Page 1

2017 A supplement to Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery

fuels, lubes &

emissions technology


There’s no single solution to every challenge. But simple, inter-connected interventions, when combined, can deliver significant results for your business. Castrol SmartGains is our unique way of working together to unlock measurable improvements that will maximise the efficiency of your assets and optimise productivity. Visit Discover how we can help your business find its first gain

95700-Castrol SmartGains Marine 2 Stroke Engine 210x214.indd 1

“The world has great expectations for IMO delivering an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction strategy for the international shipping sector” Espen Poulsson, chairman, International Chamber of Shipping, see page 6

2017/10/19 5:06 PM

Performance you can rely on.


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 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 Comment 3 Sulphur Cap continues to fuel debate

Regulations 5 CO2 to dominate regulatory landscape

LNG 8 LNG as a fuel gathers strength

Bunkering 12 Cat fines pose growing threat

Scrubbers 15 ‘Logjam’ delays scrubber choices

Lubricants 18 Sulphur cap casts its shadow over lubes market

Fuel Testing 23 Ensuring quality in sulphur testing

Published October 2017 Editor: Paul Fanning t: +44 20 8370 1737 e: Brand Manager – Sales: Tom Kenny t: +44 7432 156 339 e: Sales Manager: Rob Gore t: +44 20 8370 7007 e: Sales: Paul Dowling t: +44 20 8370 7014 e: Sales: Jo Lewis t: +44 20 8370 7793 e: Head of Sales – Asia: Kym Tan t: +65 9456 3165 e: Production Manager: Ram Mahbubani t: +44 20 8370 7010 e: Chairman: John Labdon Managing Director: Steve Labdon Finance Director: Cathy Labdon Operations Director: Graham Harman Head of Content: Edwin Lampert Executive Editor: Paul Gunton Head of Production: Hamish Dickie Business Development Manager: Steve Edwards Published by: Riviera Maritime Media Ltd Mitre House 66 Abbey Road Enfield EN1 2QN UK ISSN 1742-2825 (Print) ISSN 2051-056X (Online) ©2017 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd


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, Fuels, Lubes and Emissions Technology and Ballast Water Treatment Technology • access the latest issue content via your digital device • free industry yearplanner including key dates • access to and its searchable archive. Subscribe online:

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.

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017



W Paul Fanning, Editor

hen the 2016 edition of Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology (FLET) was going to press, the Marine Environment Protection Committee of IMO was about to meet to decide when the global sulphur cap would come into force. As we now all know, the decision was to enforce the cap in 2020. This decision, while not unexpected, nonetheless changed everything in the fuels market at a stroke, In the intervening 12 months, shipping has had to come to terms with the need to prepare for 1 January 2020, by which time every shipowner will have had to make its decision as to how best to comply with the cap. This, as everyone involved will testify, is far from an easy decision to make. For instance, many believe that scrubbers represent a costeffective way of complying while continuing tio burn residual high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), whose price, it is believed, is likely to plummet as the 2020 deadline approaches. Others, meanwhile, are putting their faith in the refining industry's ability to produce low-sulphur fuel (LSFO) in sufficient quantity and quality (and, crucially, at the right price) to meet global demand come 2020. Still others see the sulphur cap as the perfect opportunity for alternative fuels such as LNG to come to the fore and point to the increasing uptake of LNG-fuelled vessels as evidence of this trend, believing that only a shortage of effective bunkering infrastructure will hold this back. Meanwhile, some point to the potential of methanol, biofuels and a variety of alternatives. Plus, of course, whatever method of compliance is chosen raises additional questions in terms of lubricant choice, maintenance, potential adverse effects on equipment, fuel testing and many, many other key operational areas.

Whichever method of compliance is chosen of course, it will have its various merits and downsides. The one thing about which everyone can agree with regard to the sulphur cap is is that its demands will not be met by a uniform, one-size-fits-all solution. There is no ‘magic bullet’. Sometimes it feels as though the only universal factor on the question of compliance with the global sulphur cap, it would seem, is uncertainty. Very few people to whom one speaks on the question of what a post-2020 shipping industry will look like are prepared to be categorical in offering predictions. Fair enough, of course. Nobody wants to offer a hostage to fortune, but this uncertainty has the effect of paralysing decision making further down the line.

“WORRIED ABOUT MAKING THE WRONG CHOICE, SHIPOWNERS ARE WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS” A common complaint one hears is that shipowners, worried about making the wrong choice and potentially costing their businesses millions, are instead waiting to see what happens. This is understandable, but, as the deadline gets closer, this could mean frantic, last-minute efforts to ensure comp;iance This edition of FLET looks at the various soltions offered for compliance and the issues associated with them. In doing so, it reflects its market inasmuch as it, like so many aspects of the shipping industry at the moment, has to be seen through the prism of 1 January 2020. FLET

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017


Abnormal wear in Unit 3.

© Cyril Abad

Urgent advice needed.

We make it possible Our engineers regularly go onboard customers’ vessels and advise on the best lubricant solutions. Thanks to Total Lubmarine’s regular technical support, our customers are one step ahead of the problem. Visit us at

Energizing performance. Every day




lmost as soon as IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee announced that 2020 would be the deadline for compliance with the global sulphur cap, it was certain that this would dominate regulatory discussion for years to come. This comes as no surprise. According to IMO estimates, the 0.5% sulphur limit for marine fuels in 2020 will affect as many as 70,000 ships, causing nothing short of a paradigm shift in marine fuel. It is more than just another regulation: it is a challenge that goes right to the heart of the most fundamental aspect of marine propulsion technology. The issues and challenges associated with this – from fuel availability through compliance to enforcement – are covered extensively in this supplement. But it is widely agreed that,


whatever the difficulties posed by the 2020 deadline, it did at least give the industry certainty in terms of what it had to do and by when. This certainty was reinforced in July this year by MEPC 71, which ruled out any possibility that there would be any form of delay to the 1 January 2020 implementation of the sulphur cap. The majority of member states rejected a proposal to collect data to allow IMO to take stock of the availability situation ahead of 2020. Certainty in one area,

though, is often balanced by its opposite in another. The natural tendency to concentrate on the global sulphur cap tends to obscure another major regulatory issue that is coming right behind it: the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The shipping industry was not directly affected by the 2015 Paris Climate Change Accord, in which it was agreed that achieving the necessary reductions should be left within the remit of IMO. In response, IMO pledged in 2016 to have

GHG emission regulations in place from 2023. This announcement was not well received by all parties. Speaking at the time, Sotiris Raptis, shipping officer at campaigning group Transport and Environment, said “This can in no way be seen as a proper response to the challenge laid down by the Paris climate agreement. The International Maritime Organization is proposing to stall any action until 2023. The decision to delay by at least a further seven years any agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping constitutes an abject failure by national governments and the shipping industry.” But within shipping, opinions differ over what constitutes a reasonable target. The argument divides along predictable lines, with a number of European and

