impact of marine fuels on environment
DESCRIPTION
Marine fuels impact of low sulfur fuelTRANSCRIPT
Sname 19 September
2015 Impact to marine fuels
Lefteris Capatos
ECA = Emission Control Area
Hong Kong 0,5-0,05%?
ECA Limit
1st July 2010
1% Sulphur
Max
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019 2024 2025
EU Ports & Californian Coast
1st Jan 2010
0.1% Sulphur Max
Global Limit
1st Jan 2012
3.5% Sulphur Max
ECA Limit
1st Jan 2015
0.1% Sulphur Max
Global Limit
1st Jan 2020 OR 1st Jan 2025
0.5% Sulphur Max
Subject to 2018 Feasibility
Study
New ECA
1st August 2012
Coastal USA & Canada ECA = Emission Control Area
Demand for 0,1% Sulphur max. will be met mainly by the use of middle distillate fuels (Low Sulphur MGO/MDO) Other solutions : -Use of SOx scrubbing technology -HFO can respect 0,1% S such as Exxon mobile ECA 50 but have still a very limited availability
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Residual Max 1.5% Residual Max 1.0% Residual Max 4.5% Residual max 3.5%
Distillate Max 0.1% Distillate Max 0.5% Distillate - Other
ECA 1% S
2010
Global 3.5% S 2012
ECA 0.1% S
2015
Global 0.5% S
2020-2025
Global 4,5% S
SECA 1.5% S
Projected Bunker Demand according to applied regulations
Impact of new 2015 legislations
HFO consequences: • Higher demand for middle distillates fuels (Low Sulphur MGO/MDO) will further deteriorate
provided HFO due to severer conversion methods required to meet additional market demands (deteriorated ignition + combustion + fuel stability properties)
• Fuel change over from Jan 2015 being between HFO and middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO is a higher risk to compatibility
• Souring HFO prices dictate slow steaming operation further challenges the ignition and combustion
• Use of middle distillate fuel within ECA results to prolonged storage times of HFO challenging its stability
LS MGO/MDO • M/E operation with middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO will require additional storage space for
sufficient ship range within ECA regions. Change of tank allocation will require costly cleaning procedures
• Middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO expected increased use is associated with proportionally increased risk for poor lubricity issues.
• Prolonged storage of middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO does increase the risk for fuel destabilization.
Interest for more light fraction products, not in residual fuel oil = deeper conversion!
Source BP statistical research
Fuel Ignition + combustion
Most common methods for measuring ignition and combustion
CCAI=Calculated Carbon Aromatic index CII= Calculated Ignition Index
D=density at 15C V=viscosity (cst) t= viscosity temperature C
Combustion Pressure Trace
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (msec)
Pre
ssure
incre
ase
(bar)
"Normal fuel" , ECN = 29 ECN = 13 ECN = 8
“good” fuel?
“problem” fuel?Ignition delay
Rate of Heat Release - ROHR
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (msec)R
OH
R (
ba
r/m
se
c)
"Normal fuel" , ECN = 29 ECN = 13 ECN = 8
Long combustion period
Efficient combustion
FIA/FCA Fuel ignition/combustion analysis
Organic Combustion Improvers
• Improve spray pattern exposing more fuel to charge air (improve atomization) • Release free radicals for more vapor production (influence earlier ignition) • Reduce droplet size (less mass) allowing faster heat up and earlier ignition • Smaller coke particles require less time for complete burn through
Effect of Fe has been extensively evaluated in several studies. Oxidation of Carbon Particulates during combustion is 16 times faster with Fe
catalysts
Fe catalysts reduce the ignition temperature of Carbon by approximately 125ºC.
