National Navigation Co Cairo, 28th Sep 2010

Marine Fuel Quality & Exhaust Emissions

By Muhammad Naeem Javaid MIMarEST FOBAS Fuel consultant Lloyds Register

INTRODUCTION

Overview of programme

Overview of FOBAS Services Understanding Marine Fuel Specifications (ISO 8217:2010) Fuel quality & on board fuel management Managing Low Sulphur Fuels Avoiding & managing bunker disputes Exhaust Emission Legislation

Q & A are welcome through out the programme

PART 1

Overview of FOBAS Services Understanding Marine Fuel Specifications (ISO 8217:2010)

FOBAS Objectives

To reduce commercial, technical and operational risks associated with poor quality fuels. To help ensure the safe and efficient use of fuel onboard vessel Provide confidence in the quality of fuel supplied and guidance on the fuel management onboard To assist in resolving fuel related operational problems and disputes.

Who are we?

Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis & Advisory Service

Lloyds Register FOBAS Founded in 1982 to provide independent fuel analysis and advisory services. Unique collaboration between Lloyds Register and Intertek Oil Chemical Agri laboratories, providing 24/7 support. Combining engineering knowledge and analytical expertise to give confidence in the fuel bunkered and its suitability for use. Not just a laboratory but an extension of our clients technical support team available 24/7.

FOBAS - Industry Representation

CIMAC HFO and Lube Oil Working groups ISO Working groups ISO 8217 WG6 Revision 4; ISO TC108 SC5 WG4 Condition Monitoring International Maritime Organisation (IMO MEPC) Intertanko, Intercargo, Energy Institute International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) Bunker, Environmental and Technology conferences R&D on developing technologies and alternative fuels

What we do.
Supported by Extensive Marine Engineering Experience

Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis Bunker Quantity Survey Fuel System Audit Engine Condition Diagnostic (FOBAS Engine) Technical Investigations (fuel) Exhaust Emissions Product Verification Training/Seminars

Lloyds Register FOBAS / Intertek Caleb Brett Laboratory Network

Research and Development Technology Centre UK Investigative analysis
Rotterdam

London Houston Fujairah Shanghai

Singapore

Panama

Valparaiso

Durban Melbourne

ISO 17025 accredited 6 - FOBAS commissioned Labs: Houston, Fujairah, Singapore, Rotterdam, London, Shanghai + Research and Development Facility UK Sunbury +> 100 further Labs. for emergency use

FOBAS Extensive Analytical Capability

Standard analysis as per ISO 8217 FT-IR (Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy) GC-MS (Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry) Particle Counts and size FCA 100 IP 541 Ignition &Combustion Microbial Analysis Bio-Fuel Analysis

Fuel System Audit Programme

Supporting efficient fuel management

Supporting efficient fuel system management Providing confidence that fuel system treatment process is performing correctly

Fuel System Audit Programme

Benefits

Confidence in the use of fuel and in fuel management system effectiveness. Increased time between overhauls Reduced risk of component failure Better Specific Fuel Oil Consumption Helps you take calculated risks in cases of borderline quality fuels.

FOBAS Reports / Bulletins

Routine analysis reports Biweekly bunker quality report Statistical bunker reports Periodic Trend analysis reports Ad-Hoc reports upon Request News Bulletins Port Quality Guide

Web based reporting www.lroil.com

FOBAS Comprehensive bottle kit Package

Comprehensive sample bottle kits and documentation pack Sampling Procedures Manual Compatibility samples instruction (includes 45ml small bottles)

BUNKER QUANTITY SURVEY

Helps avoiding quantity disputes
Lloyds Registers Bunker Quantity Survey : An accurate and impartial service Available worldwide Qualified inspectors attend bunkering operation worldwide Provide independent quantity assessment of all grades of bunker fuel

BUNKER QUANTITY SURVEY

The remit Verification of quantities on board the barge / Vessel before and after transfer Check for evidence of cappuccino bunkers (vibration in the bunker line, bubbles on sounding tape, visible bubbles, abnormal noise during bunkering etc) Draw fully representative sample in accordance with best practice and procedures (SS 600, ISO 13739) Take custody of the sample for analysis and forward the sample for analysis Benefits Ensure best industry practices and procedures are adhered to Optimized Clients control by immediate information / advise regarding the progress of the bunkering Comprehensive report empowers Client to pursue further action if necessary or required Record of the vessels bunkering history provides the Client with a sound understanding of the vessels performance (accuracy calibration tables, suppliers history )

FOBAS Engine
Unique diagnostic service for crosshead engines.
8 Point Evaluation Strategy
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Cylinder drain oil composition System oil condition Fuel oil quality through system Engine performance indicators Air cooler and scavenge air Combustion performance Cylinder oil feed rate Liner and ring wear

A full assessment of related issues is undertaken to confirm performance, identify trends and, if required, recommend corrective actions

Early detection of the causes of failure / wear

PF Curve Machine condition

FOBAS Engine P
Reduced Machinery Condition

P = Point where failure indicator can be measured F = Point where failure occurs

Scrape down analysis

Reduced time to react and repair

time

Benefits

10,000 hours since overhaul. No diagnostic service

Environmental performance- Reduced emissions Reduced CLO consumption Less unplanned downtime due to repairs Improved reliability Reduced maintenance costs Greater knowledge of ongoing operational performance

22,000 hours since overhaul With diagnostic service

10,000 hours since overhaul. No diagnostic service

FOBAS Exhaust Emission Services

Guidance on regulations and compliance options Exhaust emission estimation models Development of exhaust emission measurement strategies Evaluation of exhaust emission measurement systems: proposals / in-service Emission data services: Validation Calculation Evaluation: quantification trends & events bench marking

Projects - Lab-On-A-ShipTM with FOBAS On-board

Under development
Fully automated system Monitoring fuel at: bunkering Purifiers - Efficiency Engine inlets Performance monitoring Cylinder oil dosage optimization Lubricant sampling Condition based maintenance Failure prevention Manual sample capability

Detecting Catfines at line in service Water content

After Separator one month

Catfines content

Engine Inlet: 6 Months of historical record of fuel quality

Viscosity Density

CCAI Sulphur Water 1.5% S

Vanadium

High Water Detection

Est. Sodium

At Line Measurement of Fuel Quality

Lab-On-A-Ship Leading technology

GasAnalyser

On-board server

Values compared to limits in Lloyds Register FOBAS Onboard data base Alerts/reports if limits exceeded Help message tree

Internet

GPS

MassflowMeter

Data from other sensors &devices Data sent via satellite to on-shore server Automated/ on demand reporting On shore diagnostic support
TorqueMeter
Serverwith FobasDataBase

Anemometer

Ship
FOBAS Onboard Ship-Shore data support

Ship Operator Future Possibilities

Optimise energy and performance usage of all engines and subsequent emissions Appropriate education offers to the seafarer Reject bad fuel on the spot Reduce time for fuel testing, (minutes instead of days) Fact based maintenance (Pro-active maintenance instead of old fashion scheduled maintenance) Avoid break down on engines Check hydraulic oil on cranes, hatches, winches and lube oil on the stern tube Obtain accurate information as to the quality and quantity of fuel in use and subsequent emissions. .