The roadmap for the reduction of CO2 emissions was first announced at MEPC 70 in 2016

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017


island states pushing for an ambitious target, while emerging economies, major flag states and industry voices are arguing against an absolute emission cap, on the basis that it could have a negative impact on economic development. By way of compromise, in June this year four major international shipping and maritime trade associations made a joint proposal to IMO entitled Reduction of GHG emission fom ships on ambitious CO2 reductions by the global shipping industry. BIMCO, Intercargo, Intertanko and International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) made a detailed submission proposing that IMO member states “immediately adopt two aspirational objectives on behalf of the international shipping sector,” the joint press release stated. These ‘aspirational objectives’ include keeping international shipping’s annual total CO2 emissions below 2008 levels, and reducing CO2 emissions per tonne of cargo transported per kilometre, as an average across international shipping, by at least 50% by 2050 compared with 2008.

Kitack Lim, secretary general IMO: “Next year really will be a time when the world will expect the IMO member states to deliver a vision, as a first stage in the IMO roadmap”

It was also suggested that IMO should give consideration to another possible objective of reducing international shipping’s total annual CO2 emissions, by an agreed percentage improvement in 2050 compared with 2008, as a point on a continuing trajectory of further CO2 emissions reduction. “The shipping industry wants IMO to remain in control of additional measures to address CO2 reduction by international shipping and to develop a global solution, rather than risk the danger of market-distorting measures at the national or regional level,” the joint statement said. Tellingly, the trade associations pointed out that any objectives adopted by IMO must not imply any commitment to place a binding cap on the sector’s total CO2 emissions or on the CO2 emissions of individual ships. Crucially, from a fuels point of view, the statement also emphasised that “dramatic insector CO2 reductions alongside increasing trade would require substantial and sustained research into the development of alternative fossil-free fuels and new technologies.” Speaking on this subject in September, ICS chairman Esben Poulsson said “The world has great expectations for IMO delivering an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction strategy for the international shipping sector. We are confident that this initial IMO strategy, once adopted next year, will match the goals and philosophy of the Paris Agreement on climate change, while also fully recognising that the sustainable development of the world and its peoples is critically dependent on the continuing smooth flow of global trade, about 90% of which is transported by sea.” Mr Poulsson stressed that ICS and its member national shipowners’ associations are

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

ESPEN POULSSON CHAIRMAN, ICS Espen Poulsson was elected President of the Singapore Shipping Association in June 2015, of which he has been a Council Member since 2007. He also serves on the Board of the Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and is an Advisory Council Member of the Singapore Maritime Foundation. Prior to his election as Chairman of the London-based International Chamber of Shipping he held the position of Vice Chairman, on whose Board he represented Singapore.

committed to helping IMO agree on some truly ambitious CO2-reduction objectives that IMO can present at the 2018 Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement. He went on to give his backing to IMO, saying “IMO is the only body which can deliver further GHG reduction measures that will have a meaningful impact on the emissions of the entire global shipping sector. It is vital that IMO remains in control of

this critical issue, building on the real progress already made with its package of technical regulations that became legally binding across the entire world fleet in 2013, the very first global agreement of its kind adopted for a major industrial sector.” IMO has been fiercely resistant to any attempts by external bodies to usurp its authority in this area. Speaking in January this year, after EU lawmakers debated whether to include carbon pollution from the maritime sector under the EU's emissions trading scheme, IMO secretary-general Kitack Lim said any attempt by the EU to impose new regulations risked “undermining” a climate deal for shipping. “I am concerned that a final decision to extend the EU-ETS to shipping emissions would not only be premature but would seriously impact the work of IMO to address GHG emissions from international shipping,” he said. Whether or not this sort of pressure is having an effect remains to be seen, but certainly IMO has been more forthcoming on the subject of GHG regulation of late, describing as “a miracle” the progress, in the past few years, on talks to cut the sector’s carbon footprint. Speaking during London International Shipping Week in September, Secretary-General Lim made it clear that the 2018 deadline for setting out on this path was dominating thoughts at IMO. “Next year really will be a time when the world will expect the IMO member states to deliver a vision, as a first stage in the IMO roadmap,” he said. The exact nature of this roadmap remains to be seen, of course. But what seems certain is that decarbonisation in one form or another will be the end result. This will inevitably have a huge effect on the fuel choices made by shipowners for years to come. FLET

Driven by performance. Backed by results. In tough industry conditions, you need to control how you operate. For many years, ExxonMobil’s proven marine lubricants and services have kept engines operating at peak performance. Our solutions have helped customers to defeat cold corrosion, reduce cylinder oil feed rates by 45 per cent* and minimise total operating costs. Learn about these savings at

*Based on the experience of a single customer. Actual results may vary depending upon the type of equipment used, its condition and its maintenance, operating conditions and environment, and any prior lubricant used. Š 2017 ExxonMobil. All trademarks used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its subsidiaries.

8 | LNG

LNG AS A FUEL GATHERS STRENGTH In April this year, Marine Propulsion’s sister title LNG World Shipping undertook a survey of the vessels using LNG globally. The results show a fuel that is gathering strength in a number of sectors. Here, Mike Corkhill shows the results by sector



AIDAPrima was the first cruise ship to run on LNG in port

Passenger Ships There are more passenger ships in the LNG-powered fleet than any other type of vessel. The LNG-fuelled fleet review shows that as of 20 March 2017 there were 40 such passenger ships in service, compared with 30 a year earlier, and 32 on order, up from 23. The 36% annual jump in the combined in-service and on-order passenger ship fleet

owes much to the interest in clean-burning LNG as a marine fuel by the leading cruise ship operators. Carnival Group, MSC Cruises and Royal Caribbean Cruises have ordered an aggregate 13 gas-burning newbuildings for delivery between 2019 and 2026. Cruise ships spend, on average, 40% of their time in port and the remainder in coastal waters and regional seas moving

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

between ports. The scheduled itineraries for many of these ships fall within emission-control areas (ECAs) where restrictions on atmospheric pollution levels are particularly strict. Another consideration for cruise ship owners was the IMO decision in October 2016 to introduce the 0.5% global sulphur cap in 2020 rather than the alternative 2025 date. Against this background, the

companies mentioned above have chosen LNG as the optimum propulsion system fuel for their newbuildings. The appearance of cruise ships in the LNG-fuelled fleet listing is also indicative of the trend towards the specification of larger vessels among today’s newbuilding contracts. Whereas the longest-serving LNGfuelled passenger vessels are small Norwegian cross-fjord ferries, the concept of LNG as marine fuel is now winning favour much more widely. As an example, the four 180,000gt vessels that AIDA and Costa, both Carnival Group companies, have on order at the Meyer Papenburg and Meyer Turku yards will be able to carry up to 6,600 passengers, the largest guest capacity of any cruise ship yet built. Each ship will be fitted with three Type C LNG bunker tanks with a total capacity of