Carbon
particle
Iron oxide Iron oxide
Iron oxide
2+
2 Fe2O3 + 3C 4 Fe + 3 CO2
FeO + C Fe + CO
Parameter Description Unit Basefuel
Repeatability (r)
+/-
Basefuel
with
Octamar™
F35
ECN Estimated Cetane Number - 13.3 N/A 16
ID Ignition Delay msec 6.74 0.13338 6.29
MCD Main Combustion Delay msec 8.54 0.19574 7.90
EMC End of Main Combustion msec 17.28 0.57508 14.58
EC End of Combustion msec 26.74 1.16480 22.82
PCP Pre Combustion Period msec 1.80 0.13271 1.61
MCP Main Combustion Period msec 8.73 0.54353 6.68
ABP After Burning Period msec 9.47 0.95310 8.24
maxROHR Maximum Rate of Heat Release bar/msec 1.35 0.11478 1.89
PMR Position of maxROHR msec 10.14 0.4593655 9.14
AR Accumulated ROHR - 7.54 0.92280 7.89
KEY Positive Response - Outside r
No Response - Within r
Response in FIA/FCA Test (IP541) – Example of Combined Fe catalyst
+ organic combustion improver (ignition + combustion) Pressure Trace
Time
Bar
MCP
PCP
Max PI
0.9 Max PI
0.01 Max PI
ID
MCD
0.1 Max PI
EMC ABP
EC
ABP = After Burning Period
EC = End of Combustion
EMC = End of Main Combustion
ID = Ignition Delay
Max PI = Max Pressure Increase
MCD = Main Combustion Delay
PCP = Pre Combustion Period
Rate Of Heat Release - ROHR
Time
Bar/
ms
Max R
OH
R
AR
PMR
EC
AR = Accumulated ROHR
EC = End of Combustion
Max RV = Max ROHR Value
MRT = Max ROHR Time
Improved ignition & combustion properties lead to less deposits = improved efficiency & reliability
Preservation of efficiency between maintenance intervals (Field Experience Example – Indonesian Power Station) Reduced deposit formation especially of Turbocharger / nozzle ring preserves efficiency overtime.
2,341 Hours
2.07%
Engine No 1 Engine No 2 (additised)
• Deterioration of efficiency in non additised engine equates to 2.07% over 2,341 hours.
• Test on 2x Warstila 9 TM620 engines
Source Cimac
Fuel cost is a major operational cost and cuurent trend is that fuel prices may further increase.
8
2 DAY-TO-DAY RUNNING COSTS OF THE VARIOUS VESSEL TYPES
Figure 2.1 gives the relative distribution of the day-to-day running costs by vessel type
of vessels operating between Finland and other countries and sailing under the Finnish
or a foreign1 flag, according to the Finnish Vessel Costs Survey 2006. Cost factors are
proportionately tied to vessel type and size. Seven vessel types are examined: container,
container feeder2, conventional dry cargo, dry bulk and ro-ro vessels, car and passenger
ferries and tankers. The comparisons given here were made by vessel type according to
the mean value for their draught categories3. It will be seen from the diagram that fuel
costs account for the largest share of the vessel costs for all vessel types now, and espe-
cially container vessels (fuel prices as at 2006: container vessels 54%, conventional dry
cargo vessels 38%, dry bulk vessels 40%, tankers 33 %, ro-ro vessels 36%, and car and
passenger ferries 30%)4.
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100 %
Container Conventional dry
cargo
Dry bulk Tankers Ro-ro Car and passenger
ferries
Fuel
Overhead
Insurance
Repairs and maintenance
Crew (navigation)
Capital expenditure
Figure 2.1. Distribution of costs by vessel type on average for vessels operating between Finland and other countries and sailing under the Finnish or a foreign flag (Karvonen et al 2006).
1 The structure of day-to-day running costs of foreign vessels is assessed in the survey (Karvonen et al
2006) with principle reference to the main flag states for vessels entering Finnish ports. 2 A typical container vessel for feeder traffic in operation in Finnish waters (draught 9 m, container capac-
ity approximately 1,000 TEU). 3 Because the claculations do not use a weighted mean value, the figures do not reflect an average vessel
but the mean values for draught categories. 4 With regard to cointainer vessels, it should be noted that the calculation is based on sample data, includ-
ing that for large container vessels that do not enter Finnish ports. The share of fuel costs is not so great
for feeder container vessels typically sailing in Finnish waters. It is closer to those for conventional dry
cargo vessels.
