fuels, lubes & emissions technology 2015

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 www.totallubmarine.com

Inbox

Abnormal wear

in Unit 3.

Urgent advice

needed.

© C

yril

Aba

d

Lubmarine InDesign Adverts 210x214.indd 2 24/09/2015 13:14

2015 A supplement to Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery

“Gas as a marine fuel ticks so many boxes for regulatory and economic frameworks.” Mark Bell, general manager, Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel, see page 4

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

ECAP propeller by MMG

MARITIME

EXPERTISE IS KNOWING WHICH DETAILS MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCEWhen you’re designing and building a new ship or offshore structure, DNV GL provides much more than just regulatory compliance. With strong, long-term relations not only with owners and operators, but also with shipyards, suppliers and designers in all major shipbuilding regions, we help to realize the optimal vessel for your operations.

Can you afford anything else?

Learn more at dnvgl.com/maritime

www.mpropulsion.com Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2015

contentsSpecial supplement to Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery October/November 2015

Editor: Paul Fanningt: +44 20 8370 1737e: [email protected]

Sales Manager: Rob Gore t: +44 20 8370 7007e: [email protected]

Sales: Paul Dowling t: +44 20 8370 7014e: [email protected]

Sales: Jo Lewis t: +44 20 8370 7793e: [email protected]

Head of Sales - Asia: Kym Tan t: +65 9456 3165e: [email protected]

Group Production Manager: Mark Lukmanjit: +44 20 8370 7019e: [email protected]

Subscriptions: Sally Churcht: +44 20 8370 7018e: [email protected]

Korean Representative: Chang Hwa Park Far East Marketing Inc t: +82 2730 1234 e: [email protected] Japanese Representative: Shigeo Fujii Shinano Co Ltd t: +81 335 846 420 e: [email protected]

Chairman: John LabdonManaging Director: Steve Labdon Finance Director: Cathy LabdonOperations Director: Graham HarmanEditorial Director: Steve MatthewsExecutive Editor: Paul GuntonHead of Production: Hamish DickiePortfolio Manager – Media & Event Sales: Steve Edwards Published by:Riviera Maritime Media LtdMitre House 66 Abbey RoadEnfield EN1 2QN UK

www.rivieramm.com

ISSN 2056-7502 (Print)

©2015 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd

comment3 Making sense of a year of challenges

fuels4 LNG – ‘A whole new way of working’

6 The future for fuel oil

8 Fuel switching: getting it right

lubes10 Base number remains a point of contention

12 Blend-on-Board takes off for Maersk

13 Blend of experience; Total seeks less complex solutions

emissions monitoring 15 Afriso launches continuous emission monitoring system

16 Measuring to manage emissions

17 The high-tech route to compliance

scrubbers19 EC both scorns and funds scrubbers; EGR is not an option for

four-stroke engines

20 Mitsubishi claims first Tier III EGR; Babcock Noell to supply SOx Scrubber;

DeltaLangh’s scrubber installed on M/V Bore Song

regulation23 Adjusting to the MRV regulations

last word24 Mastering the art of ‘intelligent lubrication’

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.

Subscribe to Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery from just £299Subscribe now and receive six issues of Marine Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery every year and get even more:• supplements: Worldwide Turbocharger Guide, Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology and Ballast Water Treatment Technology• access the latest edition content via your digital device• access to www.mpropulsion.com and its 12 year searchable archive.Subscribe online: www.mpropulsion.com

06

Tel. +1 (973) 455-0005www.croceanx.com

CR Ocean Engineering (CROE®) offers ship ownersand operators a proven low-cost alternative to theconversion to distillate fuel.Backed by nearly 100 years of experience, CROE®

provides cost-effective systems customized toyour specific needs and designed to help you savemoney and remain competitive. Our systems can easily achieve the 0.1% Sulfurequivalency when burning high Sulfur fuel oil.The CROE® Exhaust Gas Cleaning System (alsoknown as Scrubbers) offers:

• all metallic construction• ability to run dry• designed for full engine temperature• in-line construction for single engines

or multistreaming• light weight & small dimensions• ability to replace silencers• high efficiency

CROE Scrubbers are very cost effective and canbe delivered on a short schedule when needed.Let us guide you to the most efficient and compliant solution. Contact: [email protected]

CR ocean Engineering, LLC, Six Campus Drive, Parsippany, NJ 07054 USA

THEALTERNATIVE TOLOW SULFUR FUEL

MONEY-SAVING

CR ocean Engineering, LLC, Six Campus Drive, Parsippany, NJ 07054 USA

Scrubber_CROE_Ad_HighRes_A4_Scrubber Ad_MarinePropulsion&Auxiliary machinery copy 12/19/14 9:07 PM Page 1

Paul Fanning, Editor


consequences for lubricants, where engine lubricant selection is determined by the fuel in use. While lubricant selection is straightforward for operation on single fuels, new challenges have arisen if multiple fuels are used. Engines burning HFO can use 20-50BN oils depending on the fuels’ sulphur levels and the severity of the service, while engines operating on distillate fuels can use 12-20BN, again depending on severity of service. Thus, vessels that use distillate fuels all the time, such as those operating solely in ECAs, can use a lower BN engine lubricant, while those burning only HFO (with or without a scrubber) will require a higher BN lubricant.

The complexities this single piece of regulation have introduced in the shipowner’s life are obvious. And that is without taking into account that this was not the only piece of legislation to have come into force this year. On 1 July the new EU MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification) Shipping Regulation came into force. The first step of the strategy involves the design of a robust MRV system of carbon emissions for ships exceeding 5,000gt on all voyages to, from and between EU ports applicable from 2018. Clearly, this too will have a significant impact in the use of fuels, lubes and emissions technology.

So it would seem that the need for guidance through these technologies and their complexities has never been greater. This is something that Marine Propulsion’s parent company Riviera Maritime Media has recognised in the last year, with the launch of the first Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology supplement, of which this is the second edition.

This supplement offers discussion and guidance on all the issues mentioned here and we hope offers you, our readers, a means of navigating through these complex and fascinating subjects. MP

T he year 2015 has been a momentous one in many ways for the shipping industry, with a range of legislation having come into

force that has forced considerable change on working practices and investment. Factor into this the pressures applied by the drop in oil prices and you have a tumultuous mix.

And few technology sectors can have been affected as directly by these changes as those covered by the Fuels, Lubes and Emissions Technology supplement. Each of these areas has been at the forefront of the changes we have seen this year.

The advent of the 0.1 per cent limit on sulphur emissions in ECAs as of 1 January this year was clearly the first major shockwave to strike these sectors, with knock-on effects that had an impact on almost everyone involved in shipping.

From a fuels perspective, ship operators who choose to use low-sulphur fuel when their ships enter or leave an emissions control area (ECA) are now facing some vital questions, not the least of which is how the switch is to be managed onboard and what happens if that process fails?

At the same time, this regulation has seen a rise in the uptake and installation of scrubber technology, which has also had its complexities and controversies. Meanwhile, the question of how to measure emissions and enforce this regulation has also proved a vexed one.

And, of course, the use of LNG has been seen as another response to such emissions limits – particularly since they are set to become even more stringent in 2020. However, questions of availability, supply and bunkering continue to dog this area, particularly since the fall in oil prices has made the cost argument for LNG’s adoption as a fuel rather less compelling.

These regulations have also had

MAKING SENSE OF A YEAR OF CHALLENGES

COMMENT | 3

Fuels, Lubes & Emissions Technology 2015 www.mpropulsion.com

4 | LNG

Bell: applying best practice from 50 years of shipping to bunkering

and marine propulsion

‘A WHOLE NEW WAY OF WORKING’Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel general manager Mark Bell talks standards, shared experiences and sleepless nights

What is the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel and why was it set up?SGMF is a membership-based, non-governmental organisation that has been running for over a year. Our 84 members come from across the value chain: energy majors, port authorities, shipowners and managers, bunkering providers, equipment and engine manufacturers, shipyards and systems integrators. It’s a broad membership with lots of different vested interests.

