Fuel Management Challenges

Transcription

1 Fuel Management Challenges Platts Inaugural Bunker & Storage Asia Conference 29 th June 2017, Singapore Capt. Rahul Choudhuri Managing Director Asia, ME & Africa

2 Fuel Quality Trends

3 Fuel Quality Trends Bunker Alerts High Abrasive fuel Low Flash Point distillate High Sediment fuel High Density fuel Low Viscosity distillate High Pour Point High Abrasive fuel Low Flash Point distillate High Density fuel Low Viscosity distillate Chemical Contamination High Acid Number High CCAI High Water High Sodium ULO High Abrasive fuel Low Flash Point distillate High Density fuel Low Viscosity distillate Chemical Contamination High Sodium High Pour Point High Sediment High Sulphur

4 Bunker Alerts countries affected Belgium Belgium Argentina Brazil Cyprus Egypt France Greece Italy Korea Morocco Netherlands Norway Panama Singapore Spain Russia Turkey UAE UK USA Brazil Bahamas Columbia France Germany Hong Kong Korea Netherlands Panama Singapore Spain South Africa Russia UAE USA Australia Belgium Columbia Gibraltar Italy Netherlands Oman Russia Singapore Spain UAE USA

5 Distillates Exceeding Specification Limit Parameters 40.0% Distillates - Comparison of Exceeded Specification Limit Parameters (%) v Total Exceeded Specification Limits 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Pour Point Appearance Flash Point FAME Viscosity TAN Lubricity Others

6 Distillates - Flash Point Off-spec by Port 12.00% 10.00% % 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00%

7 Distillates - Sulfur Off-spec by Port 30.00% % 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

8 Distillates - Pour Point Off spec by Port 70.00% % 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

9 Cold Flow Properties: CP - PP PP CP PP CP The difference between CP & PP should be within 5 as per VPS guideline

10 Cold Flow Properties: CP - PP Number of Samples The difference between CP & PP should be within 5 as per VPS guideline

11 Fuel Quality Specification

12 Characteristics Unit Limit Kinematic Viscosity at 40 C Distillate fuels Standard ISO mm2/s (a) Table 1 Distillate marine fuels Category ISO F- DMX DMA DFA DMZ DFZ DMB DFB max min Test method reference ISO 3104 Density at 15 C kg/m3 max ISO 3675 or ISO See also 7.1 Cetane Index - min ISO 4264 Sulfur (b) mass % max ISO 8754 or ISO (See also 7.2) Flash point C min ISO 2719 (See also 7.3) Hydrogen Sulfide (c) mg/kg max IP 570 Acid number mg KOH/g max ASTM D664 Total Sediments by hot filtration mass % max (e) 0.10 (c) ISO (See also 7.4) Oxidation Stability g/m3 max (d) 25 (d) ISO Fatty acid Methyl ester (FAME)(e) Volume % max Carbon residue micro method on the 10% vacuum distillation residue mass % max ISO Carbon residue: micro method mass % max ISO Cloud Point Cold Filter Plugging Point Winter C max -16 report report report report Summer C max Winter C max - report report report report ISO 3015 Summer C max Winter C max ISO 3016 Pour point (upper) f Summer C max ISO 3016 Appearance - - Clear and bright (g) c See 7.6 Water volume % max (c) 0.30 (c) ISO 3733 Ash mass % max ISO 6245 Lubricity, corrected wear scar diameter (wsd 1.4) at 60 C (h) µm max (d) 520 (d) ISO a 1 mm2/s = cst b Notwithstanding the limits given, the purchaser shall define the maximum sulfur content in accordance with the relevant statutory limitations, see Introduction. c If the sample is not clear and bright, the total sediment by hot filtration and water tests shall be required, see 6.8 and 6.12 d If the sample is not clear and bright, the test cannot be undertaken and therefore, compliance with this limit cannot be shown e See 5.1 and Annex A f Pour Point cannot guarantee operability for all ships in all climates. The Purchasers should confirm that the cold flow characteristics (pour point, Cloud Point, cold filter plugging point) are suitable for the ship s design and intended voyage. See 6.11 g If the sample is dyed and not transparent, then the water limit and test method as given in 6.12 shall apply. h This requirement is applicable to fuels with a sulfur content below 500 mg/kg (0.050 mass %) 12

13 ISO8217:2017 Distillate Fuel Pour point cannot guarantee operability for all ships in all climates. The purchaser should confirm that the cold flow characteristics (pour point, cloud point, cold filter plugging point) are suitable for the ship's design and intended voyage. See 6.11.

