, next year, will take place in Houston, Amsterdam and Singapore.

With about a year to the IMO 2020 deadline, it is comforting – but ultimately misleading –

to assume that plans are in place throughout the merchant shipping fleet. There remains considerable confusion over the implications, cost, longevity and legal effectiveness of the choices available. Consider Singapore’s recent decision to ban the use of open-loop scrubbers.

The decision drew a sharp response from industry association EGCSA, which expressed disappointment that the world’s busiest port had made this unilateral decision without “voicing or submitting its concerns to the IMO.” Our ‘mission on emissions’ in our conference series – and in this publication – is to take a rigorous look at regulation, port infrastructure, bunkering solutions, innovation in engine technologies, the owner, operator and shipmanager perspective, fuels and lubes, scrubber and other emissions-mitigating technologies, and report the facts in a clear, authoritative and concise way. The prize for our readers is informed guidance on the choices available to them as they implement their own maritime decarbonisation strategies.

The bigger prize in greening our industry further will come in the shape of a cleaner and healthier environment. Some 14M children globally suffer from asthma and breathing difficulties. Perhaps Aurora Tankers managing director Kenny Rogers put it best when opening Riviera’s Asian Sulphur Cap 2020 Conference: “It’s time,” he said, “to do what’s right and get it done.” MP

“Can manufacturers devise affordable technologies that pay for themselves within two years? Not everyone has Maersk’s deep pockets”

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

4 | LUBRICANTS

Why are some EALs failing in stern tubes?

Panolin business development manager Phil Cumberlidge considers EALs and the performance issues affecting stern tube lubricants

RIGHT: The correct EAL can have a significant impact on the lifecycle of a stern tube bearing (credit: DNV GL)

I

think it is fair to say that synthetic (highly refined) mineral oils perform better than conventional mineralbased (petroleum) oils and we are prepared to pay more for the higher performance, longer lifetime and cleaner operations that the former offers.

Why then, given the accepted performance gains of synthetic over conventional oils, do stories abound about ‘troublesome’ and ‘failing’ environmentally acceptable synthetic oils, some of which are suspected of causing stern tube bearing failures and damage to stern tube seals?

Firstly, let us define what an environmentally acceptable lubricant (EAL) must do: it must have a minimal effect on marine life and therefore it must biodegrade; and it must have a minimal toxic effect and not accumulate in the organs of marine life, to avoid

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

being transferred up the food chain.

The EAL must also perform well in the machinery it is lubricating.

From an environmental perspective, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has led the way in this area with its vessel general permit (VGP). This requires that vessels entering US waters must use EALs in “oil-to-sea interfaces” and classifies three lubricant types as meeting biodegradability requirements: • Triglycerides (HETG – a natural ester, otherwise known as vegetable oil).

• Polyalkylene glycol (HEPG – otherwise known as PAG, or polyglycol).

• Synthetic esters (HEES – two classes: fully saturated esters and unsaturated esters).

Polyalphaolefins (HEPR, otherwise known as PAOs, synthetic hydrocarbons, or ‘man-made’ mineral oils), are not

included in the EPA’s list of biodegradable base oils in its environmentally acceptable lubricants document EPA 800-R-11-002 Section 2, of November 2011, or in its presentation Overview of the Final 2013 VGP of 6 November 2013, as they are only biodegradable in low viscosities. However, technically, the International Standard ISO 15380 (for hydraulic lubricants, industrial oils and related products) adds HEPR to the other three lubricant types, as ISO 15380 is not involved with the environmental performance of lubricants, only with technical properties and conversion recommendations from mineral-based oils.

Some EALs are not solely made from one base oil type; they can be blends of PAO and ester (typically unsaturated), to combine minimum performance and minimum requirements for biodegradability. Alternatively, they

www.mpropulsion.com

LUBRICANTS | 5

can be a mix of saturated ester to provide performance requirements and unsaturated ester to reduce cost – the lower performing unsaturated ester being lower in cost than the robust saturated ester.

So, how does an original-equipment manufacturer and consequently, a vessel owner, choose the right EAL for their equipment to provide optimum operational performance and reliability, and to support the scheduled operational availability of the vessel?

Reliability and long life come from the combined high performance of the base oil and the additives selected. Issues such as those listed below have become evident with some types of EALs: • Increasing oil viscosity due to poor thermal stability, causing equipment overheating.

• Decreasing oil viscosity due to shear instability, causing equipment damage.

• Varnish and gumming of the system, due to thermal degradation of the oil causing loss of machinery efficiency.

• Slime and bad smells due to oxidation, water contamination and bacterial growth.

• Corrosion of equipment internals due to the hygroscopic nature of the lubricant used.

• Overheating of propulsion systems, questioning oil film thickness and frictional characteristics.

• Difficult filterability, separating of seawater, particularly from emulsifying oils.

• Additive solubility issues in cold conditions, where valuable performance additives come out of solution, clump together and get filtered out of the base oil.

• Difficult change-over from existing oils in equipment, due to immiscibility/ incompatibility with existing mineral or other EAL oil.

These problems result in more frequent system and lubricant monitoring, increased maintenance, more lubricant top-ups, system draining and refilling, increased costs for the transport and disposal of used oil and add to the cost of replacement parts. These are the obvious direct costs of using inferior performing/life oils. Other hidden costs include the paperwork to administer all these monitoring/inspection/testing/ re-ordering/logistics operations, and lost revenue due to equipment downtime/ failure – and the reputational damage of late deliveries of consignments.

Currently, the EAL world is in turmoil; reports abound of poor performance of EALs in equipment where mineral oils were previously proven to work.

www.mpropulsion.com

“Currently, the EAL world is in turmoil; reports abound of poor performance of EALs in equipment where mineral oils were previously proven to work”

Phil Cumberlidge (Greenmarine/Panolin): “Many vessel owners who adopted EALs early in the current VGP2013 lifespan have fallen foul of lower performing, short-life EALs – most are now changing to the better performing EALs”

Stern tube lubricants sometimes have a short life of only two to two and half years before acidity of the lubricant increases, viscosity dramatically increases, or the stern tube is contaminated with stinking black sludge that blocks seal oil-feed pipes and bearing oil lubrication washways.

Many vessel owners who adopted EALs early in the current VGP2013 lifespan have fallen foul of these lower performing, short-life EALs. Most are changing to the better performing EALs. An announcement earlier this year by DNV GL of a joint development project with several marine insurers and the University of Sheffield, which will investigate the increase in stern tube bearing failures, will shed light on whether EALs are to blame. If so, it will be interesting to see which base oil lubricant types are prone to operational failure. Slower steaming with larger, heavier propellers requires the highest oil film performance from the stern tube lubricant.

Fully saturated synthetic esters are leading the way in terms of reliable, high-performance and long-life marine lubricants for stern tube/CPP and thruster propulsion, rudder and bow thruster steering and vessel stability systems, such as fin stabilisers and ballast control. They have the benefit of being environmentally considerate and reducing a vessel’s carbon footprint. Documented monitoring of Panolin-saturated synthetic esters shows that in all areas of fluids and lubricant use – stern tube, hydraulics and gearboxes – the robust chemistry of saturated ester technology can enable up to 10 times the operational life of mineral oils, when combined with best management practice for lubricants, which includes looking after the oil and having regular sample checks.

It is the lubricant manufacturer’s job to tell customers about the key performance indicators of their lubricant(s) – so consult them and ask them what specific EAL base oil technology they use. If they say “We use ester technology”, ask if it is natural, unsaturated, or a blend of saturated and unsaturated ester, or if it is the ‘real thing’ – a fully 100% saturated synthetic ester.

The correct selection of the type of EAL base oil, coupled with complimentary additive technology and good housekeeping of the EAL’s condition, can ensure an EAL specifically designed for the stern tube application performs well. MP

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

87 Callingham Rd, Pittsford, NY 14534 USA

NYK digital lube oil sensor trial spurs patent

www.idudesign.com

6 | LUBRICANTS

A year-long trial of a sensor used to detect moisture levels in engine lubricant oils has convinced one of the world’s largest shipping companies to develop the technology further

kits, which detect free water in lubricating oil or emulsion from 100.02% humidity.

However, any water content values measured exceeding 100% humidity indicate that free water is already present, and the engine is being exposed to corrosion and oil degradation.

To mitigate corrosion risk, Rivertrace’s Smart WiO Sensor uses capacitive measurement of absorbed water in oil with continuous monitoring.

The Smart WiO sensor continuously monitors water content value as a percentage of humidity, taking consideration of the oil temperature.

The sensor also measures the saturation of the oil independently from the oil type and oil age.

It is intended to be used for preventative maintenance protocols and condition-based monitoring of lubricating and hydraulic oil, detecting water presence to avoid costly damage and premature wear via early warnings from pre-set alarms.

At 50% humidity the WiO sensor triggers a pre-alarm, allowing the crew to take preventative actions to reduce the water content.

At 90% humidity the main alarm is triggered, alerting crew before any free water is present in the oil. MP

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

Rivertrace’s Smart WiO measures water in oil and limits the risk of engine corrosion and premature wear (credit: Rivertrace)

www.mpropulsion.com

+1 585 248 5229

The Smart WiO (Water in Oil) sensor continuously monitors dissolved water content in oil, allowing ship operators to actively limit the risk of engine and machinery corrosion.

All oil can absorb a certain volume of dissolved water, up to a maximum concentration called the saturation point.

When the saturation point of an oil is exceeded, any unabsorbed water will separate from the oil as free water, which can cause corrosion inside the engine.

The saturation point can change with an oil’s age, cleanliness, temperature and other factors, including composition, whether the oil is mineral or synthetic and the formulation of additives.

Water-in-oil content has traditionally been measured by test

team@idudesign.com

Rivertrace adds Smart water-in-oil sensor to portfolio

IDU Creative Services

N

YK Group has developed and is patenting what it calls an ‘advance alarm system’, following initial trials for the system on its Haramachi Maru vessel.

NYK said the system “can detect anomalies on a real-time basis” from water ingress into lubricating oils in engines.

“Controlling the quality and properties of lubricating oil is very important for vessel engines to operate stably,” NYK said in a statement.

“Water can contaminate lubricating oil when cooling water for the engine leaks or the oil purifier fails, during which time the bearings and other components can be seriously damaged.”

The trial on board Haramachi Maru collected sensor data over the course of a year using a proprietary shipboard information management system (SIMS); it focussed on moisture content for lubricating oil in the vessel’s main engine NYK now intends to develop another alarm system for generators.

Describing how the system operates, NYK said: “The advance alarm provides early warning signals when the permissible range between the actual relative moisture content of lubrication oil exceeds the proper moisture content for the surrounding environment, based on the temperature and humidity in the engineroom. After detection, immediate action can be taken at an early stage.”

The sensor-led system is part of a fleet-wide sustainable growth strategy, according to NYK, that is focused on digital technology.

The company’s medium-term management plan calls for the use of condition-based maintenance to cut costs.

Taro® Ultra cylinder oils

join the performance team 2020 lubrication solutions

Taro® Ultra 25

Taro® Ultra 40

Taro® Ultra 70

Taro® Ultra 100

Choose Taro® Ultra and join a high-performance team of regulation-ready solutions, backed by an expert family of experienced specialists and collaborating Chevron businesses — always learning, always sharing, always improving. chevronmarineproducts.com © 2018 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of Chevron Intellectual Property LLC.

Taro® Ultra 140

8 | ADDITIVES

Additives and the race for purer fuel Additives have a big role to play in the development of 2020-compliant fuel, enabling the sector to better deal with the complications presented by a low-sulphur future, writes Selwyn Parker

W

ith the 2020 sulphur cap becoming a not-sodistant concern, Japanese container shipping giant, Ocean Network Express (ONE), has engaged fuel treatment specialist Innospec to develop the cleanest possible fuel for its requirements.

The marine division of Innospec, a specialist in fuel additives, will be treating many tonnes of fuel in a trial involving more than 60 of ONE’s vessels. Rival container groups will be watching the exercise closely. With a total fleet of 240 vessels and a capacity of approximately 1.44M TEU, the group boasts the sixth-biggest fleet in the world and, like its rivals, has much to gain from cleaner and more efficient fuel.

The trial is taking place as operators of container ships, tankers, cruise ships, ferries, tugs and offshore support vessels search for the best ways to meet the new standards that mandate 0.5% sulphur emissions. Although undoubtedly good for the planet, the regulations are putting the world’s shipping fleet and the fuel industry under unprecedented pressure.

With time running out, some experts are even predicting the end of heavy fuel oil (HFO), the default energy of the fleet for nigh on a century. These assumptions are based on the relative lack of interest to date in scrubbers, that are designed to clean up emissions in the exhaust system. According to industry sources, the total number of scrubbers already installed and on order is just 500, far below earlier expectations. And looking ahead to 2020, Shell Marine estimates that fewer than 2,000 ships will be fitted with scrubbers that will allow them to continue running on high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO).

That means the long-term future for HFO looks dim. “The reality is that we are looking at a distillate future,” predicts Innospec.

Spanish ferry group Balearia would certainly agree with that

Balearia Ferries expects to invest some US$70M on gas-powered engines

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

www.mpropulsion.com

ADDITIVES | 9

Additives can improve fuel combustion, increasing efficiency and helping meet regulatory requirements

conclusion. The company announced in late July that it will be investing €60M (US$70M) in switching five of its ferries over to natural gas-powered engines. The two-year exercise is estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by more than 45,000 tonnes and NOx emissions by more than 4,400 tonnes, while eliminating all sulphur and particle emissions.

In addition, in February 2019, Balearia will launch the first of two low-emission smart ships. “Balearia expects to have nine ships sailing with this energy within three years,” announced chairman Adolfo Utor.

As with other conversions to gas power, Balearia’s project depends on the skill and knowledge of the oil companies. In the ferry group’s case, Spain’s Gas Natural Fenosa has developed the 2020-compliant fuel and has signed a 10-year supply contract.