LNG | 9

3,600m3, enabling their dualfuel engines to operate on gas for up to 14 days before the need for replenishment. Despite the entrance of cruise ships onto the LNGfuelled fleet stage, roro ferries continue to dominate the passenger vessel listings. Aside from the cruise ships and three passenger-only ferries serving Oslo, all the other vessels in this segment are ferries able to accommodate vehicles and passengers. This in-service and on-order complement includes four high-speed catamarans. Because passenger/ car ferries usually shuttle between two ports, putting the necessary LNG bunker supply arrangements in place is relatively straightforward. Norway was the only player during the early days of LNGfuelled ferries but has since been joined by Sweden, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Argentina, Canada and Estonia. The orderbook shows that Scotland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and France are soon to introduce LNGpowered passenger/car ferries. And, judging from the current intense level of project development work worldwide, this looks like only the start of an evolving gas ferry network.

LNG-fuelled harbour vessel Econuri is deployed at Incheon in South Korea

Offshore Vessels There has been little change in the number of service and supply vessels in the world LNG-fuelled fleet over the past year. Both the operational and on-order fleets of service and supply vessels rose by three units. Platform supply vessels (PSVs) figure prominently in the at-sea LNG-powered service and supply fleet, accounting for 20 of the 33-ship complement. The orderbook, in contrast, shows much more variety, with a portfolio encompassing dredgers, a jackup rig, a semi-submersible crane vessel, a cable-layer and a wind farm installation ship. DEME of Belgium has been a leading advocate of LNG-fuelled dredgers and has investigated the challenges of using gas to power them. Factors to be weighed up include bunker tank size and location, LNG bunker availability, shipboard bunkering connections, crew training and the step load capability of the various gasburning engine options. Combined with its cold box encasement, a cylindrical Type C LNG bunker tank occupies about three times as much space as a prism-shaped tank of marine gas oil (MGO)



containing the same energy. While Type C pressure vessel tanks offer many advantages, accommodating them has a significant impact on vessel layout. Also, the tank location restrictions imposed by the new International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) add another level of complexity to the design challenge. Naval architects working on the DEME dredgers found that dual-fuel diesel engines worked best for the vessels as they have a better step load capability than gas engines. The mix of LNG and MGO bunker tank capacities associated with such propulsion units also offers a measure of redundancy. The aim is to optimise the use of LNG, assuming that the cost of this fuel is lower than MGO, but to provide sufficient MGO as a backup. The crew can switch to MGO if the dredger has to operate longer than planned before the next LNG bunkering stop. Harbour tugs are the second most popular type of LNG-fuelled service and supply vessel, after PSVs. There are now six gaspowered tugs in service and eight on order. Wärtsilä, with its medium-speed dual-fuel engines, and Rolls-Royce, with its gas-only units, have both enjoyed success in providing tug propulsion systems. LNG-fuelled tugs are in operation in Norway, China and Japan, while Dubai and Singapore are poised to join the club as a result of vessels on order. The next new member could well be the US where a number of designs for gasfuelled tugs and towboats have been tabled. Three of the tugs on order are under construction at the Gondan yard in Spain for Østensjø Rederi. The owner has opted for Wärtsilä engines and the series is slated to provide ship assist and escort services

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

10 | LNG

TOTE has taken delivery of LNG-fuelled Isla Bella, seen being launched here

for the LNG carriers loading cargoes at the Statoil export terminal near Hammerfest in northern Norway.

Containers and dry bulk vessels The container and dry cargo ship segment is the smallest of the four vessel type categories into which the survey breaks down the in-service and on-order LNG-fuelled fleet. It also continues to suffer from a paucity of newbuilding activity, actually shrinking over the past year. Although there are now 11 LNG-fuelled container and dry cargo ships in service, following the completion of three further vessels during the 12-month period, the orderbook has fallen by a third, from 21 to 14 ships. Besides the three deliveries and the absence of any new orders to compensate, two container ship newbuilding contracts were cancelled and two were confirmed to be LNG-ready, rather than LNG-fuelled vessels.



Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

The cancellations were prompted by a Containerships decision to switch shipbuilders from the originally nominated yard. Containerships has also reduced its order from six 1,400 TEU container ships to four. A pair of box ships at the Aker Philadelphia yard for Matson Navigation had initially been intended to be LNGpowered but are actually being built as LNG-ready vessels. Despite the hiatus of the past year, the container ship segment will undoubtedly grow in the years ahead, as evidenced by the current United Arab Shipping Co (UASC) newbuilding programme of 17 LNG-ready ships, comprising six 18,800 TEU vessels and 11 of 15,000 TEU. Elsewhere, CMA CGM has stated it will also opt for LNG fuel when specifying its next generation of large box ships. Upgrading the LNGready capability of the UASC ships to run on gas will happen when the necessary

bunkering infrastructure is in place, expected by 2020. The transformation will create the most LNG fuel-intensive vessels afloat. UASC, in co-operation with Qatargas and Shell, is exploring LNG bunker supply options at a Middle East location, halfway along the vessels’ Asia-Europe trade lane. The shipowner has also opted for LNG bunker tanks built to the IHI-SPB design for installation on its LNG-ready box ships at the appropriate time, due not least to the optimised space utilisation and zero sloshing damage risk advantages of the concept. Two of the vessels in the container and dry cargo ship category entering service this year are Auto Eco and Auto Energy, the world’s first LNG-powered pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs). The Finnish/Swedish ice class 1A Super pair were built for United European Car Carriers (UECC), an NYK/Wallenius Lines joint venture, by the

LNG | 11

NACKS yard in China. Each PCTC can transport 3,800 vehicles on 10 decks and about 20% of the revenue-earning space, or 6,000m2, is able to accommodate high and heavy cargo with a maximum cargo unit weight of 160 tonnes. The two UECC ships are fuelled by means of shipto-ship transfers from the recently delivered 5,000m3 Engie Zeebrugge, the world's first purpose-built LNG bunkering vessel. Each UECC vessel is powered by a single eightcylinder, high-pressure, twostroke MAN gas-injection engine. Each ship'’s 760m3 LNG bunker tank enables 14-day round trip voyages running solely on gas.