What are the group’s objectives?Our aim is to consolidate industry standards. There are 60 ships that operate with gas at the moment and just as many on order. That’s a tiny but significant proportion of the world fleet, so there’s a long way to go.

Has demand for gas as marine fuel grown more slowly than you expected?It has, and we spend a lot of time trying to work out why that is the case. Gas as a marine fuel ticks so many boxes for regulatory and economic frameworks. It’s a partial eclipse. The crude price is overshadowing the benefits of gas as a fuel. But that will pass.

How quickly do you expect demand to pick up?It could take three years or three months, no one is sure. We hope oil prices will return to US$70-US$100 per barrel towards the end of this year and stay there. We have passed peak oil and are on the ramp-up to peak gas.

Are you worried about future supplies of LNG for marine fuel?There is competition for gas from land-based industries, for power generation and we will have to see what happens to the maritime industry.

It’s all too easy to think, here’s the LNG cargo, here’s the terminal, so surely I can use that gas for my fuel? Well, the answer to that is no; the cargo has been sold beforehand and is not available. Then there

are the logistics to consider; bunkering the LNG onto the vessel. The market developed for the liquid fuel market for the last

30-40 years needs to expand to include cryogenic fuel. And that requires investment, which is part of the reason there’s a delay.

Take-up has started with shortsea shipping. A retrofit doesn’t generally make sense unless you have a long-term, back-to-back service or an enclosed environment, as on the Great Lakes. Slow take-up in deepsea shipping comes back to questions of supply and investment.

Does LNG bunkering need a single authority to oversee the emerging supply chain; something similar to IATA in the airline industry?It does, and we’d like it to be us. All aircraft look the same. That’s not true for ships. The question is what we can learn, in terms of standardising our operations.

The shipping industry is slow to change. Shipowners want operations to look the same and to know that price and quality are the same. They don’t like changes, whether that’s a different fuel, a different price or anything else that changes the operation.

How will LNG bunkering change the way ports operate?We are looking at a whole new way of working. Large, 15,000 teu containerships will want to operate in, say, just 20 ports. Those 20 ports want to position themselves as hubs, which means looking at new infrastructure, new ways of doing things, new engineering solutions. Forward-thinking ports, such as our members Rotterdam, Antwerp and Singapore, see the future and want to make the transition.

What keeps your members awake at night?For the ones that have taken the initiative and made the investment, it’s probably the excitement that this is going to work. There’s a genuine buzz among the organisations that are taking this forward. Players like Tote Services, Anthony Veder and Harvey Gulf are excited about being ahead of the curve. MP

The Future is ClearME-GI dual fuel done right

MAN B&W MC/MC-C Engines MAN B&W ME/ME-C/ME-B Engines MAN B&W ME-GI/ME-C-GI/ME-B-GI Engines

The new ME-GI generation of MAN B&W two-stroke dual fuel ‘gas injection’ engines are characterised by clean and efficient gas combustion control with no gas slip. The fuel flexibility and the inherent reliability of the two-stroke design ensure good longterm operational economy. Find out more at www.mandieselturbo.com


The future for fuel oil Ship operators have already had to adapt to the sulphur cap in ECAs. Now they and fuel oil refiners are planning for the upcoming introduction of the global sulphur cap

A s emissions regulations tighten up and energy efficiency takes priority various alternative fuels and energy sources are appearing. But

traditional fuel oil might still have a future. The January 2015 implementation of the

ECA 0.1 per sulphur cap passed without too many problems, the dire predictions of severe shortages of compliant fuel and sky high prices having proved ill-founded in the light of the global glut of oil and plunging oil prices. There have been some problems when changing fuels as ships enter ECAs, but no disasters as yet.

Attention is now turning to what will happen in 2020, when the global 0.5 per cent sulphur cap comes into effect (unless it is postponed to 2025, though the same issues will apply). However, what were apparently stark choices between investing in scrubbers, switching to distillate fuel or LNG are becoming more nuanced as other options begin to appear and the lower oil and fuel prices mean that the problem is not as acute as it once seemed. Some oil companies and bunker suppliers are developing other options that would enable ships to continue burning relatively low-cost fuel oil while remaining compliant.

Leading fuel oil supplier ExxonMobil gave a presentation at Nor-Shipping in June on its new ECA compliant fuels and the future of marine

fuels by 2020 or 2025 when the global 0.5 per cent sulphur cap comes into force.

Iain White, field marketing manager, marine fuels and lubricants said that for ships operating in ECAs using gasoil is currently the main default option. Fuel systems are already in place, but bunkering volumes are increasing and the bunkering pumping rate available at some ports is an issue. There are also risks in switching fuel from heavy fuel to gas oil when entering ECAs. The temperature change can lead to thermal shock with a risk of loss of propulsion and black out. New fuels and fuel changeovers also have implications for lube oils, especially in conjunction with slow speed engines.

In advice to owners, ExxonMobil said that to properly manage onboard fuel it is necessary to store it at the right temperature. If comingling is to take place it is essential to know what it will be mixed with and how best to manage this blending process. It is also important to ensure that the fuel is at the optimum viscosity at the point of engine injection.

The need to change fuels when entering and leaving an ECA increases the risk of incompatibility, triggering asphaltenes to precipitate as heavy sludge. This can result in fuel system issues, which in extreme cases can cause engine shutdown due to fuel starvation.

ExxonMobil’s Fawley refinery near Southampton is producing its AFME 200

residual-based ECA compliant fuel


FUELS | 7

Best practice is not to mix fuels in the storage and settling tanks; and when switching fuels vessel operators should ensure that the service tank is at its lowest safe operating level before introducing a new fuel to the system. However, the only way to fully ensure against compatibility issues is to carry out compatibility tests – either on board during bunkering and via an independent laboratory.

Mr White said: “New ECA compliant fuels are evolving, with low sulphur content but higher viscosity and lower volatility properties that marine gas oil, and more typically in HFO and therefore with reduced risk of engine and boiler damage, especially for tankers that have large capacity boilers to generate steam to drive cargo pumps.”

New ECA compliant fuel has viscosity minimum 12cSt and flash point 70oC. But there are different formulations due to varied refinery configurations. There are also issues of fuel storage onboard vessels and mixing during changeovers. Fuel stability is important and particularly the compatibility of fuels during changeovers when fuels are mixed, as this can cause failures and there have been some instances of this. Fuel is tested for stability in labs but compatibility tests for the particular fuels being used can be done onboard.

ExxonMobil has developed two ECA compliant fuels from two refineries in Europe. One is an HFO based fuel and the other a distillate based fuel.

ExxonMobil Premium HDME 50 was introduced in 2014. It is a heavy distillate-based fuel and so it is cleaner than residual heavy fuel oil. ExxonMobil Premium HDME 50 was tested with Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics and is suitable for use in main and auxiliary engines and marine type boilers. Following successful field trials, the new fuel received No Objection Letters from MAN Diesel & Turbo for use in MAN B&W two-stroke and MAN B&W Holeby genset designs.

It is produced by the ExxonMobil refinery in Antwerp and is available at Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp port range by barge. It is now also available in Hamburg. Although a distillate fuel it complies with the ISO8217:2012 RMD 80 specification.

ExxonMobil AFME 200 is a residual-based fuel that meets the RME180 specification. It is produced at the Fawley refinery in the UK and is available in Southampton, following its introduction in March 2015. It is compatible with HDME50 and MGO fuels. It has reduced sulphur content and lower residual metals. “It is the cleanest residual fuel we have ever produced,” Mr White said.