In addition to fuels, there is also an unprecedented amount of work going into lubricants. Shell Marine has designed its entire portfolio of lubricants to meet the incoming standards. The oil giant is also trialling a new cylinder oil, due to be launched in 2019, as demand grows for lubricants fit for the new era. “Shell Marine’s expectation is that 90% or more of the shipping fleet will switch to fuels with a sulphur level of 0.5% in the run-up to January 2020,” said global technical manager Sara Lawrence. “This will be a mixture of very low sulphur fuel oil and distillate fuels.”

Not to be outdone, ExxonMobil has developed Mobilgard 525, a high-quality cylinder oil for vessels operating on fuel oil with 0.10% sulphur content.

www.mpropulsion.com

Additives in the mix

The production of higher quality fuel also requires the application of advanced science in terms of distillate additives. Shipping companies of all types want improved lubricity. They also want cleaner fuels that reduce the fouling of injectors, a regular bugbear in the engineroom.

To reduce fuel waste, they want more efficient combustion. In the interests of easier maintenance and longer-lasting engines, they also want less corrosion, another area where additives offer sustainable solutions. And everybody wants more stable fuel that retains its properties even under long-term storage.

Additives have an important role to play – if they work. As Lubrizol Industrial Fuels’ technology manager Jim Bush and product manager Scott Hace explained in a paper titled The truth about marine fuel additives, “over the years fuel additives have developed a questionable reputation in the shipping industry, due to the actions of a few unscrupulous suppliers.”

Thankfully, this concern appears to be a thing of the past, and the additives industry is toiling along with the rest of the fuel sector to deal with the complications presented by a low-sulphur future.

“Treatment with lubricity-improving additives is sometimes required for fuels which have been severely hydro-treated to produce ultralow sulphur diesel,” noted the paper’s authors.

Additives can be used to stabilise distillate fuel that has been stored on board for long periods, an important consideration in “fuel-switching” – when a vessel changes to cleaner fuels in lowemission zones. Additives also play a key role in improving fuel

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

10 | ADDITIVES

combustion, which not only makes for more economical voyages but also reduces the build-up of soot, a constant concern in enginerooms because it presents a fire hazard. Finally, metal-based additives can neutralise the accumulation of corrosion-causing acid created by high-sulphur fuels.

The perennial problem of tank sludge is also coming to a head as the low-sulphur deadline nears. The muck from HFO accumulates in fuel storage tanks, fuel lines and injection gun systems, sometimes over years. It is not possible to pour 2020-compliant fuels on top of the sludge because it breaks up the residues, which then work their way through the main engines and auxiliary power systems, causing blockages in filters and purifiers.

So how to get rid of it when ships switch over to non-HFO or cleaner HFO fuels? Until recently, the only way was to take the ship out of action while the tanks were cleaned in an expensive and time-consuming exercise. However, Innospec has developed a product that it claims allows the tanks to be cleaned while the vessel is under way.

This could have a huge impact on costs and fleet management, allowing engines to practically clean themselves during operation.

The pursuit of the right treatments and additives is endless, with experiments going on constantly in the background. In early 2017 at

A new ‘wonder fuel’ out of Japan The imminent low-sulphur regulations have sparked Japan’s Oshima Shipbuilding and partners to explore the development of a new virtually emissions-free, reasonably priced fuel based on cycle oil. According to Oshima and classification society DNV GL, the fuel would meet the 0.5% sulphur cap without the need for scrubbers or other expensive and space-consuming equipment. For good measure, it is said to be highly combustible.

Known as Super Eco Fuel, it is a compound of different liquids.

Oshima Shipbuilding said it comprises light cycle oil (LCO), which is a secondary refinery product, gas-to-liquid (GTL) made from natural gas, and finally plain water. LCO has a low sulphur content but is hard to ignite, while GTL contains almost no sulphur or other impurities, ignites easily and delivers a complete combustion process. The fuel, which is mixed on board, can be used in existing engines without the need for time-consuming retrofits.

“In addition, the specific fuel oil consumption is slightly lower,” said Oshima. “CO2 emissions and soot formation are reduced as well.” According to DNV GL, this potential wonder fuel will cost more than standard HFO but less than other low-sulphur fuels.

However, it is still early days. The fuel is being trialled in Japan and the results are being collated. “Preliminary tests of the fuel characteristics, engine performance and reliability have yielded satisfactory results,” DNV GL reported.

So far, DNV GL is impressed by the potential. “I am excited about Super Eco Fuel,” said DNV GL expert and discipline leader in hydrodynamics and stability Adam Larsson, who has been working with Oshima on a new kind of general cargo carrier. “The technical feasibility of engine performance has to be assured. But it may have significant potential as a marine fuel.”

This article originally appeared in Marine Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, August/September 2018

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

its Marine and Power Innovation Centre in Hamburg, Shell tested the properties of an Innospec product, Octamar Complete, designed to improve specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC), stability and emissions. According to the company, the results showed an average SFOC reduction of 1.6% across the power range and a maximum reduction of 2.2% at half load. Furthermore, the product was able to reduce the emission of particulate matter by 60%.

The problem of supply

The supply of additives is likely to become an increasingly large problem as we close in on 2020. It is a complex issue that goes right back to the refineries. Shell Marine anticipates up to 3M b/d of HSFO will be displaced by low-sulphur fuels, which clearly involves huge adjustments in supply.

It has already implemented most of its two-stroke portfolio and is working on the rest, but there are many kinds of oils to consider. The company has recently upgraded its four-stroke crankcase lubricants – Shell Gadinia and Shell Argina – noting in a technical paper, titled Shell Marine prepares for more cylinder oil uncertainties, that “The new oils have been optimised to deal with the faster viscosity increase and the base-number depletion experienced by oils in modern mediumspeed engines.”

Similarly, ExxonMobil has come up with Premium HDME 50 that meets all the low-sulphur regulations. “[It] has no residual material, which leads to cleaner engines without cat fines,” the company reported. ExxonMobil also claims excellent ignition quality for the fuel.

Fuel quality issues

As the 2020 deadline approaches, the variable quality of fuel remains a pressing issue alongside additives. However, ship-to-shore connectivity and sensor-based analytics are helping ensure the integrity of the fuel.

Several oil companies have devised proprietary systems, such as Shell Marine with LubeMonitor, which detect deteriorations in the condition of cylinders and feed the data to Shell’s on-shore team for analysis. As the company explained, ship operators ignore such aids at their peril: “Even companies grappling with the cost of the Energy Efficiency Design Index, Shipping Monitoring Reporting and Verification, CO2 and ballast water management systems will concede that one lesson learned from engine cold corrosion has been that saving on cylinder oil technical services can prove a false economy.”

Maritime contractor Van Oord has adopted Shell’s advice. In June, the Rotterdam-based group signed a five-year contract with the oil giant to handle lubrication for its fleet. “We are involved in dredging, oil and gas infrastructure, and offshore wind projects around the world,” explained staff director of the ship management department Jaap de Jong. “We must have 100% reliability wherever our vessels are operating.”

That is why laboratories around the world are working at peak capacity to create additives, fuels and lubricants that are not only friendly to the environment, but also to the engine. MP

“We are involved in projects around the world; we must have 100% reliability wherever our vessels are operating”

www.mpropulsion.com

17 / 56,000+ / 31 Million* 17 physical supply locations in key ports, over 56,000+ transactions and 31 million metric tonnes supplied.

*

Whether you want to purchase fuel and lubricants via our 1,200 port network, or you want to deal direct in one of our 17 physical supply locations, isn’t it time you considered World Fuel Services? Beyond Fuel.

marinesolutions@wfscorp.com

www.wfscorp.com

12 | FUEL SAMPLING

The mounting risks of dirty fuel From an environmental, regulatory and operational perspective, the pressure on the shipping industry to provide clean fuel has never been greater, writes Selwyn Parker

T

he mounting number of claims arising over contamination issues from fuel supplied in the US Gulf and Panama earlier this year, affecting over 50 vessels at the last count, graphically highlights the importance of effective fuel-sampling systems.

As the new sulphur emissions regulations start to bite from January 2020 and the quality of fuel becomes paramount, far more responsibility will fall on crews to ensure the fuel on board adheres to the regulations and is contaminant free. Quite apart from ships being adrift with seized engines, as happened earlier this year due to contaminated fuel, the penalties for buying suspect fuel are hefty. They run from fines to the detention of vessels.

In the above-mentioned contamination incident, the culprit is likely to be a substance used in the manufacture of epoxy resins and as an emulsifier in pesticides, according to research being conducted by Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS). It is known as 4-Cumyl Phenol, a chemical with adhesive properties – exactly the opposite of the freeflowing fuel that ship engines need.

According to a study by mutual insurance association P&I Club claims executive Amanda Hastings, the contaminations manifested in seizures to fuel-injection systems and blocked filters.

Needless to say, it is illegal to pump this fuel. As IMO regulations make clear, “the fuel shall not contain any additive at the concentration used in the fuel, or any added substance or chemical waste that jeopardises the safety of the ship or adversely affects the performance of the machinery.”

Maritime Decarbonisation 2018

The latest meeting of MEPC proposed tougher rules on non-compliant fuel

Rigorous testing

But here’s the rub: the rogue fuel “appears to meet the basic ISO 8217 Table 2 test requirement,” according to the P&I club study. If so, then more rigorous tests of fuel are clearly required to avoid similar incidents occurring. But this raises another problem, in that there are not enough laboratories worldwide to conduct the kind of advanced analyses required to identify all possible contaminants.

“The usual 24-hour turnaround, normally obtained in fuel-testing programmes for the standard [ISO] tests, is largely unattainable for the more detailed investigative analyses,” confirmed Ms Hastings.

So how then does a conscientious crew detect bad fuel? In part, enginerooms must be more alert to

warning signs that a vessel’s fuel is not meeting the necessary specifications.

Such signs may show up in the form of blocked filters; but in the latest bout of contamination, the evidence came too late, in the shape of sticking fuel pumps.

If the crew are able to detect the telltale signs, standard procedures must be followed to mitigate the damage. First, suggests the P&I Club, stop using the fuel and, if possible, segregate it. Retain samples for the laboratories and save any damaged or seized components, such as fuel-injection pump barrels, plungers and the like, for subsequent analysis.

“Ship operators should constantly monitor the quality of bunkers delivered to their vessels,” states Seagull Maritime, which in August combined with VPS to launch courses on the subject. “While

www.mpropulsion.com

FUEL SAMPLING | 13

some fuel buyers may argue that they have not encountered any fuel-related problems, it is increasingly important to pinpoint the sources of quality problems because marine fuel is an internationally traded commodity.”

Mass flow meters

Given the risks, the pressure is on the bunkering industry to up its game. That is why Singapore, which in 2017 sold a record 50.6M tonnes of marine fuel, last year installed mass flow meters for bunker sales and proposes to extend their use from July 2019.

Mass flow meters will be installed on bunker tankers as part measures to enforce tougher standards on quality, measurement and sampling. The meters will not only measure how much oil is transferred, they will also take samples at terminals, helping the port authority prepare for the January 2020 emissions deadline.

This technology should help ensure the quality of fuel before it is loaded, but it will not fix the problem entirely. “Contaminated marine fuel remains one of the biggest hurdles facing the bunkering industry in 2018 and this trend will likely continue beyond 2020,” warned VPS group managing director Dr Malcolm Cooper, in a post in October titled, Marine fuel quality:

Where do we go from here?

As he points out, unfortunately marine fuel is not always what shipowners expect it to be. It is blended with cutter stocks (to reduce viscosity), diluents and additives, and sometimes cheaper alternatives are used. “Contamination may arise from impurities in any of these blending components,” he explained.

“There is always the possibility that some unforeseen detrimental side reaction may take place during blending.”

A 40-year veteran of the laboratory and one of the most authoritative voices on the subject, Mr Cooper fears the quality control procedures for marine fuels are not sufficiently rigorous.

Further complicating matters, the supply chain is often long and complex, making it difficult to identify weak links.

“The key is to provide traceability and highlight changes, additions, or blending of the fuel throughout its journey from refinery to vessel,” he suggests. “This could be achieved by testing and certifying the fuel at each stage of the fuel custody transfer, including checks on the quality of all components used to blend the fuel.”

Indeed, this has long been the case in aviation fuel, where the risks of contaminated fuel would be catastrophic.

Costly as it is, a similar level of rigour may have to be adopted by the marine sector. Shipowners will be forced to take a much closer interest in a subject that, until now, has largely been the prerogative of fuel suppliers.

A last resort

In the meantime, onboard system checks are an essential element to the process of ensuring the fuel’s integrity. As VPS explained, “even if a delivered fuel meets the ordered specifications, it is imperative that the fuel treatment plant is operating at maximum efficiency, or engine damage may occur.”

The mere taking of fuel samples from tanks and fuel systems is a highly detailed operation. As the laboratories point out, correct procedures and paperwork can help prevent arguments over low-quality fuels – or at least settle them more rapidly.

“Disputes arising from poor-quality fuel deliveries can be complex and what may seem to be a simple case can become very convoluted with respect to documentation, samples and alleged damages,” warns VPS in an advisory note.

And with the new regulations little more than a year away, the pressure to deliver – and use – high-quality fuel is only going to increase. MP

Responsibility is shifting from technicians to crews to ensure fuel is pure and compliant

www.mpropulsion.com

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

14 | FUEL TESTING

Fuel testing in a low sulphur age Difficulties in identifying sources of contaminated fuel are putting pressure on testing regimes and prompting calls for new testing services, writes Selwyn Parker

E

arlier this year an incident involving contaminated fuel in the US Gulf quickly spread, affecting nearly 100 vessels at last count. The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) states that testing laboratories have identified the problematic fuel was

probably high sulphur sold as an RMG380 grade under the ISO 8217 specifications.

Technically speaking, this is typically the 2005, 2010 or 2012 edition of the standard.

Those shipowners affected by the contaminated fuel are now gathering evidence to present to insurers and courts in

pursuit of commercial settlements.