Tankers and bulk carriers In terms of LNG-fuelled newbuilding completions and orders over the past 12 months, the most dynamic segment has been tankers and bulk carriers. Following the delivery of 13 ships, there are now 19 tankers and bulkers in service. Contracts for 17 new vessels augmented this activity and boosted the tanker and bulker orderbook to 28 ships as of 20 March 2017. According to LNG World Shipping’s latest review of the global fleet of LNGfuelled seagoing vessels, the past year’s notable shipyard handovers include a four-ship series of 15,000dwt chemical/ product tankers, built by Avic Dingheng for Terntank’s Baltic Sea service and four 35,000m3 ethane carriers. The latter complement comprises three vessels for Navigas and one for Ocean Yield and operation in the Gaschem pool. The Terntank vessels and the ethane carriers are also noteworthy for their low-speed dual-fuel propulsion systems. The Terntank quartet are the first ships to be propelled

by low-pressure two-stroke dual-fuel engines, in this case supplied by Winterthur G&D, while high-pressure MAN gasinjection engines were specified for the ethane ships. The ethane carriers may never have occasion to burn LNG. When dual-fuel diesel engines were introduced as a viable propulsion system option a decade ago, the initial focus was on LNG carrier applications to enable the units to run on cargo boil-off gas (BOG). However, manufacturers soon adapted their engines with a few minor adjustments to enable them to run on other hydrocarbon gases, including ethane. The new generation gas tankers being built to carry US ethane exports, including the four ships mentioned above, are all burning cargo BOG in their engines. Thanks to the shale gas revolution, US ethane is a plentiful, low-cost product while the ability to use cargo BOG as propulsion system fuel simplifies ship operations. It also gets around the problem of securing a supply of LNG at a time when the development

of the necessary bunkering infrastructure is in its infancy. Among the recent orders for tankers and bulkers is a major play by the Baltic Sea operator Gothia Tanker Alliance. Between them, Furetank, Älvtank and Thun Tankers, the three members of the Alliance, have ordered 10 chemical/product tankers, comprising six of 16,300dwt and four of 8,000dwt. A Sovcomflot order for four Aframax tankers of 114,000 dwt at Hyundai Mipo also merits a mention. Announced in March 2017, the contract highlights the fact that gas-burning engines are now gaining favour as a propulsion system for larger ships, including those whose sphere of operations is not limited to a dedicated route. Although the LNG bunker tank capacity of the Sovcomflot tanker quartet is yet to be announced, each would require about 5,500 m3 of space to provide the vessel with the same amount of energy contained in the heavy fuel oil tankage typically specified for an Aframax tanker. FLET

ABOVE: Bergen Tankers is one of the few shipowners to convert a ship to run on LNG



Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017




ver since catalytic cracking processes were developed during the oil crisis to squeeze more product from crude stock, cat fines have been a problem in marine engines. So the problem is not a new one, and it is not going away. Recent reports from ExxonMobil and Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) have found significant problems with cat fines in engines and bunker fuel respectively. Given the damage cat fines can do to engines, this is highly significant. Cat fines are hard ceramic compounds of aluminium and silicon used as a catalyst in the crude oil refining process. They are used to enable a higher yield of distillate fuels to be extracted from the feedstock, but often get carried over into the end product used as ships’ fuel. They range from 75 μm down to 1μm. They get embedded in engine components – particularly cylinder liners and piston rings – and cause abrasive wear. Cat fine damage mainly occurs in large, low-speed main engines because the larger fuel injection components allow sizeable cat fine particles into the cylinders. Cylinder lubricating oil is minimally applied to the liner surface, and does not wash cat fines away. Cat fine damage to medium- and high-speed engines is less frequently found, as more copious splash lubrication of cylinder liners can wash away cat fine particles, while the closer tolerance of components prevents the ingress of larger particles. Damage caused by cat fines can lead to significant costs, with the price of replacing just one liner estimated at US$65,000 for parts alone. This can rapidly escalate to more than US$1M when the labour and the accompanying expenses of downtime, repair and offhire are considered, as well as the likely event that multiple cylinders are affected. FOBAS’s findings stemmed from a test undertaken at Fujairah, a strategic bunkering port. This showed that a number of bunker samples delivered aluminium and silicon cat fines at levels ranging from “above 75mg/kg up to nearly double, at 139mg/kg.” Given that the ISO 8217 specifications for marine fuels maintain a 60 mg/kg limit for cat fines, this is bad enough. But when one considers that this ISO threshold is considered to be fairly high and that research has shown that even particles of 10µm can contribute to wear, this is alarming news. Equally, a significant discrepancy exists between ISO standards for cat fine content and the content recommended and anticipated by

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

A cutaway of an MAN liner and piston with damage to the piston rings

engine manufacturers in engine design. Furthermore, the FOBAS analysis goes on to state that “Al+Si at 75mg/kg can be difficult to reduce but may be manageable; however Al+Si at levels up to 139mg/kg would prove extremely difficult to bring down to acceptable levels for engine entry (<15mg/kg). Carry over of abrasive Al+Si material at high levels may lead to damage to fuel pumps/injectors and cylinder components.” ExxonMobil’s research involved in-depth data analysis of


“There seems to be a direct correlation between ultra low sulphur fuel oil demand and engine damage from cat fines”

more than 400,000 oil samples from ExxonMobil’s MobilGard Cylinder Condition Monitoring programme. The research identified a wide range of potentially damaging engine issues facing vessel operators. It revealed that 43% of vessels have an issue with cat fines. This problem is only likely to get worse once the 2020 global sulphur cap comes into effect. An increase in the use of ultra low sulphur fuel oil (ULSFO) and a potentially greater variance in local fuel blends mean the cat fine problem has the potential to become more serious. This is due to their use in the creation of low-sulphur fuels. As Francisco Malta, director of VM Industrials (a distributor of Aderco Fuel Treatment Solutions), put it “There seems to be a direct correlation between ultra low sulphur fuel oil global demand and engine damage by cat fines. This is an issue as ULSF demand is only forecast to continue to rise.” Purification systems exist to combat cat fines. A fuel-purifier process tries to identify the cat fines before they make their way into the fuel line toward the engines, and in theory all the cat fines should be found and rejected here. Speaking to Marine Propulsion, ExxonMobil global marketing manager Iain White indicated that he was surprised by the scale of the cat fine problem, saying “If you’re running your purifiers properly, you shouldn’t have a problem with cat fines, so this data indicates that there are some serious problems with the skills and expertise of the crew.” Mr Malta takes issue with this, saying “The reason purifiers have difficulty identifying the cat fines is because silicon and aluminium are both highly hydrophilic and when emulsified in water the purifiers cannot identify them.” Indeed, FOBAS data suggests that purifiers operate at only 60-65% efficiency on average. Once water is present and attached to the cat fines, a purifier is far less effective: even the smallest content of water in fuel is enough to trick the purifier. All fuels contain traces of water, even if very small. With the ongoing condensation that is naturally present in fuel storage tanks, water is an unavoidable fact. Although around 96% of water will sink to the bottom of the tank, the other 4% remains suspended on the storage walls, ceilings and in the fuel. It is impossible to completely separate the water. According to Mr Malta “The solution is to de-emulsify all water from the fuel at storage.” Clearly, then, the answer to this problem is far from simple, but increasingly urgent as the 2020 deadline looms ever closer. In its 2016 position paper discussing the issue, Catalytic Fines and Engine Damage, the International Union of Maritime Insurers recommended a number of changes that would help

