Comment: Go from ‘A’ to ‘B’

Posted on by
Reply

Come 2015, owners operating in emissions control areas (ECAs) will have only three choices to comply with mandatory 0.1% sulphur levels; burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas; or install a scrubber system. Trouble is, 2013 is only just around the corner so decisions must be made now. And this is – understandably – heightening debate around the efficacy of available technology and emissions measurement techniques.

There are major players in the scrubber supply market such as Wartsila, Hamworthy and Aalborg. These are substantial engineering companies with excellent reputations all saying that their scrubbing technology is an effective and viable reality. Ultimately though, proving this depends upon the provision of reliable and accurate measurement.

At present, scrubber guidelines (MEPC 184(59)) allow for two methods of approval, Scheme A or Scheme B. Scheme A demands initial certification of performance followed by periodic survey with continuous operating parameters and daily emission checks to confirm performance in service. Scheme B requires performance confirmation by continuous monitoring of emissions with daily operating parameter checks.
Kittiwake Procal is firmly of the opinion that Scheme B should be the single allowable method. Firstly, despite scrubbers being used ashore and on tankers for many years, this is a relatively new technology for emissions control on ship. To mitigate any technical uncertainty that may exist, despite numerous successful trials, Scheme B gives complete and ongoing assurance of emissions at exit from ship, whereas Scheme A does not. In addition, if continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) are not fitted there is a potential risk that the indirect Scheme A method of monitoring system parameters could result in non-compliant emissions being undetected between daily emission spot checks – particularly undesirable in port and ECAs. Continuous monitoring of exhaust gas emissions is the only way to provide complete reassurance, no matter the type of scrubber system installed.

Furthermore, whilst CEMS for Scheme B must be approved according to MEPC 184(59), the daily spot checks required under Scheme A risk use of unapproved portable analysers that are neither ranged appropriately for a very low level of SO2 emissions (less than 20ppm) nor meet the performance specifications appropriate for the application. Due to the manual method of obtaining an emissions reading using a portable analyser, there is risk of an inconsistent and non-representative result, not to mention the associated safety risks if an access point to a hot flowing exhaust needs to be opened and a hand held probe inserted. There are further persuasive points that can be made, but essentially the argument centres around the provision of accurate and reliable measurement that provides a simple means of determining compliance, and the adoption of the same methodology regardless of vessel location, providing reassurance and clarity.

Ultimately, the clock is ticking and whether shipowners and operators choose to switch between high and low sulphur fuel or install a scrubber, CEMS has a central role to play.

Martin Lucas, Managing Director, Kittiwake

Fairplay, December 2011

To scrub or not to scrub? That’s not actually the only question

Posted on by
Reply

The debate surrounding scrubbers seems to have intensified over recent weeks. There has been heightened tension between trade associations, the ferry fraternity and scrubbing proponents, all with their own ideas and perspectives. What can be agreed upon, however, is that come 2015, owners operating in emissions control areas (ECAs) will have only three choices to comply with mandatory 0.1% sulphur levels; burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas; or install a scrubber system.

According to a report from class society DNV published last year, burning diesel oil instead of residuals would incur an average additional annual cost of $500,000 per ship. This, for most, would render the option of burning marine distillates prohibitively expensive. As for LNG-fuelled vessels, although there is growing interest and investment, this solution is at such an embryonic stage that there are many questions still unanswered, for example concerns over bunkering infrastructure and long-term price predictions.

Given this context, scrubbers remain positioned in a favourable light. However, the president of the Royal Association of Netherlands’ Shipowners (KVNR), Tineke Netelenbos was, earlier this month, reported as saying: “We are told that there are all sorts of technical means to help shipowners to reduce sulphur, but it is not proven technology. For example, we are at the starting phase of [exhaust gas] scrubber technology, and we think shipowners need more time, because it is impossible to build in scrubbers and other kinds of equipment by 2015. We think there must be proven technology before you go on the deep sea because it may be that your engine does not work.”