Easiest and most popular measure for reducing the vessel fuel cost is via reducing vessel speed /engine load
According to Tests carried out by Maersk Line
• Reduce vessel speed by 20% (60% engine load) results in Fuel Consumption and CO2 emissions reduction of 10%.
• Reduce vessel speed by 50% (10% engine load) results in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions reduction of 30%.
Emma Maersk: Slow steaming can save 4000 ton of fuel on a one way voyage from Europe to Singapore. This with today’s HFO price is around 2,4$ million saving!
Studies have linked CO2 emissions to HFO consumption at a rate of 1: 3.1144 meaning that for each consumed ton of fuel 3,1144 tons of CO2 are emitted!
Slow steaming with poor ignition + combustion fuels
• Reduced efficiency of turbocharger and increased deposit formation (Low exhaust flow means inability to maintain sufficient boost pressure)
• Poor combustion leading to deposits on pistons, cylinder heads, valves, injectors, scavenge spaces etc.
• Exhaust gas economiser Low exhaust flow and poor combustion leading to increased depositing. Can result in uptake fire.
• Risk of cold corrosion in combustion chamber and exhaust gas system Lower exhaust gas temperatures at low load.
0,8
0,85
0,9
0,95
1
1,05
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Various Solutions to slow steaming side effects
Slow steaming side effects mostly orientate from T/C poor efficiency!
• Sequential turbocharging
• Variable pitch turbines and nozzle rings
• Turbocharger cut-out
• Cylinder cut-out
Combustion improver / catalysts
• To enhance fuel ignition (critical for slow steaming)
• To enhance fuel droplet oxidation
• To maintain T/C optimum efficiency (deposit free)
0,94
0,95
0,96
0,97
0,98
0,99
1
1,01
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Source - MAN Diesel T/C efficiency vs deposits
S.F.C. reductions are obtained by releasing more energy from every droplet of fuel
SFOC (g/kWhr)
Engine Load
TC Cutout? No Additive With Octamar™
F35C
Diff % *Daily Saving
47% No 182.13 180.27 1.02% $681
41% Yes 170.73 168.88 1.67% $1055
SFOC Case Study – European Container Line
* Daily saving includes additive cost
11,000 TEU vessel – MAN B&W 12K98ME-C Mk7 – 72,240kW Approach to measuring SFOC on a ship
Many short 6 hour test runs, alternating between additive use and not to build large data set All testing completed where steady operation can be maintained for whole test period One fuel in constant use for whole test
Fundamentally calculated by accurate recording of: Engine Power Volumetric fuel flow converted to Mass via Volume Correction Factor
SFOC Results Conducted by Caterpillar Motoren - Kiel
Innospec Fuel additive F35
6M43C HFO-Betrieb
Motorleistung / Engine Power - Load 50% 25%
be g/kWh 192.8 214
be g/kWh mit Additiv 189.7 206.8
%-Satz 98.39 96.64
% Improvement 1.61 3.36
• In response to their client request, Caterpillar Motoren (MaK) tested Octamar F35 on their engine test bed, under reduced load
operating conditions.
Summary : Combustion additive advantages to severely converted residual fuels burned under slow steaming operation
Fuel ignition
• Optimize fuel spray pattern (reduce droplet mass – increase fuel surface)
• Faster carbon oxidation with Fe combustion catalysts ( reduce fuel ignition temp) critical for engines under slow steaming
Fuel combustion
• Provide more time for complete combustion
• Complete burn out of fuel / Utilize all carbon into energy – not deposits = Specific fuel consumption reduction
Deposit reduction
• Preserve engine efficiency between scheduled maintenances and reduce SFC by keeping deposit free:
• Piston crowns, rings, injector nozzles and valves
• Economiser
• Turbocharger – Nozzle Ring and blades
Fuel stability/compatibility challenges
Analysis:
No1: Very good
compatibility
No2: Good compatibility
No3: Limited
compatibility
No4: Incompatibility
No5: Incompatibility
HFO HS Tank
95°C
Mixing
Column
100% HFO HS
100% HFO LS
HFO LS Tank
95°C
HFO HS & HFO LS Compatibility During Changeover
Changeover from one HFO to another is low risk, as can be done quickly and aromaticity of the fuel is similar
HFO Day Tank
95°C
Mixing
Column
100% HFO
100% MGO
LS MGO Tank
20°C
HFO & MGO more severe compatibility issues during changeover
Change over takes time: At 2C per minute this scenario will take almost 40 minutes
Quicker change over may cause fuel pump thermal shock, or “gassing up” in changeover column.