reduce damage from cat fines. These included: • Mandatory sampling and testing of fuel before use. • Improved fuel handling on board. • Improving the quality of bunkers. • Alteration of the ISO standard so as to lower the quantity of cat fines in fuel. • Charter/bunkering contracts should specify fuel less than 60 ppm. • Regular cleaning of filters, and frequent drainage of tanks. • Cleaning the settling and service tanks during drydock. • Checking the filter centrifuge capacity on specifications for new ships. Another approach is to make use of the hydrophilic nature of cat fines to offer a solution for reducing risk. Using a surfactantbased fuel treatment solution that facilitates water separation will ensure that a significant portion of the cat fines captured by water molecules in the fuel tanks can be drained off along with the water. Allowing thorough settling of the fuel will further reduce the quantity of cat fines, especially large particles. In addition, the right fuel-treatment solution will isolate contaminants, disperse agglomerations that lead to sludge and stabilise as well as homogenise the fuel. The net effect is that the fuel enters the line cleaner for more efficient combustion, with a lower cat fine count, enabling the separator to eject remaining cat fines and contaminants more effectively. One solution, of course, is to identify the problem before the fuel enters the system. For this purpose, Parker Kittiwake offers a cat fines test kit. This uses a pre-mixed chemical bottle test that identifies the presence of cat fines in a representative sample of fuel oil. Engineers become able to spot these abrasive particles in the fuel oil before it enters the system – either during the bunkering of new fuel or from the settling tank when it has been stirred up during bad weather. Whatever the chosen route to minimising the risk from cat fines, it seems certain they will be with us for years to come yet and that the best guarantees of protection against them are vigilance and precaution. FLET

Cat fines test kits, such as this one from Parker Kittiwake, are available

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

Knowledge grows

Yara Marine Technologies

Tailored solutions for marine SOx and NOx cleaning - More than 100 SOx scrubbers delivered with more than one million operating hours. - More than 1600 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Systems installed.





t one point in the debate over how best to comply with the sulphur cap regulations in 2020, a consensus appeared to be emerging that scrubbers represented a sensible solution to the problem of how to ensure compliance without having to worry about the cost, availability and technical complications associated with sourcing new fuels. The case for scrubbers was made succinctly by Iain White, global marketing manager at ExxonMobil Marine Fuels and Lubricants, at Riviera Maritime Media's European Marine Engineering Conference in April this year. While he made it clear that there would be no ‘magic bullet’ that would guarantee compliance with the sulphur cap, he did lay out certain economic realities that may underpin the decisions shipowners would make in the interim. In particular, he pointed out that the arrival of the sulphur cap would see the price of high sulphur fuel oil collapse almost overnight as it became unusable without abatement technologies, ie scrubbers.

Meanwhile, he said, the price of compliant distillates such as marine gas oil was likely to skyrocket as demand for potentially limited stocks soared. The effect of this would be that those whose vessels were already equipped with scrubbers would be ideally placed to exploit the low price of residual fuels, which would mean a potentially very rapid payback on investment in scrubbers. Given that the scale of capital expenditure required for scrubbers is the single biggest obstacle to their installation, this seems a strong argument for their adoption. While Mr White did not make any specific recommendations to the audience, he did say “The economics for scrubbers are going to become very clear in January 2020 – and very compelling.” But this case suffered a blow, when Maersk Line announced that it would not be using scrubbers on its global fleet, but would instead be using low sulphur fuel in order to achieve compliance. This decision, the group asserted, was triggered by a number

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017


of factors. One was that it did not believe that investment in retrofitting complex machinery requiring specialised maintenance and personnel represented a good business case. Representatives of Maersk Line have also stated publicy that scrubbers, by allowing the continued use of cheaper fuels, could ruin any kind of broader business case for enhancing energy efficiency. Another possible reason why some owners may be fighting shy of scrubbers is the fear that they may be rendered obsolete if further restrictions on CO2 emissions are effected after 2020. Were such regulations to come into force, scrubbers would be ‘stranded assets’ after only five years. Hapag Lloyd, too, has suggested that it had no plans to use scrubbers and would instead pursue a policy of burning 0.5% sulphur fuel after 2020. All this has clearly had a negative effect on the scrubber market, with suppliers reporting a disappointing number of orders for the systems. It is unclear, though, how much this has to do with Maersk’s decision and how much with shipowners leaving their decision to the last possible minute. Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association director Don Gregory believes the latter is certainly a major factor, as shipowners opt to wait and see. Speaking to FLET, he said “We’re in a bit of a logjam at the moment, with shipowners sitting on their hands. To many of them, 2020 seems a long way away, and they prefer to deal with it nearer the time.”

He continued “One or two shipowners have said they’re going to get scrubbers, but haven’t yet done anything about it, so I’m afraid our ealier predictions on sales feel a long way off the mark at the minute. I think we’ll start to see a lot of movement in 2018.” He believes Maersk’s announcement on scrubbers was more strategic than definitive, saying “Maersk is in a stand-off with the oil industry and this announcement was as much a part of that as it was about what will actually happen.” Mr Gregory remains optimistic about the future of scrubbers, though, believing that the business case will simply mean that it is common sense to use them. “I think that in 2019, when the residual price starts dropping, you’re suddenly going to see a lot of people changing their minds,” he said. “Ultimately," he continued, "the economics work if you’re using a lot of fuel and fuel’s cheap. The old adage is that marine fuel has to be widely available and cheap. That fits with residual HSFO and scrubbers.” He predicts that, by 2025, there will be between 10,000 and 20,000 vessels worldwide fitted with scrubbers, in particular, large vessels. Mr Gregory believes there is another reason why exhaust gas after scrubbers – in particular so-called ‘wet’ scrubbers – will be in place in 2025. “Sulphur isn’t the real problem anymore,” he said. “Everyone now is looking at particulates, but IMO hasn’t even started looking at that question yet. The strong likelihood of regulation on that could help make the case for scrubbers regardless.”

