Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
published by Gard AS
Bunkering
2
Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4
Hull and machinery incident - Consequences of using off-specification bunkers.............. 5
The importance of an efficient fuel oil treatment system..................................................... 6
U.S. Guidelines on MARPOL Annex VI .................................................................................. 8
Marpol Annex VI - New risks and challenges for owners and charterers............................. 9
Marpol Annex VI - Solving the low sulphur issue................................................................. 12
Warning - Fuel oil quality might be at stake........................................................................ 15
Off-spec bunkers – Some practical cases............................................................................. 16
Marpol Annex VI – Challenges in operating on low sulphur fuel....................................... 18
Global lube oil and additive supply shortage...................................................................... 18
Important changes to the new edition of the ISO 8217 Fuel Standard............................. 19
Controlling bunker costs........................................................................................................ 20
Liquid gold - Fuel oil and lubricating oil.............................................................................. 26
Bunker Quality........................................................................................................................ 28
Some technical aspects of marine fuels testing................................................................... 29
Effects of off-spec bunkers.................................................................................................... 32
Main Engine Damage Due to Ignition Delay....................................................................... 34
The interplay of fuel and lubricating oil quality on the reliability of diesel engines......... 35
Bunker spills............................................................................................................................ 37
Charterer’s Liabilities and Bunkers........................................................................................ 40
Stone cold bonkers – FD&D bunker disputes...................................................................... 42
Air pollution - EU Parliament adopts marine fuel directive in second reading................. 44
P&I incident – How not to do it – Bunker operations.......................................................... 44
New BIMCO bunker fuel sulphur content clause ............................................................... 45
SECA – North Sea and English Channel............................................................................... 46
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is compiled from material previously published by Gard AS and is provided for
general information purposes only. Whilst we have taken every care to ensure the accuracy and quality of the information
provided at the time of original publication, Gard AS can accept no responsibility in respect of any loss or damage of any
kind whatsoever which may arise from reliance on information contained in this publication regardless of whether such
information originates from Gard AS, its shareholders, correspondents or other contributors.
Introduction
This booklet contains a collection of 3. If the supplier takes other samples 9. Expert advice should be considered
loss prevention materials relating to at the time of the delivery, try to and a reliable fuel testing services
bunkers and bunkering, which has been establish how and when they were such as DNV Petroleum Services
published by Gard over the years. taken. Issue a protest if you are not (DNVPS) or Lloyds Register (FOBAS)
invited to witness the sampling. should be used to obtain advice on
Problems occurring onboard the how to proceed in order to solve
vessels and which arise from bunker 4. Use a fast, reliable testing service to the particular problem and to avoid
related issues are diverse, and may analyse the samples. damage and mitigate any losses.
involve disputes varying from engine/
equipment problems and vessel delay 5. Segregate new fuel from that 10. Contact the engine manufacturer as
to off loading/re-bunkering. Main already held onboard. well as the fuel supplier for advice.
and auxiliary engine related claims Further action will depend on which
constitute approximately 31 per cent of 6. Avoid using new fuel until the parameter is off-specification and/or
Gard’s total hull and machinery claims. analysis results have been what the particular problem is. The
This figure should also be compared considered and it has been degree of quality deviation from the
with statistics from the industry established that the fuel is suitable. specification must be considered.
indicating that 80 percent of all engine
breakdowns are related to problems 7. Maintain accurate daily records of 11. The charterer should be notified,
with either the fuel or the lubricating oil. the contents of and consumption if the charterer purchased the fuel,
from each fuel tank and other interested parties.
As with most claims, bunker related
claims can be avoided. The following If off-spec bunkers have been 12. The parties should inform their
points may serve as a reminder and delivered and are found to be insurers.
assist in ensuring a claim free voyage. unsuitable for use the bunkers
should be off-loaded and replaced
1. Be selective when choosing a by new on-spec bunkers. If inferior
supplier. Order fuel to desired ISO bunkers have to be used or have
grade and describe the required already been used the following
grade in the charterparty as well as should be done:
in the requisition to supplier.
8. The vessel should immediately
2. Take samples at the time of delivery notify the shipowner if it is
and obtain confirmation from the experiencing problems with
suppliers that the samples are off-spec fuel. If the shipowner
representative. Ensure that the purchased the fuel directly from
samples taken are properly labelled. the supplier, he should notify the
bunker supplier and forward a copy
of the test results.
Problems Several fuel samples were taken during View of damaged cylinder liner with
Soon after leaving port, the engineers the vessel’s stay in port and sent ashore piston fitted.
started using the new bunkers. for testing, which revealed that the
Shortly thereafter, they experienced fuel was off- specification. The whole
abnormal sludge generation in the operation became very costly, time-
purifier, which resulted in excessive consuming and caused delays to all
water-sludge content in the settling involved.
and service tanks. A large amount of
water and sludge was drained from Lesson learned
these tanks. The amount of water and It is strongly recommended that:
sludge also resulted in problems with - the crew ensure there is sufficient
the performance of the main engine, quantity of tested reserve HFO on
in the form of fluctuations in exhaust board for consumption to cover the
temperatures, as well as a rise in the time delay involved in sending newly-
scavenge temperatures of the various bunkered representative samples for
units. The main engine fuel pumps testing and receiving the laboratory test
and fuel injection valves also sustained results.
some damage. - the crew take sufficient representative
samples of bunkers received and send
In order to prevent any power failure, them ashore for testing.
the fuel consumption of the auxiliary - laboratory test results for newly
engines was switched to diesel oil. received bunkers are known before
The engine crew switched the fuel consuming the bunkers.
consumption to another double bottom Piston complete.
tank, containing the newly bunkered
HFO, but with the same result.
Consequently, the engine crew had to
consume the recently bunkered HFO
for the propulsion machinery as nothing
else was available and as a result the
vessel had to reduce speed and slow
steam to the next port, which was
12 days away. It took several days to
The importance of
Gard News 195,
August/October 2009
The fuel in use is indicated as being the fuel bunkered in: ROTTERDAM on 26th April 2009.
The sample taken at the transfer pump indicates low levels of sludge and water and somewhat high levels of impurities.
Compared with the bunkering sample some settling of impurities appears to have taken place in bunker tank(s).
Water and sediments remain at low levels throughout the fuel system.
NB. Please ensure that fuel treatment is operated at optimum condition with centrifuges in parallel using the lowest
possible throughput while keeping the fuel temp. near to 98°C.
NB. As always when ‘Cat-fines’ and water are detected – Frequent bottom draining of all tanks and filters in use is
advisable.