Scrubber manufacturers and supporters believe that many have an outdated view on the maturity of the technology. They are adamant that there is plenty of data from systems trialled at sea to prove that a range of different scrubber systems work and are reliable. Moreover, the first commercial deals are starting to filter through, whilst other large companies are anticipated to be jockeying for position, albeit avoiding being the “pioneer” that has to pay over the odds for a large order. The caveat, if there is one, it is absolutely possible to fit scrubbers ready for the 2015 watershed, but only if people start placing orders now. Donald Gregory, Director of the Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA) recently warned: “If everyone waited until closer to 2015, there would not be enough capacity to install scrubbers overnight”.

Many in the maritime industry see the large-scale retrofitting of scrubbers as inevitable. However financing remains a sticking point, despite claims a one-time investment pays itself back over time because the technology allows a shipowner to go on burning high-sulphur fuel, even in emissions control areas.

Of course, ultimately, the efficacy of a scrubber depends upon the ability to provide reliable and accurate measurement. At the end of October, the United States Coast Guard, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), held a public meeting to discuss the International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems for marine engines. The agenda focused on examination of a potential approval process for scrubbing systems, ways to develop “explicit test procedures” and how to ensure continued compliance. All, of course, with the aim of exploring how exhaust gas cleaning technology (scrubbers) could be used in the North American emission control area (ECA).

At present, scrubber guidelines (MEPC 184(59)) allow for two methods of approval, Scheme A or Scheme B. Scheme A demands initial certification of performance followed by periodic survey with continuous operating parameters and daily emission checks to confirm performance in service. And Scheme B requires performance confirmation by continuous monitoring of emissions with daily operating parameter checks.
Kittiwake Procal is firmly of the opinion that Scheme B should be the single allowable method. Firstly, despite ‘scrubbers’ being used ashore and on tankers for many years, this is a relatively new technology for emissions control on ship. To mitigate any technical uncertainty that may exist despite numerous successful trials, Scheme B gives complete and ongoing assurance of emissions at exit from ship, whereas Scheme A does not. In addition, if continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) are not fitted there is a potential risk that the indirect Scheme A method of monitoring system parameters could result in non-compliant emissions being undetected between daily emission spot checks – particularly undesirable in port and ECAs.

Furthermore, whilst CEMS for Scheme B must be approved according to MEPC 184(59), the daily spot checks required under Scheme A risk use of unapproved portable analysers that are neither ranged appropriately nor meet the performance specifications appropriate for the application. Due to the manual method of obtaining an emissions reading using a portable analyser, there is risk of an inconsistent and non-representative result, not to mention the associated safety risks if an access point to a hot flowing exhaust needs to be opened and a hand held probe inserted. There are further persuasive points that can be made, but essentially the argument centres around the provision of accurate and reliable measurement that provides a simple means of determining compliance, and the adoption of the same methodology regardless of vessel location.

Ultimately, whether operating in one of the existing North Sea, English Channel, Baltic or US-Canadian ECAs, or future ECAs such as the approved US-Caribbean ECA or the proposed Japanese and Pearl River Delta ECAs, ship owners and operators will not only have to comply with regulation but also prove compliance. Whether shipowners choose to switch between high and low sulphur fuel or install a scrubber, CEMS has a central role to play.

Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake

Seatrade Asia, November 2011

Article of Interest – Poll supports review of statutory flash point limit

Posted on by
Reply

A recent article on Bunkerworld examined the current opinion on flash point limits:

“Flash point refers to the lowest temperature at which a fuel can vaporise to form an ignitable mixture in air

Nearly half of respondents to a poll on Bunkerworld believe it would be safe to reduce the current 60°C minimum flash point limit for marine fuels, either to 55°C, or possibly even lower.

The poll asked if it was time for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to review the minimum flash point limit for marine distillate fuels.

A 60°C minimum flash point limit is set under the IMO’s SOLAS regulation, making it a statutory requirement.  It is also the minimum limit in the commercially used ISO 8217 global fuel specification.