Giuseppe Bono, CEO of Fincantieri (left) signs the agreement with Sandro De Poli, president and CEO of GE Italy

Fincantieri and GE to develop new emission-control solution An entirely new emission-control solution is to be developed by Fincantieri in conjunction with GE Power. Called the Shipboard Pollutant Removal System, the solution is designed to reduce SOx and particulate emissions in compliance with the global sulphur capthat will be in effect by 2020. According to the agreement, Fincantieri will define the necessary technical parameters to design an emission-control system for a vessel, including constraints and improvements to develop a competitive product. At the same time, GE Power will define the features necessary for an emission-control system, to help meet the target performances. The agreement, which follows a memorandum of understanding signed by the two companies in September 2016, was signed by GE Italy president and chief executive Sandro De Poli and Fincantieri chief executive Giuseppe Bono. Mr Bono emphasised the unique nature of the collaboration, saying “No shipbuilder before had ever established a partnership to reduce emissions with a system manufacturer that is one of the leaders in the area in which it operates. This strategy, having cuttingedge research and innovation at the forefront, will allow us to raise the bar of technology to the benefit of the cruise market.” The exact nature of the new solution remains unclear at this stage because it is still in development. A Fincantieri representative told FLET that it was too early to disclose further details about the project. But there was perhaps a hint that it will rely on scrubbing technology in the company’s statement that “While the system is being developed for cruise vessels, it is intended that it should be appropriate for all vessels using heavy fuel.” FLET

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

Challenges facing the Marine Industry Munters have a long history of land based scrubber installations and has been working closely with the R&D departments of our customers. and today deliver customized mist eliminators systems to the most advanced Emission Gas Cleaning systems on the market and have a global organization with factories in China, USA and Germany ready for more.

Munters supports you with: •Deep application experience and extensive database •CFD calculations of flow distribution •Measurements of droplet sizes •Measurements of rest liquid content •Laboratory test work •Installation supervision and troubleshooting

Based on our expertise and wide range of profiles, we help you tailor the optimum separation solution according to your conditions and requirements. Munters Euroform GmbH Philipsstr. 8 , P.O. Box 52068 Aachen, Germany / Phone +49 241 89 000/



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. LUKOIL_Az_190x62_Kompass_auf_Wasser.qxp_Layout 1 24.09.15 13:09 Seite 1

Think LUKOIL !


Shell believes that signs point to a growing interest in the use of distillates and low sulphur heavy fuel oil






he implications of the global sulphur cap are far from restricted to fuel choice. If a shipowner decides to burn low sulphur fuel, any change to a lighter fuel will also mean a change in lubricants and their use. For vessels using low sulphur fuels, the use of a lubricant with a low BN (base number) level is recommended. For vessels using a scrubber, a higher BN oil will be required. This is something that the major lubricant manufacturers are addressing, albeit with somewhat differing approaches. Shell Marine executive director Jan Toschka said the company “sees a growing interest in the use of distillates and low sulphur heavy fuel oil as shipping approaches a global sulphur content cap of 0.5%, imposed by IMO from 2020. Already, dual-fuel engines are taking an increasing share of the medium-speed engine market.” With this in mind, Shell recently unveiled its next-generation Argina and Gadinia trunk piston oils for the four-stroke engine market. Newer-generation engines are designed for better fuel economy and lower operating costs, achieved by higher brake mean effective pressure and higher operating temperatures. For cylinder oils, these characteristics increase the risk of rapid BN depletion and increased viscosity. Shell Argina and Shell Gadinia have been optimised for high BN retention and viscosity control to address the faster oxidation that leads to deposit formation or lubricant contamination, without resorting to unnecessary oil sweetening. Compared with a high-performing industry reference oil, the new Shell Argina S5 shows a 12.6% improvement in BN retention and a 1520% improvement in piston undercrown deposit thickness. This translates into lower operating costs via longer oil life and reduced maintenance. The Shell Argina range includes four grades: the 20 BN Shell Argina S2 for residual, blended and distillate fuels; the ‘mainstream’ Shell Argina S3 (30 BN) and Shell Argina S4 (40 BN); and Shell Argina S5 (55 BN) – offering extra protection from deposits and extended oil life. Shell Gadinia S3 is a new addition to the existing standard and anti-lacquer Gadinia

variants, and was developed to control oil consumption in modern engines burning distillate fuels. In the case of two-stroke engines, the move to distillates may not be so decisive: vessel operators can meet emissions laid out by IMO from 2020 by running their engines on lower sulphur content fuel or use exhaust gas scrubber technology and continue with higher sulphur fuel. Shell Marine’s two-stroke product for lower sulphur content fuels is Shell Alexia S3, available since 2014 for ships entering emission control areas (ECAs), where owners must use fuels with a maximum of 0.1% sulphur content or equivalent exhaust gas abatement technology. Shell Alexia S3 is a 25 BN (SAE 50) cylinder oil recommended for vessels running on ULSF, distillates and LNG. Its performance claims are supported by millions of operating hours in the field and backed by No Objection Letters issued by MAN Diesel & Turbo and Winterthur Gas and Diesel. Where owners choose to invest in exhaust gas abatement technology rather than change fuel strategy, other considerations will come into play. For example, a slow-steaming regime can induce very high oil stress. Mr Toschka explained “Beyond 2020, the 100 BN Shell Alexia S6 is likely to remain a strong option as the high-performance cylinder lubricant providing additional protection for newer design engines operating under more demanding conditions, such as low load and high fuel sulphur content.” Alexia S6 offers acid-neutralising properties to prolong the life of components, while its additive-optimised formulation helps to keep the engine clean and minimise deposit build up. Shell Alexia S6 is approved for use in line with the latest requirements set by Winterthur Gas and Diesel and MAN Diesel & Turbo, the major manufacturers of low-speed crosshead diesel engines. In the run-up to 2020, Shell Marine has been working very closely with the major OEMs and several shipowners to protect the most modern ultra-efficient diesel engines against cold corrosion while still optimising cylinder oil feed rates. This has led to the offering of Shell Alexia 140, an ultra-high BN oil (140 BN), for use on its own

JAN TOSCHKA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SHELL MARINE LUBRICANTS Starting with Shell in 1998 after completing an MA in Business Economics at the University of Hamburg, Jan Toschka’s experience includes five years with the group’s Upstream and Gas team and seven years in Downstream Oil Products including Risk Management and Trading. His track record offers the combination of a broad energy perspective and specific insight into the fast-changing ship fuels market.