U.S. Guidelines on
Loss Prevention Circular
No. 5-09
MARPOL Annex VI
The requirements of MARPOL Annex Prevention Certificate (EIAPP) will • Master or crew is not familiar with
VI, relating to air pollution from ships, be needed. The USCG Guidelines, essential procedures regarding
entered into force on 8 January 2009 at pages 1-4, discuss in detail the the operation of air pollution
in the USA as part of the Maritime applications of the regulations on this prevention equipment.
Pollution Protection Act of 2008. certificate issue.
This enactment follows the greater Recommendation
emphasis being placed in the U.S. on These Annex VI instructions and criteria Vessel owners/operators and vessel
vessel air emissions. As of this date, of the USCG can be personnel are advised to consult
foreign flagged ships operating in U.S. found at: the USCG Guidelines to ensure
waters and U.S. flagged ships must regulatory equipment and operational
be able to demonstrate compliance http://www.gard.no/gard/Publications/ compliance and that the appropriate
with MARPOL Annex VI. Compliance USCG_Guidelines.pdf documentation covering these items is
verification should primarily focus in order. By consulting the Guidelines
on (1) documentation, (2) equipment The following list of MARPOL Annex VI owners and operators will also become
certification/approval and (3) cursory detainable deficiencies is, by no means, familiar with the types of items subject
materiel tests/examination. a complete listing, however, it provides to such USCG inspections and will
an excellent definition of “substandard” ensure that the vessel successfully
The U.S. Coast Guard issued for the purposes of Annex VI: passes this type of official surveys and
Guidelines for Ensuring Compliance • Absence of a valid IAPP Certificate, inspections.
with Annex VI… on 4 February 2009. EIAPP certificate, or Technical Files;
These guidelines set forth the types
of criteria that USCG inspectors may • A diesel engine for which an EIAPP
use when conducting inspections on Certificate is required, which does
ships in relation to air emissions. These not meet the NOx Technical Code;
inspections can occur either within
the context of a Port State Control • The sulphur content of the
inspection, or as a ‘stand alone’ onboard bunkers exceeds
examination. 4.5% m/m;
Gard News has a look at some of the Annex VI sets limits on sulphur oxide certificate (IAPP Certificate) issued by
challenges of compliance and potential (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) the flag state (usually the class society
consequences of non-compliance with emissions from ship exhaust and as designated agent by flag state or
MARPOL Annex VI. prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone for ships that are not registered in a
depleting substances. The Annex MARPOL Annex VI signatory state).
What is MARPOL Annex VI? places a global cap on the sulphur
MARPOL Annex VI is a section of content of fuel oil at 4.5 per cent In order for flag and port states
the International Convention for the m/m (percentage by mass) and a 1.5 to monitor compliance with the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, per cent m/m cap in “SOx Emission regulations, MARPOL Annex VI
1973, as modified by the Protocol of Control Areas” (SECAs). The Baltic Sea requires a bunker delivery note to be
1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), is currently defined as a SECA. In July obtained and retained on board stating
drafted by the International Maritime 2005 the IMO adopted amendments the sulphur content of the bunkers
Organization (IMO).1 The individual which identify the North Sea as a supplied, as well as samples of the oil.
sections of the convention have SECA, with an implementation date Fuel oil suppliers that are located in
entered into force at different times of November 2007. Annex VI also MARPOL Annex VI signatory states are
as they gained the required number prohibits the introduction into fuels of subject to the regulations but those
of signatory states. For example, inorganic acids or chemical wastes that in non-signatory countries are not
MARPOL Annex I, regulations for the could jeopardise the safety of the ship, subject to oversight by the port state
prevention of pollution by oil, have or harm ships’ personnel.2 authorities.
been in force for more than 20 years.
Annex VI, regulations for the prevention Ships of 400 GT or more engaged The challenges of compliance and
of air pollution from ships, entered in international voyages to or from potential consequences of non-
into force on 19th May 2005. Presently countries that have ratified the compliance
37 countries have ratified Annex VI convention or ships flying the flag of An article written by a DNV expert
covering 70 per cent of the global those countries are required to have an and published in Gard News issue No.
tonnage. International Air Pollution Prevention 1843 outlines some of the possible
1 See article “Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 – Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships” in Gard News issue No. 176.
2 See article “MARPOL Annex VI – Solving the low sulphur issue” in Gard News issue No. 184.
3 See footnote 2.
4 See article “New BIMCO bunker fuel sulphur content clause” in Gard News issue No. 179.
Marpol Annex VI -
Gard News 184,
November 2006/January 2007
With the entry into force of the North be sufficient when the North Sea SECA acceptable as 1.5 per cent. Currently
Sea SECA there will be increased enters into force next year. this is left to the discretion of the
pressure on charterers and operators to individual port and flag states.
provide ships with low sulphur fuel oil. Needless to say, the pressure on
charterers and operators to provide Some suppliers and certain testing
Background ships with LSFO will increase. As companies introduce a default standard
MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for a result, bunker management will margin of error (reproducibility). It is
the Prevention of Air Pollution from be more complex. It is also vital argued that deviations above 4.5 per
Ships, entered into force on 19th May that owners/charterers and bunker cent or 1.5 per cent would be caused by
2005. MARPOL Annex VI Regulation purchasers ensure that MARPOL Annex a default margin of error during testing.
14 restricts SOx emissions from ships VI clauses (Regulations 14 and18) The problem is that the concept of
by introducing a maximum sulphur are included in their charterparties margins of error has not been discussed
content in marine fuels of 4.5 per and bunker purchase confirmations. at IMO so one can not say whether
cent. In addition, MARPOL Annex VI INTERTANKO has developed contract authorities will accept any result above
identifies SOx emission control areas clauses that may be suitable in this 1.5 per cent in a subsequent flag or port
(SECAs). In these areas the maximum respect.1 state control. Hence, until further notice
sulphur content of marine fuels used is it is recommended that any indication
1.5 per cent. The Annex also set forth Bunker quality of sulphur levels above 4.5 per cent
requirements for documentation and In order to produce LSFO refineries or 1.5 per cent respectively should
representative sampling of fuel oil. have the following options: be accompanied by a notification to
– Use inherently low sulphur crude the flag administration, bunker port
EU Directive 2005/33/EC deals with stocks. administration and supplier according
issues similar to those in MARPOL – Invest in de-sulphurisation units. to the requirements of the IMO Port
Annex VI, although its dates for – Blend to LSFO specification, using a State Control Guidelines for MARPOL
implementation do not coincide with variety of cutter stocks, inland quality Annex VI.2
those of Annex VI. It also provides for LSFO or purchased inherently LSFO.