Fotoer tekst

Project - Bio-Diesel (FAME) Trials

Objectives: To test bio-diesel in a sea going operating environment using different blends and load conditions for the impact on:

Long term storage and handling Power and performance Emissions

(8 Key partners)

Understanding marine fuel specifications (ISO 8217:2010)

Marine Fuel Bunker Standards and Legislation

Quality Environment - Safety
ISO 13739
SS 600:2008 Code of Practice for Bunkering Singapore Standard
Procedures for the transfer of bunkers to ships (Revision to full ISO due 2010)

Equivalent national standard

IMO
Guidelines for MARPOL Annex

ISO 8217
Marine Fuel Specification ISO 8216-1 Classification of Marine Fuels

ISO 4259
Determination and Application of precision data In relation to methods of test

VI samples MEPC.182(59)

IMO -MARPOL Annex VI ( sulphur) - SOLAS (Flash point)

EU Sulphur Directive 2005/33/EC Note 0.1%S for ALL fuels in EU ports at berth 01 Jan- 2010

CARB & other regional controls

Chronology - marine fuel standard

BS MA 100:1982 - Aimed to identify fuel grades in the global market - For the first time quality control to the customer 1st edition ISO 8217:1987 - Established as an ISO standard - A few improvement of fuel quality control made 2nd edition ISO 8217:1996 - Better protection of fuel quality - Control of catalytic fines and stability assessment 3rd edition ISO 8217:2005 - Optimisation of fuel grades - Protection from contaminants (ULO)

Key changes in 4th edition - ISO 8217:2010

Both categories of Fuels

H2S measurement Acid Number Minimum viscosity for DMA ( increased) & DMB ( added) New DMZ ( DMA with K vis 3 cSt at 40 deg C) DMC grade removed Appearance clause modified Oxidation stability & Lubricity requirements added Si+Al content reduced from 80 mg/kg Ash / Vanadium limits have been reduced Sulphur limits generally controlled by statutory requirements Amended criteria for assessing whether a fuel contains ULO RMG and RMK grades expanded to include additional viscosity grades while RMF and RMH grades have been removed Sodium and CCAI limits introduced

Distillate Fuels only

Residual Fuels only

Distillate Marine Fuels

ISO 8217:2010 Table 1

DMC grade removed

Residual Marine Fuels

ISO 8217:2010 Table 2
Based on ISO F DMC grade as per table 1 of ISO 8217 : 2005

ISO 8217 Routine Analysis

FOBAS approach ISO 8217:2010 greater protection to fuel users

Additional tests - not necessarily de-facto required regularly FOBAS can help tailor fuel testing needs Ensure customers best practice technical support ISO 8217:2010 -Options available?

What's in ISO 8217: 2010

Scope, Normative references, Application, Sampling General requirements New requirements Test methods Precision and interpretation of test results Informative Annexes (12)

SAMPLING The Representative Sample

ISO13739 , SS 600, IMO MEPC.182(59) Analysis results are meaningless if the sample is NOT representative and the supporting documentation not complete.

Vs
The quality of EVIDENCE collected will determine the success of any investigation in support of a claim. claim

Sampling Methods MEPC 182(50), ISO13739 Samplers

Flow proportional automatic Time proportional automatic Manual continuous drip

Open Bucket!

General requirements - Clause 5

The fuel shall conform

limits given in Table 1 or Table 2, homogeneous blend of hydrocarbons derived from petroleum refining.

The fuel shall be Free from : Inorganic acids & used lubricating oils. bio-derived materials other than 'de minimis' levels FAME blending not allowed. The fuel shall not contain any material (additive, added substance or chemical waste) that jeopardizes the safety of the ship or adversely affects the performance of the machinery; or is harmful to personnel; or contributes overall to additional air pollution. renders the fuel unacceptable for use in marine applications.

This is all that may be in the fuel !

Precision & Interpretation of test results

ISO 8217:2010 sets the scope of the test programme and linking it to ISO 4259. ISO 4259:2006 Petroleum Products - Determination and application of precision data in relation to methods of tests The function of the ISO 4259 : 2006 is to

control the quality by defining test methods which define precision and accuracy data. Define the Rules on acceptance and rejection of results for resolving disputes.
Test Methods do not produce absolute results and they differ in their accuracy and precision

Precision and test Accuracy of results:

Most tests carried out by a laboratory will produce only one result called, "a single result Two or more measurements of the same property of a specific sample by any given test method do not usually give exactly the same result.

ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENT
Accuracy = Trueness + Precision

TP

TP

TP

TP

Frequency

Variability

95% Confidence Limit

How well can I expect to agree with other laboratories?
The difference between two test results independently obtained by different operators in different laboratories on nominally identical test material.

True Value -0.59xR Frequency of results +0.59xR Results Acceptable

Reproducibility, R :

Repeatability, r :

How well can I expect to agree with myself?

The difference between successive test results obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test material

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Variability of test result Infinite results from infinite Laboratories

Results Fail

95% confidence = 95% of the time the difference between duplicates can be expected to be less than a certain figure

One result in a grey area but within test reproducibility is NOT a TRUE figure.

95% confidence limits = +/- 0.59 x Reproducibility (R)

ECA SOx Sulphur Content

A Buyer can only complain about the Sulphur result if he is 95% confident that the result is off specification

For maximum Sulphur of 1.00 mass %

For 1.00% m/m Sulphur limit - the Buyer can consider the sample to FAIL the regulation
with 95% confidence if his single result is greater than 1.06% m/m

For 1.00% m/m Sulphur limit the Supplier can consider the result to MEET the regulation
with 95% confidence if his single result is < or = to 0.94% m/m

MARPOL Annex VI
Specified Sulphur Max Limit (% m/m)

Sulphur Test Method ISO 8754:2003

Lower Limit - Supplier 95% Upper Limit - Buyer 95%

4.50 1.00 3.50 0.10

4.28 0.94 3.33 0.09

4.72 1.06 3.67 0.11

PART 2

Issues with the fuel quality & Practical approach to on board fuel management Managing Low Sulphur Fuels Avoiding & managing bunker disputes

FOBAS Experience
1.