The unfortunate matter underlines the importance of good practice throughout the bunkering and shipping industries, particularly as the 2020 deadline for very low sulphur fuels nears. The industry is already fearful about the quality of 0.50% fuel blends, as Unni Einemo, a member of the IBIA’s secretariat and a specialist in bunkering, explained: “Many have predicted that contamination cases like the one seen in the US Gulf and beyond during the spring and summer of 2018 are going to get much more frequent due to blending to ensure sulphur limit compliance,” she told Bunkerworld in October. She added that there may be thousands of unspecified potential contaminants capable of compromising fuels.

That is not good news for shipowners, even though, as Ms Einemo noted, the issue comes down to suppliers. “What we can say is this: all suppliers selling product to meet ISO 8217 have a duty to test those cargoes in advance,” she said, citing the IBIA’s Best practice guidance for suppliers for assuring the quality of bunkers delivered to ships.

The integrity of fuel will become even more important as new emissions regulations take hold (image: Shell)

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

www.mpropulsion.com

FUEL TESTING | 15

The long-term solution, according to the IBIA, is the development of a “globally consistent method and protocol.”

However, that looks to be some way off for the time being.

Meantime the regulations are clear and place the onus of responsibility on the supply chain to provide uncompromised fuel. The obligation is defined in Annex B of ISO 8217, which points out the impracticability of carrying out chemical analysis and states the expectation that the fuel complies with the requirements of Clause 5.2 before it is bunkered: it must be “free from any material at a concentration that causes the fuel to be unacceptable for use in accordance with Clause 1.” This clause says that the material should not be present “at a concentration that is harmful to personnel, jeopardises the safety of the ship, or adversely affects the performance of the machinery.”

“All suppliers selling product to meet ISO 8217 have a duty to test those cargoes in advance”

Ongoing concerns

It is unlikely that issues with bunker fuels will suddenly stop after the switch to lowersulphur fuels in 2020. There is widespread concern in the shipping and bunker industries that some of the new, lowemission blends will prove incompatible if they are brought into contact with each other, accidentally or otherwise.

As Bureau Veritas global technical manager for marine fuel services Charlotte Rojgaard told Platts: “Compatibility is a known issue. It exists today and will exist after 2020. Very low sulphur fuel oils (VLSFOs) will need to be handled with similar care to [fuels] today.”

Post 2020 it is expected that new blends of marine fuel will be supplied in two main types: paraffinic and aromatic. According to Platts, paraffinic fuels will have a higher pour point that will require them to be heated in colder climates.

“Mixing a paraffinic and an aromatic product is not a very good idea as you run the risk of an incompatible product,” Ms Rojgaard told Platts, pointing out that the same risk applies when mixing two of the current high-sulphur fuels.

As concerns grow, oil companies are now increasing their involvement in the issue.

ExxonMobil has announced that it expects all of its VLSFO blends will be compatible with each other. In late October, the oil and gas major’s new US$2Bn refinery at Antwerp started converting heavy fuel oil into 2020-compliant marine fuel, pumping it out at a rate of 50,000 barrels a day in anticipation of a sharp spike in demand.

www.mpropulsion.com

“The Antwerp refinery … increases our ability to deliver larger quantities of cleaner, higher-value fuels to European customers,” said the president of ExxonMobil’s fuel and lubricants company, Bryan W. Milton.

ExxonMobil is also expanding a plant in Rotterdam that will upgrade heavier hydrocarbon by-products into ultra-low sulphur diesel.

Despite the concerns of the shipowning community, the oil companies themselves appear confident that the integrity of their marine fuels will not be compromised.

BP promised in September that it would be able to deliver a range of products that would meet the requirements for ships’ fuels, including high-sulphur fuel oil for ships fitted with scrubbers, VLSFO with a maximum sulphur content of 0.50%, and marine gas oil (MGO) with a maximum sulphur content of 0.10%, suitable for the stricter environmental regions such as the Norwegian fjords.

“BP has quality assurances in place to make sure that its products meet the requirements of ISO 8217 and are aligned with standard grade names,” the company reported. In a reassuring move designed to help shipowners work with the fuel, BP will make VLSFO products available during 2019.

Crews to step up

But, as BP points out, shipowners and enginerooms must also do their bit to support a smooth transition. Some fuels

may be incompatible if mixed on board ship the group warns, while crews should be sure to segregate bunker stems on board “and minimise their mixing throughout the fuel system in line with standard operating procedures.” BP also cites the risk of incompatibility when mixing distillate and residual fuels.

Still, after all the problems with contaminants, it will come as some relief that in the new low-sulphur era, problems associated with cat fines – a by-product of catalysts used in the refining process – are likely to decline. At present residual products, slurry and light-cycle oil, are used to reduce the viscosity – a cause of cat fines – before they are bunkered. But, explains Platts, many of the new VLSFO blends are likely to be less viscous and dense than today’s fuels, which should make them less susceptible to cat fines.

Whatever the cause of the contaminated fuel loaded at Houston and elsewhere – similar issues were reported by ships lifting bunker fuel in Panama and Singapore as late as July – the episode puts pressure on the bunkering industry to maintain the highest possible standards of quality control. According to The International Council on Combustion Engines (CIMAC), one possible cause may involve cross-contamination due to a new product cargo being loaded into multi-purpose storage tanks that were not properly emptied and cleared.

It may be little comfort to shipowners whose vessels stopped dead in mid-ocean, but the IBIA has not found any evidence of malpractice or negligence by specific companies. Also, the IBIA is adamant that the contamination cases “are completely unrelated to low-sulphur fuel oil blending.”

The shock of widespread contaminated fuel has spurred the fuel-testing industry into overdrive, ahead of the new regulations.

US testing firm Core Laboratories now offers a service that promises to safeguard the quantity and quality of fuels loaded from ports anywhere in the world, while France-based certification agency Bureau Veritas has proposed a new testing programme known as VeriFuel that aims to “set the future benchmark in marine fuel testing.” This service would see VeriFuel experts on the ground, checking the integrity of the product on the suppliers’ premises before it is lifted.

With just over a year remaining before the new regulations apply, that is the level of confidence-inspiring commitment that shipowners require. MP

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

16 | FUEL TESTING

What went wrong in Houston?

The investigation into what caused the contamination of fuel in the Houston area earlier this year has so far come up empty-handed, with the seemingly random nature of those affected adding confusion to the task

T

he latest investigation into problems encountered by vessels that used residual fuels bunkered in the Houston area earlier this year has failed to come up with an explanation as to why some vessels were unaffected, while others suffered a wide variety of problems, some of them serious.

The International Council on Combustion Engines (CIMAC), organised by the International Bunker Industry Association, remains baffled and investigations are continuing.

But as more evidence emerges, the extent of the problem only grows. A number of ships had to resort to tows when their engines completely failed after bunkering the contaminated product, while others lost electrical power. According to CIMAC, the main problem involved sticking engine fuel pumps, but separator sludging and filter blockages were also reported.

While it has not been possible to identify the root cause of the incidents, the CIMAC investigation noted that a number of suppliers were affected, which indicates that an upstream incident

Houston bunkering contagion – investigators are still searching for a definitive explanation

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

“The analytical investigations revealed that not all of these fuels had the same fingerprint parameters”

probably contaminated the fuel delivered. The investigation has revealed that the problematic fuels were supplied by about 10 different suppliers from a range of barges. But otherwise the working group looking into the affair, which is composed of refiners, suppliers, ship operators, fuel-testing laboratories and classification societies, has come up empty-handed.

The absence of a definitive explanation highlights the importance of more reliable fuel testing, as lower-sulphur fuels become obligatory after January 2020. It also raises the issue of existing standards, as all the analysed fuels met the ISO 8217 Table 2 requirements.

The investigation has, however, turned a light on the results of the contaminated fuel, if not the cause of the contamination itself. A review of the reported cases revealed the incidences were not isolated to any specific machinery, make of components or brands of the affected separators, filters, two-stroke or four-stroke engines.

The difficulties faced by the CIMAC committee also illustrate the shortcomings of fuel testing in general. “To complicate matters, the analytical investigations revealed that not all of these fuels had the same fingerprint parameters. And further to this, a vast majority of the ships bunkering in the affected ports during this period [May] did not report any issues, despite having received fuels which seem to have originated from the same source,” the committee reports.

Extensive analyses of the fuels was undertaken by a number of the laboratories represented within the working group. These revealed a range of “chemical species” in the fuel oils used; most were present at “very low levels”, although they showed up in “more significant concentrations” in certain samples.

One of the troubling issues here is that nobody is able to say whether these unwelcome chemical species are also present in ‘good’ fuel. That means it is impossible to say at this stage whether the blending process was deficient in some way, or even whether the chemical species arrived by accident or design. MP

www.mpropulsion.com

Your visions succeed Marine system expertise Integrated system solutions raise your efficiency, sustainability and profitability.

Our expertise in dual fuel and gas supply systems, optimized propulsion, exhaust after-treatment, and battery hybrid solutions enables your visions to succeed. www.man-es.com

18 | EMISSIONS MONITORING

Emissions monitoring: Maintaining a level playing field post 2020 Compliance with the sulphur cap will be challenging enough in itself, but a further concern involves the competitive advantage gained from illegal non-compliance

W

hen the new rules for marine fuel oil take effect from 1 January 2020, only fuels with a sulphur content below 0.50% will be compliant.

The rules are embedded in Marpol Annex VI as Regulation 14 and apply to fuel oil used outside Emission Control Areas (ECA). Within ECAs, a limit of 0.10% has been in force since 2015.

According to Statista, the world fleet constituted roughly 52,000 ships above 500 gt in 2017; for a large number of these ships the upcoming SOx rules are not of relevance, as they operate on distillate fuels. According to MAN ES, few ships below 2,000 gt with less than 3,000 kW installed power are configured to operate on HFO.

Compliance in North Europe

Roger Strevens Vice President of Global Sustainability Wallenius Wilhelmsen Mr Strevens works across many corporate activities, ranging from regulatory affairs to innovation and new business development. He is also the founder and chairman of the Trident Alliance. Mr Strevens holds an engineering degree from the University of Dublin, Trinity College.

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

The sulphur rules have in principle been enforced since their introduction in 2005. It was only after the 2015 ECA rules took effect, however, that deliberate non-compliance was considered a genuine concern. With a current price gap between compliant and non-compliant fuel of some US$225, bunkering 1,000 tonnes of non-compliant fuel could release a “cheating bonus” of US$225,000.

As the present ECAs are situated in North Europe and North America, areas with long-established port state control regimes, they do not offer a realistic guide as to how other ECAs might operate around the world, notably because fuel oil inspections have never really been an issue outside the ECAs. It is thus with some apprehension that the shipping community at large will greet 2020.

Enforcement in general

There are essentially two ways in which a vessel can demonstrate compliance with the rules: 1. Show the sulphur content in the fuel – BDN and fuel sampling; or

www.mpropulsion.com

EMISSIONS MONITORING | 19

“The range and quality of enforcement tools have improved since the implementation of the 0.1%S ECA zones”

2. Take a measurement of SOx content in the exhaust gas.

The measurement of the SOx content in the exhaust gas is done by establishing the relationship between the number of CO2 molecules in the fume and the surrounding air and the number of SO2 molecules. This relationship can, via a relatively simple formula, be translated to the Fuel Sulphur Content (FSC): FSC = SO2 measured [ppm] / (CO2 background) [ppm] 105 0.02308 According to the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) the overall compliance rate in the North European ECA is around 95%, based on PSC inspections. Still, the use of non-compliant fuel constitutes a reasonably large minority (21%).

External emissions monitoring

The main problem regarding enforcement is that at present, it is literally impossible to monitor which fuel oil is being used and the consequent emissions on the open sea.

Although the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) does grant littoral states some rights to intervene on ships in international waters, few coastguards would actually consider boarding a ship in open sea to check for compliance with Marpol Annex VI. The jurisdiction of the ships lies basically with the flag state, most of which have no capacity, or interest in, performing such checks.

Monitoring exhaust gasses from planes, drones, satellites, under-bridge and at port entrances have been trialed for some years. The sniffer project under the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark started as early as 2013. Later, the port of Gothenburg tested a combination of sniffers and laser beams at the port entrance and recently a successful sniffer project was run at the entrance to Bergen in Norway.

Several EU states within the ECA have performed fly-overs with airplanes to examine ships’ fumes, which eventually led the EU Commission to issue the guidance: Best Practices Airborne Marpol Annex VI Monitoring, under the Compliance Monitoring (CompMon) Project.

The Finnish Meteorological Institute even tried monitoring emissions via satellite, with limited success. It has been possible to measure the average SOx content in the air over a large area, but not to identify the level of SOx emissions from a specific source.

The Danish company Explicit ApS has carried out ship emissions monitoring on behalf of the Danish EPA since June 2017, using helicopters and drones. Upon evaluation 96.5 % of all measurements were classified as high quality; 92-97% of the vessels checked were compliant, depending on geographic location.

This method of monitoring might be considered more efficient than the use of permanent sniffers, simply because most ship crew will be aware of where permanent sniffers are located, whereas they could never know when a plane or a drone would appear. In fact, the results show a generally higher SOx content far from shore

www.mpropulsion.com

than under the Great Belt Bridge, implying that some ships change to compliant fuel before passing under the bridge.

It is important to note that the results obtained by these methods are only indicative and are not likely to be used as evidence in court. For prosecution purposes, a lab-test of the fuel would be required. The intention is that port state control will use the sniffer results to identify ships for in-port inspections.

Internal emissions monitoring

Scrubbers installed in accordance with IMO’s Scheme B require constant monitoring and recording. In the early days of scrubbers, the Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) was an Achilles’ heel of the system, but reliability is now improving.