There has been an increase in supply of ‘off-spec’ low sulphur low sulphur marine gas oil (MGO) where the flash point is near or below the minimum 60°C limit, indicating that fuels from the inland market are finding their way into the marine fuels sector/

This is expected to get worse as demand for low sulphur MGO increases due to regulations requiring ships to use fuels with maximum 0.1% sulphur content, and has led to calls for a review of the limit from some parts of the shipping industry.

The question hinges around what limit represents an acceptable safety risk on board ships, and if limits considered acceptable for land-based fuels can be translated to safe ship operations.

27% of the poll respondents said they think the flash point limit can safely be changed to 55°C, which would bring it into line with the limit for inland distillate fuels inEurope.

A significant share, 19%, replied they think the limit can safely be changed to 55°C or even lower.

The biggest share of votes, 42%, said the IMO and the ISO should research safe limits and change it as appropriate.

Only 13% of the Bunkerworld poll respondents said they think the limit must stay at 60°C minimum for safety reasons.

Discussions about the poll question on Bunkerworld and other on-line fora pointed to several observers welcoming a lower limit as they think the current 60°C minimum limit is over cautious and out of date.

One motivation, which may be important to bunker suppliers, is to reduce the potential for ‘off-spec’ claims.

Because of the statutory nature and safety implications of the flash point limit, which can potentially leave a ship out of class, off-spec cases are more likely to lead to costly debunkerings than other types of off-spec fuels.  Other types of off-spec fuels might be manageable for the vessel as long as they know about the problem and can give it special attention during onboard fuel treatment.

Another motivation, which has been advocated by shipping giant Maersk and the shipping organisation BIMCO, is that reducing the limit for distillates to 55°C could open a wider supply basis for the marine fuels market.  This would be particularly relevant when demand for low sulphur MGO is set to soar with the introduction of a 0.10% sulphur limit in Emission Control Areas.

A warning, however, came from Mike Ball, bunker manager with Gearbulk (UK) Ltd, that opening for the use of automotive gas oil for shipping would also increase the risk of product containing bio-fuels entering the marine fuels market, bringing “another set of issues for the shipowner to manage.”

Several observers have pointed out that even if there was a review, it would be a huge challenge to change the flash point limit for marine fuel because it is embedded in a range of IMO conventions, codes and resolutions that refer to the current limit.

The poll was open for voting by the industry from August 24 to November 9, 2011 and attracted responses from a wide range of industry participants, including bunker providers, buyers, fuel testing agencies, other marine service sectors and industry observers

The new poll on Bunkerworld looks at the issue of whether the transition to the global 3.50% sulphur limit, due from the start of 2012, will be a challenge.  Votes and comments are welcome on the poll which you can access by clicking on this link.”

11th November 2011 11:03 GMT

Which came first, the green chicken or the green egg? And does it really matter?

Posted on by
Reply

The environment is no longer the elephant in the room; it’s now inescapable and pervades almost every aspect of our lives. And now that the green spotlight has turned to focus unrelentingly on shipping, pressure is mounting to demonstrate that, as an industry, we are capable of recalibrating to meet environmental obligations.

While everyone is in agreement that we must work collaboratively to identify ways in which to reduce environmental impact, common sense dictates that this must be balanced with satisfying commercial demands; indeed economic viability and demonstrating an increase in profitability will be the key drivers for ensuring environmental success in shipping. Whether operating, owning or managing a ship, the key to achieving this, and successfully navigating today’s turbulent economic seas, is realising efficiencies in every area of your vessel’s operation. Using time, energy and resource without waste and making assets work harder will directly impact the bottom line and therefore must be given priority – let’s be realistic. However, if efficiency were a colour, it would sparkle a vibrant shade of green. Because it stands to reason that if you operate more efficiently, fuel and lube oil consumption is minimised, not only saving money but also improving environmental credentials.