Most fuels are fit for purpose if treated correctly Some fuels are only usable with caution Attempt usage while there is still sufficient alternative fuel onboard Document observations Sample before and after treatment and before engine Samples from top, middle and bottom of tanks

2.

3.

Some fuels are simply unusable

Known Problematic Areas

Russia Water, Iron, Pour Point India High sediments Columbia High calcium ( 100 -250 mg/kg ) and High acid number ( 3-4 mgKOH/g) Long Beach USA Above average acid number (1-2 mgKOH/g) Santos Low ECN ( 8-12), poor ignition and combustion problems South Africa Typically high MCR, high CCAI Egypt, Libya Pour point Zona Comun (South America) Very low Sulphur residual fuel Gibraltar water and stability West Africa low sulphur stability water pour point low viscosity Venezuela high Vanadium Houston Chemical contamination New York High sulphur and catfines Rotterdam and Singapore large bunker volumes sold more off spec risk Fuel quality may vary from time to time globally, depending on supply chain variations and transhipment of fuels from across the globe

FOBAS Quality Reports

Typical Monthly Off-spec distribution on 2-5% of FOBAS analysed bunkers

+ Most common reported issue blocking filters + RFOs with suspected chemical contaminants

Marine Fuel Quality Overview

About 2-5% of fuels exceeded at least one ISO 8217 parameter requirement in any one month About 99.5% of cases standard analysis can predict sub-standard fuel quality. < 0.5% showed all results within the standard and yet some operational problem experienced < 0.1% indicated characteristics could cause serious operational difficulties

FOBAS Experience - Quantity

Shortfall in fuel oil delivered due to:

Given density higher than actual Given temperature lower than actual Incorrect soundings Incorrect sounding tables + trim / heel corrections Miscalculation of weight in air Air entrapped in fuel oil as supplied Quantity retained by delivery facility Water / waste oil content

Top 10+ Quality concerns

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Catfines Stability Ignition Quality Chemical waste acidity Water (salt and fresh) Extraneous dirt (filter blockages) ULO Lubricity (DM) Microbes (DM) Compatibility between different fuels

Note:
Refinery, blending practices and a failure to appreciate the complexities from meeting tighter specifications, may result In complex blends making for new blend chemistries.

Homogeneity of blended fuels stratification

Understanding cat fines (Al+Si)

Highly abrasive hard material Carry-over from catalytic secondary refinery process Typical Cat fine size distribution approx: 60% 5-10 microns 30% 10-15 microns 9% 15-35 microns 1% 35-100 microns Max allowable at engine inlet: 1015mg/kg ISO 8217:2010 - max limit 60 mg/kg If not removed high risk of damage to fuel pumps/injectors, piston rings and cylinder liners

Silicon+ Aluminium High vs Low Sulphur Content

<=20 70.00 >20 <= 40 > 40 <= 60 > 60 <=80 > 80

High sulphur >1.5%

60.00

Low Sulphur <1.5%

50.00

20 ppm

% Samples

40.00

Shift in Mid Range to higher Si+Al

30.00

50 ppm
20.00

10.00

0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008

Separator Efficiency Si+Al (Catalytic Fines) Fuel System Audit Average Purifier Efficiency 60%
120 100

Improvement: Desirable

Improvement: Essential

100

Separator Efficiency (%)

80

80 Si+Al (mg/kg)

60

60

40

40

20

20

0. 0 20 40 60 Sample ID 80 100 120

Target <10 mg/kg For engine inlet

Blue = Separator inlet Red = Separator outlet Yellow = Separator efficiency

Case Study Vessel had to use the fuel with high catalytic fines (exceptional circumstance)

Fuel tested to have Si+Al as 184 mg/kg FOBAS recommended not to use the fuel Vessel in mid ocean - had no other option but to use some of this fuel The decision was made to mix the fuel with previously loaded fuel having Si+Al value of 17 mg/kg Blend ratio calculation showed the end product would have Si+Al value of 67 mg/kg Compatibility rating was determined between the two fuels using FOBAS onboard kit which turned out to be satisfactory Two purifiers put on line and fuel was used in order to each the destination FOBAS recommended drawing samples from before and after purifier to gather evidence in case vessel suffers problems

Stability & Compatibility

Stability - the ability of a fuel to remain in unchanged condition despite circumstances which may tend to cause change.. Instability inability of residual fuel over time or on heating to stay homogeneous / without deposition of asphaltenic sludges Compatibility the ability of two or more fuels when mixed to form a stable and homogenous product. Incompatibility - inability of two or more blend components to co-exist together without breaking down and precipitating sludge Two or more stable fuels, if incompatible, when blended together will form an unstable product.

Impacts on the Fuel System

Heavy Asphaltene sludge deposits in: Tank bottoms, pipes, purifiers and filters resulting in:

Blocked pipes and drains, heaters, filters and restricted flow to engines Inefficient purification Damage to purifiers Coking in heaters

Impact on Combustion

Inadequate fuel atomisation leading to ignition / combustion problems Loss of cylinder lubrication and deposition leading to seizure between piston/ liner High soot loading and carbonaceous deposit in the turbochargers Complete engine shut down / extensive damage

Impact on Operations
In most cases the only solution is to debunker and clean tank and lines! De-bunkering can take as much as10 times longer than bunkering Damage to purifiers and engine can run into six figure sums even constructive total loss !

Minimising the Risk of instability

Buy from a supplier, whose specifications includes a test for fuel cleanliness and stability reserve Avoid loading new bunkers on top of old bunkers in proportion exceeding 5% - to 10% max of existing fuel oils Avoid mixing two fuels without confirming the compatibility of two fuels. Carry out a spot test on 50:50 blend of new and old bunkers FOBAS sample bottle kit includes necessary documentation and instructions for onboard compatibility test

Case Study 1 fuel mixed onboard

Vessel reports clogging of purifier, suspects fuel quality Total Sediment reported as 0.02 % m/m on initial bunker drip sample Further samples from before and after purifier requested and analysed by FOBAS Total sediment before purifier 0.35 % m/m, after purifier 0.31% m/m Investigation reveals the fuel was loaded on top of another fuel without determining the compatibility rating between the two DO NOT mix fuels without knowing if they are compatible

Flash Point Closed Cup (C)

Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) regulations - Class Rules

SOLAS requires that generally marine fuels must have a flash point of minimum 600C (closed cup Pensky Martin test) Exception is DMX grade, minimum 43 0C, for use in emergency machinery outside engine room spaces. A flash point below 60C contravenes: classification society rules; national authority regulations; international safety codes and insurance underwriters conditions, for use in ships classed for unrestricted service Point at which, under specific test procedures, the vapour above the fuel can be ignited by a flame Ensure fuel tank vent flame traps are well maintained!