Sensor manufacturer SICK’s strategic industry manager Hinrich Brumm said: “The CEMS technology came from onshore and was not always suitable in the harsh marine environment. However, as a manufacturer, this led us to develop a new CEMS especially for marine use and for undergoing type approvals (class requirements IACS E10, vibration, power fluctuation, etc, and Marpol compliance).”

The mandatory installation of CEMS was actually proposed

by IMO, but to no avail. And while some owners have mooted the notion of voluntary CEMS installation and reporting to their customers, interest from the shippers community in general has been minimal. They simply expect the carrier to be compliant.

There is no doubt that emissions monitoring is an important tool in the enforcement of the sulphur rules, but there remains some considerable resistance among many flag states and shipowner associations to the mandatory use of CEMS. It will likely require a high level of global non-compliance before the shipping community at large is convinced of the merits of the mandatory installation of CEMS.

Trident Alliance

In early 2014, as concern over intentional non-compliance with the emissions rules grew, a group of owners met in the Maersk Maritime Technology office in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid such a situation, via the implementation of a very robust enforcement regime. The meeting resulted in the formation of the Trident Alliance, an association which today comprises 46 shipowner members.

Whether a result of the Trident Alliance or otherwise, it must be acknowledged that the maritime authorities within the ECA areas have responded positively to the concerns expressed. The EU Commission established the European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF) in 2014, one subgroup of which was tasked with addressing enforcement of the SOx rules within EU waters.

Discussing the actions taken in this area, chairman of the Trident Alliance Roger Strevens said: “The range and quality of

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

20 | EMISSIONS MONITORING

enforcement tools have improved since the implementation of the 0.1%S ECA zones, but the global sulphur cap will require more.

Among the enforcement tools that are being further developed are remote-sensing technologies. The Trident Alliance welcomes this focus and supports the adoption of reliable new compliancedetection techniques and technologies. Effective enforcement tools, used in conjunction with the (heavy fuel oil) carriage ban, will have an important deterrence effect, in addition to contributing to the detection and eventual prosecution of gross violators.”

How do owners perceive exhaust gas monitoring?

Scrubbers have something of a mixed reputation, but among their advocates, DFDS director of environment and sustainability Poul Woodall has only praise: “At DFDS we installed the first scrubber on Ficaria Seaways in 2009. Today we have 18 scrubber-fitted vessels in service, nine newbuildings contracted and a decision to retrofit a further 12 vessels with scrubbers. By and large our scrubbers have worked well.”

He continues: “During the past couple of years, DFDS has participated in the testing of drones and planes/helicopters for emissions monitoring of SOx. Basically, test flights have been conducted over a number of DFDS vessels – primarily scrubber fitted – and the results from the airborne readings have been compared with sensor readings from our ships. The work has been done by an external company, but we understand that the results reach an acceptable level that proves the accuracy of such airborne measurements.”

Looking to the future

We will likely be well into 2020, or even 2021, before we know whether non-compliance with the 2020 sulphur regulations poses a real problem.

It must be noted that the objective of the regulation is to protect the population from the unhealthy fumes caused by burning HFO. Recent measurements in Denmark show that sulphur content in the air has reduced by 50% since 2015, clear evidence that the rules are working in this region.

From a shipowner perspective, the main concern is if competitors gain an unfair advantage by deliberately violating the rules. Some non-compliance might be initiated and executed by the ship’s crew without the consent of the owner and that will not disturb the competition. If, however, a vessel is caught burning non-compliant fuel and it proves to be company policy instigated from top management, the hope is that all involved states would make the most rigorous response available to them to crack down on such practices. MP

Poul Woodall Director (Environment & Sustainability) DFDS A/S Poul Woodall has over 40 years of experience in the maritime and transport industry. He has a degree from Copenhagen Business School supplemented with management education at Insead and Stanford. Mr Woodall is also involved with the Trident Alliance, Green Ship of the Future, Interferry and various ESSF working groups in Brussels. In July 2018, Mr Woodall joined the new CEF Transport Advisory Group of INEA.

“Today we have 18 scrubber-fitted vessels in service, nine newbuildings contracted and a decision to retrofit a further 12 vessels with scrubbers”

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

www.mpropulsion.com

Leading fabricator for EGCS scrubber towers

Leeuwarden,The Netherlands

Introduction FIB Industries manufactures process equipment in special and high alloy materials. Established in 1946 in the town of Leeuwarden, in the north of The Netherlands, FIB Industries has grown into a major player in the field of special alloy manufacturing, serving customers worldwide.

FIB Industries’ manufacturing facility includes an ultra-modern plasma cutter and welding robot and is located alongside the Van Harinxma canal with its own quay for inland shipping providing access to all major seaports.

Facility includes 55,000 m², 300 ton lifting capacity and equipment can be handled up to 45m long, 20m high and 9m diameter.

Materials

Throughout the world, FIB installs customized stainless steel and high-alloy products, which are vital components of technically complex installations. The products are made from materials such as:

· · · ·

Types of stainless steel: 6MO; 254SMO; 1.43xx; 1.44xx; 1.45xx; 1.49xx Duplex: Duplex; Super Duplex; Lean Duplex LDX; SAF 2507 Titanium: as a solid material or as cladding in grades 2, 3, 5 and 9 Nickel alloys; Hastelloy; Inconel: others

Certificates

Design codes

- ISO 9001:2015 - ISO 3834-2 - PED D, H, H1 - ASME U, U2 & R - SQL - EN3834-2

- EN-13445 [PED] - RToD [Stoomwezen] - API-560, 620, 650 - NORSOK - EN 14015 - PED2014/68/EU

- ASME SEC. VIII Div. 1,2 - CODAP - AD2000 - PD-5500 - KIWA - BS 2654

Contact details: Einsteinweg 18 8912 AP Leeuwarden The Netherlands Contact person: Vittorio Stanco Sales Manager T +31 6 51 74 71 41 E v.stanco@fib.nl I www.fib.nl

SCRUBBERS | 23

Shipowners and scrubber manufacturers challenge ‘politics’ of EU environmental regulations Shipping industry representatives have taken issue with what they describe as the ‘politics’ driving some shipping-focused environmental regulation within EU countries

I

n a seminar about IMO’s global cap on sulphur in fuel held at the UK Chamber of Shipping offices in London, discussion around scrubbers provoked probing questions about whether European ports would ban the use of 'openloop' scrubbers.

With scrubber manufacturers reporting that a majority of shipowners have opted to install open-loop systems on their vessels, one question focused on worries over regulations in Belgium and Germany that ban the systems because they discharge the seawater used to remove sulphur and particulate matter from ships’ engine emissions back into the sea.

DFDS shipping’s head of environment and sustainability Poul Woodall answered succinctly.

“That’s two countries. Belgium has a law from the mid-1970s banning any discharge within a 3-mile zone (from shore). It’s nothing to do with scrubbers or exhaust gas systems or anything like that. It’s a very old law,” he said.

“The rest of Europe has the water framework directive, which operates up to a mile from the coast. Countries interpret that differently.”

Mr Woodall said he believed regulatory attitudes were becoming more favourable toward open-loop scrubbers in Europe as a whole.

“What we have seen is actually more ports are opening up for open-loop... I actually think there is an opening up of the allowance.” he said.

The questioner asked if Mr Woodall thought open-loop scrubbers would still be allowed in European ports in the near future. Mr Woodall said decisions on the matter were being made on the

www.mpropulsion.com

basis of political opinion.

“It’s politics, rather than logic. We can prove collectively that we are within the [water quality] limits that have been decided,” he said.

Carnival’s vice president of marine technology Chris Millman supported Mr Woodall’s assertion.

“In our experience, there are only a relatively limited number of ports that have pushed back [against open-loop scrubbers], predominantly in Europe,” he said.

“But that’s only about 10% or 15% of the ports we have called at in Europe. And, again, like Poul says, we are very confident in the results of our analyses. And the facts and the scientific basis of what we have been doing with all of these washwater studies show that we meet all of the regulatory requirements.”

Claiming the test results for scrubber washwater on Carnival ships compares “favourably with EU drinking water standards,” Mr Millman said “the facts support the case for open-loop scrubbers,

and we believe that will carry the weight of the day barring political intervention”.

Later, opening a panel discussion with other scrubber manufacturers, Yara Marine Technologies head of sales and marketing Kai Låtun said he had it on good authority that recent legislation to eliminate emissions in Norway’s UNESCOdesignated fjords would be overturned.

“In Norway, they have decided to only allow zero-emission vessels in the so-called ‘Heritage Fjords’ from 2026 … which is impossible,” he said of the likelihood of reaching the target.

“I have it from several sources that that decision made in the Norwegian National Assembly is going to be reversed. They simply have to. Occasionally science wins, but politics is a very special arena.”

“The public scene is about politics and their knowledge about science is scarce...

Address politics the way you address politicians and not the way you address scientists. That is my experience, anyway,” he said. MP

Some industry insiders claim regulatory attitudes are becoming more favourable toward open-loop scrubbers in Europe

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

24 | SCRUBBERS

Taiwan shocks industry with 12 months forward implementation of IMO global sulphur cap

G

uidance has been issued to owners that Taiwan is to implement the IMO 2020 global sulphur cap from 1 January 2019, a full year earlier than required.

West of England P&I Club correspondents ProMarine Law Office, Taipei, have advised of the publication of further guidance concerning the early Implementation of the Marpol sulphur cap in Taiwanese ports from 1 January 2019.

The guidance, issued by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC), advises that from 1 January 2019 vessels entering international commercial port areas in Taiwan shall utilise either fuel oil with a sulphur content of not more than 0.5% m/m by weight, or equivalent methods of emission reduction in accordance with the Marpol Convention.

Marpol Annex VI allows vessels to comply with the regulations by using either fuel oil with a sulphur content below the prescribed limit, by utilising a “fitting, material, appliance or apparatus” such as exhaust gas cleaning technology, or by “other procedures, alternative fuel oils or compliance methods” such as onboard blending of fuel oil or the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

When an alternative means of compliance is used it must be “at least as effective in terms of emission reductions as that required by this Annex.” Any alternative means of compliance with the regulations must be approved by the vessel’s flag administration.

Taiwan: Early mover on shipping pollution legislation

Report: no shortage of 0.5% fuel in 2020 ‘if the price is right’

Bjarne Schieldrop (SEB Norway): Big fuel spreads ahead in 2020

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

A report from Nordic corporate bank SEB has asserted that the world’s refineries should be able to ‘easily’ meet the need for 0.5% marine fuel in 2020.

That outcome, however, is highly dependent on the price of 0.5% fuel relative to the prices for other fuel types, according to SEB’s IMO 2020 Report #2.

“The world’s refineries should easily be able to supply enough quality 0.5% fuel, given the quantities of low-sulphur crudes available worldwide today,” the report, authored by SEB Norway’s chief commodities analyst Bjarne Schieldrop, said.

Global refineries “will only supply [0.5% fuel] if the price is sufficiently high in relative terms,” the report claimed.

The magic number is roughly US$90

per tonne less than the price of marine gas oil (MGO) with 0.1% sulphur content – at least in the immediate aftermath of the 1 January 2020 start date for IMO’s global cap on sulphur in fuels.

That price relationship with 0.1% fuel will need to hold for the first three to four years after IMO’s global cap on sulphur in marine fuel kicks in, the report said.

Thereafter, the price of 0.5% fuel will need to remain some US$90 per tonne above that of the heavy fuel oil (HFO) many vessels currently use – and that those vessels with scrubbers installed will be allowed to continue to use – containing 3.5% sulphur content.

A significant surplus of HFO 3.5% is factored in during the years 2020-2022, the report said. >>>

www.mpropulsion.com

SCRUBBERS | 25

“We forecast production of MFO 0.5% fuel oil will cause the Gasoil market to tighten as middle distillates in the form of vacuum gas oil (VGO) [blends] are retained within MFO 0.5%,” it said.

“As a result, we still estimate the Gasoil to HFO 3.5% price spread will widen to more than US$450/tonne in 2020 and the MFO 0.5% to HFO 3.5% price spread to increase to over US$360/ton, before slowly but steadily decreasing once again as the market adapts.” >>>

“The world’s refineries should easily be able to supply enough quality 0.5% fuel, given the quantities of low-sulphur crudes available worldwide today”

China extends emission control areas China’s extension of its emission control areas to its entire coastline will be triggered within weeks in a move that is certain to encourage LNG-fuelled and other lowpollution shipping in the longer term.

The regulations, which were announced in mid-2018 and apply from January 2019, are similar to those already applied in European ECAs. They set a sulphur content limit of 0.5% and will affect all vessels sailing within 12 nautical miles of the coast as well as when berthing.

Also, from 2020 the government may move to further tighten the sulphur limit to less than 0.1% as it aims for 100% compliance with IMO’s global sulphur cap regulations.

Shippers operating in the new coastal ECA zones will probably have to carry dual fuels to comply with the regulations, reports energy consultant Wood Mackenzie. Clearly, clean-burning LNGpowered vessels such as chemical tankers will be advantaged.

Although the 12-mile limit is much softer than the up to 200-mile limits imposed in European ECAs, the regulations are highly significant because of the huge role that China plays in international shipping. The regulations also apply to inland waterways through which there is a huge flow of goods to the interior provinces. According to Wood Mackenzie, nearly two thirds of China’s demand for bunker fuel of 650 kb/d is used in inland waterways, with the rest burned in coastal areas.

Most of the fuel used is oil and marine diesel and emits varying levels of sulphur.

But from January 2019, China will impose a unified specification for diesel known as China VI for marine use. Although China VI is more expensive than the highsulphur fuel (HSFO) that is currently most in demand, HSFO-powered vessels will be banned on inland waters from 2019 unless they are fitted with scrubbers or other sulphur-reducing technology.

IMO agrees 2020 fuel carriage ban deadline for sulphur cap

MEPC now prohibits vessels without scrubbers from carrying fuels containing more than 0.5% sulphur for use on board

IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has adopted a measure prohibiting vessels without scrubbers from carrying fuels containing more than 0.5% sulphur – for use on

www.mpropulsion.com

board as opposed to cargo.