14 ISO 8217 : 2017 comparison

15 Fuel System Check

16 HFO - Exceeding Specification Limit Parameters 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Viscosity Density Density & Viscosity Water Al+Si Sulphur Vanadium MCR Others

17 Damage case 26,528 dwt LPG Tanker 1350 MT of heavy fuel oil received in Fujairah Al+Si = 39 ppm M/E J.C.F.W Exp. Tank low level alarm, M/E Exh. Gas temp. High on Cylinder unit 2 & 4 Commenced slow down of M/E gradually. Chief engineer reported that vessel is unable to run engine due to suspected leaks on ME Cylinders. Vessel drifted about 10 hrs before dropped anchor off cost India

18 Discovered upon dismantling Engine Unit No. Piston Rings Condition Cylinder Liner Condition Corrective Action 1 2, 3 - damaged 2 2, 3 - damaged 3 2, 3, 4 - damaged 4 1, 2 - damaged Good condition Good condition Good condition Cracked To renew piston rings 2, 3 To renew piston rings 2, 3 To renew piston rings 2, 3, 4 To renew cylinder liner & piston rings 1, 2 5 2, 3 - damaged 6 1, 2 - damaged Good condition Good condition To renew piston rings 2, 3 To renew piston rings 1, 2

19 High Cat fines (Al+Si) detected on the system samples Sampling Point Al+Si, ppm Transfer Pump 36 Before Separator 46 After Separator 31 Fine Filter Inlet 31 Before Main Engine 32

20 Top 10 customers - Best & worst efficiency in 2017 Top 10 Customers 70.00% 60.00% 56.80% 59.93% 63.48% 63.45% 56.35% 59.11% 57.07% 55.37% 62.50% 50.00% 45.28% 47.08% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.21% 4.43% 3.69% 3.59% 3.13% 2.53% 2.53% 2.12% 2.05% 1.94% 0.00%

21 Sampling Procedure

22 Port Regulations in Singapore SS 600 is new Singapore Bunkering Standard and compulsory from 1 st July 2009 Important pioneering standard and world acclaimed If sampling is not done in accordance, then sample is not valid This Standard was developed under the direction of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore(MPA). VPS has been a part of this development.

23 Non-Compliance to SS600 Sampling Procedure 30% of bunkering in Singapore is NOT compliant. VPS Surveyor is 100% following SS600 procedure

24 Mass Flow Metering

25 The Importance of Dispute Resolution Filling Your Car with Gasoline: Pumps are Piston & Rotary Device Accuracy +/- 0.3% Collect 50 litres of Gas: ltr Cost $1.4/litre Net loss or gain = 21 cents Fill up 4 x month $10 loss/gain per year Loading A Vessels Bunker Tank: Delivery by MFM or Manual Measurement 1000mt at $400/mt=$400, Fill up 10 x Year = $4,000, Delivery Accuracy = +/-0.5% Net loss/gain = $20,000.00/yr

26 VPS Experience with MFM Vs Vessel measurement 12.5% 10.0% % % % % % % % % % % Diff (Vsl - BT MFM) MT Diff (Vsl - BT MFM) 42% within +-0.5% range 71% within +-1% range

27 MFM Technologist VPS has a MFM Technologist in-house and this person will look into all technical aspects of MFM. VPS will be able to provide a third party verification of the performance of the MFM, by submitting the following: M F M transmitter logged data in ASCII format over the start and the end of batch delivery. (also known as Metering Profile) Estimated quantity (ton) contained in Delivery Boom Hose i.e. start from In-Use M F M till Receiving Ship Manifold. M F M Calibration Certificate Transmitter Configuration Setting in a printed Report Stored Zero Value Verification Report (Zero Verification Report). Meter Reading Record (TR 48: Annex O) Bunker Delivery Note (TR 48: Annex P) Printed Bunker Metering Ticket. (TR 48: Annex Q) Survey time Log (TR 48: Annex R)

28 Case Study Singapore - Jan-17: 816mt delivery of 380CSt fuel. MFM Reading = mt versus Vessels Received Quantity = mt mt (-4.42%) VPS Flow Technologist Investigation into Bunker Profile & MFM Transmitter ASCII file data:

29 Case Study (continued) During the bunkering Avg Max Flow from BT was 290mt/hr Max Flow reached during 4 mins (7:44pm-7:48pm) was 472mt/hr = 35mt The 35mt was deemed to flow back into bunker barge tank through the by-pass valve prior to official bunkering.

30 Quick screening of Mass Flow Meter Profile evaluation service We have customers who want field assessment of the MFM profile. Surveyor will collect MFM field documents including picture of Meter profile. This is already being done. Our office MFM Technologist will review each case for significant parameters, and give a complied or non-complied comment which will be included in the BQS final Report.

