Platts Inaugural Bunker & Storage Asia Conference

29th June 2017, Singapore

Fuel Management Challenges

Capt. Rahul Choudhuri

Managing Director – Asia, ME & Africa

Fuel Quality Trends

Fuel Quality Trends – Bunker Alerts

2015

High Abrasive fuel

Low Flash Point distillate

High Sediment fuel

High Density fuel

Low Viscosity distillate

High Pour Point

2016

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

2017

High Abrasive fuel

Low Flash Point distillate

High Density fuel

Low Viscosity distillate

Chemical Contamination

High Sodium

High Pour Point

High Sediment

High Sulphur

Bunker Alerts – countries affected

Belgium

Brazil

Cyprus

Egypt

France

Greece

Italy

Korea

Morocco

Netherlands

Norway

Panama

Singapore

Spain

Russia

Turkey

UAE

UK

USA

2015 2016Belgium

Brazil

Bahamas

Columbia

France

Germany

Hong Kong

Korea

Netherlands

Panama

Singapore

Spain

South Africa

Russia

UAE

USA

Argentina

Australia

Belgium

Columbia

Gibraltar

Italy

Netherlands

Oman

Russia

Singapore

Spain

UAE

USA

2017

Distillates – Exceeding Specification Limit Parameters

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Pour Point Appearance Flash Point FAME Viscosity TAN Lubricity Others

Distillates - Comparison of Exceeded Specification Limit Parameters (%) v Total Exceeded Specification Limits

2015 2016

Distillates - Flash Point Off-spec by Port

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

2017

Distillates - Sulfur Off-spec by Port

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

2017

Distillates - Pour Point Off spec by Port

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%2017

Cold Flow Properties: CP - PP

The difference between CP & PP should be within 5 ℃ as per VPS guideline

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

2016

PP CP

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

2017

PP CP

Cold Flow Properties: CP - PP

The difference between CP & PP should be within 5 ℃ as per VPS guideline

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

℃

Number of Samples

Fuel Quality Specification

12

Distillate fuels Standard ISO 8217-2017

Characteristics Unit LimitCategory ISO –F-

Test method referenceDMX DMA DFA DMZ DFZ DMB DFB

Kinematic Viscosity at 40 °C mm2/s (a)

max 5.500 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 11.00 11.00ISO 3104

min 1.400 2.000 2.000 3.000 3.000 2.000 2.000

Density at 15 °C kg/m3 max - 890.0 890.0 890.0 890.0 900.0 900.0ISO 3675 or ISO 12185

See also 7.1

Cetane Index - min 45 40 40 40 40 35 35 ISO 4264

Sulfur (b) mass % max 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50ISO 8754 or ISO 14596

(See also 7.2)

Flash point °C min 43 60 60 60 60 60 60 ISO 2719 (See also 7.3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (c) mg/kg max 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 IP 570

Acid number mg KOH/g max 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ASTM D664

Total Sediments by hot filtration mass % max - - - - -0.10 (e)

0.10 (c)ISO 10307-1 (See also 7.4)

Oxidation Stability g/m3 max 25 25 25 25 25 25 (d) 25 (d) ISO 12205

Fatty acid Methyl ester (FAME) (e) Volume % max - -7.0

- 7.0 - 7.0

Carbon residue – micro method on the 10% vacuum distillation residue

mass % max 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 - - ISO 10370

Carbon residue: micro method mass % max - - - - - 0.30 0.30 ISO 10370

Cloud Point Winter °C max -16 report report report report

-- ISO 3015

Summer °C max -16 - - - - - -

Cold Filter Plugging Point

Winter °C max - report report report report-

-

Summer °C max - - - - - - -

Pour point (upper) fWinter °C max - -6 -6 -6 -6 0 0 ISO 3016

Summer °C max - 0 0 0 0 6 6 ISO 3016

Appearance - - Clear and bright (g) c See 7.6

Water volume % max - - - - - 0.30 (c) 0.30 (c) ISO 3733

Ash mass % max 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 ISO 6245

Lubricity, corrected wear scar diameter (wsd 1.4) at 60 °C (h)

µm max 520 520 520 520 520520 (d)

520 (d) ISO 12156-1

a 1 mm2/s = cStb 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 6.12d If the sample is not clear and bright, the test cannot be undertaken and therefore, compliance with this limit cannot be showne 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 %)

Table 1 – Distillate marine fuels

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.

ISO 8217 : 2017 comparison

Fuel System Check

HFO - Exceeding Specification Limit Parameters

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Viscosity Density Density &Viscosity

Water Al+Si Sulphur Vanadium MCR Others

2015 2016

•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.