Changeover to MGO is high risk, as it takes a significant time to safely changeover. Plus MGO is very paraffinic and will effectively cause asphaltenes to flocculate
Solution: Dispersant / Stabiliser additive
Function of a Stabiliser:
Simulate natural resins that have been removed by secondary refining which keep the asphaltenes emulsified.
Function of a Dispersant:
Re-emulsify the existing agglomerations - clean up effect, make good fuel from sludge.
How to increase HFO stability = Keep asphaltenes apart
Structure of original colloids
Asphaltenes
Resins
Saturated
Aromatics
Flocculation and deposits due to large agglomerates
Changes in the surrounding medium
Legend
Hypothetic Model of Colloidal from Crude Oil
Structure of original colloids
Asphaltenes
Resins
Saturated
Aromatics Asphaltene kept in suspension by the help of dispersant
Changes in the surrounding medium
Legend
Addition of Treatment
Dispersant
Hypothetic Model of Colloidal from Crude Oil
Common methods to measure HFO stability & compatibility
-Spot test (compatibility)
-P-value test (reserve stability)
Hot Filter tests (Max: 0.10% m/m )
-TSE (total sediment existent) No fuel preparation
-TSP (total sediment potential) Fuel is heated to 100c for 24hours
-TSA (total sediment accelerated) Fuel is mixed with 10% cetane and heated
for 1 hour at 100C
-Turbiscan or RSN (ASTM D7061-12), RSN = Reserve Stability Number RSN < 5: good stability reserve, pass
RSN >5, < 10: limited stability reserve, fuel oil may flocculate
SN > 10: unstable fuel oil, likely flocculation of asphaltenes
0 min 1 min 2 min 3 min 4 min 5 min 6 min
Without additive
0 min 60 min
With additive
Mixing of IFO 180 & MGO During Changeover
Changeover between IFO & MGO
Hot Filtration (TSP) Turbiscan (RSN)
Sample No Additive 50ppm
Octamar™
BT-25
No Additive 50ppm
Octamar™ BT-
25
HFO 1 0.03 - 0.50 -
70%HFO
30%MGO
0.13 0.03 10.63 0.60
HFO 2 0.03 - 10.2
70%HFO
30%MGO
0.18 0.04 11.2 0.50
Source Lintec
Innospec in correlation with Lintec have simulated fuel change over scenarios between various HFO grades and middle L.S distillates.
Mixing of IFO 380 & MGO During Changeover
Maintaining Residual fuel Stability for longer time periods
Vessels frequently travelling within ECA’s on middle distillate fuel will result to having the onboard HFO in storage for prolonged time intervals. Time and temperature lead to HFO destabilization ! Bellow is a long term storage stability simulation using ASTM D7061-12 standard test. We see that stabilizing additives are a highly effective way to keep HFO stable and ready for use when needed.
Stabilized HFO = reduce sludge production = cost saving
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Pre Trial Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Feb-11
Slu
gd
e %
Month
Sludge % - 66%
Backflushes/Tonne - 82%
Purifier HR/Tonne - 36%
No
te -
Vessel
in
Dry
do
ck J
an
2011.