The so-called carriage ban amendment passed on 26 October at MEPC 73 without comment from the committee, and it is expected to enter

into force on 1 March 2020 under IMO’s ‘tacit acceptance’ procedure.

The new 0.5% limit on sulphur in ships’ fuel oil known as the sulphur cap will enter into force from 1 January 2020,

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

26 | SCRUBBERS

under IMO’s Marpol treaty.

The complementary Marpol amendment will prohibit the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship – unless the ship

has an exhaust gas cleaning system, commonly called a ‘scrubber’, fitted.

Scrubber systems are an accepted alternative means to meet the sulphur limit requirement.

According to IMO language, “The

amendment is intended as an additional measure to support consistent implementation and compliance and provide a means for effective enforcement by States, particularly port State control.”

Scorpio Tankers joins the scrubber fleet Following its announcement on fitting ballast water management systems to its fleet, Scorpio Tankers has now committed to fitting exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) to at least 75 tankers in its fleet.

In the latest announcement, Scorpio Tankers reported an agreement to retrofit 15 of its LR2s with scrubbers.

Scorpio has agreed letters of intent with suppliers, engineering firms, and ship repair facilities to cover the purchase and installation of scrubbers on substantially all of its remaining owned and financed leased LR2, LR1, and MR tanker vessels (approximately 75 vessels) between the second quarter of 2019 and the second quarter of 2020.

The scrubbers and their installation are expected to cost between US$1.5M and US$2.2M per vessel, and the company

anticipates that 60-70% of these costs will be financed.

Scorpio Tankers chairman and chief executive officer Emanuele Lauro commented: “We have long maintained that the IMO 2020 regulations are both disruptive to the shipping industry generally as well as a powerful demand catalyst for product tankers. Although many well-capitalised and publicly-listed shipowners can source capital and publicize their intentions to pursue scrubbers, most of our industry cannot, and will rely on cleaner fuels to the benefit of ton-mile demand for product tankers. Irrespective, our focus remains on operating the most competitive fleet in our marketplace, and this has led us to carefully evaluate and ultimately opt for the benefits of fitting hybrid-ready scrubbers on approximately 90 ships in our fleet.”

Stop knocking IMO and “get it done”

Kenny Rogers (Aurora Tankers): A higher purpose at stake beyond that of the shipping insustry

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

In a searing and emotive opening address at the recent Asian Sulpur Cap 2020 Conference, Aurora Tankers managing director Kenny Rogers castigated the global shipowning community for its complacent attitude towards pending sulphur cap regulations.

Sparing no one's sensitivities, Mr Rogers told more than 150 delegates to “do what's right and get it done.” There was a “higher purpose” at stake he said, referring to the more than 14M children globally suffering from asthma and breathing difficulties.

As well as cajoling the industry to act, he offered an insight into the hard-headed pragmatism that guided Aurora Tankers’ adoption of scrubber technology. “We see a two-tier system developing where charterers pay a premium for ships with scrubbers through to 2021. For anyone taking delivery of a vessel in 2023-2024, I wouldn't advise installing scrubbers.”

Mr Rogers said Aurora Tankers had gone for open-loop scrubbers as they are “less sophisticated and offer

easier maintenance versus the closedloop variety.”

He acknowledged that closed-loop scrubbers might have a limited shelf life pointing out their use was banned in Chinese, Californian and German territorial waters.

Concluding, he said that LNG would be the industry's long-term future.

“China's national strategy sets out that by 2025, 15% of the vessels operating in its waters will need to be LNG-fuelled.”

“We see a two-tier system developing where charterers pay a premium for ships with scrubbers through to 2021”

www.mpropulsion.com

SCRUBBERS | 27

DHT Bronco: An example of the new-generation scrubber-fitted VLCC newbuildings

Hunter Group to supervise scrubber-equipped VLCC newbuildings Hunter Group ASA has been appointed the technical advisor for the four Hartree Maritime Partners LLC VLCC tankers to be constructed at Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering.

“Hunter Group is very pleased to have been given the opportunity to provide newbuilding supervision services to Hartree. We believe this agreement will provide both companies with significant cost savings and synergies.

Our experienced technical team is now responsible for the building supervision of 11 'sister vessels' all to be constructed at DSME between October 2018 and August 2020,” said Hunter Group chief executive Erik Frydendal.

Better known in the product tanker sector, Hartree traces its origins back to Hess Energy Trading Company LLC

(HETCO), which was a joint venture between Hess Corp and the founding partners who operated the company today, Stephen Hendel and Stephen Semlitz.

In 2014, Oaktree Capital acquired Hess Corp’s interests in HETCO with the new company taking the name Hartree Partners, LP. Altogether, there are 11 identical specification VLCCs on order at Daewoo, four for Hartree and seven for the account of Hunter Group. The specification includes scrubbers and ballast water systems, with deliveries taking place between October 2018 and August 2020.

“Hartree Maritime Partners LLC is equally pleased to be working with Hunter Group ASA in provision of technical newbuild supervision for the

construction of the eleven sister DSME VLCC vessels. It is Hartree and Hunter’s intention to form a new scrubber-fitted pool to operate this fleet of 11 eco VLCC vessels. By combining Hartree’s global trading and chartering experience and Hunter’s technical knowledge this pool will serve to minimise operational costs whilst maximizing earnings. We will be working with other scrubber-fitted VLCC operators to expand this pool,” said Hartree managing director Guy Merison.

The fleet of scrubber-equipped VLCCs is growing rapidly, although it is hard to pin an exact number on how many will be available when the IMO 2020 global sulphur cap is introduced.

The formation of the scrubber-ready tanker fleet is predicated on the expected cost differential. MP

“The fleet of scrubber-equipped VLCCs is growing rapidly, although it is hard to know how many will be available when the sulphur cap is introduced”

www.mpropulsion.com

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

28 | CLEAN FUEL updates

Singapore bans use of open-loop scrubbers in port Singapore’s Maritime Port Authority (MPA) will ban the discharge of wash water associated with the wet, openloop configuration of exhaust gas cleaning systems

Andrew Tan (MPA): “We are working to ensure an adequate supply of compliant fuel oil in Singapore well in advance of 2020”

Maritime Decarbonisation 2018

M

PA chief executive Andrew Tan has announced a ban on the discharge of wash water from open-loop scrubbers, which reportedly will become effective from the onset of the IMO-mandated global cap on sulphur in fuel on 1 January 2020.

“To protect the marine environment and ensure the port waters are clean, the discharge of wash water from open-loop exhaust gas scrubbers in Singapore port waters will be prohibited,” Mr Tan said in a speech to the Singapore Registry of Ships forum.

Vessels fitted with open-loop scrubbers will be required to use compliant fuels in Singapore port waters. Ships fitted with hybrid scrubbers will be required to switch to the closed-loop mode of operation, he said.

Scrubber manufacturers have reported that a majority of shipowners have opted to install open-loop systems on their vessels.

Mr Tan also said “Singapore, as a party to Marpol Annex VI, will be providing reception facilities for the collection of residues generated from the operation of scrubbers.”

Studies, including from the European Union’s Joint Research Centre ( JRC), have found the 'residues' in exhaust gas wash water lead to ocean acidification.

JRC researchers looked at the effect the wash water released by ships in the North Sea has on the acidification of sea water and compared it with the impact of CO2 emissions on ocean acidification.

The study found that “along major shipping lanes, sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from ships can further ocean acidification with a rate that is two-fold with respect to that caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”

The study also found that increased SO2 levels decrease the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 and “indicated potential problems with water quality in critical areas such as ports, estuaries and coastal waters.”

Citing different studies, scrubber advocacy organisation Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA) has called the addition of SO2 from scrubber wash water “insignificant when compared with the quantity already in the oceans.”

Describing chemical reactions involved, EGCSA said the seawater used to wash exhaust in open-loop scrubber configurations “buffers or neutralises acids created by scrubbing”.

EGCSA Director Don Gregory was dismayed at the news from Singapore's MPA. He said: “It is disappointing that after nearly 25 years of debate and development of regulations at IMO, the Singapore MPA as a signatory to Marpol Annex VI has not voiced or submitted its concerns to the IMO.” “We recognise a sovereign state is free to determine its own rules in its territorial waters, but industry could reasonably expect the MPA to seek dialogue with stakeholders before making such a unilateral decision and announcement.

EGCSA will seek to have a dialogue with the MPA to understand the facts behind the concerns which have led to this dramatic announcement,” he said.

Singapore is one of the world’s busiest ports and is a major bunkering station for refuelling the shipping industry.

In his speech, Mr Tan also sought to allay fears that 2020 sulphur cap-compliant fuels would not be readily available.

“As a major bunkering hub, we are working closely with our bunker suppliers to ensure that there will be an adequate supply of compliant fuel oil in Singapore well in advance of 2020.

We will produce a list of suppliers that are able to supply compliant fuel by the middle of next year,” he said. MP

“To protect the marine environment and ensure the port waters are clean, the discharge of wash water from open-loop exhaust gas scrubbers in Singapore port waters will be prohibited”

www.mpropulsion.com

updates CLEAN FUEL | 29

Not-for-profit group urges maritime industry to unearth greater efficiencies The Global Maritime Forum, a not-for-profit group consisting of 34 chief executives and industry stakeholders, is pushing the maritime industry to transition to zero-carbon fuels and new propulsion systems, among others

T

he Global Maritime Forum is an international not-for-profit foundation dedicated, it says, to “unleashing the potential of the global maritime industry.” It is committed to “shaping the future of global seaborne trade to increase sustainable long-term economic development and human wellbeing.” To that end, it is pressing the industry to accelerate both technological and business-model innovation, improve operational and technical energy efficiency, and transition to zero-carbon fuels and new propulsion systems.

Among the 34 industry leaders who have signed a call for action in this regard are A.P. Møller-Maersk vice chief executive Claus Hemmingsen, Cargill Ocean Transportation president Jan Dieleman, Lloyd's Register chief executive Alastair Marsh, Trafigura chief executive Jeremy Weir, MISC president and group chief executive Yee Yang Chien, Maritime Strategies International managing director Adam Kent and Euronav chief executive Paddy Rodgers.

“Shipping has so far been exempt from regulations to address the issues around greenhouse gas emissions from fuels for ships, but IMO has, after consultation, laid a pathway which requires a fundamental change in the way we fuel our ships,” explained Mr Rodgers. “Shipping must embrace these targets, so let’s take our responsibility to make sure our industry is heading towards a sustainable future for ourselves and the next generations, in line with the expectations of our global stakeholders.” MP

“Shipping must embrace these targets so let’s take our responsibility to make sure our industry is heading towards a sustainable future for ourselves and the next generations”

www.mpropulsion.com

GLOBAL MARITIME FORUM’S CALL FOR ACTION – KEY POINTS The core principles of the Global Maritime Forum’s call for action are as follows. The group says the strategy should be consistently in line with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals.

• Predictable: regulations should provide long-term certainty for financiers, builders, owners and charterers to make the required investments in low-carbon technologies.

• Market-oriented: emissions reduction objectives should be met at the lowest possible cost, and the industry should explore the use of carbon pricing and other mechanisms that can create economic value from GHG emission reductions.

• Technology-enabling: the strategy should accelerate the use of low-carbon technologies and fuels by encouraging significant funding flows for research and development.

• Urgent: certain mid- and long-term measures will require work to commence prior to 2023, including developing zeroemission fuels to enable implementation of decarbonisation solutions by 2030.

• Coherent: solutions implemented should build on and reinforce existing technical, operational, and energy efficiency measures while maintaining or enhancing safety standards. In this context it is critical that all IMO environmental regulations be compatible with future 2050 regulations.

• Enforceable: legally binding, enforceable actions set by IMO and enforced by member countries are required to compel the industry to shift.

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

30 | ALTERNATIVE FUELS

An end to emissions? Why hydrogen fuel-cells will revolutionise maritime propulsion As potentially the cleanest of all power sources, hydrogen fuel-cell technology is under intense scrutiny in the world’s laboratories, writes Selwyn Parker

N

orwegian maritime research group Sintef Ocean and Zurichbased ABB have launched a collaborative project exploring the potential of powering full-sized vessels with fuel-cell technology.

The two companies will start work in Sintef ’s laboratory in Trondheim, using its vessel simulator to test different combinations of diesel, battery and fuel cells under varying loads. If the science stands up, it could lead to an important breakthrough in propulsion.

“Ultimately, any type of commercial or passenger ship could be driven by fuel cells,”

say Sintef Ocean research manager for maritime energy systems Anders Valland.

And while nobody is predicting the imminent demise of fossil fuels, Sintef ’s scientists believe fuel cells could provide a viable alternative, even in big vessels, in the not-too-distant future. “These trials are expected to provide a platform for fuel-cell [technology] to build on, so it can take a position in the maritime sector that is competitive with fossil fuels,” said ABB Marine and Ports product manager for energy storage and fuel cells Jostein Bogen.

Some experts predict that fuel cellpowered ships will be plying the oceans

much sooner than many had assumed.

Nicolas Pocard, marketing director of Ballard Power Systems, which has been working on the technology for years, said: “Marine applications are currently in development; they should become widely available within three to five years after the first systems are implemented and proven in the field.”

And why not? Hydrogen fuel-cell power has been successfully installed in buses, trains and trucks. And the cruise industry, for which there is a strong business case for zero-emission propulsion, is deeply interested in the technology.

Even methanol-fuelled ships such as the Stena Germanica emit more pollution than fuel-cell powered vessels (image Stena Lines)

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

www.mpropulsion.com

ALTERNATIVE FUELS | 31

From kW to MW

Working alongside ABB, Ballard Power Systems is leveraging the current kW-scale fuel-cell technology into a full MW-scale output; quite enough to push big vessels through the water.

And Ballard is making good progress.

In mid-2018 it came up with a unit capable of producing 3 MW – or 4,000 horsepower – in a unit no bigger than a standard fossilfuelled marine engine.