Other refineries are looking at their configurations and the demand for ECA compliant fuels with a view to the possibilities of

producing these fuels.Eddy van Bouwet, policy planning senior

advisor, ExxonMobil refining and supply in Belgium (and an oil industry representative on the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee working group), said: “The upcoming global sulphur cap in 2020 or 2025 is s step change for shipping and refineries and poses challenges for both. There will not be enough residual fuel oil at 0.5 per cent sulphur to meet the global requirement. The average sulphur content of marine fuel is currently 2.7 per cent but with a global cap the upper limit will reduce to 0.5 per cent, which is a huge change.”

Earlier this year the MEPC agreed to bring forward the fuel availability study, originally set for 2018 with a new completion target in October 2016. This should give an indication of what the decision might be regarding whether the global cap will be introduced in 2020 or put back to 2025.

Mr van Bouwet said: “It is a complex issue, including for refineries, because any change in configuration to produce the required marine fuels will have a knock-on effect on other refinery products. All refineries are configured differently with different product output mixes. The study will also have to make assumptions about the take up of LNG and scrubbers to estimate how much low sulphur fuel will be needed in 2020.”

Mr White told FL&ET: “We are still working on the ECA 2015 fuels and how to supply them more widely. But these are projects still underway, so we are not ready to make any new announcements yet. The issue that we see arising in the industry is around understanding of compatibility between various ECA fuels, and in fact the whole issue of compatibility generally. Many people understand the consequences, but not the mechanisms that cause it, or what constitutes a low or high risk scenario.”

In a presentation at the Mare Forum event in Italy in May Carolyn Comer, global lead, Shell Trading & Supply – Marine Fuels said that the range of fuel options for owners has grown including 0.1 per cent ultra-low sulphur fuel oil (ULSFO). She said that Shell’s ULSFO is not new and has been extensively trialled on multiple engine types and is in use on Shell vessels. There were about 500 deliveries of Shell ULSFO from December 2014 to April 2015 in the ARA range. It is also available in Singapore, Montreal, New York, and New Orleans.

Ms Comer said that the fuel meets ISO8217:2010 RMD 80 standard with good ignition, combustion and lubricity, and no reported issues with compatibility or stability. Shell’s 0.1 per cent ULSFO is a differentiated fuel. “Only a few can supply residue-based ULSFO.” MP

Eddy van Bouwet (ExxonMobil): The upcoming global sulphur cap is a step change for shipping and refineries and poses challenges for both

Iain White (ExxonMobil): Owners are facing challenging choices


8 | FUEL SWITCHING

Emissions from shipping are monitored by chemical analysis next to the channel into Gothenburg Harbour (credit: Chalmers Technical University)

FUEL SWITCHING: GETTING IT RIGHTThe adoption of a fuel-switching solution is one thing, but the onboard reality is another

For ship operators that choose to use low-sulphur fuel when their ships enter or leave an emissions control area (ECA), there are some vital considerations to be made: mainly how the switch is to be managed onboard and what happens if

that process fails. Of equal concern is how the rules will be enforced: if a

competitor can get away with switching to or from low-sulphur fuel just outside port, or a ship in transit through an ECA can get away with not switching at all, many owners are concerned that IMO and regional regulations will lack credibility.

There is no shortage of advice available on how to manage the switch. Among the most comprehensive was issued by the European Community Shipowners Associations (ECSA) in October last year, ahead of the 1 January implementation date.

It contains a wealth of practical advice, such as the important detail that there is about 8 per cent difference in density between HFO and distillates. As a result, since fuel pumps deliver a defined volume of fuel, there may be a reduction in energy available for combustion that is not compensated by the approximately 2 per cent higher calorific value of distillates.

During the changeover, there will be a mixture of the two fuels that can cause the asphaltenes in the HFO to precipitate as heavy sludge that clogs the filters. P&I club Gard warned its members that, in a worst-case scenario, fuel problems during changeover could cause loss of power, putting the ship’s safety at risk.

Class societies have also warned of technical difficulties that must be addressed. For example, DNV GL’s includes comments on the temperature difference between HFO and MGO, which is typically around 100°C and can be up to 120°C, it noted, with the changeover causing thermal shock, potentially causing pump plungers and fuel valves to seize.

Engine manufacturers recommend a maximum temperature change of 2°C per minute, it advised; “keeping the temperature change below this threshold is a challenge in itself.”

Faced with these challenges, the temptation not to switch fuel is as much technical as it is financial but those financial temptations are huge. The Maersk Group put this into perspective earlier this year when it published its sustainability report covering 2014. It mentioned its Maersk Line and Maersk Tankers fleets in particular, estimating that operating them with two fuels would add between US$200 million and US$250 million per year to its cost base.

Costs like that have persuaded some operators to choose scrubbers instead. Speaking at the Marine Propulsion Conference in 2014, Poul Woodall, director for sustainability and development

at ferry operator DFDS, said that choosing a dual-fuel solution would have cost it €100 million per year: about twice its profit in a good year.

“We are concerned about the possibility that enforcement of regulations will remain weak, particularly in the European ECA, as non-compliance will harm the competitive landscape and weaken the positive effect on air quality,” Maersk said in its sustainability report.

Maersk Line and Maersk Tankers are two of 35 operators that have formed the Trident Alliance, which pursues “a range of different solution strategies to bring about robust and transparent enforcement,” its website notes.

Roger Strevens, chairman of the Trident Alliance, has previously pointed out some of the enforcement challenges, including the fact that there are large areas of the current ECAs that are within international waters. “If a containership calls at a US port and the figures don’t add up, will the American administration put time and money into pursuing the case if it doesn’t directly impact on the US itself ? I don’t think so,” he said earlier this year. MP

Helping You NavigateYour Journey

Reliability-based Lubrication (RbL®) is Chevron’s

systematic approach to providing you with all the right

Knowledge, Products, and Services to achieve your

lubrication program goals. Whether you value global

reach, customer service, or lowest total cost of

ownership, Chevron delivers on a promise to

keep you on course.

Need stem-to-stern peace of mind?

www.ChevronMarineProducts.com

© 2015 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of Chevron Intellectual Property LLC.

IDU

 Cre

ativ

e Ser

vice

s    +

1 585

 248 5

229  

  team

@id

udes

ign.

com

w

ww

.idud

esig

n.co

m    8

7 Cal

lingh

am R

d, P

ittsf

ord,

 NY 

1453

4 USA

Chevron Global Lubricants 158713->Fuels, Lubes & Emissions RbL 210x297 Ad.1.indd 1 10/2/15 8:40 AM


10 | LUBRICANTS

Base number remains a point of contentionOperators still face competing – and often contradictory – advice when it comes to selecting the right marine lubricant

Base number (BN), or the alkaline content of a marine lubricant,

looms large in any discussion around operating on low sulphur fuels, and the risks of what could go wrong in the event of a mismatch.

“Currently our recommendation when preparing to transit an emission control area (ECA) is to maintain a 40 BN, which is slightly out of kilter with the long-term recommendations of OEMs to go down in BN,” says Castrol marine lubricants technology manager Paul Harrold.

“Our theory is being proven in practice. Operating on low sulphur fuels is expensive and therefore a disincentive to transit at full speed. Most vessels are preferring to operate at little more than half load in the ECA. This means they are typically burning much less lube oil and operating at much lower temperatures. Our view is that problems occur when using a high BN lubricant at high load in an ECA,” explains Mr Harrold.

