Singapore bunker samples ‘treading dangerously’ near sulphur limit prior to IMO 2020
- Published
by Admin
Singapore bunker samples recently processed by international laboratory testing services firm Eurofins have been found to be “treading dangerously” close to the sulphur limit of 0.50% prior to IMO 2020, says the Bunker Business Unit Manager of Eurofins Singapore.
“The bunkering industry and their clients may want to note that we [Eurofins] have been encountering an increasing number of off spec cases related to the sulphur content of IMO 2020 compliant marine fuel,” Bryan Quek told Manifold Times on Monday.
“We have found a lot of suppliers trying to blend cargoes into marine fuel close to 0.50% sulphur content at 0.48% or 0.49%, in some cases with the figure exactly at 0.50%, which we believe is a dangerous practice.
“If shipowners have no intention to get their bunkers fully tested, we recommend the least is to check for the exact sulphur content of fuel purchased prior to consumption to guarantee the sulphur limit is not off-spec.”
Quek, meanwhile, shares stakeholders are able to determine if the bunker stem is a ‘new generation’ or ‘traditional’ bunker blend by simply referring to a general rule of thumb used by members of the fuels testing industry – that is to simply analyse the sample’s Total Acid Number (TAN).
“Bunkers in the older days usually have a TAN of either 0.1 or 0.2 but with the new types of fuels these days we are picking up a range of between 1.0 to 1.5 which is quite an obvious difference,” he says.
“Even if not off-spec [the limit is at 2.5] the increased TAN should serve as an indicator to owners and stakeholders that this fuel sample is made from a blend which includes highly acidic components and needs to be further tested.
“Acidic fuel samples [between 1.0 to 1.5] are a logical giveaway that the product has been blended with paraffinic cutter stocks [usually high in acid number] that results in more instability for the fuel.”
Other laboratories will usually recommend Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) tests when discovering fuels with high TANs; however, Quek believes otherwise.
“There is currently no standard method for GCMS tests so every lab has developed their own in-house method for GCMS testing in order to meet clients’ needs,” he notes.
“However, this gives different parameters when comparing results from lab ‘A’ to ‘B’ and adds complications when dealing with disputes as no co-relationship can be concluded with different methods.
“As such, we always follow the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method standards [ASTM D 7845] for further testing and we think this should be adopted by all fuel testing labs. Unsurprisingly, this is also the method that is recommended in the PAS 23263 document most recently published by ISO.”
Moving forward, Quek highlights that Eurofins Singapore have also discovered hydrowax being used for blending into a 0.3% sulphur fuel that is being consumed by power stations for energy in recent sample tests.
“The final product of this fuel blend, even though low in sulphur, consists of between 30% to 35% hydrowax,” he warns.
“This is the kind of substances which the shipping industry should be aware of as they cause possible engine issues when blended into bunkers. Bunker suppliers on the lookout for components are advised to stay clear of such products for blending.”
Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 24 December, 2019