Flash Point < 60 Deg C - What to do?

Two main reasons for low flash point: a. due to lighter low flash elements presence b. inherent in the bulk of the fuel

99% cases are due to lighter elements presence which flash off during bunkering and storage Take further samples from the storage tank ideally from the tank top level Seek guidance from your classification society, insurance underwriters and flag state

Case Study Very low Flash Point

Gas oil sample received from vessel is tested to have flash point of -15 deg C Alarms raised on this uncharacteristic result FOBAS suspected the sample Further samples tested and analysed Four tank samples tested to have flash point greater than 60 deg C The fuel was loaded from road tankers - Investigation revealed the initial sample sent by vessel was given to Chief Engineer by the truck driver
Correct sampling procedures to follow ALL THE TIMES !!!

Exotic Contamination of fuels requiring advanced analytical techniques

Polypropylene contamination Rotterdam/Baltic ports Sour diesel incident in Rotterdam Oxygenated compounds in fuels, such as esters in Port of Singapore 2003 Trichloroethylene found in Fujairah fuels 2004 Mono styrene found in fuels in Rotterdam 2004 Polyethylene in fuels in Houston 2007/2009 Waste chemical components in fuels from West Africa and US Gulf ports 2008/2009 Waste bio products - Singapore/West Africa and US Gulf ports Impact of contaminated fuels Operational risk Environmental risk Diminished confidence by fuel buyers in the supply chain Predicting whether the contaminants will cause any operational problems

1998 1999 2001 -

Chemical Waste Case History (2007)

Fatty Acid Contaminants
Hexacosanoic Triacontanoic Decanoic Dotriacontanoic Dodecanoic Hexadecanoic Octacosanoic Octadecanoic Isomers of Pimaric and Abietic Acids

21 FOBAS Ships affected Initial analysis = ISO 8217 RMG 380 Table 2! +Acid Number range: 0.85 2.3 mg KOH/g 10 Ships reported major fuel pump problems Remaining ships avoided using fuel Significant presence of waste chemicals Bunker reports reissued to status of off specification to Section 5.1 and non compliance to Annex VI Reg 18.

Octadecenoic Octadecadienoic

Tetradecanoic

Case history - Fuel pumps lacquering & sticking

Ship reported drop in fuel pressure for M/E and A/E - causing black out - (fuel met ISO8217:2005 Table 2 specs in full) Vessel started drifting hoisting not under command flag Severe lacquering found on fuel pumps plunger & barrels causing them to stick No further problems after changing over to another fuel onboard Additional TAN/SAN analysis show elevated TAN of 1.49 mg KOH/g FTIR & GCMS analyses detected variety of fatty acids and chemical waste components The acids and components detected were Hexadecanoic Acid, Octadecanoic Acid, Heptanol, Dioxane, Styrene, Phenol, Phenoxy Ethanol, Trimethylene Norbanane, Phenyl Ethanol, Phenoxy Propanol, Methyl Benzyl Ether.

Case study Excessive filter blockages

Vessel received fuel oil Analysis as per ISO 8217 within spec for RMG 380 Excessive auto-back Flush filter blockages reported within hours of use. Filters renewed TWICE but same condition continued (auto-cleaning every minute at high speeds) FOBAS requested vessel to send fuel samples from Storage tank, purifier and engine inlet & sludge from filter candle All fuel samples in spec for ISO 8217, RMG 380 grade fuel. Forensic analysis on all fuel samples indicate the presence of a composite of chemical waste identified as ALPHA PINENE, HEXANOL, BISPHENOL, FAME, GLYCEROL & OTHER FATTY ACIDS in all samples Forensic analysis on sludge sample ( filter candle) confirmed the link between the sludge deposits and all samples including suppliers sample. The fuel contravenes the stipulations of MARPOL Annex VI regulation 18 and ISO 8217 Section 5.1

Facts - Chemical contamination

Scientific evidence to correlate the contaminants with specific problems reported is often difficult to obtain. Correlation between the fuel and the operational problem experienced, is made based on the available data from the fuels being used at the time of engine component failure. Difficult to predict with certainty if contaminants found in a fuel would indeed result in problems

FOBAS part of big contamination study project including major oil suppliers, fuel testing services and shipping companies

Issues with Low sulphur Fuels

Low Sulphur Distillates

Concerns:

Bunker clauses in charter parties Produced to limit no mixing margin during storage, transfer, treatment or use (poor Asphaltene tolerance) Solvent / cleaning action sludge / power loss Low viscosity Poor lubricity Density / lower energy concentration, ignition Specific boiler issues FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) - bio-diesel Microbial contamination

FOBAS Distillate to Sulphur Distribution

Low Sulphur Fuels Marine Distillates

Global marine distillate fuel oil viscosity / < 0.1% m/m sulphur distribution
7

Viscosity at 40 C 5
4

0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

TREND ?
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Sulphur %m/m

Lloyd's Register FOBAS 2008

Low Viscosity / Sulphur distillate operating issues

(See FOBAS Bulletin 05/2009 EU FAQ Appendix 3)

Point of issue:

Viscosity at point temperature = VPT Control PT to control viscosity through system Lubricity V40 as bunkered Ambient temperature Min Viscosity requirements for machinery through out system.

Point of reference are:

Low Viscosity / Sulphur - operating issues

Crunch Points Pumps +ve displacement, transfer, purifier supply, booster etc. Control of fuel pre-heaters Fuel pump/injectors Low viscosity Worn pump plunger/injector nozzle Poorly seating delivery valves Cleaning out of accumulated oily material Incidental heating Positive displacement pumps spill circulation Trace heating Incomplete closure / valve tightness Conduction heating Lagging

Marine Distillates Viscosity / Temperature Relationship

6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 V is c o s ity c S t 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 20 30 40 50 60 70
Viscosity Ranges @ 40 deg C

Min. viscosity: 4.5 cSt Max Fuel Temp for 2 cSt. & 2 cSt

Fuel coolers or chillers ?

deg C

80

90

100

Distillate Lubricity Potential Problem with Sulphur LT ~ 0.05%

Limited or no surface effect Boundary lubrication concerns Measured in terms of HFRR wear scar diameter Engine and fuel system component design Limited engine builder experience However concern on hydrodynamic film controlled by viscosity rather than boundary lubrication Additives??