In November, in a post entitled Zero-emission regulations are coming to the marine industry, Mr Pocard argued that shipowners and operators will be forced to have at least some zero-emission vessels in their fleets “within a very few years”.

He cites four key benefits of hydrogen fuel-cell technology: stable, direct-current power that can be distributed across the entire vessel, including all its electrical requirements; the fast-improving capacity of fuel-cell systems, now up to 55% electric efficiency; clean, usable water as the only by-product; and long service life with low maintenance. (Classification organisation DNV GL adds two other virtues to fuel-cell power: much lower vibration and less noise.)

In fact, Mr Pocard considers fuel-cell power as superior to battery power because “hydrogen has a much higher energy density than batteries, [so] fuel cellpowered vessels can run longer and travel further before refuelling.”

At the Trondheim laboratory, the fuel cells under development are known as proton-exchange membrane (PEM).

The project is built around PEM because they offer several advantages over their solid-oxide counterparts; they operate at lower temperatures, are more compact and lighter.

And while the various research teams working on this technology cannot put a precise date on when combustion-free, hydrogen-powered fuel cells will drive environmentally pure deep-sea ships, they are convinced it will happen, to the considerable advantage of the planet.

“With the use of renewables to produce hydrogen for fuel cells and stored energy for batteries, the entire chain can be clean,” predicts ABB Marine and Ports’ Mr Bogen.

Currently fuel cells, broadly classified as energy converters, are thought to be the natural technology for hydrogen, but other hybrid applications are being developed in laboratories around the world. For instance, gas turbines or the

www.mpropulsion.com

traditional internal-combustion engine can be incorporated into fuel cells, instead of as stand-alone operations.

Similarly, fuel cells can be combined with batteries and, possibly, super capacitors, according DNV GL in its latest analysis of where the maritime industry stands with alternative fuels. “[These] add peak-shaving effects [and are] a promising option,” the society notes in its report, Assessment of alternative fuels and technologies.

Looking farther ahead, the report highlights the potential of a different kind of fuel cell – the proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC). Made of more flexible materials, PEMFCs could improve fuel-cell lifetimes significantly, as they are better protected against the heaviest loads, suggests the paper.

However, it also notes the outlook for solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) is less promising: “[They] must be applied in a hybrid environment using peak-shaving technology to be a realistic alternative for shipping.”

A measured approach

At Trondheim the researchers are taking a measured approach, conducting their experiments and simulations on terra firma, albeit in a simulated maritime setting. “Finding unknowns and coping with them in a controlled environment, rather than risking surprises on board ship, will be central to these trials,” said Mr Bogen.

Still, no one is doubting the project’s ambitions; as ABB Marine and Ports research and development engineer

“These trials are expected to provide a platform for fuelcell technology to build on, so it can take a position in the maritime sector that is competitive with fossil fuels”

Fuel cells are compact and light, important ingredients in vessel design

Kristoffer Donnestad explained: “We will be seeking the decisive and practical solutions to develop fuel-cell technology for main propulsion.”

Trondheim laboratory has a good track record in converting research into results.

Some of ABB’s most advanced maritime technologies were jointly developed there, such as its Onboard DC Grid, that allows diesel engines to run at variable speed to achieve maximum efficiency according to the load.

The research into fuel-cell technology is taking place against a background of intense interest in increasingly clean fuels, those that can be made even cleaner than LNG. For all its benefits in terms of the near elimination of sulphur and high reduction of NOx particles, LNG’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission results are not negligible, due to the high possibility of methane slip,” explained Europe’s Environmental Defense Fund in a mid-2018 paper entitled Alternative fuels: the future of zero-emission shipping.

If LNG doesn’t cut it in environmental terms, shipowners are bound to look at other options. “Other alternative fuels that will be able to tackle both GHG and air pollution emissions in the maritime sector are methanol, biofuel, ammonia and hydrogen,” the paper adds.

And, if the predictions are even close to being accurate, hydrogen power could soon join this group and perhaps overtake it as the most favoured and cleanest maritime power source. MP

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

32 | ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Greenbacks for green oceans: the business case for hydrogen With emissions standards for the world’s sea-going fleet tightening seemingly by the month, Selwyn Parker considers the business case for zero-emission propulsion

LEFT: Even cruise ships could in future be powered by fuel cells (image ABB)

T

he global maritime fleet consumes 370M metric tonnes of bunker fuel a year, with a proportionate amount of pollutants. That is why a growing number of jurisdictions are gold-plating the international maritime authorities’ regulations on emissions by enforcing shorter deadlines for compliance, issuing penalties for non-compliance and, in some cases, providing discounts to environmentally suitable vessels.

By way of example, by 2026, Norway will ban all pollutants from its fjords, making them the world’s first zero-emission zone on water. Since these heritage fjords are popular with cruise ships, that will obviously necessitate pollution-free power among the passenger fleet and hasten the development of greenhouse gas (GHG)free propulsion.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Port of Los Angeles Environmental Ship Index provides financial incentives to shipowners whose vessels comply with low- and zero-emission standards. The port has run a clean-air action plan for more than a decade, aimed mainly at ships which are the main culprits.

The State of Alaska bases its regulations on how clearly ships can be seen from the shore. Under its Visible Emissions Standards, no marine vessel can emit pollutants that reduce its visibility by more

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

than 20% within three miles of the coastline.

From a regulatory standpoint, IMO and the European Maritime Safety Agency both aim for 50% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2050, with IMO recently mandating the complete elimination of emissions by the end of the century. It is also drawing up regulations to govern the use of fuel-cell technology.

Aside from the pressure of tougher regulations, analysts are confident that shipowners will reap financial rewards from clean fuel in terms of operating costs, albeit over the long term. As classification society DNV GL explained, the overall efficiency from fuel to propeller will be slightly higher for fuel cells than for combustion engines.

The society adds, however, that this benefit is conditional on the following milestones being reached: • Fuel cells reach about the same durability as combustion engines until requiring a general overhaul.

• The cost and time of a fuel-cell exchange is equal to those of a general engine overhaul.

• Primary fuel prices become competitive with marine gasoil.

Once achieved, however, it notes that fuel cells “may require less maintenance than conventional combustion engines and turbines.”

Furthermore, it seems likely that

hydrogen will be a cheaper source of fuel in the long run than existing alternatives, a huge attraction for shipowners and operators buying from a maritime fuel sector worth US$98Bn a year. In theory, the bunkering arguments favour hydrogen over existing fuels as well.

Of course, the initial capital outlay is likely to be significant. According to DNV GL, current installation costs hover between US$3,000 and US$4,500 per kW of installed electrical power.

But costs are already falling. By 2022, installation costs could drop by up to US$1,000 per kW, according to DNV GL, making them competitive with modern diesel engine installations.

Meantime, research continues on polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells, a type of fuel cell already popular in the research labs of the automotive industry.

“The reason PEM cells are dramatically cheaper than other fuel-cell types is the automotive industry’s massive investment in this technology over the past 15 to 20 years,” explained DNV GL. “While still too expensive for the car market, the cost of PEM fuel cells has dropped to a level that is attractive for ship applications.”

It seems far more likely than not that with this kind of investment from big players in both the shipping and private car markets, it is more a case of when, not if, this power source becomes commonplace. MP

www.mpropulsion.com

Market Leader

Proven technology

Pump Solutions for Scrubber Systems highest efficiency in class reliable Scrubber Pump Solutions Many years of Knowhow and Installation Worldwide Short Delivery time competitive Pricing

www.desmi.com Reliable Marine Pump Solutions DESMI offers more than 100 pump designs and variations including Ballast Water Management Systems, OptiSaveTM – Energy Saving Systems and much more. DESMI pump solutions cover all applications of the engine room, ensuring that you will always get the right pump for the job. DESMI pumps are designed for high efficiency, thus consuming lowest power possible.

GET READY FOR 2020

IT‘S NEW. IT‘S INNOVATIVE. IT‘S A GAME-CHANGER. THE TRILOOP SCRUBBER Our Triloop Scrubber ( patent pending ) for maritime vessels – a new and efficient way of exhaust gas cleaning for retrofitting and original equipment in premium class!

Optimal compliance with SOx, limit values and regulations in all ECAs. Better for your business, better for our environment.

Introducing any new fuel may require upgrades for cooling or chilling arrangements, filters, pumps or fuel changeover systems to avoid system instabilities.

Whether your choice is HFO 3,5% with scrubbers, low-sulphur HFO, MDO 0,5%S, MGO 0,1%S or any other compliant fuel option, let Auramarine evaluate your fuel supply system design and operational conditions to find the safest and most efficient fuel supply solution. www.auramarine.com sales@auramarine.com after.sales@auramarine.com

34 | LNG AS FUEL

Will LNG save the shipping industry?

The need to achieve a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has the shipping industry in a spin. LNG’s credentials as a transitional fuel are the greenest of the currently viable alternatives

Tanks on LNG-powered Viking Grace: the roro passenger ferry was provided with a rotor sail in April 2018 in the ongoing drive for reduced greenhouse gas emissions

T

he alleged environmental advantages of LNG as one of the three mainstream propulsion fuel options available to shipowners have been called into question of late.

University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS), in a study published in June 2018, concluded that the European Union’s (EU) projected spending on LNG bunkering infrastructure would have no significant climate benefits. Furthermore, UMAS, a University College London consultancy division, has noted such investments could potentially increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping as a result of methane slip in the LNG supply chain.

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

The EU has spent US$250M to date on projects promoting the use of LNG as transport fuel for ships, inland waterway vessels and vehicles. These monies have accounted for up to 50% of the total cost of individual schemes, usually matching the private sector’s contribution.

If this level of subsidy was to be maintained over the long term, and if one of the high LNG use scenarios considered

by UMAS comes to pass, the EU could be forking out up to US$22Bn through 2050. Such a high-use case might occur if LNG prices remain comparatively low and alternative fuels like hydrogen are unavailable.

www.mpropulsion.com

LNG AS FUEL | 35

The UMAS consultants concluded that such a financial commitment would deliver, at best, only a 6% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 compared to the replaced diesel fuel. Such a level is well below IMO’s objectives of at least a 50% cut by 2050 and the goal of zero emissions sometime during the following half century.

Although it may be the cleanest-burning of the fossil fuels, LNG has some inherent drawbacks, according to UMAS. For a start, LNG only provides a 20-25% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to diesel.

Secondly, the LNG supply chain, from natural gas production at the wellhead and LNG liquefaction to LNG handling, regasification and gas consumption, is prone to some degree of methane slip.

Natural gas and the LNG processed for carriage by sea and use as bunker fuel is, typically, composed of 95% methane.

Methane is a potent GHG due to its ability to trap radiation and hence promote global warming. A recent US study on methane slip by the University of Delaware and the Rochester Institute of Technology for the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) found that on a volume basis, CO2 accounts for about 82% of all GHGs from human activities in that country, while methane is responsible for 9%. However, in a tonne-for-tonne comparison, methane has an impact on climate change that is 25 times more adverse than CO2.

Losses of methane throughout the supply chain have been put at less than 2.5%. However, although methane emissions volumes are relatively small, the escape of natural gas has a disproportionately high global warming potential (GWP) quotient.

Methane slip in the context of LNG-powered ships occurs as a result of gas leaks during bunker transfers and also when a small proportion of the natural gas introduced into engine combustion chambers fails to burn and escapes through the exhaust system to the atmosphere.

The methane that escapes the combustion chamber in a gasfuelled engine as an unburned hydrocarbon stems from the poor combustion of methane under very lean methane/air mixtures; variations in flame propagation dynamics; and 'blow-by' of unburned methane during cylinder-valve operations.

The three most popular engines utilised by LNG-powered ships are: lean-burn, spark-ignited engines operating on the Otto cycle; diesel dual-fuel (DDF) compression-ignited engines, operating like a lean-burn engine on the Otto cycle, but with Diesel-cycle injection to ignite the methane/air mixture; and diesel-injected, compression-ignited engines operating with natural gas on the Diesel cycle.

The first type, the lean-burn gas engines of the type manufactured by Rolls-Royce and Mitsubishi, can achieve lower downstream CO2 emissions levels than DDF engines at similar airfuel ratios. Such engines can also operate on a much leaner fuel-air mixture and at higher compression ratios using advanced spark timing. However, such engines are more prone to methane slip than compression ignition engines DDF engines typically use a port-injected, air/methane mixture which is ignited by Diesel-cycle injection and burns with the same flame propagation as in Otto-cycle combustion. Such engines, including Wärtsilä’s four-stroke and Winterthur Gas & Diesel’s two-stroke units, offer lower levels of methane slip than lean-burn gas engines.

In high-pressure, gas-injection Diesel-cycle engines, such as MAN’s ME-GI units, the combustion process utilises pilot fuel ignition and is diffusion-controlled, as in conventional diesel engines. Such two-stroke engines provide high levels of reliability,

www.mpropulsion.com

thermal efficiency and fuel flexibility, as well as low levels of methane slip, to the point of being negligible.

However, high-pressure gas-injection engines do not result in NOx reductions sufficient to meet IMO’s upcoming Tier III requirements. Such units have to be provided with an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system and/or a selective catalytic reduction system to achieve the required NOx reductions.

As a general rule, methane slip occurs only in the Otto-cycle mode, including in dual-fuel engines, but not in the Diesel-cycle mode. Methane slip tends to be greater at lower engine loads and is also dependent on the composition of the natural gas and the engine speed.

All manufacturers of gas-burning engines continue to work to minimise methane slip. This is done by ongoing development of their combustion-chamber technologies to improve the combustion process; using catalysts to oxidise unburned methane; and optimising turbocharging arrangements. After-treatment systems utilising catalysts for methane oxidation are acknowledged to be a technology requiring further development.