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017


or as part of an onboard lubricant blending or mixing system. Shell Alexia 140 was the first cylinder oil trialled by MAN Diesel and Turbo for its automated cylinder oil mixing (ACOM) pilot scheme to establish best practice in matching lubricant BN to fuel sulphur content while minimising lubricant feed rates. ACOM is MAN’s own onboard blending system. When developing it, the company noted that 140 BN oils, which are above the usual range for lubricants and have far greater basicity than those used with low sulphur fuels, could allow minimum feed rate to be maintained at higher sulphur levels. This seems to have prompted Chevron Marine Lubricants to launch Taro Special HT Ultra, the first cylinder lubricant approved for use in the highly corrosive environments of the latest two-stroke diesel engines. Taro Special HT Ultra provides the flexibility required for blending on board (BOB) and the first 140 BN cylinder lubricant OEM approved for use on its own for ultra-high corrosion environments following extensive laboratory and onboard trials.

Newer engines have an increased tendency to develop cold corrosion inside the cylinder than the older, less efficient units. To mitigate the effects of this highly corrosive environment, several methods are possible. The easiest is to simply increase cylinder lubricant feed rates. But Chevron believes it is far more efficient to switch to a higher BN lubricant once a certain rate is reached, providing superior corrosion protection with less product injected into the cylinder. Naturally, injecting more alkalinity than necessary is not economical and may cause performance issues. This means ship operators need to make sure to use the right oil to get maximum engine protection at the lowest cylinder lubricant feed rate. According to Chevron’s brand and marketing manager Ian Thurloway “The shipping industry faces unprecedented change in a very short period of time which will present opportunities as well as some significant challenges for lubricants suppliers, our customers and partners. The

implementation of 2020 legislation is likely to result in a wider range of fuels, from distillates and low sulphur residual fuels, to new blends and innovations appearing available within the market. Chevron Marine Lubricants is well placed to meet these changes, working closely with early adopters of alternative fuels, we are already supply the largest fleet of methanol fuelled vessels with our Taro lubricants with great success, as well as the majority of LNG/bi fuel propelled two-stroke vessels operating today.” The company’s Taro cylinder lubricants range from 25BN to ultra high 140BN and cover virtually any sulphur content from <0.1% to the high sulphur HFO’s. Its Taro Special HT 100 has just received OEM approval for intermittent steaming in and out of ECA zones with no need to change cylinder lubricant required. ExxonMobil’s almost immediate response to the 2020 deadline announcement in 2016 was to highlight the first firing of its new marine test engine. This replicates a demanding field

Total’s Talusia Optima is now approved for all three major two-stroke manufacturers

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017


environment through scientifically derived operating conditions and, the company asserted, “speeds the timeline to bring new products to market, considering evolving emissions regulations.” Iain White, ExxonMobil global marketing manager for marine fuels and lubricants, is unequivocal about the difficulties the sector faces. He explained “The impending cut to the global marine fuel sulphur cap to 0.5% will pose a further challenge for the marine industry, and the need to switch fuels when entering and leaving ECAs remains an operational complexity. Add in the growing influence of the energy efficiency design index and NOx regulations, and it’s clear that vessel operation has never been more complex.” The scale of the challenge faced post 2020 is illustrated by the findings of a survey of Exxon’s MobilGard cylinder condition monitoring (CCM) programme. Data from the programme shows 50% of vessels are not operating at optimal feed rates, while cold corrosion is present in 15% of vessel samples. This is a situation that Mr White said is likely “to get worse rather than better” post 2020. Total Lubmarine is extremely conscious of the challenges posed by the sulphur cap. Serge Dal Farra, the company’s marketing director, said “The 2020 sulphur cap will bring about changes and challenges within the industry. From ship operators to engineers, there will be new logistical and operational challenges across the board. We understand that in the coming years, owners and operators will be compelled to look to alternative fuel options, whether LNG or distillates, or even scrubbers to control emissions. That’s why we are proactive in our approach, working at our Solaize Research Centre to pioneer new lubricants to meet these challenges.” He continued “A good example of how we are re-shaping conventional lubricant design is demonstrated by our innovative single oil solution: Talusia Optima." Talusia Optima has been designed specifically to facilitate fuel switching when transiting both in and out of ECAs, without the need to change lubricants. The lubricant has been designed for use alongside all distillate fuels with a sulphur content of 0-3.5%. "Following over 4,000 running hours of successful sea trials," said Mr Dal Farra, "of which almost 1,000 hours was in ECAs using distillate fuels with a sulphur content of 0.1% and below, our research and development culminated in letters of No Objection being issued by all major

IAIN WHITE GLOBAL MARKETING DIRECTOR MARINE FUELS AND LUBRICANTS EXXON MOBIL Having started with Exxon Mobil in 2002 as a Marine Fuels business development manager, Iain White has fulfilled various roles at the company including marine lubricants sales manager UK, Cyprus and Middle East and field marketing manager – marine fuels and lubricants. Prior to this, he spent 12 years as a marine engineer at Cunard Shipping & Logistics.

two-stroke engine designers. This 100 BN Cylinder Lubricant can be used with fuels ranging from between 0.0 to 3.5% sulphur – simplifying onboard operations by removing the complexity of using multiple Cylinder Lubricant, without compromising engine cleanliness or lubricant performance.” The sea trials were completed on board a modern 14,000 TEU containership powered by the latest-generation fuelefficient two-stroke 11S90ME-C mark 10.2 B&W engine, while sailing in and out of ECAs in Europe and Asia. The vessel sailed for more than 600 hours in ECAs powered by distillate fuels with a sulphur content of 0.1% or below. Talusia Optima is based on a new type of chemistry known as ashfree neutralising molecules (ANM). The unique and patented technology provides fast and effective acid neutralisation without any undesired mineral deposit build up. High-quality mineral components are used in combination with ANM to provide detergency and cleanliness. “Utilising the extensive knowledge and experience gained during the development of Talusia Optima and its patented ANM (Ashfree Neutralising Molecule) technology, we are moving forward with the development of our range to meet the demands of 2020 head on,” said Mr Dal Farra. In addition to Talusia Optima, Total offers a full range of specialised lubricants, from the Talusia Universal 100 product with its properties to fight cold corrosion, down to the Talusia LS 25 cylinder oil suitable for slow-speed two-stroke engines running on ECA fuels below 0.1% sulphur. Lukoil Marine Lubricants’ latest product for low sulphur applications, Navigo MCL Extra, was granted approval for MAN and WinGD engines this year. It complements Lukoil Marine’s product portfolio for low and ultra-low sulphur applications, which includes Navigo MCL Ultra (20 BN), suitable for distillate and ultra-low sulphur fuel oil. Navigo MCL Extra is a 40 BN marine cylinder oil for distillate, ultra-low sulphur fuel oil (less than 0.1% sulphur) and low sulphur heavy fuel oil applications. The company now maintains it can offer products appropriate for de-sulphurisation, MGO, distillate blends or any predominantly hydrocarbon blend with a maximum of 0.5% sulphur content or a 0.1% limit in ECAs. As technical and marketing director Stefan Claussen put it “We are ready.” FLET