For Shell Marine Products general manager Jan Toschka,

effective operations are not only about matching BN to sulphur content. “Our intensive research has shown that, in addition to acid stress, the cylinder oil in low-speed, two-stroke engines is exposed to thermal, insolubles and humidity stress. An imbalance between the acid stress a cylinder oil faces and its BN can lead to excessive deposits on piston top lands, rings and ring grooves, leading to scuffing and cylinder liner damage. This means higher maintenance costs and reduced vessel availability.”

Launched in September 2014, Shell Alexia S3 has been formulated for use with low sulphur and distillate fuels up to 0.5 per cent sulphur content. It has secured Letters of No Objection for use from both MAN Diesel & Turbo and Wärtsilä, the shipping industry’s two giants of two-stroke engine production and licensing.

For ExxonMobil Marine global field marketing manager Iain White, a big part of today’s challenge is that crews lack operational experience. “At the other end of the scale, if you are operating new engines

or you have recently done a conversion to make a vessel operate more efficiently at a lower speed when slow steaming, you are likely to introduce a cold corrosion problem for your crew to manage as well,’ he says.

The solution, he says, is to have a monitoring programme in place doing the scrape down analysis or what MAN Diesel & Turbo refers to as ‘sweet testing.’ “This is a test that can be done very rapidly. Within five days, you can obtain a clear picture of what is going on in the engine under the operational conditions and the fuel that you are using at the time.”

Chevron Marine Lubricants’ onboard DOT.FAST system uses visible spectroscopy for determining the iron content in drip oil. A complexing agent reacts with the iron present in the lubricant to form a complex of dark violet colour, whose intensity is measured. The absorbance reading measured at a specific wavelength is proportional to the iron content of the drip oil sample.

Total Lubmarine technical director Jean-Philippe

LEFT TO RIGHT: Paul Harrold (Castrol): “Our recommendation is to maintain a 40 BN”Jan Toschka (Shell Marine Products): The longer term will see a more prominent role for LNG Iain White (ExxonMobil Marine): “We are moving into a more challenging era”Rik Truijens (Chevron Marine Lubricants): How do blended lubes impact OEM approvals?Jean-Philippe Roman (Total Lubmarine): “There might be a lack of a storage tank or daily tank”


LUBRICANTS | 11

Base number remains a point of contentionRoman says that field trials have shown that owners are often limited by their vessels in fully implementing engine manufacturers’ recommendations. “There might be a lack of a storage tank or daily tank,” he says. “This generates issues in terms of management and handling of the cylinder lubricants on board.”

He sees three options: one is to maintain the status quo, using one product for each operating condition; another is onboard blending of marine fuels; and the third – which Total advocates – is to use a single lubricant capable of functioning across a range of operating conditions.

“We have designed a 100 BN lubricant where a significant part of the calcium carbonate has been substituted in favour of ashfree neutralising molecules,” he explains. The product is currently going through testing and approval.

“Comparing with a conventional 70 BN lubricant on an MAN S35 ME B9 mark 9 derated engine from MAN: following a sweep test after

120 hours, fewer deposits can be seen on the hot part of the engine.

The same results were seen following a field test involving a MAN engine Mark 7 S60 that had clocked up more than 4,000 running hours. Again, when using the new formulation the piston ring belt is quite clean, the deposits on the topland were very limited, and engine wear quite low.

A third field test involved a Wärtsilä RTFlex 96 B engine fitted with a slow steaming upgrade kit. “In this test we ran a ship with a conventional BN 70 lubricant when the ship was using a high sulphur fuel. When the vessel entered an ECA we switched to our high BN product and tested it back-to-back with a BN25 product. After 10 days in the emission control area – 85 hours of operation – we observed that with the high BN product we were able to achieve superior engine lubrication.”

Total, says Mr Roman, has also developed a tool to help our customers to monitor their engines: “an automatic system that does not require a detailed

knowledge of chemistry.”Lukoil Marine Lubricants

specialises in 100 BN oils (Navigo 100 MCL). “A conventional full 100 BN oil is only needed with high sulphur levels in the bunker fuel,” says the company’s Hamburg-based technical and marketing director Stefan Claussen.

Earlier this year the company launched its intelligent cylinder oil lubrication system, iCOlube system. This has been designed to optimise the use of Navigo 100 MCL cylinder oil by adding either fresh or used engine oil such as Navigo 6 SO.

“With the engine always remaining at its optimum feed rate, the operator only needs to enter the sulphur content of the fuel,” says Mr Claussen. “In this way iCOlube ensures safe and easy operation while saving oil costs at the same time.” The company is close to completing 100 installations.

For Castrol’s Paul Harrold, the earliest the industry is likely to have a universal lube is 2020. In the short term, vessels will need to carry two lubricants and switch between the two when transiting ECAs.

Mr White believes that the industry is going through an irreversible shift from an era of the single fuel to multi-fuels. “This means we are moving into a more challenging era of multiple lubricants. The idea of one universal solution is wonderful, but the industry is challenged on technology, performance and economics. It is a laudable aim, but not achievable in the near term.”

For Mr Toschka, the longer term will see a more prominent role for LNG. “As a cylinder oil supplier, our expectation is that gas engines will take a growing share of the two-

stroke market. We already have the right products for the four-stroke sector and we have recently developed lubricants to take care of low sulphur content fuel for two-stroke engines, as well.”

Turning to Mr Roman’s second scenario – blending on board – Gulf Oil Marine’s technology and solutions director Don Gregory agrees the idea is ‘seductive’ for operators, but the reality is much more complex and the risks are very high. “And when you consider all the other risks when operating ships today this one seems to be a step too far. I have never seen any published data on how an operator can make or save money using this option.”

Mr Truijens finds he agrees with Mr Gregory “to a certain extent.” “We are actively involved in an experimental project around blending on board. One of the outstanding questions is how a blended lube would impact OEM approvals.”

Mr Truijens adds: “Lubricant base number provides only a small portion of information on the lubricant composition and should not be mistaken for lubricant quality at a certain fuel sulphur percentage.”

For Mr Roman, blending on board poses too great a threat to quality and reliability. Mr Harrold adds that blending on board only addresses one fact of lubrication: the BN number. “But BN is not the only dimension you need to think about. You need to think about detergency and viscosity,'” he adds. “There will be lots of technical challenges and for me the business case is not clear.” MP


12 | LUBRICANTS

Blend-on-Board takes off for MaerskMore than 169 Maersk vessels will have Blend-on-Board by the end of this year, but it’s been a long journey

B lend-on-Board lubricants are a source of some dispute, but Maersk is now successfully commercialising its new SEA-Mate Blend-on-Board (BoB) system developed by

the subsidiary Maersk Fluid Technologies (MFT.“It started purely from a desire to reduce the cost of

lubricant for the Maersk fleet. But, what we have today as a result is a whole lot more, including greater knowledge of our engines, vessel maintenance and fuel efficiency, not to mention a profitable little company,” said Niels Henrik Lindegaard, chairman of Maersk Fluid Technology and head of Maersk Oil Trading (the Group’s fuel buying arm).

After almost ten years of struggling, the small business unit is finally enjoying some success with BoB and its other products. The company’s long and difficult path to success holds many valuable lessons for the Group, as it encourages and supports innovation within the many business units. In fact, more than 169 Maersk Line vessels will have BoB by the end of 2015, while a number of other external shipping lines have placed orders.

“The last 12 months, or so, have been a commercial breakthrough for us, which has been exciting. It has been a long journey to get here”, said Jens Byrgesen, managing director of Maersk Fluid Technology. “Much of that time was necessary, of course, for the research and testing we conducted in collaboration with Maersk Line. But some of our growing pains can definitely be instructive for similar ventures within Maersk”.