a maximum sulphur content in marine Following the ISO 4259 standard, for
gas oils of 0.2 per cent from 11th The blending option seems to be the a supplier to be 95 per cent confident
August 2006. Further, there will be a preferred future method. Regrettably, it that the fuel delivered will have a
reduction of sulphur content of marine appears that this option is also the one sulphur level of 1.50 per cent, the
fuels for vessels at berth in EU ports, which could impact the bunker quality suppliers’ target should not be higher
the entry into force date being 2010, in a negative way as explained below. than 1.42 per cent.
with the maximum sulphur content from
that date being 0.1 per cent. Other Increased stability and Considering the possible margin of
implementation dates are as follows: compatibility problems error, as well as the aspect of fuel oil
The more you blend, the greater the change-over, owners should consider
On 19th May 2006 the Baltic Sea SECA risk of making products unstable. This whether a limit of 1.5 per cent in orders
under IMO came into force. On 11th should be detected through fuel quality is sufficient or whether they should
August 2006 the Baltic Sea SECA testing (total sediment potential). specify a lower sulphur limit.
became enforceable by EU member However, if products are blended on
states. On 11th August 2007 the North the stability limit, subsequent mixing on Increased levels of catfines (Al/Si)
Sea SECA will become enforceable by board with an existing fuel with different With decreasing sulphur content there
EU member states. On 21st November properties (e.g., viscosity, density) or may be an increasing level of catfines.
2007 the North Sea SECA enters into gas oil/diesel oil could lead to unstable This may be due to an increased use
force under IMO. fuels and subsequent sludging. The risk of cycle oils as cutter stock in the fuel
increases during LSFO change-over, blend (cycle oils are a low sulphur,
Bunker management depending on system configuration. highly viscous refinery product which
There is uncertainty as to whether tends to contain an elevated amount of
suppliers will be able to meet the Sulphur content deviations catfines).
demand for low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) In some cases certain ports blend to the
in main bunker ports world-wide. What sulphur limit of just below 4.5 per cent. Increased ignition and combustion
is clear today is that operators with a From time to time, the 4.5 per cent limit problems
contract for LSFO in general have their may be exceeded, although marginally. Increasing ignition and combustion
demands covered by the majors/larger problems may also occur when using
independents at main bunker ports at a Some samples tested also exceed the LSFO. This could be related to an
premium of USD 30-50/MT. Fortunately, 1.5 per cent limit, although in most increased use of high density and
it appears so far that the demand has cases only marginally. The IMO has not high aromatic cycle oils as cutter stock
been met with respect to the Baltic Sea yet provided guidance as to whether during blending.
SECA. There is, however, uncertainty an allowance can be made, like for
as to whether world-wide supply will instance whether 1.54 per cent can be
Fuel change-over
Fuel change-over contains both
commercial and statutory compliance
elements. On the commercial side, with
a premium of up to USD 30-70/MT, the
change-over from normal to LSFO and
vice-versa should be as fast as possible.
On the statutory compliance side,
owners need to be confident that the
crew has managed to change over from
normal to LSFO before crossing the
SECA boundary.
Bunker deliveries administration to require the ship Although not yet specifically required,
MARPOL Annex VI has not yet been to deviate due to a possible non- realistic and proven change-over
subject to significant enforcement compliance for which a supplier is procedures should be developed for
and as such the stringency applied responsible. The operator should each ship or group of ships with similar
is uncertain. It is recommended therefore request that the ship be fuel tank configuration and system
that ships adhere to the MARPOL permitted to proceed to the next port set-up.
Annex VI sampling procedures and of call.
documentation requirements as laid – The operator should agree with the The pre-requisite for change-over is
down in IMO Resolution MEPC 96(47).3 flag state administration regarding the exact sulphur level of existing fuel
At the recent IMO MEPC 54 meeting verification testing of the on board and LSFO, i.e., a bunker delivery note
a circular was adopted urging IMO MARPOL sample (the on board sulphur level set as “less than 4.5 per
member states to ensure that bunker MARPOL sample is the official cent” and “less than 1.5 per cent”
suppliers within their jurisdiction apply sample which is legally binding). If the should not be accepted as it creates
this resolution. supplier’s MARPOL sample has not uncertainty regarding change-over time
been taken in accordance with the IMO (in addition to uncertainty regarding
As a minimum, the crew must verify the sampling guidelines, then the operator the selected base number (TBN) of the
sulphur content in the bunker delivery should propose to test the ship’s cylinder lube oil used on board).
notes and that the official MARPOL MARPOL sample (if taken) as well. It is
sample is representative of the bunker the prerogative of the administration Some owners have converted their
supplied. In accordance with the IMO to select an appropriate laboratory ships by dedicating a bunker tank to
Port State Control Guidelines for for the purpose of verification testing. LSFO with separate bunker line, as well
MARPOL Annex VI, any non-compliance However, the administration should as introducing separate LSFO service
must be reported through a notification be encouraged to select a laboratory and settling tank with piping ensuring
to the flag state and the bunker port which is accredited with respect to split separator operation. This option
authorities. the ISO sulphur test method and means that the change-over can be
has documented experience with carried out quickly.
High sulphur fuels fuel testing. The laboratory should,
It is of vital importance that operators in addition to sulphur, also test for However, the majority of ships have
specify and crew verify that the sulphur fingerprint parameters such as density, conventional fuel oil systems with a
level in the bunker delivery note is viscosity, nickel and vanadium. The limited number of bunker tanks and
below the respective MARPOL limits. MARPOL sample should be forwarded only one service and settling tank. For
to the laboratory in question. The these ships the main contributors to
In the event a fuel testing company result is to be communicated to the change-over time are the following:
detects a sulphur level which exceeds administration, which is subsequently – Total consumption (main engine +
the MARPOL limits and is above that obliged to inform the bunker port state auxiliary engines + boilers).
specified in the bunker delivery note, administration. – Total volume of high sulphur fuel oil
the following course of action should – In case non-compliant fuel is remaining in piping systems, settling
be taken: detected, de-bunkering is not the only and service tanks prior to change-over.
– A notification should be sent to option available. As an emergency – Initial high sulphur level and LSFO
the flag state and the bunker port measure, provided existing fuel is on level.
authorities, highlighting the indicated board and it is verified compatible with – Transfer pumps capacity.
sulphur level deviating from the bunker the new fuel, the owner may request – Separators capacity versus total
delivery note level. acceptance for on board blending consumption.
– It would be unreasonable for the (depending on sulphur differences,
might be at stake
Fuel oil quality is directly related to for an acceptable ignition quality for In a worst case scenario poor fuel oil
the safe operation of ships and it is a trunk piston engine. With refineries ignition and combustion properties
important for any ship operator to focus increasingly using Heavy Cycle oil (HC) can render the engine inoperative and
on preserving fuel oil quality. in the blending process to achieve compromise the safe operation of the
low sulphur values, the CCAI and the ship.