The direct correlation between uptime and revenue is indisputable even when shipping rates are low, and therefore the importance of preventing costly downtime is equally as plain. Increasing operational profitability through preventative maintenance of critical equipment and machinery in order to minimise equipment downtime is hardly a revelation to anyone in the shipping industry. With the spectre of downtime ever present in engineer’s minds, monitoring and alarm systems are the first means of defence in diagnosing problems with the ship. Sending samples off to the laboratory for analysis is an effective means of condition monitoring, if you are graced with the blessing of time – something a modern ship owner / operator does not have.

Thankfully, increasing demand has driven significant advancement in oil analysis over the past few years, both within and outside of the laboratory environment. The condition monitoring market has been influenced by a number of innovations which today allow marine engineers to enjoy the benefits of onboard and lab testing working in unison. More detailed, but potentially delayed sample results from a laboratory supplement the real time information delivered by onsite testing.

There is a clear benefit in knowing what is going on at an exact point in time – not just when the engineer can get to a machine for a routine, scheduled sample and analysis. Onsite kits enable rapid testing and action, and online sensors remove sampling errors, which are often responsible for un-representative samples. Online, of course, refers to sensor technology, which is advancing at a furious pace. Dependable sensors mounted in the oil circuit provide an early warning system designed to monitor remotely and in real time, the bearing and gear wear debris, lubricant moisture content, as well as lubricant health and remaining life.

Effective maintenance translates into obvious cost savings, but this on and offline condition monitoring equipment also helps to optimise lubricant feed rate. Even electronic lubrication systems do not offer an exact science, which often necessitates the application of a safety buffer. As one of the engine’s largest overheads, an average container ship can spend $12 million on cylinder lubrication over the course of its lifetime. Dependent upon trade, load, running hours and other factors, real-time monitoring is a vital tool in optimising cylinder lube oil feed rate and, as a result, improving efficiency, decreasing lubricant costs, avoiding issues related with over and under lubrication, and of course reducing environmental impact. Existing users, including German shipping company, Reederei Hermann Buss GMBH, are reducing cylinder oil consumption by up to 50%, representing annual savings of over $100,000.

The liner is one of the most crucial and costly components of a ship’s engine and monitoring wear not only extends its life but also protects against considerable financial pain, as the average insurance claim for an unexpected liner loss is over $250,000. It also has the potential to provide valuable data that offers insight into related issues.

Today’s challenging economic climate has fuelled the scrutiny of every operational area for potential cost savings – some which involve stripping out costs and others that focus on investment to realise efficiencies and fundamentally improve performance. Focus on the bottom line is unwavering, so return on any investment must be quickly evident and notably pronounced. The impact of successful troubleshooting using condition monitoring tools and technology can equate to millions of dollars in savings, negate the considerable danger posed by engine failure, while also helping to meet environmental responsibilities.

So, happily, we can look at the effects of efficiency through jade-tinted glasses. Those most adept at generating more from less, prolonging the life of assets and eliminating waste are the ones who will not only become leaner, stronger and more profitable, but will also improve their environmental standing within the shipping community.

Ultimately it’s all about perspective. Is being green a by-product of saving money through efficiency? Or is it the other way around? Arguably, it doesn’t really matter where the emphasis is placed, the outcomes are favourable whichever way you look at it.

Martin Lucas, Managing Director, Kittiwake Developments

Seatrade Asia, November 2011

Global sales conference takes place at Kittiwake

Posted on by
Reply

On the 31st October Kittiwake sales representatives from across the globe arrived at the Kittiwake head office for a week of presentations, discussions and workshops. The conference was overseen by Dr Steve Dye, Business Development Manger at Kittiwake, and was attended by the sales teams from the UK, America, Malaysia, India, & Germany. Delegates from Kittiwake’s recently acquired group companies, Kittiwake Procal & Kittiwake Holroyd were also present and shared their knowledge into the fields of Gas Emissions monitoring & Acoustic Vibration analysis. The agenda covered the current product range including hands-on training, Kittiwake’s target markets, R&D projects as well as future directions.