The process began in 2005 with a market observation: Maersk Line’s own fleet of 250 ships was paying US$60-80 million per year for the 45-55 million litres of engine lubricant it required. Moreover, even though the supply came from several manufacturers, the quality was inconsistent and only a few of them made a product that Maersk Line found performed well.

“We realised that we were dependent on this handful of good manufacturers and that the others had no interest in improving their product to make the market more cost competitive for buyers like us,” said Niels Henrik Lindegaard.

Therefore, Maersk Oil Trading, Maersk Maritime Technology and Maersk Line decided to pursue their own solution. They proceeded slowly to allow sufficient hours for research and testing and to meet the safety and operational requirements

of the engine manufacturers as well as of Maersk Line’s own vessels, which were used as laboratories.

The research and testing of ‘BoB’ were slow by design; the rest of the process was not. While a viable product moved closer to production, important questions were emerging about the governance of Maersk Fluid Technology, the intellectual property strategy, funding, and other legal and tax-related issues. With no official support structure in place for this kind of project, these issues proved time-consuming to resolve.

“We knew we would end up with a product and a company, but the question of how best to pursue the development of both at once was a complicated task and we were feeling our way, as best we could, while carrying on with our ‘other’ jobs”, recalled Lindegaard.

The paperwork involved turned out to be just as time consuming as the product trials – and just as significant. For example, a friendly discussion with a large oil company and prospective partner early in the process turned out to be a costly lesson about the timing of patent filings.

“If we take the technical knowledge we gained from the journey we have been on with Maersk Fluid Technology, it is quite impressive; the process was not. With the new Innovation Board, good ideas will get the structure, funding and commitment they need if they are to succeed in creating results”, said Lindegaard. MP

The adoption of Blend-on-Board is the result of many years’ research


Total seeks less complex solutions Blend of

experienceF or the past six years, Sara Lawrence has been heading

a 30-strong team of specialists dedicated to supporting customers in the correct application of the Shell Marine

Products lubricant portfolio. “The need for lubricants suppliers to prepare for the

consequences of regulatory and commercial developments can hardly ever have been more pressing,” she says.

As a result of slow steaming, for example, engines have been required to operate predominantly at part-load. Newer generation engines, in particular, have subsequently faced cold corrosion issues. This is an issue that SMP “does not and must not shy away from”, says Dr Lawrence.

As well as “running to keep up with change” on product development, Dr Lawrence believes that customers are becoming “more service-hungry” with each industry development.

“Increasingly, customers are seeing more value in Shell Rapid Lubricants Analysis, our laboratory-based oil condition monitoring, covering TBN, water, inductively coupled plasma and wear particle index testing,” she says. “This expertise backs up ‘Shell Lube Monitor’, which offers a suite of services to help monitor cylinder conditions onboard ship.”

Achieving a balance between lubricant cost and equipment reliability is an operational must, but running vessels smoothly also depends on identifying potential issues before they become critical.

“Many owners operating low-speed engines want to reduce cylinder oil feed rates to minimise lubricant costs, but there is a fine balance between cutting costs and having a negative impact on engine reliability. Shell Lube Monitor is helping owners weigh up specific combinations of lubricants and fuels in relation to the severity of operational demands on the engine, and specific operational and maintenance requirements.”

For cylinder oil suppliers, the ability to address these real world challenges continues to intensify. In principle, for example, the switchover from higher to lower sulphur content fuel on entering an ECA is instantaneous, but the switchover can bring complications. HFO needs to be injected into the cylinder with the correct viscosity, and this normally requires a temperature greater than 100oCelsius. Distillates, by contrast in some cases require cooling to avoid too low a viscosity, but enter the engine via some of the same pipelines and components used by HFO. In practice, this means that the switchover needs to be ‘ahead of schedule’. MP

T otal Lubmarine believes that the key issue currently facing the lube market is complexity. This complexity takes a number of forms, including increased complexity for fleet

managers and marine engineers. A wider range of fuels, different legislative requirements and changing engine technologies mean a wider range of lubes is required. Naturally, each has different handling properties.

And, of course, with different solutions on offer, including finished products, lube mixing systems and blending on board, taking care of engines and choosing and handling the right lube is a more complex task than ever before.

Total Lubmarine’s approach is to reduce customer complexity by first of all providing practical, on-the-ground support. This takes the form of Total’s network of engineers who will come on board the vessels to advise on best practice, testing and training. Technical support is provided in major shipping hubs and regular training is held in customers’ offices.

In addition, Total provides customers with tools to monitor their engines/lube performance. The company recently introduced Tech’Care TCC, an iron test kit that can accurately and easily determine dissolved iron content resulting from excessive acid corrosion of the cylinder liner wall.

As to the future, clearly new products will emerge through research. Indeed, Total Lubmarine is developing the second generation of universal lube aiming to allow ship operators to use a single lube when running 0.1 per cent sulphur fuel in an ECA and higher sulphur fuels outside of these areas.

Head of research for Total Lubmarine is Jean Philippe Roman, who says: “Trials are currently underway with very encouraging results and we expect to release a new product in 2016. We strongly believe that the best solution for any ship operator has to be a simple solution. A single oil suitable for most circumstances has to be the best choice.”

Sara Lawrence, Shell Marine Products: “There is a fine balance between cutting

costs and having a negative impact”

Total Lubmarine is developing the second generation of universal lube

In spite of a rather generous preparation period, the implementation of the reduced emission limit values for SOx in emission control areas (ECAs) as of January 01, 2015, caused

quite a bit of turbulence in the marine industry. A decision for an exhaust gas cleaning system (a so-called scrubber) to comply with the new regulations implies major investments in planning and installing the scrubber. However, the confirmation of compliance hinges on a relatively small part of the complete system: namely on the continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS).

The new continuous emission monitoring system CEMS MEA 3000 from AFRISO accounts for the current trend towards increased monitoring, analysis and control to achieve a more efficient overall performance in various areas on vessels. MEA 3000 according to Marpol Annex VI monitors the actual values of CO2 and SO2 in the exhaust gas. In addition, this information can be used to optimise the scrubber settings and the control system.

Determination and documentation of the emission values at any point in time as well as compliance with the limit values at any point along the route of the vessel are only possible in this way. With a Confirmation of Compliance, the DNV GL attests intelligent emission monitoring and compliance with the regulations as per Marpol Annex VI and NOx Technical Code.

A special focus was on minimum SO2 wash out by the system as proven experimentally and empirically in order to obtain precise measurements on an ongoing basis.

Real-world experience shows that reliability and availability are essential criteria of such a system in addition to measuring accuracy. In order to reach maximum reliability and availability, susceptibility to pollution and maintenance must be reduced to maximum extent possible. The MEA 3000 provides special features for these purposes. The probe of MEA 3000 is equipped with an extra-large filter. The large filter surface ensures an improved distribution of the dust and dirt particles and keeps the filter pores from being clogged for an extended period of time.

In order to completely exclude the possibility of filter clogging, the system can be equipped with a dual-stage backwashing unit. In a first step, this unit cleans the filter with compressed air; in a second step, the dirt is blown back though the probe pipe into the exhaust gas channel.

All elements integrated into the MEA 3000 system are designed in such a way that they can be disassembled, cleaned or completely replaced by members of the crew of the vessel after a brief instruction. All these measures keep the downtime of the system to a minimum while drastically reducing the maintenance effort. MP

EMISSIONS MONITORING | 15

Afriso launches continuous emission monitoring systemA new continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) achieves a more efficient overall performance

The MEA 3000 provides special features to achieve maximum availability (credit: Afriso)


Think LUKOIL!