Bearing in mind that the European Calculated Ignition Index (CII) have
Union Directive 2005/33/EC which deals often been found to be too inaccurate To illustrate the consequences of poor
with sulphur content comes into force and inadequate to detect fuel with ignition and combustion properties,
on 11 August 2007 and the North Sea poor ignition properties. The most a vessel recently reported a knocking
Sox Emission Control Area (SECA) will widely used equipment for fuel ignition sound to the main engine as well as
be fully implemented on 22 November tests has been the FIA-100 FCA, which numerous piston seizures. Temporary
2007, the refinery industry may explore is already available from some test repairs were executed, but the vessel’s
more advanced production/blending laboratories and comes with an Institute C/E did not realise that the problems
processes to satisfy the global demand of Petroleum approved test method, IP experienced might have something
for low sulphur fuel. The traditional 541/06. to do with the fuel oil properties, and
method of assessing fuel oil quality and opted to continue running the engine
suitability may be unreliable in certain Typical engine problems experienced at reduced RPM with the same fuel
circumstances. In relation to the delivery when using a fuel oil with poor ignition oil until the vessel reached a port of
of low sulphur fuel, a growing number properties are: refuge. When the engine was opened
of deliveries with excessive Aluminum — Difficulties or complete failure in up severe damages were discovered to
and Silicon content, problems with fuel starting the engine all cylinder units. Main bearings had to
stability and ignition quality have been — Undesirable peak pressures which be renewed and the crankshaft’s main
reported. can lead to blow by and collapse of bearing journals had to be polished in
piston rings addition to numerous of different parts
Fuel oil ignition and combustion quality — Unstable operation and loss of inspected/overhauled. The damage
is not yet part of the ISO 8217 fuel power repairs amounted to USD 1.2 million,
oil specification and the Calculated — Varying revolutions, which are and involved 40 days off-hire.
Carbon Aromatic Index (CCAI) has highly undesirable for the operation of
historically been the default method of auxiliary engines During repairs it was felt that the
estimating heavy fuel oil ignition quality. — Increased deposits in the damage seen had similarities to that
The fuel oil density and viscosity are the combustion area and in the exhaust gas which could have been caused by fuel
key parameters needed for calculating system, including turbo charger and oil with poor ignition and combustion
the CCAI, and the number 860 has boiler properties, and a decision was made to
for years been considered the limit — Increased emissions of NOx perform an ignition quality test.
A: Reference curve. Normal peak pressure and an ignition delay of 5.9 ms (millisecond). Start of main combustion, 7.85 ms.
B: Our vessel. Low peak pressure with “after burning” effects. Ignition delay 13.8 ms, start of main combustion, 21.6 ms.
practical cases
Gard has recently assisted two charterers investigation into the cause, nature and The surveyor’s conclusion was that the
in the handling of claims arising from extent of the damage was carried out. damage was probably caused by water
delivery of off-spec bunkers. These in the fuel.
cases show how important it is for both The engine manufacturer’s representative
charterers and owners to have a good concluded that all 18 fuel injector pumps Based on the entries in the engine
bunker testing system in place. had to be replaced. The damaged room log book, it was evident that there
pumps and valves were sent to the had been a certain quantity of water in
Damage to fuel injection pumps engine manufacturer’s plant in Denmark the fuel oil tanks No. 6 starboard and
The first case concerns a general for overhaul/repairs, and a joint survey port. How the water entered the tanks,
cargo vessel, whose main engine had was also carried out there. Sixteen of however, had not been established.
undergone a complete overhaul whilst the fuel oil pumps were dismantled
the vessel was dry-docked. The bunker for further examination. Fifteen of The owners put the charterers on notice
tanks were cleaned and all sediment the pistons were found to be brown- that they held them responsible for all
removed. Following that, the vessel coloured, one was found to contain water costs incurred and time lost during the
took delivery of 170 MT of bunkers drops, some were found with corrosion period the vessel was out of service
at Rotterdam for a round trip to the and several pump hoses contained water. due to supply of inferior bunkers. The
Mediterranean and return to Norway. The Due to the corrosion and browning, the charterers in turn held the bunker
bunkers were put into fuel oil tanks No.6 manufacturer advised replacement of all supplier responsible.
starboard and port and, in accordance the
with the Baltime charterparty, were pistons and cylinders, which were The bunker supplier rejected liability,
provided and paid for by the charterers. replaced with reconditioned fuel oil relying on an analysis of a sample of the
pumps. fuel oil taken from the vessel after the
When the vessel started to take fuel from bunker delivery. This analysis confirmed
tanks No. 6 port and starboard during It was considered whether there could the bunkers delivered to the vessel were
the voyage, she experienced severe have been leakage between the ballast within specification. The test sample
problems with sediment. The problems and fuel oil systems. According to taken from the bunker barge had
continued for the rest of the trip and on the ship’s plans, there was no direct been lost and samples from the fuel in
arrival in Kristiansund, Norway, assistance connection between them and no ballast tanks No.6 port and starboard which
from the engine manufacturer was pipes were routed through the fuel tanks. purportedly showed that they were
needed. A without prejudice joint survey There was also no evidence of oil in the contaminated with water, could no longer
was arranged, which was attended on ballast water. Furthermore, the tanks were be traced.
behalf of the owners, charterers and reported to be tight and in order during
bunker suppliers. Fuel oil samples were a recent overhaul. This possibility was Fortunately for charterers, in this case
taken from the relevant tanks, a survey therefore ruled out. the owners did not have a system in
of the vessel’s engine and all relevant place to take bunker samples for analysis
machinery was performed and an when bunkering, so no samples of
© Gard AS, March 2011
17
the bunkered fuel were available. As a a without prejudice joint survey of the Order fuel to desired ISO grade and
result, the owners had no evidence and sealed samples held on board by the describe it in the charterparty as well as in
therefore no case against the charterers master for charterers’ use was arranged, the requisition to supplier.
and had to bear the losses. and the fuel in the vessel’s tanks was – Take representative samples at the time
tested. of delivery and agree with the suppliers
High Total Sediment Potential that the samples are representative.
The second case concerns a 1995-built Owners and charterers agreed to use Ensure that the samples taken are
bulk carrier which was time-chartered an independent laboratory to analyse properly labelled.
under a NYPE 1993 form. The vessel was the fuel oil samples. The sub-charterers – If the supplier takes other samples at
sub-chartered and upon re-delivery sub- appointed a different laboratory to the time of the delivery, try to establish
charterers supplied the vessel with 900 carry out their analysis. Surveyors were how and when they were obtained.