Boilers Principal LSFO Issues

Heat release Fuel sprayers & burner tips Igniters Flame detectors / scanners Control systems: Fuel, air, interlocks Purge control including fuel leakage Fuel rail and fuel supply systems Risk assessment

Practical Steps to address Low Viscosity / Sulphur Distillates

Evaluate System Identify problem areas Actions to consider Hardware approach; Refitting point sensitive components Optimise selected engine

Fuel approach Increase Viscosity of fuel delivered Apply VPT temperature control such as: isolated from heating, coolers, chillers, .etc.

Bio-diesel Fatty Acids Methyl Esters (FAME) - Why ?

Clean burning No - SOx, HC or PM; CO2 reduction ? Attractive Low Sulphur blend Improves Lubricity (additive for ultra low sulphur distillates) Usable in existing diesel engines with little or no modification? Blends well with petroleum diesels?

ISO 8217:2010 does not allow the use of FAME, however its difficult to avoid completely due to:

FAME being surface active, sticking to metal or glass surfaces. Risk of cross contamination where supply chains handle both marine fuel and bio-diesel.

FAME
Challenging Conventional Fuel Management Practices!

Reduced oxidation / thermal stability - shorter storage times (max 6 months) Material compatibility rubber , certain polymers etc.. Hygroscopic (Affinity to absorb and hold water and may promotes Bacterial activity) Overboard Discharge Monitors Poor cold flow properties High solvency characteristic than current gas oil. Management of fuel storage and treatment will require review Specific attention to be given to managing emergency generator & lifeboat fuel tanks and other long term distillate storage tanks.

Sediment from Vessel tank after carrying B5

Close up of gel removed from filter

Close up of gel removed from filter

Microbial contamination

Possible sources of contamination :

Contaminated bunkers - Contaminated fuel co-mingled with clean fuel Contaminated onboard tanks/pipelines/filters - Contaminated water in tanks or pipelines coming into contact with clean fuel or Clean fuel passed through contaminated filters

Bacteria

Yeasts

Moulds

Microbial contamination Contd

Indications :

Uncharacteristic pungent smell Frequent filter clogging and sludging Corrosion on fuel system components Cleanliness and effective maintenance of fuel oil storage tanks Frequency and effectiveness of water draining from fuel tanks. Effective control and remediation procedures for contaminated systems Settling of fuel after receipt into storage tanks. If suspected draw sample from water/fuel interface and contact FOBAS for appropriate action.

Avoiding :

Avoiding & Managing bunker disputes

success of any bunker quantity or quality dispute depend upon the quality of evidence collected in support of claim

Bunker Requisition
things to consider

Limitations of ships machinery suppliers proposed specs to be carefully scrutinised before placing final order Limitations on storage ( compatibility issues) operation heads - Intended voyage/cargo /fuel etc Trading area for environmental compliance International standards ISO 8217 ( local standards may not comply fully to ISO) Bunker management allow 5-7 days for fuel quality analysis report by FOBAS- Not to use fuel without confirmation of quality

Bunker contract

Terms of contract generally of supplier - price, credit terms, nominations, delivery time, title, claim period, final & binding sample clause, limitation of liability Buyer may include quality of product & sampling clauses. explicit quality concerns - ship specific ?? Terms implied by local law & interpreted in practice ( Legal)

In every contract it is an express and implied condition that the delivered product is of merchantable quality and fit for its intended use Caveat emptor Buyer beware

Bunkering operation

Safe handling Safety / pollution prevention controls (ISM code) Documentation - ( BN/LOP/Log Book/Oil record Book/sample bottle labels) Agreement between ship/barge ( sample positions/method/witnessing) Quantity determination vessel/barge before/after the bunkering Loading empty tanks ( compatibility / quality issues) Completion checks ( quantity / sub-samples / paper work) Primary sample - sub samples Sealed / Labeled / documented / distribution Bunker delivery receipt- details should be correct before final sign off For receipt only - Letter of protest

Interpretation of Results
FOBAS Analysis Report to ISO 8217

Considerations given to: BDN & ordering specification Port and region Ship specific requirements Previous history Assumptions: Supplier has not contaminated fuel!

FOBAS Analysis Report Contd

Considerations given to: Port and region Sampling position and method Sample Date Supplier BDN Details Seal Numbers Report Status
Sampling Method & Position vital information

BDN Details

FOBAS Analysis Report Contd

First comment always focuses on the problem if any

Operational Pre-heat , stability, compliance

Comments consider impact on: - Storage, Handling, Combustion, Post combustion, - Unusual pattern of results may require additional analysis to verify fuel fit for Use.

FOBAS Report Status Traffic Lights

Green Normal In specification cleared for use AMBER - Caution In specification but above average results, requiring particular attention to storage, treatment and or handling to ensure safe usage. Red Action Off specification and or High risk Read this report NOW!

FOBAS Specialist will contact client by phone to discuss remedial options.

Quantity disputes

No checks before / after bunkering Given density higher than actual Given temperature lower than actual Incorrect soundings Incorrect sounding tables + trim / heel corrections Miscalculation of weight in air Air entrapped in fuel oil as supplied Quantity retained by delivery facility Water / waste oil content

Storage - Layered tank contents

Tank cleaning required on periodic basis

Residual fuel may stratify to varying degrees over time. To obtain a representative indication of fuel quality in a fuel tank samples need to be drawn from various levels

Effective fuel management onboard is crucial for Safe, efficient and environmental friendly ship operation !!!

Off spec bunkers Useable

FOBAS analysis report & recommendations ( Off spec but may be used) Inform the supplier / charterer Consult engine manufacturer /manuals Ships current" machinery capabilities Decide whether to use the fuel straightaway test further samples Charterer/supplier to be notified of decision & put on notice for any problems / damage to the machinery Notify underwriters

Consume the fuel with caution !!! Gather Evidence during use.

Off spec bunkers Not fit for use

Put supplier on notice Notify underwriters Further tank/ship retained samples Engine manufacturer / FOBAS recommendations / Ships machinery capabilities Decide use / Not to use the fuel Legal advice Charterer/bunker supplier to be requested to remove bunker and supply fresh bunker Final & binding sample - which sample to be tested????? Contractual obligation

sample should only be considered representative if witnessed, by the receiving vessels crew, being drawn as a drip sample through out the entire bunkering process

Independent lab ISO 17025 accredited Witness seal breaking / analysis test all samples under witness for full standard analysis as per ISO 8217 specification in one lab - to draw a complete picture of the condition of the fuel on board as bunkered.

Actions in case of problems.