[email protected]

LUKOIL_Az_190x62_Kompass_auf_Wasser.qxp_Layout 1 24.09.15 13:09 Seite 1


16 | EMISSIONS MONITORING

Measuring to manage emissionsWith compliance with emissions legislation an ever more pressing concern, continuous emissions monitoring offers a solution

Since the arrival of Europe and North America’s ECA sulphur emissions limit of 0.1 per cent in January 2015 and with the advent of a global ECA in 2020, shipowners are under ever more significant pressure to

prove compliance or face significant fines. Additionally, at the beginning of July in Europe, new measures

to regulate the monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions came into force. Owners and operators of ships entering EU ports must now begin preparing a monitoring plan for submitting for verification by the end of August 2017. Ships will need to monitor their carbon emissions, distances travelled and record the cargo carried. This information must then be independently verified and reported each year to the country in which the ship is registered and to the European authorities.

This means that – whatever compliance system an operator has in placre – simply thinking you are compliant is not enough. It is also encumbent on the operator to ensure they have the relevant data to back this claim up. This, of course, is where emissions monitoring technology comes in.

Continuous emissions monitoring technology relies on proven and efficient analysers giving onboard data in real time to verify a compliance solution and offer much simpler reporting. Parker Kittiwake is a company with a particularly strong portfolio of products in this area, with its Procal range having been successfully fitted emissions monitoring technology to a wide range of vessels operating in European waters.

The technology employs electronic collection and reporting of data, requiring zero man-hours to obtain accurate readings. By ensuring that data is accurate and can be easily verified, third party verification costs are minimal. Modern monitoring systems, such as the Procal 2000 analyser, have the potential to enable significant fuel savings, and consequently minimal CO2 emissions, by enabling ship operators to make ‘real time’ adjustments to the way the vessel is operated. It also allows the onshore management team to monitor emissions from the vessel.

The Procal 2000 analyser uses an in-situ (ie inside the exhaust stack) sample cell, thus avoiding the need to extract gas. This avoids the use of costly, high maintenance sample handling systems and enables analysis of an unmodified, truly representative gas sample. Exhaust gases from the combustion of residual and distillate fuels can be analysed so that compliance can be confirmed in port, in ECAs and in international waters. As regulations become increasingly stringent, this technology will provide accurate data, enabling compliance without the need for costly man-hours. As the shipping industry strives for more

transparency and lower costs, emissions monitoring technology can ensure that latent savings are realised.

The Procal 2000 can monitor up to six exhaust gases and a typical system could monitor up to six emission points to monitor gases such as SO2, CO2 and NOx. The analysers are connected to a data acquisition system, which displays data logs and retransmits the monitored concentrations and SO2 and CO2 ratio – in accordance with IMO regulations – without any manual intervention. This, linked with the low maintenance requirements, makes it an ideal marine monitoring system. Moreover, by adding a flow device to the exhaust and sending the signal to the CEMS, the emissions in mass units – for example kg/h – can be displayed and logged, enabling fuel burn to be monitored as required by the planned MRV regulations.

The danger with emissions monitoring is perhaps that too much emphasis is given to the technologies or solutions designed to address it and not enough to their actual efficacy. This has the potential to lead to failure to comply – something operators can ill afford. Given this, continuous emissions monitoring would seem to offer a simple and relatively affordable route to peace of mind. MP

Parker Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 offers a valuable continuous emissions monitoring solution


EMISSIONS MONITORING | 17

The high-tech route to complianceCould drones represent an effective high-tech solution to emissions compliance?

The issue of how to measure emissions from vessels at sea is a vexed one

These days, whenever a technological challenge is presented, it seems only a matter of time before someone suggests the use of unmanned aerial vehicles or – as they are more commonly

known – drones to solve it.From delivering shopping and pizzas to cattle herding, drones

are finding an increasing number of uses. And the maritime industry’s need to meet increasingly stringent emissions levels is another example.

Ensuring effective compliance with emissions regulation is crucial not simply from the point of view of the authorities and the environment, but also for shipowners and operators themselves, since if non-compliant owners and operators are allowed to flout the laws without sanction, it places those compliant and reputable owners and operators at a major comparative disadvantage.

Methods of enforcement are therefore a particularly hot topic as far as the industry is concerned. Obviously, coastguards and port authorities have the right to board a ship and test its emission levels from the stack. This method of random sampling has been used so far but clearly it has its limitations as a means of catching transgressors. Indeed, there are practical limits on how many ships can be tested in any given time – indeed, according to Maersk’s 2014 data, in Europe only one in 1,000 ships had its fuel tested.

For this reason, it is seen as imperative that other, more effective methods of enforcement are found. One idea that has risen to prominence in this regard is that of the ‘sniffer drone’. These are small, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that monitor air pollution from ship traffic. The unmanned drones will hover above the ships sailing in the ECA zones, and the ambition is for the drones to be able to register whether ships violate the international sulphur emission regulations.

But there are certain clear advantages to the drone solution. The advantage of using drone technology is that it is much cheaper to deploy than traditional surveillance methods at sea. Both because drones in and of themselves are comparatively inexpensive and because the sensor technology mounted on the drones is much cheaper than sensors placed far from the emission source. In order to effectively monitor and identify polluters it is necessary precisely to link a sensor result to a specific ship and – unlike other technologies – drones can ensure this.

Explicit, a Danish technology company specialising in data collection, has created a ‘sniffer’ unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that monitors sulphur emissions from ships on the water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Denmark last year committed $100,000 to the project, which also received international recognition as one of 10 finalists in the 2014 Ocean

Exchange innovation contest in the United States. Bettina Knudsen, chief operating officer at Explicit, describes the

devices as “Like a breathalyser, but for ships.” The detector measures the ratio between SO2 and CO2 to determine whether or not a ship is compliant or not.

In an effort to reduce pollution, the sniffer drone aims to catch sulphur violators at sea. The system uses self-guided UAVs to seek out ships during cruise, measure their sulphur emissions and report back in real time.

The government of Denmark also announced an annual budget of $1.27 million dedicated to monitoring emissions. The US$100,000 funding to Explicit's drone project is to help expand the sensor technology to also include nitrogen oxides. This increases the total EPA funding committed to the drone project to US$280,000.

‘To have global innovation networks like Ocean Exchange recognize the potential in drones for environmental purposes is a huge motivation,” says Jon Knudsen, CEO of Explicit. “In the case of sulphur enforcement, drones are one of the few technologies available to ensure that regulations can be properly implemented and pollution levels reduced.” MP

Leading in development and manufacturing of oil mist separators for combustion engines and turbines.

Emission reduction &increased efficiencyby the use of highly efficient oil mist separators at crankcase and lube oil tank ventilation.

The world´s only

oil mist s

eparator with

GL type approval

www.ut99.ch

Benefits of UT99 oil mist separators

• Emission reduction, even to obtain EPA Tier 4 final

• Reliable increase of efficiency at gas / dual-fuel engines

• No deposits on turbocharger

• No leakage of oil and oil mist

• Long-lasting operational reliability

Key features of UT99 oil mist separators

• For engines from 50 kW to 100 MW and turbines up to 2000 MW

• For closed (CCV) / open (OCV) crankcase and lube oil tank (OTV) ventilation

• Residual oil amount < 1 mg / m³ guaranteed

• Filter service lifetime up to 24.000 h

• ATEX (ex-proof) approved design available

Long-term supplier for many well-known engine, turbine and power plants manufacturer.

Continuous EmissionMonitoring as per MARPOL Regulations?MEA 3000/3300 from AFRISO.