MT of IFO, which was taken into DB tanks instructed to attend the laboratory to Protest if not invited to witness the taking
Nos. 1 and 2. witness the sample analysis. The owners of these samples.
and charterers’ surveyor monitored the – Use a fast, reliable testing service to
The shipowners had an agreement with analysis done on behalf of the sub- analyse representative samples.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) for testing charterers and vice versa. In addition, an
bunker samples, so a sample of the fuel analysis was also carried out by a third Owners should also:
oil was mailed to Det Norske Veritas independent company. – Segregate new fuel from that held on
Petroleum Services (DNVPS) for analysis. board.
A fuel quality report was sent to the Owners and charterers’ analytical report – Never use new fuel until the analysis
owners, which showed a Total Sediment from tanks Nos. 1 and 2 confirmed a TSP results have been examined and it has
Potential (TSP) of 0.22, the standard TSP of between 0.13 and 0.21. The analysis of been established that it is suitable.
being 0.10. DNV advised that at this level the sub-charterers and the independent – Maintain careful reliable daily records of
of TSP, increased sludging was likely to laboratory showed TSP of between 0.04 the contents and consumption from each
occur and fuel stability was at risk. They and 0.05. According to technical experts, fuel tank.
advised the owners to purify the fuel, however, the analysis method used by – Ensure good maintenance and
not to mix it with any other fuel and to sub-charterers and the independent calibration records are kept for all
take and retain periodic samples before laboratory was unacceptable as the machinery.
and after centrifuging and record the tests were not in accordance with IP 390 – Ensure engine log books properly
sampling details in the logbook. specifications, in which case, the fuel oil record all temperatures, pressures and
supplied was indeed off-specification. remarks of engine performance on a daily
Charterers were put on notice that basis.
owners held them responsible for The vessel had three IFO tanks, two
the consequences of supplying off- large ones and one smaller one. The If off-spec bunkers have been delivered
spec bunkers, including the cost of third, smaller, tank was not big enough and are unsuitable for use they should
de-bunkering if required and any to take the amount of bunkers required be off-loaded and replaced by new on-
damage to the vessel’s engine. The for a safe passage to Praia Mole, so since spec bunkers. If inferior bunkers have to
head charterparty included detailed it proved impossible to arrange de- be used or have been taken in use the
and comprehensive clauses concerning bunkering at Richards Bay, there was no following should be done:
responsibility for delivery, quality, testing other alternative but to proceed to Cape – The vessel should notify the shipowner
and analysis of bunkers, but these clauses Town and de-bunker there, thus incurring immediately if they are experiencing
were not included in the sub-charter. further costs and delay. Tank cleaning problems with an off-spec fuel. If the
was not possible because the vessel was shipowner purchased the fuel directly
The vessel sailed for Richards Bay to load loaded with coal, which meant access from the supplier, he should notify the
a cargo for Praia Mole, Brazil. During to the tanks was blocked. However, a bunker supplier and send a copy of the
the voyage, the master advised that bunker quality/quantity survey of the 675 test results.
the vessel was experiencing a critical MT of fresh bunkers put on board was – The shipowner should contact an
situation on board in trying to purify the carried out. expert and make use of reliable fuel
off-spec bunkers. For safety reasons, testing services such as DNV Petroleum
he decided to deviate to Port Louis, Fortunately, the off-spec bunkers caused Services (DNVPS) or Lloyds Register
Mauritius, which was the nearest port no damage to the vessel’s engine, (FOBAS) to obtain advice on how to
with enough bunkers to enable the ship auxiliary engines or purifiers. However, proceed to solve the particular problem
to reach Richards Bay safely. The owners the total distance deviated from the to avoid damage and mitigate losses.
requested charterers to make provisional voyage was 1,074 nautical miles, involving – The shipowner should contact the
arrangements for four days, five hours and 18 minutes. engine manufacturer as well as fuel
de-bunkering. Charterers put the sub- Charterers claimed from sub-charterers supplier for advice. Action will depend
charterers on notice, requested them to the cost of the calls at Port Louis and on which parameter is off-specification
make the necessary arrangements to take Cape Town, the cost of removing and and/or what the particular problem is.
the inferior bunkers ashore and re-supply replacing the off-spec bunkers, the cost The degree of quality deviation from the
at Port Louis. The sub-charterers did of repairs to the purifiers, the time lost, specification must be considered.
not admit any liability for the problems costs of the surveyors and fuel experts as – The shipowner should notify the
experienced by the vessel, but advised well as legal costs, which amounted to a charterer (if the charterer purchased the
they would appoint a surveyor to inspect total of USD 182,000. Legal proceedings fuel) and other interested parties.
the vessel and bunkers. were commenced but immediately prior – The parties should inform their insurers.
to the hearing the case was settled by
Accordingly, the charterers had little sub-charterers for USD 150,000 plus Conclusion
choice but to arrange delivery of fresh recoverable costs of GBP 35,000. These two cases illustrate the importance
bunkers at Port Louis, so it was decided for shipowners and charterers of having
to de-bunker the off-spec bunkers at Lessons learned in place a good system for testing bunker
Richards Bay. Charterers invited the Shipowners – and charterers, if they quality with a reputed organisation, as
shipowners and sub-charterers to take supply bunkers to a vessel – should well as having protective contractual
part in a survey of the vessel’s engines always:1 clauses in charterparties.
and purifiers at Richards Bay and – Be selective when choosing a supplier.
© Gard AS, March 2011
18
Challenges in operating
on low sulphur fuel
Background Sea Area is the first area designated • Supply and storage for low sulphur
International regulations to control as a SECA under the Protocol and fuels
harmful emissions from ships’ exhausts will permit a maximum 1.5% sulphur
entered into force on 19 May 2005. content in any fuel used onboard. In Lube oil related issues
MARPOL Annex VI contains provisions 2007, the second SECA, covering the • Matching cylinder oil BN fuel sulphur
allowing special “SOx Emission Control North Sea and English Channel, will level across operating conditions
Areas” (SECAs) to be established with be come into force, requiring similar • Possible additional storage tanks
more stringent controls on sulphur sulphur levels. • Cylinder lubrication monitoring
emissions. In these areas, the sulphur • Cylinder oil feed rate
content of fuel oil used onboard The effects of low sulphur fuel
ships must not exceed 1.5% m/m. There are several implications of Operations related issues
Alternatively, ships must fit an exhaust operating on low sulphur fuel or • Monitoring sulfur content in fuel
gas cleaning system or use other altering between high and low sulphur • Engine load
methods to limit SOx emissions. The fuels. The issues listed below are some • Cylinder Liner Temperature
regulation requires any such alternative of the most common challenges that • Water content in scavenge air
methods to be approved by the must be considered by the shipowners
relevant flag state. Sanctions for Marpol and operators to avoid problems Recommendations
violations are becoming increasingly related to operation and maintenance Shipowners and operators should
severe around the world, and there is of the ship engines. thoroughly consider all undesired
no reason to believe Annex VI will not effects of operating on low sulphur
be treated to the same scrutiny. Fuel related issues fuel. It is recommended that the engine
• Incompatibility of different fuels makers and the lube oil suppliers are
The regulation allowed for a 12-month • Combustion characteristics and contacted to obtain their detailed
period from the date of entry into force impact on engine deposits and wear instructions and guidelines. Specifically
before the limits within a SECA could • Varying fuel viscosity, and impact on worded charterparty clauses regarding
be enforced, and they will thus be fuel injection bunkers supplied by Charterers are
enforced from 19 May 2006. The Baltic • Low sulphur fuel having less anti-wear important to ensure that any problems
capability are avoided.