In praise of LNG

The LNG community promotes the use of gas in its liquefied form to power ships as a clean-burning alternative to the low-sulphur marine diesel oil and heavy fuel oil plus exhaust gas scrubber options. It is the only one of these three currently viable options that fully meets the requirements of IMO’s 0.5% global sulphur cap and 0.1% sulphur emission control area (SECA) restrictions, without the need for ancillary equipment.

CO2 is not the only component of ship atmospheric emissions; there are also sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). LNG does well when it comes to these other components; burning natural gas results in 100% reductions in SOx and PM emissions and a cut in NOx escapes of over 90%.

NOx emissions vary with the gas-burning engine type.

Notwithstanding the immediate advantages offered by LNG, and the possibility of additional reductions in methane slip, Transport & Environment (T&E), the non-governmental organisation (NGO) that commissioned the UMAS report, believes that the

Of the gas-burning propulsion systems currently in service, MAN’s M-type, electronically controlled, gas-injection (ME-GI) engine yields the lowest methane slip volumes per unit of fuel

Maritime Decarbonisation 2018

36 | LNG AS FUEL

shipping industry should reject the LNG option from the outset. “It would simply be throwing good money after bad,” declared the group, “and LNG assets could end up stranded.”

T&E called on the European Commission to amend its 2014 Directive on Alternative Fuels, which contains provisions mandating LNG refuelling and bunkering facilities. Furthermore, pointed out the group, the EU should “instead back future-proof technologies that will deliver the much greater ship emissions reductions that will be needed, including liquefied hydrogen infrastructure and jettyside charging of battery-powered vessels”.

However, considerable advances in chemistry and technology will be needed if batteries of the size capable of powering large, oceangoing ships are to be provided. A global recharging infrastructure would be required, with access to electricity from renewable energy, along with more frequent port calls to permit recharging.

Future fuel challenges

SEA\LNG, the broad industry consortium that promotes the commercial case for LNG as marine fuel, was among the first to point out a flaw in the conclusions reached by the UMAS researchers. SEA\LNG states that, at the moment, alternative fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia are not economic, not available at the scale needed and unproven for shipping operations.

These alternatives are justifiably called future fuels, as the technologies on which they rely are yet to be commercialised. Of course, the shipping industry and governments need to work at developing the necessary future emissions-free fuel technologies, but huge investments over decades will be required. For the time being, when it comes to environment-friendly alternatives to oil, LNG is the only scalable and economic fuel available for the vast majority of deepsea ocean shipping.

The use of hydrogen, both with fuel cells and as a power source in its own right, has been touted. The fact that it offers zero emissions operations is a powerful draw. However, providing hydrogen in the quantities required to fuel ships, especially large vessels, poses considerable challenges.

Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysing water or by reforming hydrocarbon fuels and, of these fuels, natural gas is the most appropriate feedstock. A further technology under development which bodes well for the future is power-to-gas, whereby hydrogen gas is produced from surplus renewable electricity.

Production of liquefied hydrogen (LH2) in the volumes required to power ships entails high costs, due to the work needed to free it from other elements, as does the provision of the necessary supply infrastructure.

LH2 is a low-density substance with a boiling point of -253˚C. To store the fuel in its cryogenic state on board ship requires large, expensive, well-insulated tanks constructed of special materials.

Hydrogen also has a wide flammability range; it burns in air concentrations in the range 4 to 75%. The provision of sophisticated ventilation, alarm and fire-protection systems would be required to minimise the flammability risk stemming from a hydrogen leak on an LH2-powered ship.

Another option is to compress hydrogen rather than liquefy it. However, the energy concentration would not be so great and it would probably be impractical to utilise compressed gaseous hydrogen on larger ships engaged in longer voyages.

The provision of hydrogen for use with fuel cells also has its challenges. For large ships, fuel cells would be called upon to provide upwards of 500 kW of power, necessitating high investment costs and consideration of not only their expected lifetime, but also how the dimensions and weight of the required cells could be accommodated on the ship.

MAN has stated that the adaptation of its ME-GI engine to run on hydrogen would be relatively straightforward but believes the cost of the onboard storage arrangements and ancillary systems required for LH2 would be too high. The propulsion system manufacturer has been weighing up a solution involving the conversion of hydrogen to methanol for consumption in its existing ME-LGI engines, a variant of the ME-GI unit.

While methanol is a clean-burning, biodegradable liquid fuel, it is currently costlier than diesel and less efficient to burn. It is also toxic and contains about 67% of the energy of gasoline on a perlitre basis.

LNG in the intermediate mix

The bad old days – the International Chamber of Shipping states that the shipping industry today gives off 20% less CO2 per tonne/ km than it did in 2005

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

Advocates of LNG as marine fuel have faith in the ability of gasburning engines to ensure a smooth transition to an emissions-free future over an extended period. They also believe that investments in LNG bunkering over the next couple of decades will not be misplaced but, rather, will reap rewards.

Quite aside from the immediate environmental benefits resulting from a switch to natural gas from conventional oil fuels, the shipping industry is also working to further reduce atmospheric pollution caused by gas-burning engines. Greater use of biomethane from renewable and carbon-neutral biogas sources is one option.

On a grander scale, the maritime industry’s commitment to IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) has already helped reduce shipping emissions from the peak levels recorded in 2008. The EEDI regime continues to be tightened and consideration is now being given to additional conditions which might be applied to new vessels delivered after Phase 3 has been implemented in 2025.

As IMO, industry and maritime administrations work towards adopting acceptable and workable emissions reduction measures in the years ahead, LNG as marine fuel has a key role to play as a transitional power source. MP

www.mpropulsion.com

WHEN CARGO MATTERS OPTIMISING CARGO VOLUME ON LNG-FUELLED VESSELS IS A MUST. The GTT technologies save valuable space for commercial vessels: a fully integrated tank solution provides a perfect t in the hull, and avoids loss of cargo space.

Learn more on www.gtt.fr

Maximize your vessel capacity tomorrow, consider integrated tank today.

38 | BUNKERING

Confusion and consternation as sulphur cap looms Compliance is and will remain the industry buzzword as we approach the implementation date for the global sulphur cap. But if compliance itself is a given, many question marks remain as to how this will be achieved

I

n October 2008 at the 58th Session of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), the revised Marpol Annex VI was adopted which subsequently entered into force on 1 July 2010. It was the result of three years of negotiations and the appointment, by then IMO secretary general Efthimios Mitropoulos, of a scientific and industry panel of experts to expedite the task.

The revised Annex VI stipulated a reduction in the global sulphur cap to 0.50% from 3.50%, to be completed by either 2020 or 2025, depending on the result of a feasibility study which was to be completed no later than 2018. Keen for some clarity on the matter, the shipping industry pushed for the feasibility study to be completed sooner rather than later and at MEPC 70, in October 2016, an assessment of fuel oil availability was

considered. This resulted in the parties to Marpol Annex VI deciding that the fuel oil standard (0.50% sulphur limit) should become effective on 1 January 2020.

With little more than a year to go before this milestone date, shipowners are still trying to determine which of five main solutions to the dilemma best works for them: switching to low-sulphur heavy fuel oil (LSHFO); using low-sulphur distillate fuels, such as marine gas oil (MGO) or marine diesel oil (MDO); switching to newly developed hybrid fuels; employing liquefied natural gas (LNG); or fitting exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS), commonly referred to as scrubbers.

Low-sulphur heavy fuel oil (LSHFO)

LSHFO would undoubtedly be the simplest solution for most shipowners. However, to

produce LSHFO you need a low-sulphur crude oil, and while there are crudes which will produce a residual with a sufficiently low sulphur content, they are very rare.

Therefore, to produce an LSHFO the refiner needs to remove the sulphur, which requires a substantial investment, approximately the same as that required to destroy the residual stream completely. Still, when the residual stream is destroyed it produces some highvalue products which are of greater value to the refiner than the residual stream.

Low-sulphur distillates

A switch to low sulphur distillates is perhaps preferable than the above option, but that is not to say it is a popular choice among shipowners; marine diesel engines are perfectly capable of running on distillates, but they come at a cost. At the time of writing, the differential between high-

ONE’s container vessels can adopt low-sulphur-compliant hybrid oil without special modification

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

www.mpropulsion.com

BUNKERING | 39

sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) and MGO was more than US$200 per tonne and many analysts are predicting this spread will increase in 2020, driven by increased demand for compliant fuel. Those choosing this option must also factor in that demand for middle distillates, which is where MGO and MDO come from, is already high in Europe and as a continent, the local refineries do not produce enough to meet the demand.

As Europe is a net importer of middle distillates, which are used as heating oils in homes and fuel for diesel cars and trucks, increased use by the shipping industry could result in wild fluctuations in the price of MGO and MDO.

bunkers at the same port from the same supplier, compatibility issues may be less problematic. However, when lifting bunkers in another port, care should be taken to ensure maximum segregation.

This is also true of conventional fuels and as such may prove less of an issue than some commentators are currently claiming. As Mr Lindegaard noted: “We remain confident that overcoming any potential compatibility issues is a question of thorough preparation.”

Exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers)

Hybrid fuels

The changes to Annex VI will have a significant effect on refiners as well as shipowners. Currently, the market for HSFO is of value to the refiners insofar as it provides an outlet for the by-product of refining – residual fuel. Several refiners have now stated that they will be producing compliant fuels which are being classed as ‘hybrid’. In September 2018, Ocean Network Express (ONE), the holding company set up to integrate the container lines of 'K' Line, MOL and NYK, stated publicly that “Hybrid oil is one of the compliant oils. ONE’s container vessels are equipped to adopt low-sulphur-compliant hybrid oil without requiring special modification. We identified this as one of the most realistic and cost-efficient solutions to enable ONE to be compliant-ready by 1 January 2020. We are in discussion with bunker suppliers for specifications.”

Meanwhile at A.P. Møeller-Maersk, head of Maersk oil trading Niels Henrik Lindegaard said: “We believe the best solution to comply with the 2020 sulphur cap remains with the refineries on land.

It is important to underline that the vast majority of ships in the global fleet will have to comply with the global sulphur cap through the use of compliant lowsulphur fuels in 2020, given the short time frame. We are well underway in testing, planning and preparing for the 2020 sulphur change over.”

These fuels are going to be refineryspecific but will contain several properties similar to fuels currently being used and will have to be treated with caution.

They are unlikely to be compatible when sourced from different suppliers, although if a ship has received fuel from one refinery and can continue to stem

www.mpropulsion.com

Niels Henrik Lindegaard (A.P. MøellerMaersk): “The best solution to comply with the 2020 sulphur cap remains with the refineries on land”

“We remain confident that overcoming any potential compatibility issues is a question of thorough preparation”

There has been a renewed interest in EGCS of late, with some high-profile companies ordering significant numbers of units.

EGCS, or scrubbers, allow a ship to continue to use HSFO by removing the SOx in the exhaust gas. Scrubbers come in various guises, but the main difference is whether they are wet or dry; dry EGCS use a process called chemisorption, in which a granulated calcium hydroxide is used to remove the SOx from the exhaust gas. As the exhaust gas passes through the reaction vessel, the calcium hydroxide reacts with the SOx to form calcium sulphate (gypsum) and water.

This process produces a residue that must be discharged ashore, but the manufacturers of these systems are keen to point out that the residue has a value to other industries, such as cement and fertiliser manufacturers.

Wet EGCS systems can be either open or closed loop, or in some cases hybrid.

Open-loop systems use the natural alkalinity of sea water and the exhaust gas is intimately mixed with the sea water in the reaction vessel, with the water absorbing the SOx. The resulting effluent is sulfuric acid, which is diluted using another stream of sea water until the pH value of the effluent is within 0.5 of the pH of the surrounding sea water. Wet EGCS also removes particulate matter (PM). The PM is usually removed prior to the final dilution and collected in the form of a sludge, which must be disposed of ashore.

Closed-loop EGCS employ freshwater, with the addition of a suitable alkaline chemical. The majority of closed-loop EGCS use sodium hydroxide, commonly known as caustic soda. Closed-loop EGCS require a small bleed off the circulating water, which is treated and either discharged overboard or collected in a holding tank if zero discharge is desirable.

Hybrid EGCS combine the features of both a closed- and an open-loop system, as the name suggests. The open loop can

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

40 | BUNKERING

be deployed when in open waters at sea, where the natural alkalinity of the seawater can be utilised, while the closed loop will be used in sensitive areas or where the water is less alkaline.

The choice of EGCS will vary depending on the vessel’s use, but all suppliers state confidently that their systems will comply with both the global 0.5% m/m sulphur limit and the 0.1% m/m emissions control area sulphur limit.

Speaking at a conference introducing the company’s Q2 2018 performance, A.P. Møeller-Maersk chief executive Soren Skou said: “We may invest in a few scrubbers so as to understand the technology.”

The scrubber option is favoured by bulk carrier owner Eagle Bulk. Chief executive Gary Vogel said during a recent podcast that Eagle has placed a “firm order” for 19 EGCS with an option for 18 more. He explained that Eagle will install the EGCS during statutory dockings and that by doing some pre-installation work, there is no incremental drydock time for those vessels.

Although Mr Vogel would not be drawn on which of his 48 vessels would be first to receive the scrubbers, he did say that he sees “a quicker return on investment if we fit the scrubbers to the vessels which consume the most fuel.”

“We see a quicker return on investment if we fit scrubbers to the vessels which consume the most fuel”

Liquefied natural gas (LNG)

The use of LNG results in a 100% reduction of SOx and particulate matter; hence considerable work has been done to enable the use of LNG on ships. The International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) entered into force on 1 January 2017 and enables the use of LNG on board ships.

Further, LNG eliminates the production of soot, which has traditionally been a concern among cruise companies. AIDA Cruises, the leading German cruise operator and part of the Carnival Group, has been at the forefront of the adoption of LNG. On 31 August 2018 it launched AIDAnova, the first cruise ship powered

by LNG; its maiden voyage is planned for December 2018 and it is the first of three new additions to the AIDA fleet, all of which will be powered by LNG.