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

THE LEADER IN FUEL TESTING & INSPECTION Ver i t as Pet roleum S e r vice s ( V P S ) provid e fu e l m a na g e m e nt ser v ices to assis t ship owne rs and ope ra to rs a c hieve i m p rovem en t s in ope rational e fficie ncy, d a m a g e p reve nt io n an d co m p lian ce with marine fu e l re gu l a to r y re q u ire m e nt s . Y O U R F U E L M A N A G E M E N T PA R T N E R VERITAS PETROLEUM SERVICES GROUP

Asia, Middle East & Africa Singapore 27 Changi South Street 1 Singapore 486071 T + 65 6779 2475 E

Europe Rotterdam Zwolseweg 1 2994 LB Barendrecht The Netherlands T + 31 (0) 180 221 100 E

Americas Houston 318 North 16th Street La Porte, Texas 77571 USA T + 1 281 470 1030 E




DR SUNIL KUMAR LABORATORY MANAGER (VPS-FUJAIRAH) Dr Sunil Kumar, has a Ph.D. in Applied Chemistry related to petroleum additives and has been working in the Oil & Gas industry for the last 33 years in various levels. His experience includes research and development related to oil and gas industry, quality control of petroleum and petroleum products, ISO/IEC 17025 quality system management for testing laboratories, internal auditing for VPS Laboratories globally, ISO/IEC 17025 consultancy done for petrochemical and gas Laboratories.


or over a decade, both regional ECA and global sulphur limits within marine fuels have reduced significantly. As a consequence, it has become increasingly important for Laboratories to continue to produce precise and accurate test results. The question is what measures are taken by testing laboratories to produce accurate, robust results with 95% confidence level? In order to produce such precise and accurate test results, laboratories should have stringent quality procedures within a globally-recognised accredited quality management system, i.e. ISO/IEC17025, which control the day to day process but at the same time monitor and assess the results and data produced. Each process involves an uncertainty of measurement and how laboratories consider these uncertainties for their evaluation. An effective quality control and management system does not mean simply running a quality control sample but involves numerous processes and evaluations to achieve precise and accurate test results with 95% certainty. The statistical approach of evaluating the results of an unknown sample, a quality-control sample, a certified reference

standard or a standard reference material may be different. A very clear understanding is required when we consider all these aspects and any testing laboratory accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 is forced to follow a high quality system to achieve the target of producing results with 95% confidence level. The basic criterion in a quality control process are to obtain an accurate calibration curve and from there the whole process starts. If the uncertainty involved in the calibration is wide, it affects the accuracy of the quality control process. VPS has carried out extensive research to establish the basic criteria to be considered by laboratories to obtain a calibration curve with a satisfactory correlation coefficient (Figure 1 & 2) which satisfies the requirement to produce results with 95% confidence. VPS STRINGENT PROCESS TO PRODUCE PRECISE AND ACCURATE TEST RESULTS VPS Laboratories follow stringent quality measures to produce 95% confident test results: 1. The highest quality, certified, traceable standards available are used for the calibration within the same matrix as the


measured value

What measures are being taken by testing laboratories to produce accurate, robust results? Dr Sunil Kumar, laboratory manager for VPS-Fujairah gives some answers

R2 = 1

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0











certified value

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017


The 95% confidence level for a sulphur content of 3.50 wt% is calculated based on the method ISO 8754, and ASTM


Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017

0.6 0.4

0.0 0.0











certified value

Z score

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 –0.5 –1.0 –1.5 –2.0 –2.5 –3.0 –3.5 –4.0

95% confidence level


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Z score

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 –0.5 –1.0 –1.5 –2.0 –2.5 –3.0 –3.5 –4.0

95% confidence level



It is necessary to have an internal precision that is equal or better than the precisions given by the international ISO 8754 and ASTM D4294 standards. VPS has carried out extensive work to determine the whole concentration range precision in terms of repeatability, reproducibility, accuracy and measurement uncertainty.

R2 = 1



ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation requirements ensure the Laboratory produces precise and accurate results by implementing the following procedures: • Validate the test method (Determine repeatability, reproducibility, measurement uncertainty, accuracy, detection limit, reporting limit, linearity). • Internal quality control measures. • Equipment calibration with traceable reference standards. • Periodical evaluation using check standards to maintain the calibration confidence. • Participation in International correlation programmes.

D4294 and VPS internal precision. VPS achieves higher precision than the ISO 8754 and ASTM D4294 standards which in turn provides a high level of confidence. FLET


measured value

sample. Examples of two calibration curves, low level sulphur (diesel fuel matrix) and high level sulphur (fuel oil matrix) are given below, with excellent correlation obtained. 2. Evaluation of the calibration curve is done periodically with traceable certified standards to monitor if any potential drifting of the calibration curve has taken place over this period of time. This ensures that the 95% confidence has always been maintained. 3. Quality control samples of varying concentration ranges are tested on a daily basis and evaluated statistically to ensure that the results produced are within the 95% confidence level. 4. Method validation is performed to ensure the repeatability, reproducibility, measurement of uncertainty, accuracy, detection limit, reporting limit and linearity achieved by the laboratory are equal or better than the international standard methods in use. 5. Results produced by VPS Laboratories are evaluated by external bodies, globally by participating in major international correlation programmes. Examples of VPS global correlation results are given (Figures 3 & 4) for both fuel oil and diesel oil. The results are within the 95% confidence level with no systematic error observed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38






With the highest laboratory standards, world-leading technical expertise and customer service excellence, Spectro | Jet-Care is regarded as an essential partner by top marine operators and manufacturers around the world. Whether you run a fleet of commercial ships, superyachts or harbour tugboats, keeping your vessels safe and well maintained is a challenge. Our high precision services ensure your fleet operates at peak performance and with continuous fluid and debris analysis we can identify potential issues so you can take action before problems arise.

‘Spectro’ and ‘Jet-Care’ are registered trademarks and used under licence by Spectro Oil AG and Jet-Care International Inc. Copyright © Palace International Ltd. 2016

17 / 1,200 / 31 Million 17 Physical Supply Locations, 1200 port network globally and 31 million metric tonnes supplied Whether you are unclear where your next voyage will take you, or you want to purchase direct in key locations, deal with the market Leader. World Fuel Services. Beyond Fuel

Profile for rivieramaritimemedia

Fuels Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017  

Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery provides the technical, operational and project teams that work for the ship owner/operator/manager...

Fuels Lubes & Emissions Technology 2017  

Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery provides the technical, operational and project teams that work for the ship owner/operator/manager...