When operational problems experienced are suspected to be fuel quality related:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Advise shore management - all details provided Check machinery manufacturer recommendations Contact FOBAS with full details of problems /actions taken for guidance. Record all machinery operational data and observations in log book Draw at least two sets of fuel system samples from before / after purifiers, engine inlet - filter/purifier sludge (If applicable) - Label and documentation details to be recorded in the engine log book. Take photos where possible Record all mitigating actions taken & their effectiveness Switch over to known good quality fuel if possible at all Put supplier on notice Notify underwriters Start case file to include all related information of subject bunkers.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Evidence collection - All bunkers

Details of tanks and sequence of loading the bunkers Fuel ROB before bunkers/location/ quantities Onboard management meetings Oil record books for deck/engine Engine room log books Details of previously loaded bunkers BDN/MARPOL, ship retained samples Personnel involved in bunker ops/sampling/witnessing Fuel analysis report records machinery performance / maintenance records Fuel system audit records if any Engine manufacturers specific fuel characteristics record

Contemporaneous evidence
(suspected problematic fuel oil - Operational problems / component damage)

Detailed records of all aspects of problems ( Ch Engr / Master) Time/date problematic bunkers stemmed Time/date the fuel was consumed (start stop) Details of suspected fuel and all its movements record books Any fuel additive used Symptoms of problems Actions to mitigate the situation outcome of mitigating actions Details of engine repairs undertaken (if any) Engine parts overhauled / renewed details - planned maintenance schedule Proof that machinery is running fine after switching over or before using the fuel - Engine performance data - engine and deck log book. Details of onboard fuel management system ( handling, purification, filtration, preheating) Retention of damaged parts / photos fouled damaged machinery without cleaning Technical/repair reports copy retained onboard Sludge from purifier / choked filters / fuel oil samples before/after purifier, main engine etc

Summary :

Implement correct custodial bunker procedures/documentation Effective onboard fuel management Machinery performance monitoring/records Workable & effective shipboard procedures for all eventualities specifying:

Quality/Extent of evidence procedures for collection of evidence

Crew training / awareness

De Bunkering should be last resort !!!

Case study :
which sample is representative??
Vessel's samples
Tests
Sampling Position K Viscosity at 50 C Density at 15 Deg C Cst Kg/l

Supplier's samples
4
Tank (Middle) Line drip

Units
Manifold drip

2
Line Drip

3
Tank (Upper)

5
Line Drip

357.93 993.3 0.2 0.057 10.99 1.2 0.08 -3 >76 32 14 3 <1 53 47 100

363.5 993.1 0.25 0.042 11.48 1.18 0.04 6 110 40 18 6 6 40 37 77

370 992.4

372.7 992.4

350 991 0.2 0.043 12.23

341.5 990.3 0.15 0.044 12.21 1.89 0.02 6 97 89 13 6 4 23 26 49

Water Content

% v/v

Ash Content

% m/m

Micro Carbon Residue Sulphur Content

% m/m % m/m

1.01

1.02

1.89 0.02 6

Total Sediment Accel

% m/m

Pour Point Flash Point Vanadium

Deg C Deg C mg/kg

>93 26

>93 26

99 92 13 6 4

calcium

mg/kg

phosphorus

mg/kg

zinc Aluminium Silicon Aluminium+Silicon

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

53 48 101

50 26 105

23 22 45

Wadi Alrayan Engine problems

Excessive wear at piston ring grooves Cyl liner wear within makers limits No data available for piston rings No piston rod condition details No report on fuel injectors / nozzles Fuel pump clearances normal fuel pump index increase may be due to worn piston rings / grooves Problems encountered on A/E fuel injection pumps - No evidence on the extent of problems / damage Not satisfactory records of the condition of engine

Wadi Alrayan Engine problems

Maintenance records Proof of engine operating parameters deviation during / after the use of certain fuel? What mitigating actions taken? No record on the performance of purifiers Quality of fuel entering the engine? Which fuel to blame?

success of any bunker dispute depend upon the quality of evidence collected in support of claim

FOBAS can help

Routine fuel analysis report considering ISO 8217 Spec, Ships machinery & any specific requirements Fuel system audit programme keep track of fuel management system onboard FOBAS engine Warning of potential problem ( fuel / other variables) 24 Hour Global support - Technical advise Dedicated fuel consultant Extensive investigative capability state of the art research centre (UK) Wide range expertise available within Lloyd's register Worldwide attendance for sampling / witnessing Crew training Bunker fuel management

We take fuel quality-related risks seriously The ability to act quickly, based on accurate information and advice, enables you to manage the risks to your machinery, people and business.

PART 3 - Exhaust Emission Legislations

SOx, NOx and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Compliance is a prerequisite Stakeholders extend outside the shipping industry

The Aim of Emissions Regulations To reduce acidification & global warming

NOx CO2 VOC PM SOx

&

Improve Air Quality

By significantly cutting harmful ship emissions

Why Sulphur content of fuel?

27,000 ppm 10 ppm

room for improvement!

Shipping best performance - cargo x distance

Emission Controls

Revised MARPOL Annex VI California Air Resources Board Regulated Californian Waters EU Sulphur Directive 1999/32/EC & 2005/33/EC

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CO2

MARPOL Annex VI
Air Pollution from Ships

Adopted 1997 Entered into force May 2005 Currently ratified by 57 States 83.59% of world tonnage (MARPOL Convention 150 States 99.14%) Revised 2008 Entered into Force 1 July 2010

SOx & Particulate Matter (PM) Control Reg 14

Compliance on Basis of
1.1.2012 4.50% 3.50% Fuel oil sulphur limits 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.10%

Fuel Oils as Loaded

* Depending on the outcome of a review of fuel oil availability, to be completed 2018, the 2020 date could be deferred to 2025

1.1.2020*

1.1.2025

Outside ECA-SOx
1.7.2010 1.1.2015 Reg. 18 Fuel oil availability

ECA-SOx
Road fuel: 0.001% (EU), 0.0015% (US)

Baltic & North Sea ECA - SOx

BALTIC 19 May 2006 NORTH SEA 22 Nov 2007

North American ECA-SOx

from ~ August 2012

Up to 200 nm from coast

Waters of St Pierre and Miquelon

.and where else?