Looking ahead

While there have been some clear statements by shipowners in recent months about how they see the issue of compliance panning out, it is fair to say that uncertainty remains at uncomfortably high levels.

Questions are now being raised about the availability of compliant fuel, the availability of HSFO in the years to come, the time needed to install an EGCS, and the use of LNG in vessels not normally associated with this type of fuel.

So what should shipowners do? Well, remember the old Betamax/VHS debate?

You either gambled on one system or the other, or if you could afford it, bought both and waited to see which one came out on top. This is far from practical for most players, but it is the solution of choice for industry big guns like Maersk, as Mr Lindegaard hinted when he said: “Maersk is looking into all possible compliance opportunities for the 2020 sulphur cap, that is LNG, scrubbers and compliant fuels.”

But for those that cannot afford the luxury of multiple options, no simple answers exist. MP

AIDA Cruises has opted for LNG as a solution to the sulphur cap

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

www.mpropulsion.com

FREE ACCESS TO TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION FOR MARINE & OFFSHORE PROFESSIONALS

Take advantage of the Maritime Technology Knowledge Bank.

• A unique, free to access resource for the global shipping industry • Access whitepapers and technical documentation covering every aspect of maritime technology, equipment and new products.

www.mpropulsion.com/knowledgebank

42 | REGULATION

2020 regulation: The evolution of an industry All regulations have their complexities and cost, but the catch with the 2020 sulphur cap is that any decision is essentially predicated on unknowns, such as compliant fuel prices, quality, and availability

across [the] industry on how to deal with a new regulation,” said Bureau Veritas marine marketing and sales director Gijsbert de Jong.

The options available to shipowners are essentially three-fold: install exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) powered by high-sulphur heavy fuel oil (HFO); switch to a compliant fuel, such as distillates or lowsulphur blends; or switch to liquified natural gas (LNG) or liquified petroleum gas (LPG).

Most of the global merchant fleet of 95,000 ships is expected to opt for compliant fuel, particularly the cheaper blends. However, this option runs the risk of off-specification fuel, the potential for engine failure and port state penalties, not to mention supply and price constraints.

Fuel-testing services will be “instrumental” during the switchover, said Mr de Jong, who noted owners should take independent specialist advice, “talk to fuel suppliers, understand the lowsulphur fuels they produce, and test them, preferably in advance.”

Fuel fears

Fuel testing will be critical in 2020. Industry bodies are rallying to safeguard ships from the risks of non-compliant blends

I

n just over a year, it will be mandatory for ships’ bunkers to comply with a 0.5% m/m sulphur fuel limit globally, outside of dedicated emission control areas (ECAs), a steep drop from the previous 3.5% m/m limit. The complexity of weighing up the several fuel compliance options available means that some shipowners remain undecided.

Compliance options are being weighed

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

for their impact on competitiveness, operations, and return on investment, which in turn depends on sector (container, tanker, bulk, etc), ship type and size, routes transited, and business models, such as charter, voyage, spot; also in the balance is harmony with current and future environmental regulations.

“2020 marks the first time in a long time that there has been no consensus

Fuel quality concerns have prompted industry bodies to issue numerous comments. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has said that while its standard ISO 8217, which specifies requirements for marine fuels prior to use, does address the new fuel blends, it will provide further guidance on the application of this standard.

In addition, owners and charterers will be protected by an agreement on fuel testing agreed by IMO, where a 95% confidence factor will be applied to onboard fuel samples, while an “absolute 0.5% limit” will be maintained for supplier samples taken during bunkering.

International Chamber of Shipping technical director John Bradshaw said this will mean that a ship will not be held for non-compliance based on test results which vary because different labs testing the same fuel often achieve different results. The new agreement allows for a margin to account for this anomaly.

“Until now this has not been a problem,” said Mr Bradshaw. “The range of sulphur is about 2.3% in HFO, which is well within the 3.5% limit. But as we go into 2020, the blenders are going to blend to the 0.5% limit, so the margins industry has enjoyed suddenly disappear and puts you in the area where a test result may be found to be slightly over 0.5%,” he said.

Addressing operations, the international

www.mpropulsion.com

REGULATION | 43

bunker industry association has submitted guidance to IMO on the impact of blends on fuel and machinery systems, and regarding handling, storage, and use of blends. Fuel management safety under the 2020 cap will be addressed by IMO in October 2018.

Fuel concerns have resulted in a steady stream of owners opting for scrubbers, including Maersk, which had previously rejected the option.

Scrubbers require significant capital investment for retrofit or conversion, and other expenses include maintenance, crew training, technical risks, and future regulatory restrictions.

The choice of scrubber is essentially a gamble on the low price of HFO post2020, and the associated return on investment. Conditional on HFO availability at the required ports, payback for owners who have installed scrubbers pre-2020 is in the region of one to three years, depending on ship size, according to classification society DNV GL’s 2018 report Global Sulphur Cap 2020.

Open-loop scrubbers however, which discharge waste into the sea, are restricted by some regional regulatory regimes and more may follow suit.

Current restrictions include Belgium and Germany under the EU Water Framework Directive, and California, where scrubber use is disallowed within 24 nautical miles of the coast (exemptions for research purposes must be applied for in advance).

Due to this regulatory threat, the majority of scrubbers being fitted are hybrids, combining open- and closed-loop systems.

The problem with scrubbers

Deciding among the options for compliance is proving extremely challenging, as evidenced by the fact

Gijsbert de Jong (Bureau Veritas): Scrubber installation leads to an uptick [in fuel use and emissions] rather than a downtick

that established, pro-environmental shipowners, just 20 months from the deadline, remain undecided on their course of action. One such company is Korean container line, Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM).

Scrubbers were installed on two recently launched 11,000 TEU sister ships, HMM Promise and HMM Blessing.

But, for 20 on-order “eco-friendly mega containerships,” the company said that, following IMO’s announcement of the 2020 deadline, a decision on compliance for these had been delayed.

“HMM will opt for either installing

scrubbers or LNG bunkering for all the new vessels after thorough discussions with shipbuilders,” the company said.

The option, of scrubbers or LNG, reflects the industry’s current position; it is at a fork in the road that ultimately leads towards IMO’s ultimate aim of a zeroemission future.

IMO’s Initial Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Strategy aims to reduce GHG emissions from international shipping “as a matter of urgency” and to “phase them out as soon as possible in this century.”

The strategy has “two main objectives”, explained Mr de Jong: to cut GHG emissions for the whole sector, and to improve the overall energy efficiency of the fleet.

Using 2008 emission levels as its baseline of comparison (as per IMO’s second CO2 study), IMO aims to cut overall CO2 emissions from the industry 50% by 2050 and to improve the fleet’s energy efficiency (per tonne mile) 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2050.

“CO2 emissions ‘per tonne/mile’ is a measure of how much CO2 will be emitted to move one tonne of cargo one mile” and is the way IMO measures ships’ energy efficiency, Niels Bjorn Mortensen, former director of regulatory affairs at Maersk Maritime Technology, noted.

“This [measure] also makes it possible to compare the energy efficiency between ships,” added Mr de Jong.

However, environmentalists, such as Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) managing director Ned Harvey (RMI incorporates Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room) said these goals are "probably not high enough”, albeit conceding they were a “major step in terms of ambition.”

Unfortunately for those advocates of the scrubber option, the reality is that

Kochi LNG Terminal – LNG plants emit CO2, but LNG fuel is considered a good long-term clean option for ships

www.mpropulsion.com

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

44 | REGULATION

these devices have more in common with the past than the future.

Dependent on 2%-5% higher levels of polluting HFO, scrubbers emit CO2.

As such, they stand in contradiction to the goal of reducing CO2. They are also inconsistent with IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index and Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan.

Indeed, Mr de Jong stated that when considering measures to help shipowners “achieve a continuous cycle of improvement through measuring fuel consumption and emissions, similar to ISO 9000 thinking,” scrubber installation leads to “an uptick [in fuel use and emissions] rather than a downtick.”

DNV GL estimates that “less than 10% of fuel consumption will correspond to ships with scrubbers.” But the organisation also noted that owners who install scrubbers “are aware of the risk” of future IMO rules that may demand a “significant reduction in GHG emissions.”

“Scrubbers are solving the 2020 goal, but certainly not the decarbonisation goal,” said Mr de Jong.

“Shipping has two environmental challenges: emissions affecting human health, and global warming. Their solutions

Tony Foster (Marine Capital): “Eco-friendly investment propositions get a very good audience in the financial markets”

Maritime Decarbonisation 2019

are not always aligned, but if you take the decarbonisation route, you solve both. A decarbonised ship would, by definition, be a 2020-compliant ship,” he said.

The shift towards LNG

For large merchant ships, in the absence of scalable clean fuel options such as electricity and hydrogen, LNG straddles past and future and DNV GL sees LNG and bio-fuels as taking the “larger share over time.”

LNG is still a fossil fuel that emits a degree of the GHG, methane, and significant quantities of CO2 in its production and storage. But, it offers the complete removal of sulphur oxide and particulate emissions, a reduction of nitrous oxide emissions of up to 85%, and a reduction of GHG emissions by 10% to 20%, depending on engine technology.

Eero Vanaale, LNG business development executive with engineering consultancy Royal Haskoning, puts LNG at the current apex of a fuel evolution.

From sail, to coal, to oil, and now LNG, the latter signals a change in the driver of fuel choice, from economics to environment.

“Efficiency has driven our choice of fuels; the environment was not a key consideration. But now, perhaps for the first time, the driver for fuel change is environmental,” Mr Vanaale said.

If viable alternatives appear, LNG could be a “relatively short-term” event. Otherwise “there is an abundance of natural gas reserves, and for 2020 LNG is one of the best options to comply,” he added.

It would take between four and five years, DNV GL estimates, for a shipowner to recoup their investment in LNG and some owners, such as container liners Hapag-Lloyd and CMA CGM, have now committed to this option.

Owners must now find what DNV GL calls an “optimum solution”, that depends “not only on payback time” but also on “GHG emissions, environmental profile, and long-term value creation potential”.

“2020 will effect a degree of slow steaming” and a “better utilised” fleet, said DNV GL. The expected reduction in supply “could also lead to higher charter rates on average”, with fuel-efficient ships with scrubbers gaining competitive advantage.

Marine Capital CEO-CIO Tony Foster calls LNG a “future-proofed eco-solution”, which he defines as a solution offering "a return over 10 years and that will not fall foul of future regulatory changes”.

He added: “Eco-friendly investment

propositions, provided the business case is sound, get a very good audience in the financial markets.”

In the long run, environmental measures are expected to save owners money from reduced fuel consumption and operating costs. Indeed, RMI’s Mr Harvey noted that structural changes in finance will start constraining owners that do not invest in greener ships.

“Energy efficiency in ships is similar to that in buildings,” said Mr Harvey. “Every percentage improvement in efficiency saves somebody some money.” MP

The options for compliance Distillate fuel Pros: Useable for most engine configurations Cons: Higher fuel cost; may create operational issues due to low viscosity of the fuel New compliant fuels Pros: Useable for most engine configurations Cons: Unknown fuel cost; no track record as per September 2018; uncertain availability; may create operational issues due to off-spec fuel or incompatibility HSFO with scrubber Pros: Can use conventional HSFO; possible for retrofit; reduces particulate matter as well as SOx; attractive business case for certain ship types Cons: Initial investment (US$2MUS$10M); 3-5% fuel penalty; requires space for scrubber tower and supporting systems; requires chemicals (closed loop); requires integration with ship's power management system; requires monitoring LNG as fuel Pros: Good environmental performance; can reach NOx Tier III requirements; positive impact on EEDI Cons: High investment cost (US$3MUS$30M); costly to retrofit; large regional variation in LNG price; methane slip in exhaust; requires space for tank; some engine types need additional systems to reach NOx Tier III

www.mpropulsion.com

DUPLEX• SUPER DUPLEX• SUPER AUSTENITIC STAINLESS• NICKEL ALLOYS• TITANIUM • LOW ALLOY MATERIAL

CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR MARINE SCRUBBERS Sverdrup Steel AS is a material solution provider and will be your partner for high-grade stainless steels and nickel alloys for marine scrubbers.

From own stock and from our raw materials manufacturing partners we now have available sheet, plate, pipes, fittings and round bars in the most common grades for marine scrubbers.

Steel Type

UNS

EN

Other

Plate

Pipe

Bar

Duplex

S31803

1.4462

2205

X

X

X

Super Duplex

S32750

1.4410

2507

X

X

X

Super Duplex

S32760

1.4501

Zeran 100

X

Super Austenite

S31254

1.4547

254SMO

X

X

X

Super Austenite

N08904

1.4539

904L

X

Super Austenite

N08926

1.4529

6XN

X

Nickel Alloy

N08031

1.4562

Alloy 31

X

Nickel Alloy

N10276

2.4819

Alloy C276

X

X

X

Nickel Alloy

N06059

2.4605

Alloy 59

X

Welding wire

X

Sverdrup Steel is a Global Supplier of high performance materials, providing one of Europe's largest stock holdings.

With a clear focus on superior customer service, we promise to deliver the quality your business demands. We stock a large range of material in bars and plates that is ready for same day dispatch from our facilities in Norway and the UK. Adding value to the steel industry since 1992 © 2012 Sverdrup Steel• Strandsvingen 2• 4032 Stavanger• Norway• mail@lsverdrupsteel.com +47 51 81 69 00

X

Don’t just comply – be a step ahead

Alfa Laval PureSOx continues to lead the way You won’t be alone in choosing a SOx scrubber. But you will be a step ahead, if you select the scrubber at the forefront: Alfa Laval PureSOx. At sea since 2009, PureSOx has the record others aspire to, with every system ever sold in operation and in compliance.

Built on 100 years of marine experience, PureSOx has been chosen for hundreds of vessels to date. But what matters more are the returning customers, convinced by smooth installations, proven results and first-rate global service. They know PureSOx will keep them ahead – today, in 2020 and beyond.

Start getting ahead at www.alfalaval.com/puresox