[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Here is more reason than ever for ship operators to look more closely at how fuel quality can affect engine and vessel performance, writes Larry Rumbol, marine condition monitoring market development manager, Parker Kittiwake.
Beyond simple economics, there are numerous considerations that argue against a complacent attitude toward bunker fuel. When such concerns range from the legislative to the ecological, there will be a range of strategic considerations for a successful organisation to navigate. One of the most prominent reasons by virtue of its impending necessity will be the beginning of the global emission control area (ECA) in 2020 or 2025.
In either four or nine years the global cap will be lowered from fuel with a maximum of 3.50% to 0.50% sulphur, which would predominantly be a distillate product. There has already been a noticeable increase in the amount of distillate used as operators who traverse the European and North American ECAs look to comply with the regulations.
One side effect of this change is that more distillates are being taken from crude oil during the refinery process, which means that more of the catalysts essential for this demanding process remain in the final product. These remnants from the cracking process are known as catalytic – or cat – fines. If they are not reduced by suitable treatment, their abrasiveness will damage the engine – particularly fuel pumps, injectors, piston rings and liners – leading to expensive maintenance and unforeseen downtime.
The implementation of the original ISO 8217 fuel quality standard was driven by the IMO to improve bunker quality and reduce incidents of equipment damaged caused by contaminants in fuel oil. This would, lead to safer and more efficient machinery as well as increased health and environmental protection. Since the adoption of ISO 8217:2012, the current and fifth edition of the international fuel standard, refining methods, ships’ machinery, and environmental legislation have continued to evolve and the need for technological adaption has increased. There is therefore a strong argument for the standard to be re-evaluated.
Early this year, the draft ISO 8217:2016 standard was released and circulated for comments from the fuel users of the shipping industry. The 2016 update is an improvement in a number of respects. However Parker Kittiwake, along with a number of industry commentators including Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS) and Intertanko, has expressed concerns regarding some of the proposed revisions. In particular, there are notable concerns around the potential for permitting a higher tolerance level for the concentration of harmful and abrasive particles, and we would caution that one or two of the proposed modifications may be unfavourable to ship owners and operators.
Ensuring seaworthiness
The changes proposed by the technical committee could, at present, be perceived as an obstacle to the development of fuels capable of safely and effectively meeting future requirements. Especially because as Gerard Rohaan, CEO at VPS, recently said, “ISO 8217 was introduced to govern fuel quality with an implied need to ensure the seaworthiness of the ship.”
One of the proposed changes, to Clause 8, would have the effect that a bunker could not be rejected for exceeding the specification limit value unless it exceeded a 95% confidence limit. According to VPS’ calculations, this would result in the cat fines concentration limit rising from 60ppm to 72ppm. Such a development would be despite numerous OEMs, including Wärtsilä and MAN, recommending fuel with a cat fines concentration of no more than 15 ppm for their engines; a significant discrepancy.
The replacement cost of a single cylinder liner damaged by cat fines runs to approximately US$65,000 for parts alone, and this can swiftly increase into seven figures once the associated costs of labour and unplanned downtime are considered, as well as the likely event that multiple cylinders are affected. Insurers are well aware of the proven causalities from increased cat fines. In recent months the insurance industry has become increasingly vocal in advocating that, where there are condition monitoring tools available that can help mitigate damage caused by contaminants in the fuel, operators will need to show evidence of due diligence – and adherence to industry best practice – in order to make a successful claim.
Parker Kittiwake advocates that proactive condition monitoring is first and foremost about maximising a vessel’s operational efficiency and ensuring peak performance. However the impact of condition monitoring is becoming an insurance matter too. With increasing frequency insurers are saying that where condition monitoring tools are available to give engineers the ability to sidestep known issues – from cat fines to cold corrosion – it will be up to them to show that they have exercised due diligence and adhered to industry best practice if they are to make a successful claim.
One such tool is the Parker Kittiwake cat fines test kit. It’s a technology that Norbulk, the leading ship management company, ordered for its fleet after a competitive examination of the market options in January 2016. The test kit was found to meet Norbulk’s requirement for a simple solution that any of its crew members could use, without the need for additional training, to get an accurate and repeatable result, quickly.
Should the draft change to Clause 8 take effect, the possibility of catastrophic propulsion failure due to fuel contaminants would greatly increase. With the exact quality of bunker being brought aboard varying substantially from port-to-port and sizeable vessel overcapacity in the market, the importance of uninterrupted service to ensure customer expectations are met is more important than ever.
Quality is not an act, it’s a habit. Long-term revenue and profitability depend upon consistently exceeding customer expectations, and inconsistent performance is one of the most accurate indicators of business failure. It’s impossible to predict the future, but with good, proactive condition monitoring you’re significantly less likely to be surprised by it.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