supply shortage
Background Consequences adjustment of feed rates, proper blending
The marine lubricants industry has been In addition to a shortage of lube oil, of lube oils and the use of low sulphur fuel
walking a supply tightrope since the end shipowners will most probably be facing will not create operational problems. This
of 2004. The industry is now facing a new situations where lube oil with the required might be the plausible way to ensure that
and deepening supply crisis compounded BN (Base Number) cannot be supplied. the industry goes through this difficult
by a period of unprecedented raw The low BN cylinder oil with BN levels period with minimum disruption.
material price increases. The price of of 40 - 50 - 60 will most likely be easier
heavy base oil, one of the key components to obtain than the high BN level oil. A However, the other side of the picture is
in the manufacturing of marine lubricants, high sulphur level in fuel oil necessitates that the above measures may create a
has increased by over 50% in the past a high BN in lube oil. The low BN lube slight increase in cylinder wear and some
12 months, while many of the additive oils generally require a sulphur content of reduction in performance. It is therefore
components have increased by in excess maximum 3% for proper performance. important from a maintenance point that
of 40%. the ship operator conduct a scavenge
Loss Prevention air port inspection before commencing
The full gravity of the situation became The lube oil industry and the main engine operation on the low BN oil. A baseline
clear when a fire at the Chevron Oronite manufacturers are issuing service letters reference for cylinder condition can then
plant in Singapore caused a shortage of and technical bulletins to shipowners be established. Shipowners and managers
cylinder oil additives in the local area. these days. The letters and bulletins must contact their lube oil and fuel
Hurricane Katrina has since that time describe the shipowners’ options to blend suppliers – and their engine manufacturers
damaged similar facilities in the US Gulf high and low BN oils and adjusting the – to obtain the correct guidelines for
coast and thus exacerbating the problem. feed rates. It is also not recommended to operation of their own specific equipment
take fuel with a sulphur level higher than with low BN lube oil and low sulphur fuel.
3%. The general assumption is that proper
Important changes to
Loss Prevention Circular
No. 18-05
Introduction the buyer and/or the crew. Depending Liner operators, who see their fuel costs
Is it possible to make money on on the development of the bunker clearly, have implemented sophisticated
bunkers? Yes, and not just by selling market, one can safely say that the purchase and management strategies
them. Owners generally can not control bunker department is both loved and for bunkers. Tanker owners all too often
their earnings, and are at the mercy of hated. But all too often companies leave it to the market. It is suggested
the market when it comes to freight and have no actual bunker department, or that educated buyers who follow proper
time charter rates. But they can control there is a difference of opinion within purchase routines with proper follow
costs, and every cent saved on a direct the organisation as to what the bunker up, who know the market, and know
cost like fuel is welcome. So you can department should actually be doing. whom they are buying from, will have a
make money on bunkers, by cutting significant positive effect on the bottom
costs. The chartering department usually line.
looks upon bunkering a vessel as
Bunker prices are just as much market- synonymous with a car pulling up If two shipowners are buying fuel in
driven as freight rates, but the market to the local petrol station, and they the same market for a similar route,
price of bunkers is far from the only usually need the fuel in a rush. The why can one get a better result than
cost involved. Too many owners fail to management looks at the department the other? Because one employs staff
realise that and give too little attention as the biggest spender in the that pay attention to where the money
to bunker purchasing and management. organisation and is always asking: goes, and the other simply looks at the
This article shows how attention to “couldn’t you get the fuel cheaper market price. Anyone with a trading
bunkers can generate real cost savings, somewhere else?” The technical and instinct can play a market. Bunker
and a real boost to bottom line results. operational departments treat it as management requires more knowledge
a necessary evil and are constantly than that.
Bunkers have always been an important complaining about the quality of the
part of ship operations and, as such, fuel, and that it is always delivered Your money can go up in smoke without
bunkering is a vital part of an owner’s outside office hours. But either way, pushing the ship one metre forward.
day to day operation. Fuel costs have bunkers must be bought and therefore You may lose on the volume/weight
become a major part of the running it is of vital importance for an owner conversion, or more simply, you may
costs of a vessel – in some instances that the persons involved with fuel pay for more than you get because your
as high as 60 per cent. This weighs purchasing have the necessary crew does not supervise and ensure the
heavily on the profit margin and may knowledge on how, where, and when quantity is lifted correctly. You may lose
lead to financial loss through lack of to procure the fuel in an efficient and money because the energy content of
knowledge, skill or care on the part of economical way. your cheap fuel is much less than the
1 See also articles “Some technical aspects of marine fuels testing” and “Effects of off-spec bunkers” elsewhere in this issue of
Gard News.
lubricating oil
By Lindsay Gordon, Gordon, Giles & Company Ltd, London
LUBRICATING OIL
Many of the points discussed above
regarding purifiers, filters, test cocks on
Taking a lube oil sample at the purifier.
storage tanks apply to lubricating oil. In
addition, there are several key points to
consider.
(1) Ensure that the correct grade of oil
is being used.
Bunker Quality
Loss Prevention Circular
No. 03-01, May 2001
Introduction component used for blending Circular 04-01, Charterers Liabilities and
The securing of bunkers of an Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO) for Bunkers).
acceptable quality depends on a variety ships. The result is fuels with higher
of factors such as availability, demand, density, carbon residue, sulphur If the vessel is in the unfortunate
area, choice of suppliers etc. The etc. Practically every parameter has situation of having received a high
problems have, to a certain degree, increased significantly throughout Catfines fuel, and has to use the fuel,
fluctuated with the bunker prices. The the refinery processing. Ships owners should be prepared for a
market has seen fuels contaminated fitted with older centrifuges are succession of replacements of plungers,
with waste chemicals detrimental to the unable to effectively treat such nozzles and other moveable engine
health of the crew as well as damaging fuels, particularly the “high density” parts. A normal full set of spares may
to the ships engines. For many years, it products, i.e. fuel densities of 990 not be sufficient to see the problem
has been normal in certain areas of the Kg/m3 and above. Centrifuge through. The fuel testing service
world to dispose of used automotive manufacturers offered upgrade kits provider should also be contacted,
lubricants in bunkers, thus possibly for the “old” separators, but few together with your centrifuge
adding to engine operating problems. operators invested in these kits. manufacturer and fuel supplier
for advice and decision-making.