At ship ordering stage Over service life

SOx controls: Outside / Inside ECA-SOx

Fuel oil as bunkered Primary control technologies Onboard blending Co-firing fuel oil / gas

Secondary control technologies Wet scrubber, others

Revised MARPOL Annex VI Availability of Sulphur Controlled Fuel Oil

Ship should not be required to deviate from its intended voyage or unduly delay the voyage If not compliant: Present action taken to attempt to achieve compliance Evidence of attempt to purchase Not physically available what action taken

Competent authority to take the above into account when considering what, if any, action to be taken

Fuel Oil Quality - Bunker Supplier Controls

Bunker Supplier Registration Schemes To be established and effectively implemented by the relevant authorities in each State where marine fuel oil suppliers operate

Maintain register of suppliers Ensure Bunker Delivery Notes give required data and supplier copies duly retained 3 years Ensure MARPOL Sample drawn in accordance with local regulations and duly supplied to receiving ship Take action as necessary to ensure compliance and to advise when this has not been the case

MARPOL Sample
To be drawn and provided by supplier in accordance with local regulations as enforced by relevant authority Local regulations expected to be based on IMO Guidelines - MEPC.182(59) Guidelines key points:

Drawn in accordance with good practice tamper proof Drawn at ships receiving manifold Primary sample sub-sampled to give MARPOL Sample MARPOL Sample labelled, sealed & signed

Retained under ships control, 12 months or until consumed Maintain MARPOL Sample tracking system

Bunker Delivery Note

Minimum information as per Annex VI - Appendix V? Name & IMO No. receiving ship Port & Date Supplier details Product references Quantity tonnes Density at 15C, kg/m3 Sulphur, % m/m Declaration complies with SOx & Fuel Quality Regs. ( 14.1, 14.4 & 18.3)

(SOLAS) Flash point minimum 60C

To be retained onboard receiving ship, 3 years from delivery

Bunker Supplier Controls

Bunker supplier registration schemes existence & enforcement ?

Bunker Delivery Note: Information as per Annex VI - Appendix V? Retain onboard as required MARPOL Sample: Provided & drawn in accordance Guidelines? Sealed, labelled & signed as required? Retain as required If not as required: Notification to flag State Copy to port Authority Copy to bunker supplier Retain copy onboard

Exhaust Gas Scrubbing

Wet scrubbers (open or closed loop wash-water systems): Approval in accordance with Guidelines - MEPC.184(59)

Sulphur content of fuel oil limited only by system certification allowing ongoing use of residual fuel oil Concerns: Functionality, reliability and durability Wash-water discharge restrictions White smoke cool exhaust gas exit temperatures Capital costs / Long term payback / Running costs

SOx Control Enforcement

Bunker Suppliers

Ensuring that Bunker Delivery Notes (BDN) are compliant Ensuring that MARPOL Samples are compliant MEPC.182(59) Approval of equivalent alternatives to BDN & MARPOL Samples Taking action in cases of non-compliance: procedures / quality

Vessels

Non-compliance for ECA SOx (S >1.00%m/m) & Global ( S > 4.50 % m/m)

checked via Bunker Delivery Notes (BDN) confirmed by MARPOL sample verification procedure

Check of changeover procedures Check approval certificate gas scrubbers

SOx Control Compliance

Fuel oil as bunkered ships entering / exiting ECA-SOx

Written change-over procedures required Record maintained of date, time, position and quantities of ECA-SOx fuel in each tank on completion (on entry) or commencement (on exit) of change-over Bunker Delivery Notes (BDN) & MARPOL samples retained onboard as per requirements
Marine

Fuel Sulphur Record Book Revised Annex VI + EU Directive 2005/33/EC Lloyds Register ECA SOx Low Sulphur Change-over calculator

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Reg 13

Formed under high temperature conditions Oxidation of nitrogen from: Combustion air Fuel oil marine RFO up to 1%

Promoted by: Early fuel oil injection High charge air pressure / temperatures High maximum combustion pressures / Available reaction time

temperatures

Diesel Engine NOx Emission Limits

MARPOL Annex VI TIER NOx g/kWh 17.0
Outside ECA-NOx

Based principally on ship construction date 0 n = 130 1999: I 45.n-0.2 II 44.n-0.23 III 9.n-0.2

NOx g/kWh

14.4

9.8
Note: Both vertical axes Upper limit, less than 130 rpm. Lower limit, 2000 rpm and above

7.7
Applicable to only: Engines > 5MW & 90 l/cyl & If Approved Method Available

ECA-NOx

3.4 2.0

1990

2000

2011

2016

NOx Emission Controls

Applies only to diesel engines - Except those used ONLY for: Emergency purposes Systems related solely to sea-bed minerals exploration, exploitation or processing Boilers, gas turbines etc. not covered Criteria based on date ship constructed Retrospective only in respect of engines over 5000 kW and 90 litre/cyl. and above installed on ships built 1.1.1990 31.12.1999 and for which there is an Approved Method Previously controlled on a global basis. Emission Control Area for NOx ( North America) has been established to limit NOx emissions

Approved Method
Applies: Engines 90 l/cyl and > 5000 kW installed on ships constructed 1 Jan 1990 31 Dec 1999 Approval:

By any Annex VI signatory

NOx Technical Code 2008 Chapter7 (certification of existing engine) Cost Effectiveness, Reliability, Durability Power loss 1.0% Fuel consumption increase 2.0%

Notification to IMO of approval by certifying Administration

Approved Method
Installation:

12 months after IMO publication of availability no later than first Renewal Survey after that date (if commercially available) by survey using verification procedure specified in approved method file

to be confirmed :

Covers: Engine components i.e. fuel injection nozzles Alternative: Conventionally NOx Technical Code certified engine

NOx Controls
NOx Technical Code

specify the testing, survey and certification of marine diesel engines to ensure compliance with Nitrogen Oxide emissions

Each applicable engine:

Pre-certified (engine builder, Recognised Organisation) Technical File (engine builder, Recognised Organisation) Installed as approved - Initial Survey Retained compliant - Annual Surveys

North American ECA-NOx

Applicable ONLY to ships built from 1 Jan 2016.

Up to 200 nm from coast

Waters of St Pierre and Miquelon

.and where else?

