Environmental regulations for the maritime industry are becoming stricter, posing challenges also for suppliers of marine fuels. Armelle Breneol, marine fuel expert at ExxonMobil, discusses LNG and explains how engineers can handle the fuel switchover process in ECAs
With scrubbers not being seen as a long term solution and global sulphur cap coming in five or ten[ds_preview] years, LNG seems to be the best solution for the future. Others say it is desulphurization of all marine fuel ashore. What is your view of that?
Armelle Breneol: We believe that LNG will be part of marine bunkering but it will not instantly replace other types of fuel. It will be a mix of all the solutions. ExxonMobil’s Energy Outlook 2040 report shows a significant growth of the LNG demand for the future but we cannot give an exact number or percentage of ships that will use LNG. There are just too many factors influencing this development.
No supply – no demand and vice versa, this is the hen-and-egg problem for the use of LNG as a ship fuel. Is ExxonMobil interested also in providing LNG bunkering services?
Breneol: We are in the process of evaluating LNG and have some studies running. In Singapore the port authority came to ExxonMobil to discuss the possibilities of LNG bunkering services. Our statement is that we will be part of it, but it is still too early to name specific ports or projects.
When the global sulphur cap will come in 2020 or 2025, the LNG supply will not be ready. That will result in a higher demand for distillate fuels – are you prepared?
Breneol: We are working on it. We have already expanded our 0.10% Sulphur Marine Gas Oil (MGO) offering and we have some studies running on this legislation. A fuel availability study is also underway and we are looking forward to its findings.
With different Emission Control Areas in force in European and US waters, unrestricted zones and different types of fuels, engineers often have to perform a fuel switchover. This process bears certain risks – which are these and what are your recommendations?
Breneol: Yes, it is indeed a challenge to switch from a fuel with 3.5% sulphur content to MGO with 0.10% sulphur. The main issue the crew faces is the 100°C temperature gradient. Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) needs heating before injection and needs a higher combustion temperature than MGO. Injecting MGO at the wrong temperature can cause gassing up of the fuel, pump seizures or leaking in the injection system, all leading to a loss of propulsion. There have been more than a hundred of such cases reported off California since 2009.
With that in mind ExxonMobil has developed two ECA-category fuels, ExxonMobil Premium HDME 50 and Premium AFME 200, both designed to help operators comply with the 0.10% sulphur cap. Both have to be heated before use and have a higher flashpoint than MGO, that helps ensure a safer management of the switchover process and reduces the risk of engine and boiler damage.
Preparation is very important in switching fuels successfully. Following the introduction of new engine designs and variety of ECA-compliant fuels on the market, crews are not always up to date with the latest developments. We recommend avoiding mixing bunker fuels from different sources and storing fuels separately to ensure a smooth switchover.
Ship operators need to know what they have purchased in order that they know the characteristics of ECA-category fuels and how to manage the fuel switchover process flawlessly.
Felix Selzer