High-density fuels which far exceed 3 Poor ignition quality is another Separators must be in prime conditions.
the capabilities of the onboard fuel problem that has arisen recently. Considerations should be given to
treatment plants are being delivered The standard laboratory tests do replacing separators manufactured
to vessels.. Water in the fuels is not not test the ignition quality, and it prior to 1984/1985.
uncommon, resulting in emulsified is not a part of the ISO 8217 Fuel
fuels and fuels that cannot be treated in Standards. The problem is normally If the vessel has been on extended
shipboard fuel treatment plants. Some associated with low viscosity/high lay-up, Catfines and other impurities
of the problems mentioned result in density fuels. If a vessel receives may settle in the bunker tanks if a
damages that are insured against, but this type of fuel, the ship should sufficient amount of bunkers remain
in most cases the associated costs fall keep temperatures as high as onboard during the lay-up period.
below the deductible. Occasionally, possible, thus avoiding low load When subsequently re-commissioned,
blending contaminated fuel with good operation. Gard has seen a number these Catfines and impurities are likely
quality fuel may solve the problem. of claims in the last few years where to be stirred up in heavy seas and cause
In other instances, the damages in the the vessel has had to be assisted damage to the engine(s). Therefore,
form of wear and tear of moving parts to an emergency port. The use of consideration should be given to
are so great that the vessel has to divert inferior ignition quality fuels may the cleaning of bunker tanks prior to
to an emergency port for major repairs. well result in major repairs to the bringing a vessel out of an extended
vessel’s engine(s). lay-up to prevent the occurrence of this
Primary problems type of problem.
We see mainly three problems: Recommendations
1 Catfines, aluminium and silicon Owners should be aware that the The settling of Catfines is a continuous
resulting from the refinery cracking increased demand from shore side process taking place onboard every
processes, are very abrasive to ship’s industries for premium products has seagoing vessel. As a rule, fuel tanks
machinery, unless properly removed. resulted in a deterioration of IFO used should be cleaned regularly. Settling
The end result can be machinery in marine engines. Compounding and daily service tanks should be
damage unless the Catfines are the problem is the demand from cleaned at least once a year. This messy,
removed to an acceptable level shipowners for high performance but important task would save ship
(contact your engine manufacturer) lighter engines. operators a lot of problems.
through effective fuel treatment
onboard, i.e. optimum use of IFO used as bunkers should, as a For further information on bunker
the centrifuges. The mode of minimum, meet the requirements of the quality, testing and other relevant
centrifuge operation must be specifications set out in ISO 8217, latest information, can be found on websites
discussed with the manufacturer as issue. Bunker testing agencies such as such as www.bunkersworld.com, www.
the type and year of manufacture of DnV Petroleum Services (DnVPS) and dnvps.com, and www.lrfobas.com and
the separators is of significance. Lloyd’s Register’s FOBAS are set up to www.fueltech.no.
monitor that this is the case.
2 As the global demand for premium Gard would like to thank and
products such as gasoline, jet If the vessel has performance difficulties acknowledge Mr. Kjell Haugland’s
fuel, heating oils and gas oils and poor ignition quality is suspected assistance in preparing this circular.
has increased sharply, the use of despite a satisfactory CCAI value, a
refinery conversion processing have further test for the ignition quality
markedly influenced the quality should be performed. Fueltech,
of the end product, the residual FOBAS and DnVPS can perform these
component which is the major services (see Gard Loss Prevention
Introduction suitable samplers. Prior to placing the to accept joint sampling by buyer and
Ships use the cheapest liquid fuels order, it is his responsibility to agree seller, despite the obvious fact that this
available on the market, hence the fuel on a joint sampling procedure with the is only fair and square. The practice
quality varies greatly. The safe operation supplier, including where and when of multiple sampling by both parties
of ships depends on knowledge of the the sampling shall be carried out. If the makes dispute resolution difficult, and is
quality of the fuel used. vessel does not have a fuel sampler always costly and time-consuming to all
acceptable to the supplier, the buyer is involved. The sophisticated buyer, who
Fuel Testing not likely to be in a position to stipulate sees the benefit of fuel quality control,
It is estimated that only one third of all sampling at the point of custody should always insist on joint sampling at
marine fuels delivered to ships trading transfer, i.e., at the ship’s fuel manifold. the point of custody transfer. If declined
internationally is tested. Even so, the by the supplier, then he should make a
experience from the testing services Proper sampling during a bunker reference to this in the ship’s logbook.
indicates that things are far from transfer operation is extremely
perfect. The comparison of a car filling important, because continuous drip Testing services provide their customers
up with fuel at a petrol station with a sampling at the point of custody with sound and practical advice relating
ship lifting bunkers via a barge does not transfer is the only secure way to to bunkering operations. Following
apply. And for good reasons, which will ascertain the quality of the product them is good practice.
be explained later. received by the buyer. Sampling either
before or after the event will not, for It is customary in some ports to request
Marine fuels are practically all custom obvious reasons, bear the same weight. the pre-signing of documents relating
blended to a buyer or ISO specification. It is good news that Singapore, being to the bunkers being transferred,
The supplier may or may not have by far the largest bunkering port in including the signing of labels for
detailed information on the quality the world, has decided to introduce the bunkering samples. This is not
of the components he is using in the legislation requiring all bunkerings acceptable, as the buyer has no control
blend. Satisfactory quality components taking place by barge to be sampled over which sample bottles the labels
in themselves may well result in an continuously during the bunkering will be placed on.
unsatisfactory blend, unless you know operation at the receiving vessel’s
exactly what you are doing, and we all manifold. The bunker barges will all be Sample transport
know that blends are made directly to required to fit a defined quality sampler The operator pays good money to
the vessel bunkering, either through at the receiving vessel’s end of the the testing service for speedy analysis
line blending from shore installations, bunker delivery hose. The new law will results. The chief engineer must
blending on board barge, or in-line become effective on 1st January 2002. therefore arrange for a courier company
blending from the bunker barge. The to pick up the sample immediately
only way to ascertain the quality of the The Marine Environment Pollution after collection. It is advisable to inform
product actually received on board is Committee (MEPC) of the IMO the courier company of the sample’s
through representative sampling and (International Maritime Organization) whereabouts by e-mail or fax, with copy
testing by specialised laboratories.1 has also recently drafted guidelines to the agent and owner/operator.