Seeing disruptive technology as an opportunity – not a threat

Posted on by
Reply

Why acoustic emission technology represents the next generation of vibration

History, experience and familiarity count for a lot where condition monitoring is concerned. But that doesn’t negate the need for change, innovation and the advancement of tried, tested and trusted techniques. The late Steve Jobs commented: “Innovation is the ability to see change as an opportunity – not a threat”. Condition Monitoring (CM) is transforming rapidly and so too must the mindset of CM practitioners and users. It’s not good enough to simply disregard a disruptive technology in an effort to protect the “old guard”. When combating downtime, there’s no place or historical sentiment.

Steadily disrupting traditional vibration techniques is acoustic emission (AE). AE technology spawned from the aviation industry where vibration analysis simply couldn’t be easily applied, short of a suicidal maintenance technician hanging off the wings. AE technique is based on frequencies much higher than are monitored in the repetitive synchronous movement of vibration. These frequencies are the result of shock, impact, friction and cracking for example. By this means it is possible to detect impending failure before damage occurs, as well as monitoring its progress thereafter.

With well-defined ISO standards, traditional vibration techniques including vibration monitoring and vibration analysis have provided a trusted approach to condition monitoring for the past thirty years. Yet, it remains a complex science and requires sophisticated knowledge and understanding from a seasoned expert. In contrast, AE technology extends and simplifies the science, placing the power of vibration techniques directly into the hands of every engineer. Signals can be processed at the AE sensor in to an easily understandable form.

Let’s be clear, vibration analysis (VA) as a technique will have a place for many years to come for many end users, however there is no escaping from the fact that there is often a requirement for a costly and unsustainable level of knowledge required to affect a good diagnosis. There is no doubt that VA is valuable, but it is too often overly complicated.

Pull out

  • With AE – signal processing is undertaken automatically at the sensor level.
  • With VA – the signal is processed downstream manually or semi-automatically.
In fact the areas in which vibration and AE both apply can be illustrated as overlapping circles. However, AE provides an earlier warning detecting wear and small defects, whereas with vibration, damage must have occurred to detect a signal. AE will pick up a lack of lubrication, friction, and cracking, which vibration will not. Although it must be acknowledged that the totality of information obtained from AE will be more limited than that derived from vibration.
The signal processing required by AE is, in itself, not something that can be performed by just anyone; it’s a high frequency signal so the user must have the knowledge to interpret the squiggly lines on a stethoscope. But recent developments have enabled this processing at the sensor level. The sensor output can now provide pre-characterised numbers that tell you about the condition of the machine. AE technology has been effectively deskilled, enabling much wider application use.
Suitable for continuously running machinery as well as machinery operating intermittently, slowly or for short durations, AE allows the user to diagnose problems with machinery at an early stage, carry out maintenance procedures and then monitor the improvement. It provides real time information with early sensitivity to faults and applicability to a wide range of rotational speeds.
As awareness of the unique capabilities of AE increases, so too does the number of applications that it is suited to – many of which have proven difficult for other forms of condition monitoring to address.
So why are many CM practitioners being so resistant to the benefits that AE brings to the table? We know that many senior people have invested a lifetime in vibration and are, perhaps, understandably wary of losing power and status. After all, if you ‘dumb down’ vibration, surely this reduces the perceived value that they bring to the organisation?
Actually it doesn’t. Just because they are mature with a proven track record, this in no way invalidates traditional vibration techniques. It simply extends the impact way beyond what we’ve been able to achieve to date.
Whilst for some, the criticality of certain applications coupled with the scale of some companies might just justify the cost of vibration techniques, others could still benefit from the efficiencies realised by similar CM techniques.
Ultimately, maintenance personnel are responsible for keeping machinery running. If they are empowered to monitor condition themselves, identify where action is needed and then check that the action taken has solved the problem, then AE has significant advantages of cost, speed, flexibility and ease of field application in comparison to traditional vibration analysis techniques. It is the efficient and effective approach to CM.
We must start to take a broader, longer-term view, nurturing the technology of a new era. Surely it makes sense to embrace CM techniques that provide for the greatest protection or longest period of warning for potential damage and eventual failure. By ‘deskilling’ technology and with confidence, ultimately enabling them to positively and significantly impact a company’s bottom line. Of course there is room for sentiment in business, but not at the expense of progress.
Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake
Plant Engineering, November 2011

Transocean place order for Kittiwake ThrusterSCAN

Posted on by
Reply

ThrusterSCAN marks a new era in online condition monitoring for azimuthing thrusters, helping to predict failure, enabling preventative maintenance and ultimately reducing costly downtime.

