World Bunkering > News > Summer 2010 > The sulphur limbo

As EU regulations over the use of 0.1% sulphur MGO in port come into effect, engineers face yet another challenge to the smooth and efficient operation of their vessels. But the situation is far from clear, even as regards the enforcement of the legislation, let alone the requirements for practical compliance. And it may become even more complicated as new emission control areas are introduced, such as the sulphur control area already being enforced off the Californian coast.

What regulations where?

Although EU Directive 2005/33/EC came into force on 1 January 2010, for example, it has only been enforced in the UK as of 1 April this year. IBIA Chief Executive Ian Adams says: “It is essential that ships operating in UK waters are in full compliance with the new regulations. As already emphasised, ships are not exempt on the ground that the fuel changeover is unsafe because modifications have not been made to their boilers, or to the ship itself. All non-compliant ships are at risk.

“The new regulations, which make no reference to the new lower sulphur limit for ECAs of 1% which comes into effect on 1 July 2010, are a good illustration of how domestic implementation of legislation often lags behind the decisions of international organisations.” In Trieste, ships which do not comply with the regulations are facing fines of up to E30,000.

ABS warns that further emission control areas and local and regional regulations can be expected in the near future. The US and Canada, for instance, have applied to the IMO for the designation of a 200-mile ECA around the East and West Coasts of the North American continent as well as Hawaii, and if adopted, the ECA may be effective in 2012.

“Environmental protection is rapidly becoming the most important operating issue facing the shipping industry today,” says Kirsi Tikka, ABS Vice President of Global Technology and Business Development who leads the organisation’s environmental programs. “The issue of emissions is front and centre in the various moves to impose restrictions on the manner in which shipowners have traditionally operated their vessels. There is no doubt that there will be a lot of changes still to come and a lot of accepted practices will have to be modified, together with the equipment.”

The technical side

The need for new or modified equipment is a particular concern because, for most vessels, the new 0.1% sulphur limits will probably require burning marine gas oil in most instances. According to ABS that most ship machinery plants have not been designed to operate using marine gas oil (MGO) and, if not properly planned, there are potential difficulties that can arise during the fuel switching process and during sustained operation. These difficulties stem from the need to carefully control the temperature at which the lighter fuel is handled and take account of the reduced lubricity of the low-sulphur and low-viscosity fuels on the fuel pumps.

According to a presentation from BMT Marine & Offshore Surveys: “The complex changeovers will inevitably increase to opportunity for errors, which in turn may lead to costly claims.” In order to comply with the legislation, a ship’s officer will have to demonstrate in his record-keeping that he has changed fuel in sufficient time before crossing into a control area. The changeover can be done in approximately one hour, but if it is done too quickly “there is a danger you can gas up the engine”. A rapid change of temperature can also cause thermal shock or seizure of the fuel pumps. Chief surveyor Gerry Williams says that there is “little experience” of the likely effects of using 0.1% sulphur fuel.

Explaining the issues

Both ABS and Lloyd’s Register have produced detailed information for shipowners operating in sulphur restricted ports. ABS’ 36-page Fuel Switching Advisory Notice provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved, along with operational guidance provided to owners to properly carry out the changeover from heavy to marine gas oils for both the main engine and the auxiliary boilers.

Lloyd’s Register’s Technical Directorate has now released specialist class related guidance to assist operators in understanding what is required from a classification perspective in its Guidance Notes for the Design Appraisal of Main and Auxiliary Boilers Operating on Low Sulphur Distillate Oil (November 2009). This supplements its Frequently Asked Questions on the ‘At Berth’ Requirements issued earlier in December by FOBAS.

Is equipment the answer?

Equipment suppliers are also responding to the need for new technology to deal with complex switchovers. Because of the lower viscosity of marine gas oil, the lubrication requirements of the engine manufacturer may not be met. In most diesel engines, the viscosity of the fuel needs to be at least 2.0 cSt. At normal temperature, the viscosity of MGO varies between 1-2 cSt, which means that sufficient engine lubrication can no longer be guaranteed, although viscosity can be improved with additives, but it is relatively costly.

Finland-based AuraMarine, which makes fuel management system, has developed an MGO handling system that it claims makes it easier to use MGO in an engine designed for HFO without causing damage or losing efficiency. “The changeover to using marine gas oil requires expertise in fuel systems, so that well-intentioned changes do not place the durability of the engines or maritime safety at jeopardy. “Engines are different and vary in their capacity to use the low-sulphur marine gas oil. In principle, MGO is suitable for any engine, provided that the modifications are made correctly,” the company said.

“The idea is to maintain viscosity and sufficient flow of fuel when switching over,” says technical director Jyrki Hentula. “The temperature must be lowered slowly and gently, possibly from as much as 150°C to as little as 20°. This is done by a system consisting of a cooling unit, a water circulation pump unit and a chilling unit. This adjusts the temperature – and therefore the viscosity – of the MGO to the preferred level.” Costwise, he says, the solution is a fraction of the cost of a scrubber – “although the scrubber of course is much cheaper operationally”. The solution would cost from $20,000 upwards, said Hentula, with the most complex solutions costing up to $100,000.

Auramarine began to promote the solution at the end of December 2009. By the beginning of March, it had made 10 sales, although installation has yet to take place. Of these 10 orders, half were for installation on new buildings and half were to be retrofitted on existing vessels.