31 Wider Implementation of MFM Examples of Ports where MFM employed but not mandatory: Hong Kong Approximately 5 delivery barges fitted with MFM Fujairah/UAE One major supplier a keen supporter of MFM Rotterdam 5 barges with MFM. Turkey One fuel supplier has 5 barges fitted with MFM, but also insists deliveries also undertake manual measurements as a counter-check. MFM usage will increase across the globe, for similar reasons to Singapore: Port Efficiency Speed of Bunkering Operations Transparency Reduction in Malpractice Further developments such as electronic BDN will further compliment MFM Technology. Industry knowledge & experience of MFM will increase and improve

32 Summary MFM New technology & efficient option for bunkering. MFM is not plug & play as Uncertainty of Measurement needs control Has to work without hiccups otherwise integrity is questionable There have been fewer NOPs in Singapore, but is this more due to the MFM reading being final & binding? Disputes have not been eradicated and resolution may be complex & require MFM data verification by a specialist flow technologist. MFMs are being used outside Singapore and use of this technology will increase across the world s ports. The role of the Bunker Quantity Surveyor is as important as ever. If the people are not reliable then the technology cannot help

33 Chemical Screening

34 Contaminants related damage

35 Examples of Contamination & Effects Chemical Contaminants Dimethyl Esters of Butanoic, Pentanoic and Hexanoic Acids (Dimethyl Adipate = Methyl Hexanoic Acid) Impact Mechanical failure filter clogging, sticking fuel pumps, plunger & barrels leading to failure of fuel pumps, injectors and fuel handling components 1,2-Dichloroethane & 1,1,2-Trichloroethane & Naphthalene Styrene, ethylbenzene, alphamethylbenzenemethanol, phenylethanone, Benzeneethanol, Phenolic compounds Alpha-pinene, Phenolic compounds (mainly 4-(-1-methylethyl)- phenol Terpenes (mainly Pinene), Phenolic compound mainly 4-(1- methylethyl)-phenol Sludging at purifier, sticking of fuel pumps, cavitation, complete blackout, vessel towed Failures to injection pumps and nozzles. Injection pumps stuck quickly with hard black lacquer coating same condition with fuel plungers and bushings Main engine and auxiliary engines pumps seized and purifier (sludging filters and centrifuge) Main engine and auxiliary engine pumps and purifier seized (sludging at filters and centrifuge) Range of cyclic dienes (cyclohexadiene, acetylene) and Styrene Significant drop in power, Continuous drop for some days Monoterpenes (mainly pinene) & Phenolic compounds mainly 4- (1-methylethyl)-phenol Monophenols, DiPhenols (resorcinols), Alkenes These 3 groups of compounds are found at high levels in Shale Oil, suggesting this has been used as part of the blend stock for this fuel oil Styrene, Cyclohexanol, Butanol, Butyl ester of propenoic acid (Butyl acrylate), Phenylethylalcohol, methylethylphenol Filter problems and fuel pump damage. Vessel switched over to distillate Purifier stopped and the inner housing around the drum and sludge channel were full of sludge containing hard asphalt sediments Sticky hard film which stops the valve rods in open position. Hexadecanoic acid (palmitic acid) & octadecanoic acid (linoleic acid) C16-C18 carboxylic acids Various Phenol isomers (e.g. methyl, ethyl, etc.) Both main engine and auxiliary engine fuel plungers were badly affected Auxiliary engine plungers damaged Sticking of fuel pumps (lacquering)

36 VPS GCMS Screening Method Rapid Headspace GC-MS Method Detects Volatile Organic Compounds Chlorinated HCs Phenols & Alkyl Phenols Styrene & Alkyl Styrenes DCPD, Indene Alcohols Esters Ketones Between Oct-16:Mar-17: 5.5% of samples tested by VPS showed presence of chemical contamination by this screen method.

37 GC/MS Screen Headspace - Ports Port Percentage ANTWERP 1.61% CEYHAN 1.61% DUBAI 1.61% FUJAIRAH 19.35% GHENT 1.61% HAMBURG 1.61% HOUSTON 8.06% HUELVA 3.23% ISTANBUL 1.61% JEBEL ALI 8.06% KOZMINO 1.61% KRONSHTADT 1.61% KWANGYANG 1.61% LAKE CHARLES 1.61% MINA SAQR 1.61% OFF TALLINN 3.23% PRIMORSK 4.84% PUSAN 1.61% RICHARDS BAY 1.61% ROTTERDAM 3.23% SINGAPORE 1.61% ST. PETERSBURG 4.84% UNKNOWN 17.74% UST-LUGA 4.84% Jan-Apr % 94.5% PASS FAIL

38 Summary Fuel quality knows no location boundaries & will remains widespread. Exercise control & use the latest Fuel Quality Specifications. Watch out for distillate quality & don t take this for granted. Put in place systems to monitor CP, CFPP. Fuel System Check program needs improvement. So initiate better systems monitoring. MFM accuracy & integrity needs robust checks. It is not plug & play. It does not control sampling. Use professional surveyor & conduct Profile review. Watch out for chemical contamination. Use a screening method for better quality control & ship safety.

39 Thank you! YOUR FUEL MANAGEMENT PARTNER Questions?? Please drop me an