Kittiwake’s ThrusterSCAN will be installed on Transocean’s eight-thruster Development Driller III rig. ThrusterSCAN delivers early warning of thruster component damage, lubricant degradation and seal leaks / failures; providing critical information to help optimise thruster operating parameters and effectively manage overhaul schedules. Real time feedback ensures that any changes are highlighted as they start to occur, rather than at scheduled inspections when it may be too late to heed the warning and implement preventative measures.

Peter Pilon, CEO, Kittiwake Americas, commented: “We are delighted by today’s announcement, which is a culmination of Kittiwake’s development of online solutions for monitoring lube oil over the past decade. We have been fine-tunng our offshore application-specific ThrusterSCAN product for the last two years with detailed technical input and support from Transocean. Developed and tailored for particular requirements of the oil and gas industry, ThrusterSCAN provides essential condition monitoring information that enables rig operators to make confident decisions that optimize operations.”

Martin Lucas, Managing Director, Kittiwake Group commented: “The appointment of Peter Pilon as Kittiwake Americas CEO last year and the opening of an office in Houston has provided a spring board to growth within the oil and gas market. This relationship with Transocean is testimony to the value delivered by our asset protection technology. Kittiwake continues to research and develop market-leading products that anable maintenance engineers to make fast and informed decisions in an industry where there is an increasing onus on operational efficiency and performance. To further demonstrate our ongoing commitment to the US’ marine and offshore market, we are seconding our sensor specialist, Mike Dines, to Houston.”

Click here to read more about the ThrusterSCAN system.

ThrusterSCAN Monitoring System

Kittiwake representatives travel to China for Asia Pacific Dealer Conference

Posted on by
Reply

On the 20th and 21st September, representatives from Kittiwake’s network of dealers came together for the 4th Asia Pacific Dealer Conference. This year’s event was hosted at the Parkview Hotel in Shanghai, China. The conference was hosted by Martin Lucas, Kittiwake’s Managing Director, with the support of Steve Dye, Business Development Manager and Zainudin Yahya, Managing Director of Kittiwake Asia Pacific.

Asia Pacific is a significant market for Kittiwake, with reported growth of 8% and 7.8% for 2011 and 2012 respectively. This is reflected by Kittiwake’s sales in Asia Pacific over the past 5 years showing a double digit growth. With the Marine industry as Kittiwake’s largest market, the presence of shipping hubs in Singapore and Hong Kong are of particular relevance.

The two day conference was well attended and focussed on Kittiwake’s worldwide activities with an in-depth look at the Asia Pacific region. The current product range and Kittiwake’s recent corporate activities were reviewed, with a glimpse of new technologies that will enhance Kittiwake’s range of offerings. The conference wasn’t limited to work, with delegates enjoying a scenic cruise along the HungPu river, taking in the sights of Bund Street and the Shanghai Telecom Tower.

Managing Fuel Quality Variations to Protect Marine Engines

Posted on by
Reply

Prevention is better (and more cost-effective) than cure

Heavy fuel oil has been the mainstay of the shipping industry’s fuel needs for several decades, but the composition of bunker fuel is going through some significant changes; leading to variations in fuel quality and new risks to the health of marine engines. With fuel quality affecting performance and maintenance costs, the benefits of troubleshooting using onboard and online tools and technology are increasingly pronounced.

Residual fuel has been used in slow speed diesel engines for years. However, as refining and bunkering technologies have improved, so residual fuel increasingly contains higher levels of unwanted components such as sulphur, aluminium and silicon (catalyst fines) and waste plastics – all factors that can dramatically affect engine condition.