Damage case – 26,528 dwt LPG Tanker

Vessel drifted about 10 hrs before

dropped anchor off cost India

Unit No.

Piston Rings Condition

Cylinder Liner Condition

Corrective Action

1 2, 3 -damaged

Good condition

To renew piston rings 2, 3

2 2, 3 -damaged

Good condition

To renew piston rings 2, 3

3 2, 3, 4 -damaged

Good condition

To renew piston rings 2, 3, 4

4 1, 2 -damaged

Cracked To renew cylinder liner & piston rings 1, 2

5 2, 3 -damaged

Good condition

To renew piston rings 2, 3

6 1, 2 -damaged

Good condition

To renew piston rings 1, 2

Discovered upon dismantling Engine

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

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

56.80%

59.93%

45.28%

63.48% 63.45%

47.08%

56.35%

59.11%57.07%

55.37%

62.50%

10.21%

4.43% 3.69% 3.59% 3.13% 2.53% 2.53% 2.12% 2.05% 1.94%

Top 10 Customers

Top 10 customers - Best & worst efficiency in 2017

Sampling Procedure

Port Regulations in Singapore

• SS 600 is new Singapore Bunkering Standard and compulsory from 1st 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.

Non-Compliance to SS600 – Sampling Procedure

• 30% of bunkering in Singapore is NOT compliant.

• VPS Surveyor is 100% following SS600 procedure.

2016 2017

Mass Flow Metering

The Importance of Dispute Resolution

• Filling Your Car with Gasoline:

• Pumps are Piston & Rotary Device

• Accuracy +/- 0.3%

• Collect 50 litres of Gas: 49.85-50.15 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=$400,000.00

• Fill up 10 x Year = $4,000,000.00

• Delivery Accuracy = +/-0.5%

• Net loss/gain = $20,000.00/yr

VPS Experience with MFM Vs Vessel measurement

-125.00

-100.00

-75.00

-50.00

-25.00

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

125.00

-12.5%

-10.0%

-7.5%

-5.0%

-2.5%

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

12.5%

% Diff (Vsl - BT MFM) MT Diff (Vsl - BT MFM) 42% within +-0.5% range

71% within +-1% range

2017

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)

Case Study

• Singapore - Jan-17:

• 816mt delivery of 380CSt fuel.

• MFM Reading = 816.289 mt versus Vessels Received Quantity = 780.194mt

• -36.09mt (-4.42%)

• VPS Flow Technologist Investigation into Bunker Profile & MFM Transmitter ASCII file data:

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.

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.

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

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

Chemical Screening

Contaminants related damage

Examples of Contamination & EffectsChemical Contaminants ImpactDimethyl Esters of Butanoic, Pentanoic and Hexanoic Acids (Dimethyl Adipate = Methyl Hexanoic Acid)

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 Sludging at purifier, sticking of fuel pumps, cavitation, complete blackout, vessel towed

Styrene, ethylbenzene, alphamethylbenzenemethanol, phenyl-ethanone, Benzeneethanol, Phenolic compounds

Failures to injection pumps and nozzles. Injection pumps stuck quickly with hard black lacquer coating – same condition with fuel plungers and bushings

Alpha-pinene, Phenolic compounds (mainly 4-(-1-methylethyl)-phenol

Main engine and auxiliary engines pumps seized and purifier (sludgingfilters and centrifuge)

Terpenes (mainly Pinene), Phenolic compound – mainly 4-(1-methylethyl)-phenol

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

Filter problems and fuel pump damage. Vessel switched over to distillate

Monophenols,DiPhenols (resorcinols),AlkenesThese 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

Purifier stopped and the inner housing around the drum and sludge channel were full of sludge containing hard asphalt sediments

Styrene, Cyclohexanol, Butanol, Butyl ester of propenoic acid (Butyl acrylate), Phenylethylalcohol, methylethylphenol

Sticky hard film which stops the valve rods in open position.

Hexadecanoic acid (palmitic acid) & octadecanoic acid (linoleic acid)

Both main engine and auxiliary engine fuel plungers were badly affected

C16-C18 carboxylic acids Auxiliary engine plungers damaged

Various Phenol isomers (e.g. methyl, ethyl, etc.) Sticking of fuel pumps (lacquering)

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.

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%

94.5%

5.5%

Jan-Apr 2017

PASS FAIL

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.

YOUR FUEL MANAGEMENT PARTNER

Thank you!

www.v-p-s.com

Questions?? Please drop me an e-mailRahul.Choudhuri@v-p-s.com