Middle East Shipping Company - VLCC Monthly Total
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
Ma
r-0
8
Ap
r-0
8
Ma
y-0
8
Ju
n-0
8
Ju
l-0
8
Au
g-0
8
Se
p-0
8
Oct-
08
No
v-0
8
De
c-0
8
month
Slu
dg
e/F
ue
l x
10
0
Maersk Sealand Meteor 2008
Obtained sludge production reductions with dispersing / stabilizing additives range from -30% to over -60% depending on the initial sludge production tendency
All residual HFO under normal conditions produce a sludge % varying from 0,7 to 1,5% of the total fuel consumed. Assuming an average 1% sludge production = 6$* per every consumed ton is wasted + the handling costs *(Assuming 600$/Ton fuel price)
Un-Stabilized HFO creates more sludge load on purifiers Fuel System Catfine Removal
Source - DNVPS
60 mg/kg
Middle distillate fuel tank capacities are designed according to the auxiliary engines fuel consumption requirements. When used to feed main engine the vessels cruising range is reduced to around 3 days!
Source ABS
Typical ship fuel tank arrangements VS sea cruising range when using distillate fuel on M/E)
Need for increased LS MGO/MDO storage tanks
2015 ECA - Change of Fuel Tank Allocation
T1
T2 T3
T4 T5
ENGINE RM
C1
C2
C3
HFO Tank conditioning prior to final manual clean up
Summary HFO stability + Compatibility solutions 2015
• Reduced risk of incompatibility during changeovers between low sulphur middle distillate and HFO.
• Improved HFO stability for longer storage periods while vessel is travelling within ECA on middle distillate
• Can be used to clean tanks up prior to change of tank allocation or dry-dock cleaning.
• Less sludge = more fuel!= cost saving
• Keeps separators and centrifuges clean – reduces workload, maintenance requirements and maintains efficiency for optimum catfine removal.
(I) Boundary Lubrication (II) Elastohydrodynamic
(mixed) lubrication (III)Hydrodynamic lubrication
Stribeck curve
LS MGO/ MDO What is Lubricity?
Lubricity – “The intrinsic ability of a fluid to prevent wear on contacting metal surfaces”
Lubricity types
Fuel Pump Tribology
• Two distinct regimes of lubrication in a fuel pump.
– Hydro-dynamic lubrication – relates to the oil film between moving two metal surfaces, which prevents contact and therefore wear. This is affected by the oil’s viscosity.
– Boundary Lubrication (lubricity) – more critical in fuel pumps. Relates to lubrication where clearance is minimal, and moving metal surfaces are in contact. The fluid creates a mono molecular layer on the surface of the components to reduce friction and prevent wear.
Low Lubricity – Causes & tests
• Cause of lubricity problems in diesel fuel – Hydroprocessing to reduce sulphur levels also removes
• N species • O species • Polyaromatic • Others
• Lubricity test methods
– High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR)* 60 °C – Scuffing Load Ball On Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE) – Ball On Three Discs (BOTD) – Bosch pump test
* HFRR (IP 450 conditions) • Temp of fuel: 60C • Load: 200gr • Stroke: 1000μm • Time: 75 minutes • Frequency: 50hz • Wear Scar Limit: 520μm
ISO8217:2010 includes a limit for lubricity in distillate fuels by the HFRR method ISO12156-1 = 520µm max WSD when sulfur content is < 0,05%
Upper specimen
Lower Specimen
MGO Lubricity Study
• In the aftermath of ISO8217:2010’s introduction there were some misconceptions regarding the relationship of lubricity to sulphur content and viscosity.
• Innospec Limited and Intertek Lintec Shipcare Service teamed up to
assess the lubricity characteristics of marine distillate fuels as per the above specification, and assess the relationship of lubricity to sulphur content and viscosity.
• Study began in October 2009 and concluded in July 2011. • 182 fuels tested & sourced globally. • The only selection criteria used was the tested sulphur content.
Overall Averages (182 Samples) WSD = 372 Viscosity = 2.93cSt Sulphur = 660ppm (0.066%)
7.2% of fuels failed specification (>520µm)* Failed samples were bunkered:
•from Long Beach, USA • from Augusta, Sicily • from Rostock, Germany • from Taranto, Italy •from St Croix, Virgin Islands
The highest failed sample (>520µm) had a viscosity of 3.3cSt
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
*All failed samples responded well to application of Lubricity Improver.