Stricter emissions regulations have also driven changes in fuel composition. The revised International Maritime Organisation (IMO) MARPOL Annex VI reduced the maximum sulphur level in Environmental Control Areas to just 1% from 1st July 2010. To meet the increased demand for low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO), suppliers have used higher volumes of cutter stock; additives, including distillate fuels, that are blended with residual fuels to achieve compliance with sulphur limits. However, little attention has been paid to the quality of cutter stocks, which has led to growing concerns over fuel quality.

One of the most significant consequences of the increased demand for LSFO during 2010 has been higher levels of aluminium and silicon (catalyst fines) contamination. Fuel quality data from DNV Petroleum Services (DNVPS) has revealed that the catalyst fine content of fuel oil with 1% or less sulphur content rose by almost 10% – 3mg/kg to 34mg/kg – between H1 and Q3 2010. DNVPS attributes this to increased use of cutter stocks.

The consequences can be severe. Elevated levels of these highly abrasive catalyst fines can lead to accelerated wear of engine components. BMT Marine & Offshore Surveys has reported at least 30 instances of engine damage caused by fuel problems related to catalyst fines since 2001. Each required a complete renewal of pistons, liners and injectors, costing between $1 million and $3m each.

The June 2010 revisions to the ISO8217 specification for marine fuel reduced the aluminium and silicon limit from 80mg/kg to 60mg/kg. However, this is non-mandatory and a slow take-up of the new specification has been reported. The likely outcome is a greater risk of off-spec fuels.

The global economic downturn has also put pressure on the cost base of the industry, with implications for fuel quality. The reduced quality of ships personnel, notably chief engineers, and operational cost cutting has undermined robust condition monitoring practices. Gerry Williams, principal surveyor at BMT Marine & Offshore Surveys Ltd has observed that “bad fuel” often had more to do with poor handling than sub-standard fuel.

So, non-mandatory fuel standards, cost pressures and the increased use of cutter stocks have led to concerns about fuel quality. Moreover, vessels take on board bunkers and continue their voyage long before fuel sample testing takes place. This places the risks squarely on the shoulders of the operator. Indeed, it is little wonder that independent tanker owner association INTERTANKO recently called for mandatory pre-testing of bunkers before delivery to ensure they are fit for use.

Whilst the testing of bunker samples is increasingly important, in order to maximise effectiveness, this should be supported by engine wear monitoring; critical to identifying problems at a very early stage.

There is a clear benefit in knowing what is going on at an exact point in time – not just when the engineer can get to a machine for a scheduled analysis. The liner is one of the most crucial and costly components of a ship’s engine. Monitoring wear extends its life and protects against considerable financial pain, as the average insurance claim for an unexpected liner loss is over $250,000. By monitoring the scrapedown oil for ferrous wear, online diagnostic equipment can continuously provide complete sets of trend data showing levels of wear in all critical equipment and machinery, enabling immediate action. This allows corrective measures, including checking the fuel cleaning system, preventative maintenance during passage to the next port, or even a route change, and insures against costly downtime.

Monitoring liner wear also helps optimise lubricant feed rate. An average container ship can spend $10 million on cylinder lubrication in its life. Dependent upon trade, load, running hours and other factors, constant real-time monitoring is a vital tool in optimising cylinder lube oil feed rate in order to improve efficiency, decreasing lubricant costs and avoiding issues associated with over and under-lubrication.

As fuel quality varies and engine health risks rise, so the benefits of troubleshooting using online tools and technology can equate to millions of dollars in savings. Sending samples off for laboratory analysis is an effective means of condition monitoring if you have time, but is, for most owners and operators, too late to implement preventative measures. Spotting problems at an early stage can make the difference between damage control and a financial, operational and reputational catastrophe.

Martin Lucas, Managing Director, Kittiwake Developments

Seatrade Asia, September 2011

Effect of the global rise in cat fines on marine engines

Posted on by
Reply

Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake explores how environmental, as well as commercial demands are placing growing pressure on the efficiency and reliability of marine engines.