At ship ordering stage Over service life

NOx controls: Inside ECA-NOx

Extent of ECA-NOx how many ? how big ? changes over ship life ? Switching capability Tier II / Tier III Demand for new building 2016 onwards Primary ( Non Consuming) controls ? Electronic engine management Exhaust gas re-circulation low sulphur / low ash / clean burn fuels Secondary ( Consuming) controls Selective catalytic reduction Other devices

Combination of Primary & Secondary controls

Compliance by:

Parameter Check Direct Measurement & Monitoring

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

(Currently the only mean to satisfy NOx Tier III requirements)

Requires high (~ 350C) inlet temperatures - may not work under low load or idling - For 2 stroke cross head type engines may be required to be installed between engine and turbochargers affecting engine room layout Functionality, reliability and durability Capital costs / Long term payback - Ship to have chemical grade urea ( theoretically 1 kg urea reduces 1 kg NOx) - Dedicated storage ,loading and handling system required i-e lost cargo space -Higher back pressure on engines Requires low sulphur (<0.2% m/m) fuels less than 1% m/m is acceptable

CARB regulations
Regulated California Waters(24 Miles from Californian Coast)

Main Elements
Main Engines, Auxiliary Engines & Auxiliary Boilers From 1 July 2009 ISO 8217:2005 DMA grade fuel oil 1.5% m/m max. sulphur or ISO 8217:2005 DMB grade fuel oil 0.5% m/m max. sulphur From 1 January 2012 ISO 8217:2005 DMA or DMB grade fuel oils 0.1% m/m max. sulphur Documentation & Record Keeping

EU At berth requirement
EU Directive 2005/33/EC amending Directive 1999/32/EC Max Sulphur 0.1 %m/m, effective 1st Jan 2010

Covers all grades of fuels and all types of combustion machinery, including main and auxiliary boilers At berth in this context covers ships at anchor, on buoys or alongside irrespective of whether working cargo or not Changeover as soon as possible after arrival and as late as possible prior to departure Ships which are timetabled to be at berth for less than 2 hrs and certain named vessels will be exempted from the requirements

Legislative overview IMO, European Union and CARB

19 May 2006 Baltic Sea SECA 1.5% 22 November 2007 North Sea SECA 1.5% 1 July 2010 ECA-SOx 1.00% 1 January 2012 Global Cap 3.50% 1 January 2015 ECA-SOx 0.10% 1 January 2020 Global Cap 0.50%

2006
11 August 2006 DMB/DMC 1.5%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2012

2015

2020

11 August 2007 North Sea SECA 1.5%

01 Jan 2008 MGO 0.1%

11 August 2006 EU Member States laws enacted: 1.5% in Baltic SECA 1.5% for passenger ships between EU ports Use of abatement technology

January 2010 0.1% sulphur limit on all marine fuel at berth in EU ports CARB (Phase I): DMA 1.5% DMB 0.5% January 2012 CARB (Phase II): DMA 0.1% DMB 0.1%

Controlled Sulphur Fuel Oil Change-over

Managing Sulphur Limited Zones (SLZ)

Change-over procedures & calculation of time - FOBAS Calculator Crew awareness training & record keeping Degraded onboard by in-tank or system pipe mixing Charter Party clauses & flexibility Compatibility concerns, cleaning effect, over / under heating Longer periods on low sulphur fuel oil lube oil concerns

Green House Gases (GHG)

Reducing Greenhouse gases from shipping Drivers to reduce CO2

Global warming Controls on SOx & NOx EU Strategy on GHG ETS to include as many industries possible Kyoto Protocol ( 1997 , Article 2.2)

Make reference to pursuing GHG reduction from marine bunker fuel working via IMO tone for Common but differentiated responsibilities

International platforms: UNFCCC = United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change MEPC (IMO) = Marine Environment Protection Committee

Fuel Oil Carbon / Hydrogen Content

Hydrogen (% m/m) 16.0 14.0

GHG = CO2 = Fuel C% x 0.03667 t/tFO 1 tonne FO, 86.5% C 3.172 tonne CO2 All shipping GHG 2007 ~ 1050 Mt 3.3% of total Distillates

12.0

Residual fuel oils

10.0 Carbon (% m/m)

84.0

85.0

86.0

87.0

88.0

Range of typical CO2 efficiencies for various cargo carriers

Crude LNG General Cargo Reefer Chemical Bulk Container LPG Product RoRo/Vehicle Rail Road
0 50 100 150 200 g CO2 / ton*km 250 300 Data: IMO GHG Study 2008

GHG Controls on Shipping

UNFCCC Process - COP 15 - Outcome

No decision was made on international bunker fuels Agreed to limit temperature to 2 Deg C - equivalent to 50% reduction by 2050 of GHG compared to 1990 Baseline OR Limiting GHG emissions to approx 18,000Mt in 2050 IMO 2Nd GHG study concludes GHG emissions from international shipping was 870 Mt in 2007 Predicted to rise to 1,114 to 1,345 Mt in 2020 Predicted to rise to 2,449 to 3,595 Mt in 2050 Continue with the work of Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long term Cooperative Action (AWG LCA) which includes bunker fuels

UNFCCC Process
COP 15 - Outcome

Contd

The Kyoto protocol will continue in force, refer to Article 2.2 in relation to IMO activities. The work at IMO as set out in the work plan agreed at MEPC 59 will continue. Common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities (CBDR) remains part of the negotiations Regional schemes are now more likely The political interaction - Copenhagen Accord and UNFCCC No formal legal standing ?

GHG Controls on Shipping

IMO ( MEPC) Controls - Equal treatment for all
Voluntary technical approaches:

Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) new buildings Energy Efficient Operational Indicator (EEOI) In service Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP)

Market Based Measures : Emission Trading Schemes Bunker levy/ Carbon or CO2 Tax Concerns : Uniform application or Kyoto or Regional - EU

IMO MEPC 60 - Outcome

Summary: Majority Agreed to make EEDI and SEEMP mandatory under MARPOL Annex VI - more work to be done Agreed upon the way to proceed in relation to Market Based Measures, Entry into force of an EEDI and SEEMP amendment to MARPOL Annex VI has not been decided, it is most likely to be around 1 January 2013 MEPC 61 issues on EEDI and SEEMP: EEDI developments to be finalised WG to deal with issues such as safety consequences of speed reduction, ship size, target dates and reduction rates. Future SEEMP Regulation it is likely to be treated like any other management plan so no port state checks

REMARKS

Proposals at different level of maturity All proposals need further development All lack policy details with regard to

enforcement administration vessels registered with non-party flags harmonisation

Challenges
Questions: What requirements will be placed on new vessels? When? What about existing vessels? Regional versus IMO ? What can I do? Evaluate your ships using the various tools either in the IMO tool box or others Gather data to allow decisions to be made Focus on fuel management and plan to make it state of the art Review management options

Environmental legislations - Impacts

SOx, NOx & GHG Emission Controls New fuel drivers

Pre or Post 1 January 2016 construction When / if to fit to Tier III Not Business as usual What to fit considering all relevant factors

No One-size-fits-all answer

Thank you

For more information please contact: FOBAS Lloyds Register of Shipping 71 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 4BS, UK

The Lloyds Register Group works to enhance safety and approve assets and systems at sea, on land and in the air because life matters.

T 0044 (0) 207 423 1862 F 0044 (0) 207 423 1750 E fobas@lr.org E