LS MDO/MGO Lubricity solutions
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 50 100 150 200 250
500ppm Sulphur 350ppm Sulphur
50ppm Sulphur 10ppm Sulphur
Lubricity additive performance / HFRR
Lubricity improving additives are a reliable way to restore lost fuel lubricity
Lubricity Additive
Upper Specimen
Lower Specimen
LS MDO/MGO Viscosity problems & solutions
Viscosity at fuel pumps must be above 2.0cSt (@ 40°C). Lower than above Viscosity can create operational problem such as : -Difficulty in engine starting up -Can lead to excessive leak off causing high and low load operation problems -Can cause high end performance loss -Solution: Is only fuel blending or fuel chillers
Source: Viswa Lab
LS MDO/MGO being supplied under 2cst is statistically very rare 2165 samples have average viscosity of 3.32 cst
Typical Chiller system
Summary on lubricity 2015
• Middle distillate fuel consumption from Jan 15 will be significantly
increased which proportionally increases the risk for poor lubricity. • Lubricity of a fuel is dictated by the hydroprocessing severety in the
refinery to reduce sulphur content. • No direct correlation between lubricity and Sulphur or viscosity. Only
way to know lubricity is by HFRR. • If lubricity is poor a lubricity improver is an attractive reliable cost
effective solution.
Other LS MGO/MDO challenges 2015:
Increased storage intervals of LS MGO/MDO will challenge the fuels stability
• Middle Distillate Instability
Three external factors can influence stability
These are
– Light (UV Stability)
– Air (Oxidation Stability)
– Temperature (Thermal Stability)
– Storage time
Instability of MGO will lead to sludge/gum formations, filter plugging, and increased risk of MGO/HFO compatibility
Biofuel blends of MGO?
• Next revision of ISO8217 will include Biofuel Grades for distillate Fuels
• These will contain a maximum limit of FAME at 7% (as per EN590 automotive diesel)
• This could further negatively impact:
– Price
– Stability
– Cold flow properties
– Resistance to microbial activity
Certified middle distillate fuel additive solutions provide:
Left: Unaged base fuel Middle: Aged base fuel Right: Aged fuel containing Innospec FOA Additive
• Oxidation Stability according to ISO12205 • Thermal Stability according to ASTM D6468 • Injector Fouling according to CEC F-23-01 Peugeot XUD9 • Steel Corrosion according to ASTM D665A&B • Fuel Lubricity according to HFRR ISO12156 • Filter Blocking Tendency according to IP387
Increased MGO/MDO fuel storage requirements will increase risk for aging problems !
0
1
2
3 Basefuel
Basefuel + LI5 Plus
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Tota
l In
solu
ble
s,
g/m
3
Basefuel
Basefuel + Additive
Total Insolubles reduced by 82 %
EN ISO 12205 and DMA
Lubricating Oil Selection during change over between HFO 3,5%S and middle distillate MGO 0,1% S
• In general Low TBN cylinder oils should be chosen for low sulphur fuels, and high TBN oils for high sulphur fuels.
• The tolerance period for which the engine can be run on low sulphur fuel and high TBN cylinder oil is very dependent on engine cylinder oil feed rate and the difference between two sulphur contents of used fuels.
• Post January 2015 change over procedure will result in a + 36 % higher sulphur difference
• Evaluate the engine’s actual cylinder condition after the first operating period on low sulphur fuel, and act accordingly. If excessive piston crown deposits are seen to be forming, operate at low lubricating oil feed rate or change to a low BN cylinder oil.
• In all cases the engine manufacturer’s recommendations need to be followed.
The current change over practice is between 3,5% and 1 % Sulphur HFO fuels (2,5% Sulphur difference) Post January 2015 the change over will be between 3,5% S HFO and 0,1% MGO (3,4% Sulphur difference)
Our Fuel Specialties business
MARINE HEATING REFINERY PERFORMANCE POWER FBC
Thank you for your time & attention !