At the Bunker Asia 2011 forum earlier this month, the General Manager of DNVPS’ global consultancy division, Torbjorn Lie warned of a ‘global rise in cat fines’ when the North American emission control area (ECA) takes effect
 from 1 August 2012. Fuel testing agencies have been correlating the declining sulphur levels and increasing levels of Aluminium + Silicon (cat fines) for some time now. They forewarned that these problems would become progressively more pronounced as emissions regulations tighten, and it seems their predictions are being affirmed.

Changing fuel characteristics are an environmental bi-product and one that is directly impacting wear levels of critical machinery. Fuel quality issues can cause incomplete burning, which leads to increased deposition of carbonaceous materials in exhaust spaces, economisers and turbochargers, and the clogging of engine parts such as piston rings. Just one illustration of the problems being caused comes from BMT Marine & Offshore Surveys Ltd. who last year reported that, since 2001, it has dealt with at least 30 instances of engine damage caused by fuel problems related to cat fines. Perhaps not an enormous number, but significant numbers indeed when you consider that each one required a complete renewal of pistons, liners and injectors, at a cost of USD$1 million to USD$3 million each.

DNVPS had previously revealed that the cat fine content of fuel oil with 1% or less sulphur content rose by almost 10% – 3mg/kg to 34mg/kg – between H1 and Q3 2010. However Lie suggested this month that average cat fine content in fuels supplied in Singapore could reach 50 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) after the start of the North American ECA around the coasts of USA and Canada from next year.

However reducing sulphur levels are not the only environmental initiative impacting engine wear. With rising bunker prices, slow steaming looks set to stay and with it the associated challenges for marine engineers. Most container vessels have cut cruising speeds from 22-25 knots to 18-20 and some as low as 8-12 knots, significantly increasing stresses and strains on marine engines.

The cylinder oil feed rate requires close attention during slow steaming, as both under- and over-lubrication can lead to rapid degradation of the cylinder liners. The ship’s crew is responsible for adjusting settings in line with the sulphur content of the fuel, as specified by the engine manufacturer. But without continuously monitoring the wear levels of the liners, it is extremely difficult to be absolutely sure that you’re lubricating at the optimum level. And with an average container ship spending in the region of US$10 million on cylinder lubrication during its lifetime, operating at the optimum level could realise significant cost savings.

In these times of austerity, improving vessel efficiency is a priority and a plethora of sophisticated condition monitoring tools are available to assist with this task. For example sensors attached to the cylinder liners can detect the very early onset of severe erosion, monitor scuffing, improve maintenance scheduling, safeguard against down time, optimise lubricant feed rate, decrease sampling and testing costs, minimise liner wear and detect the ingress of cat fines.

Despite the multiple and demonstrable benefits, there is still a reluctance to embrace some of the more state-of-the-art technology. Germanischer Lloyd CEO, Erik van der Norrdaa was quoted, earlier this year, as saying: “The shipping industry is immature and it is difficult to convince shipowners to use available analytical and other software tools to improve vessel performance.”

This is one perspective, but with maintenance costs totaling 25%-30% of total ship management costs (excluding fuel), in reality, many ship owners would be absolutely delighted to make use of the technology. However in tough times, the likelihood is that conservative adoption is less about immaturity and more to do with up front capital expenditure. There simply isn’t the cash available to make lump sum investments, however much one might like to.

Kittiwake is just one company working with customers to develop more affordable ways to access products and services. For example our LinerSCAN product – online sensors that safeguard engine liners – can now be purchased for a markedly lower price, with the option to pay a lower up front cost and spread the remaining amount over a three-year period for multiple vessel purchases.

Now more than ever, ship owners have the opportunity to maintain a clear competitive advantage through reliable, consistent operations. But it’s up to the whole industry to work together to navigate the challenges and barriers created by the economic and environmental climate in which we find ourselves.

Seatrade Asia, September 2011