Flue gas analysis

Continuous monitoring of CO2 and SO2 emissions upstream and/or downstream of the scrubber

Reliable and easy measure-ment as per MARPOL Annex VI and NOX Technical Code

Comfirmation of Compliance as per MEPC.184(59) – under consideration of SO2 loss

Future-proof due to modular concept – additional measur-ing modules can be addedat any time (for example, NOX, PM)

Worldwide Service – assis-tance & technical support in almost every port

Very long maintenance inter-vals due to integrated calibra-tion cells, high filter capacity and dual-stage backwashing system

www.afriso.com/marine

DNV GLcertifi edDNV GLDNV GL

EC both scorns and funds scrubbersEuropean Commission spreads confusion over its attitude towards scrubbers with conflicting policies

T he European Commission (EC) is simultaneously casting doubt on whether scrubbers will be acceptable in EU waters while spending millions on supporting scrubber investments.

When the European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF) – set up in 2013 to provide a joint industry-EC forum to smooth the entry into force of the Sulphur Directive – met in June, a senior member of the Water Framework unit within the EC’s Directorate-General for the Environment (DG ENV) was present.

Because of the discharge limits set by the Water Framework Directive (WFD), his stance towards scrubbers “was uncompromising,” according to a report of the meeting issued by the UK Chamber of Shipping, one of the industry bodies taking part. The chamber reported that his view was that open loop scrubbers were not a sensible way forward and that closed loop scrubbers also have discharges so they probably will not offer an acceptable way forward either.

For those who had already invested in scrubbers, the industry delegates argued, grandfathering should be allowed for early movers that have fitted scrubbers. “This approach received support from almost all of the member states – with the exception of Germany,” the chamber’s report said.

Part of the difficulty stems from conflicts between two pieces of European legislation – the WFD and the Sulphur Directive. As Johan Roos, director of regulatory affairs of the industry group Interferry, explained to FL&ET, the Sulphur Directive allows for certain discharges that the Water Directive may prohibit under certain conditions. Each member state can decide which types of scrubbers may be used in which parts of their territorial waters making the situation “a proper nightmare for any international transport industry,” Mr Roos said.

Before the ESSF meeting, some had been confident that the forum would lead to a resolution of these conflicts. For example, speaking in April at the Marine Propulsion Conference, John Bradshaw, lead project engineer for machinery at Lloyd’s Register, said that the EC “is making a real effort to resolve and clarify these matters.”

That was not the UK Chamber of Shipping’s view afterwards. As far as grandfathering was concerned, DG ENV’s representative said that scrubber manufacturers knew, or should have known, the implications of the WFD, according to the chamber’s summary. Industry groups had arrived hoping to get a harmonised approach across Europe to washwater discharges. They left with doubts that scrubbers themselves had a future in Europe.

At the same time, however, the EC’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) was allocating funds through its Connecting Europe Facility to support its ongoing Motorways of the Seas programme. Their allocations were announced in July – just a few weeks after the ESSF meeting – and included a total of €48 million for Finnlines, DFDS, Stena Line, Brittany Ferries and Scandlines towards the cost of installing scrubbers.

But a third concern was that “installing scrubbers in the absence of clear, uniform rules for operation throughout EU waters was a high risk investment.” This, he said, “is still a very large area of concern today.”

FL&ET asked both DG ENV and DG MOVE to clarify the EC’s attitude towards scrubbers but no feedback had been received as this publication went to press. MP

The European Commission is taking a hard line on scrubbers (credit: Sébastien Bertrand/Wikimedia)

SCRUBBERS | 19

20 | SCRUBBERS

Tests undertaken at Kobe Diesel have confirmed that a low-pressure exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system can enable a low speed, two-stroke diesel to comply with IMO Tier III NOx limits, according to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Marine Machinery & Engine Co (MHI-MME) and Mitsubishi Kakoki Kaisha. The companies said that this is the first time this has been achieved.

The EGR system was developed under the ClassNK Joint R&D for Industry Program. It changes combustion conditions inside an engine and suppresses NOx generation by recirculating part of the low-pressure exhaust gas emitted from the turbocharger outlet to the turbocharger intake, after being scrubbed by the EGR system.

Initial and running costs are lower than those of a high pressure EGR system employing high

temperature and high pressure exhaust gas. The tests at Kobe Diesel confirmed that parameters such as fuel oil consumption and NOx levels satisfied the intended objectives.

The low pressure EGR-equipped Mitsubishi 6UEC45LSE Eco B2 engine that was tested will now be installed in a 34,000 dwt bulk carrier currently under construction for Shikishima Kisen at shipbuilder Hakodate Dock. Long-term durability tests will be carried out during sea trials and on subsequent commercial voyages.

Related issues such as the availability of caustic soda, the sludge disposal handling process, and the certification process will be examined in collaboration with the shipowner, the operator NYK Bulk & Projects Carrier, and Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK Line).

DeltaLangh’s exhaust gas cleaning system (scrubber) has been successfully installed on Bore Song of Bore. This True Hybrid Scrubber system allows both close and open loop operation in the most environmentally-friendly way. The system has received confirmation of full compliance with SECA and IMO regulations (approved by Lloyd’s Register and TRAFI, the Finnish Transport Safety Agency), and is now confirmed as meeting all present and forthcoming requirements. The delivery was supplied on a turnkey basis by Deltamarin Floating Construction.

When Bore Song sailed from the repair yard after 14 days’ dry docking, the open loop operation of the scrubber was in

immediate use to clean the exhaust gases of the 12MW main engine. While the vessel was trading, final installations were completed.

“The DeltaLangh Hybrid Scrubber was a choice when looking for a sustainable solution for the future. It has lived up to our expectations: minimum sludge handling, very clean outgoing water and in that respect minimum impact on the environment. The project was handled as a turnkey project, and I am especially pleased with the short installation time, which enabled us to keep our promise to our customer”, said Jörgen Mansnerus, vice president, marine management at Bore. MP

Mitsubishi claims first Tier III EGR

DeltaLangh’s scrubber installed on Bore Song

Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is cannot be used on marine medium and high speed engines, believes Christoph Fenske, governmental and naval director at MTU’s Application Centre in Germany, because of complications arising from the associated scrubbers needed.

The technology is often cited as a means of meeting IMO Tier III or EPA Tier 4 NOx emissions standards but, unless ultra-low-sulphur fuel or sulphur-free fuel is used, without a scrubber acid damage will destroy the

exhaust gas cooler. Speaking to FL&ET, he

acknowledged that two-stroke engine manufacturers promote EGR, for which they include a wet scrubber to remove the sulphur from the exhaust. “Such a system is feasible on two-stroke engines with typically very spacious enginerooms with limited sensitivity to weight and space of the additional systems,” he said.

However, high speed engines – such as MTU’s – “are installed in an environment of very limited

space and accommodating a scrubber system would delete a big advantage of EGR engines over selective catalytic reduction (SCR): compactness. So I do not see a scrubber system on high-speed or even medium-speed engines.”

He had earlier addressed invited guests at Rolls-Royce’s gas turbine plant at Bristol, in the UK, where he said that, as a result of these difficulties, “SCR is, at least for the next 10-15 years, the technology of choice when we talk about IMO Tier III or EPA Tier 4.”

Babcock Noell GmbH and Bremen-based shipping company Carl Büttner have agreed to equip a tanker of the Büttner fleet with a BNG Scrubber for precipitation of SOx.

The BNG Scrubber for the tanker MT Aurelia of the shipping company Carl Büttner is designed as a hybrid system, which means that both the open-loop and closed-loop methods can be implemented. In the open-loop system, the outgoing exhaust gases containing sulphur are washed with seawater, which may then be discharged into the sea after being treated according to the legal requirements. The closed-loop method eliminates any discharge of process water in particularly protected areas.

The BNG Scrubber’s sophisticated multi-stream concept is a trendsetting task for the team of experts at Babcock Noell and for the experienced advisory team at Carl Büttner. This concept enables dedusting and scrubbing the flue gases of two main engines (3 and 4 MW), of the two auxiliary engines and the boilers.

