World Bunkering > News > Winter 2009 > Get In-Line

When I offered to chair IBIA’s In-line Blending Committee, I envisaged that the issues within its remit would be relatively few and not particularly complex. I should have known better.

Broad objectives

Trevor Harrison

IBIA’s Board has long since recognised that there are a number of areas in respect of which the organisation should be encouraging innovation and the pursuit of best practice. One such area is in-line blending, a topic that brings together complex technical issues, important commercial concerns and an increasing level of regulatory interest. Although the In-line Blending Committee starts its deliberations with a collectively open mind, it is fair to predict that it will be seeking to promote the use and development of in-line blending as a safe and efficient way of delivering bunker fuels of the best available quality in a cost-effective manner. Given the increasingly varied demands of operators for fuels of differing specifications, it is unlikely that the committee will conclude that there is no future role for in-line blending in the supply of marine fuels.

Composition of the committee

The first issue I decided to face was the composition of the committee. Obviously it was important to have good technical expertise available and, naturally, there needed to be proper representation of all those interested in the process. Interest groups were clearly going to include suppliers, buyers, users, barge operators, technical consultants and equipment suppliers, but there could be others. Without excluding anyone who particularly wished to be a member, I decided that the committee would function most effectively if it was relatively small. However, I anticipated that the committee would wish to invite contributions from IBIA’s wider membership and would probably also wish to approach external parties for information, advice and assistance, for example regulatory bodies and specialist agencies.

My reasoning for deciding to populate the committee before setting its terms of reference in detail was based primarily on my expectation that the members would have better ideas than me about what should be included and, indeed, what should be excluded. There was also an important secondary factor, that the deliberations of the committee would, to some extent, be dictated by the skills, expertise and interests of its members. Closely associated with this is the recognition that the individual members of the committee, all of whom provide their time on an entirely voluntary basis, are likely to be most productive when they are dealing with matters that interest them and with which they are already engaged in their regular work.

Membership

At present there are seven appointed members of the committee, plus IBIA’s Chairman, Chris Fisher, who is a member ex officio, and IBIA’s Chief Executive, Ian Adams, who has attendance and participation rights but does not vote. In alphabetical order by individual, the members are:

• Capt. Rahul Choudhuri of DNVPS in Singapore, the well known fuel testing service;
• Tommy Christensen of CBI Engineering in Denmark, a supplier of oil industry equipment, including bunker fuel blenders;
• Trevor Harrison, maritime arbitrator, mediator and legal consultant, committee chairman, IBIA board member;
• Bob Lintott of ISObunkers, a bunker trader on the US east coast; IBIA board member;
• Jon Moreau of Jiskoot Quality Systems in England, a supplier of sampling, blending and other solutions for the oil and gas industry, including bunker fuel blenders (alternate: Mark Jiskoot);
• Douglas Raitt of Lloyds Register FOBAS in Singapore, the wellknown fuel testing service;
• Jon Watson of Rezaghi Meyer International in England, a supplier of online process analyser systems for the marine and oil industries;

The range of interests represented is fairly wide but there is clearly a strong technical and service bias to the membership. The committee is aware of this and any imbalances in areas of expertise are expected to be moderated by external contributions from otherwise under-represented interest groups.

Terms of reference

The committee’s first task as a body is to prepare draft terms of reference for approval by IBIA’s Board. This is not as simple as it might initially seem but by focusing on two areas, scope and objectives, we hope to identify core issues and where action is likely to be broadly of benefit to members.

Scope

Self-evidently the In-line Blending Committee will be considering in-line blending, but further thought is needed as to how far that remit should extend, particularly up the supply chain. One committee member has already expressed the view that all forms of blending should be within the committee’s remit, at every stage from refinery to engine inlet manifold. The argument runs that all marine fuels are blends and the ability to blend successfully in-line depends upon the quality of the blend components, therefore the blending of the components used in in-line blending should itself be subject to consideration.

The committee has yet to take a view on this but I am wary of embarking upon an over-ambitious task and I think it likely that we will initially limit ourselves to any form of blending that involves mixing two or more streams of fuel together to form a single stream of blended fuel for imminent delivery to a ship for use in that ship’s engines. Closely related to blending are the sensitive and challenging issues of measuring and sampling. These will certainly be covered by the committee as they are integral to blending, but it will be a matter for further discussion how far the committee travels into these areas.

The committee’s task could be kept fairly simple by limiting its scope to purely technical matters but it would be unrealistic to ignore commercial and regulatory issues, which anyway tend to impact upon technical issues sooner or later. For example, at the 59th session of the IMO MEPC last July, there was strong support for a proposal that would have prohibited any onboard in-tank blending while ships are ‘at sea’. The declared objective of those proposing the ban was the elimination of a serious risk to human and environmental health and safety. Although not aimed at the bunker industry, such a ban would have had a potentially devastating effect on the routine, legitimate operations of many bunker suppliers.

Fortunately, a timely intervention by IBIA helped swing the MEPC narrowly in favour of an alternative wording that included the words “during the sea voyage”, rather than “at sea”. This means that, although blending whilst under way will be outlawed, the long-established practice of blending whilst moored or alongside a stationary receiving vessel will be allowed to continue. This is a good example of how IBIA can be effective in the regulatory arena, but the success of the intervention on this occasion was due more to the keen eyes and ears of the delegates at IMO than to a carefully pre-planned strategy. One of the key roles of IBIA committees will be to consider such issues in advance and allow time for a considered response to be prepared and lobbying to be undertaken.

Specific objectives of the Blending Committee

A number of detailed objectives for the committee are proposed:

• To raise general levels of awareness about in-line blending of marine fuels;
• To explain in appropriate degrees of technical detail to interested parties, the various in-line blending processes available;
• To represent the views and interests of members as suppliers and users of bunker fuels, and as suppliers of equipment and services;
• To identify and explore both positive and negative aspects of in-line blending, both generally and with regard to specific techniques and equipment;
• To consider whether standards can and should be set and, if so, what the parameters should be and who should set and apply them.

This is very much an initial list and further suggestions and contributions are welcome from members about any and all aspects of in-line blending, whether technical, commercial or regulatory.