MTU: EGR cannot be used on marine four-stroke engines

(credit: Rolls-Royce/MTU)

EGR is not an option for four-stroke enginesBabcock Noell to supply SOx Scrubber


EXHAUST GAS CLEANING SYSTEMS––––––

SCRUBBERS FOR SOX-REDUCTION

The engineers at Babcock Noell have longtime expertise for all tasks regarding exhaust gas cleaning.

We provide:- Innovative and well proven technology compliant with Marpol Annex VI- Tailormade turnkey solutions in close cooperation with the customer, starting with the initial project phase and ending with the

approvals by the Flag / Class

Our scope:- Engineering (concept design, contract design, basic design, detail design)- Complete equipment supply (scrubber, waste water treatment, measurement technology, I&C)- Installation / commissioning / after sales services / shipyard services- Class requirements

We off er fi nancing models as well as strategic funding advice.Contact us. We will competently and comprehensively advise you!

––––––

BABCOCK NOELLwww.bng.bilfinger.com

Babcock Noell GmbH, Alfred-Nobel-Straße 20, 97080 Würzburg, Germany, Tel: 0049-931-903-6248, e-mail: [email protected]

Get a free 30 day trial to our new website and sign up to receive our weekly newsletter

Just visit www.mpropulsion.com


REGULATIONS | 23

The new EU MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification) Shipping Regulation is now in place. What does this mean for shipowners?

MRV regulations will require operators to keep track of carbon emissions and other relevant information

O n 1 July the new EU MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and

Verification) Shipping Regulation came into force, something that may presents a number of new challenges for shipping companies. Indeed, it appears that difficulties are arising in understanding the new regulatory requirements and preparing vessel-specific monitoring plans.

According to the EC’s impact assessment, the MRV system is expected to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the journeys covered by up to 2 per cent, compared with a ‘business as usual’ situation. The system should also – it is claimed – reduce net costs to owners by up to €1.2 billion per year in 2030.

The first step of the strategy involves the design of a robust MRV system of carbon emissions for ships exceeding 5,000gt on all

voyages to, from and between EU ports applicable from 2018. These vessels will have to submit a monitoring plan to a verifier for approval, indicating the methodologies chosen to monitor and report emissions and other relevant information.

The first annual monitoring period starts on 1 January 2018. Throughout that year, operators will be required to keep track of carbon emissions and other relevant information by following the procedures described in the approved monitoring plan. As soon as the year is over, they will gather all relevant information pertaining to 2018 and, for each qualifying ship, compile an emissions report.

Needless to say, this has not been welcomed with open arms. For instance, the UK Chamber of Shipping reported that “Unfortunately, it is now more evident that the verification process…

will be a very costly task for the industry.” And it seems likely that these costs will go further down the line, as – for instance – bunker suppliers face commercial pressures to assist their customers in meeting their obligations.

Another problem lies with the disparity between the EU’s MRV system and that which will apply to the rest of the world. As non-EU ships trading with Europe will be affected, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) is concerned that the EU is pre-empting the result of ongoing IMO negotiations on reducing emissions, which were generally considered to be progressing well. Non-EU nations may take a dim view of a separate regional regime, pushed forward by Europe, which might not be compatible with the outcome of the IMO’s wider global discussions. For countries such as China and

India in particular, carbon dioxide regulations are politically sensitive.

Indeed, the ICS, BIMCO and Intercargo have issued a statement that said: “There is a danger that the EU initiative will be seen by non-EU nations as an attempt to present them with a fait accompli. The EU Regulation includes controversial elements, such as the publication of commercially sensitive data on individual ships.”

Clearly these are significant issues. In the longer term, however, monitoring will benefit shipowners, who will be better equipped to take decisions on major investments and to obtain the corresponding finance. Equally, such monitoring will provide useful insights into the performance of individual ships, their associated operational costs and potential resale value.

For good or ill, however, these regulations are now in place and are not going anywhere. Clearly it is now necessary for shipowners to find an efficient MRV solution for their entire fleet, tailored to their needs and minimising the risks and costs of compliance and verification. And, while the establishment of such systems may be painful at first, if they result in more efficient fleets, they are to be welcomed. MP

ADJUSTING TO THE MRV REGULATIONS


24 | LAST WORD

It is our aim to help operators manage the lubrication of two-stroke engines. Over the last few years there have been considerable technological advances and

new challenges. Two-stroke engine designs have developed towards longer strokes for improved fuel efficiency, but these engines are now facing an increased risk of cold corrosion, a risk which we recognised at an early stage and helped counteract by developing the very first 100 BN lubricant (NAVIGO 100 MCL) in 2012. For new engines, manufacturers now require the use of 100 BN cylinder oils. Without doubt, 100 BN oils bring advantages for both new engines and all engines used for slow steaming. However, 100 BN is not needed with all fuel qualities: Depending on the specific engine design (e.g. low- or high-corrosive engine), a full 100 BN oil is only needed with high Sulphur levels.

For the technological challenges that ship operators are facing every day, we have developed iCOlube, an intelligent Cylinder Oil lubrication unit designed to use fresh or used system oil to optimize NAVIGO 100 MCL. This unit has just been launched during a highly successful event in September in London.

The unit tailors the cylinder oil to the prevailing operating conditions with the advantage that only one grade of cylinder oil is necessary on board, the engine always stays at its optimum feed rate and the operator only needs to enter the sulphur content of the fuel. With this innovative approach we offer our customers the benefits of easy and time-saving operation, fuel savings, best engine maintenance, environmentally friendly technology and reduced oil costs. Due to its space-saving dimensions, the unit can as easily be retrofitted as it can be installed in new buildings. After calibration and setup, the operator only needs to input the sulphur content of the fuel, because engine design specifics and the resulting required BN level are set during and remain unchanged after setup. This makes the system easy to use, in

MASTERING THE ART OF ‘INTELLIGENT LUBRICATION’

addition to keeping costs down.The focus on environmental issues and

emission reduction has grown considerably and the general awareness of customers for environmental issues has risen and we see growing demand for environmentally-friendly solutions such as iCOlube, whose environmental impact has been studied in a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Not only does it allow for easy engine operation, oil savings and improved engine maintenance, but also reduces the environmental impact of ship operation significantly.

Another are where customers need environmentally-friendly solutions with the highest quality standards is in Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants (EAL), which is now more than ever a topic of interest due to the strict regulations for vessels entering US coastal waters. With EALs, it is extremely important to understand the differences between the products available on the market and the technology behind them in order to make the correct choices: Many EALs are based on ester oils, which can be fully saturated, partially saturated or unsaturated ester oils. The choice of ester oil has an impact on the product’s performance.

The commonly used partially saturated or unsaturated ester oils contain double bonds which are more susceptible to oxidation and this means that compromises on temperature resistance and service life are inevitable. Fully saturated ester oils, on the other hand, have a different chemical structure without double bonds and are therefore characterised by excellent oxidation stability, temperature resistance and hydrolytic stability. We have been the first to provide this new technology, recognising how fully-saturated ester oils make it possible to develop EALs which allow for vessel operation with the usual docking intervals of at least five years. MP

Stefan Claussen, Lukoil

“WE SEE GROWING DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SOLUTIONS.”

What do shipowners and operators need to do to achieve the best possible lubrication solution? Stefan Claussen of Lukoil believes the answer lies in ‘intelligent lubrication’

Our Technical Team: Working Closely With Customers

www.gulf-marine.com

Shell Marine Products

YOU CAN RELY ON SHELL MARINE PRODUCTS TO HELP OVERCOME CHALLENGESn Emission control arean Equipment reliabilityn Cold corrosion

For more information visit www.shell.com/marineor email [email protected]

fuels, lubes & emissions technology 2015

Documents