indicating where and how samples
It is true that any analysis result is only should be taken in connection This will put pressure on the ship’s
as good as the sample analysed. If with the bunkering of ships. The agent and courier, and will enable the
the sample is not representative of “Guidelines for the sampling of fuel operator to follow up in order to avoid
the average quality of the product oil for determination of compliance delays.
transferred from supplier to buyer, with ANNEX VI of Marpol 73/78” state:
then the analysis result is of little or “For the purpose of these Guidelines Use of new fuel
no value. Therefore, there should a sample of the fuel delivered to ship The ship should avoid using the new
be rules and routines on board should be obtained at the receiving fuel until its quality has been confirmed
to ensure that every bunkering is ship’s bunker manifold and should be to be satisfactory by the laboratory
properly sampled, including fuels for drawn continuously throughout the report. It has been customary to bunker
the auxiliary engines. Each and every bunker delivery period”. It is hoped that just prior to leaving port. However,
vessel should have fixed routines these guidelines will be adopted by all analysis results on the new bunkers may
describing in detail the bunkering the major shipping nations, because not be available until a few days after
operation, including the stages they make good sense. leaving port, so some operators have
before, during and after bunkering, started to bunker when entering port,
and listing the responsibilities of each Even if the bunker industry has whenever possible (draft, cargo, timing,
individual involved. It is the owner/ come a long way in its endeavour to etc., permitting). This allows the analysis
operator’s responsibility to set up such safeguard the interests of the various results of the new fuel to be available
an instruction manual. It is also his parties involved, there are still strong prior to leaving port, which of course is
responsibility to provide the ships with objections from some supplier quarters the ideal situation. Should the fuel be
1 See article “Effects of off-spec bunkers” elsewhere in this issue of Gard News.
2 See article “Effects of off-spec bunkers” elsewhere in this issue of Gard News.
Effects of off-spec
Loss Prevention Circular
No. 08-01, November 2001
bunkers
Introduction equipment. Power was temporarily However, the bunker brokers advised
Taking onboard off-spec bunkers restored at 2217 hrs. A second the company that the samples had
can cause significant disruption to a blackout occurred at 2218 hrs resulting not been taken at the bunker barge as
vessel’s ability to trade. In addition, it in the vessel not being under control. required by the Singapore Standard
creates problems in recovering from Although power was finally restored at CP60:1996. Further samples were
the insurers costs incurred due to a 2220 hrs, the vessel was only able to drawn at the barge’s manifold and
lack of and/or limitation in cover. This continue at half speed. sealed with a barge seal.
circular is intended to provide an
example of the problem as experienced The Chief Engineer observed that Damage to machinery
by shipowners. The case described the bunker which had been supplied The damage to the main engine as
below relates to a passenger ship, but in Singapore that day, had a high a result of using the off-spec bunker
applies equally to all types of vessels. degree of carbon residue, clogging was abrasive wear marks on all fuel
Loss Prevention Circular No. 08-01 the complete fuel system in the main nozzles, abrasive wear on all fuel pump
is the next instalment in a series of and auxiliary engines. The Master barrel/plunger assemblies as well as
circulars produced by Gard dealing with informed the owners of the problem heavy fouling of all turbochargers. The
damages associated with bunkers and and the decision was made to return to turbocharger impellers were noted to
bunkering1 and outlines problems which Singapore due to safety considerations. be heavily fouled, the labyrinth seals on
may arise when passenger ships have to the gas sides were choked with carbon
deal with off-spec bunkers. At 1100 hrs the following day, fuel deposits, and the bearing bushes were
samples were taken in the settling and worn. In addition, the boiler burner
Passenger ship operations are very service tanks where the bunkers had unit was also heavily fouled. Upon
sensitive to operational disruptions. been loaded and the vessel began review of the engine logbooks, there
Costs of disruption can occur in the discharging the off-spec bunkers at was no evidence of any problems with
form of hull and machinery damages, 1200 hrs. A representative from the the engines prior to taking on the off-
damages and compensation to Singapore Maritime Port Authority spec bunker. The running hours of the
passengers and crew as well as damage informed the vessel at 1230 hours that main and auxiliary engines were noted
to reputation that may influence future they were being cautioned due to the to be well within acceptable limits for
bookings and earnings. Compensation emission of black smoke – apparently overhauls.
to customers beyond the initial costs the result of the burning of the off-spec
due to commercial considerations can bunkers. An engine repair contractor In this case, there was no indication
easily fall outside the scope of cover of boarded the vessel at 1600 hrs and that the vessel had received the results
hull and machinery, loss of hire and P&I upon surveying the situation, indicated from the first fuel test prior to sailing.
cover. that repairs would take at least two In addition, the vessel had apparently
days provided no extensive damage a very limited amount of bunkers
Course of events was found. After consultations with the onboard prior to loading the first off-
Upon arrival in Singapore, the vessel owners, the Master decided to abort spec bunkers. Therefore, the vessel had
was firmly secured to the pier at 0550 the cruise. to commence using the new bunkers
hrs. At 0800 hrs, a bunker barge prior to receiving the test results. In this
came alongside to deliver bunkers to At 0630 hrs the following day, the circumstance, the vessel was not able
the vessel. The barge commenced debunkering operation was completed. to create a ‘buffer’ by using the existing
bunkering at 0810 hrs and completed Another bunker barge began loading bunkers while awaiting the test results.
the operation at 1255 hrs. The bunker a fresh supply of IFO 180 cst at 0810 Had this been the case, the company
delivery statement noted that 90 metric hrs and the operation was concluded may have been able to discharge
tonnes of supposedly IFO 180 cst was at 0945 hrs. All passengers were the off-spec bunkers and taken on
supplied. Fuel samples were taken for discharged from the vessel at 0945 replacement bunkers.
testing by a credible bunker quality hrs. A second agency was used for the
testing company. However, the results sampling of the second bunkers taken What types of damages are actually
from this bunker test would not be and a different bunker testing company covered? In this type of case,
available for another 2 – 3 days. was used to analyse the second shipowners can find themselves in a
bunkers. The results of the tests of the situation where insurance cover can
The vessel departed Singapore for first and second bunkers indicated high only pay a portion of the costs incurred.
Thailand at approximately 1745 hrs on ash, water and total sediment potential For example, in this instance the cost of
that same day. At 2215 hrs that evening, (TSP) content. In addition, high sodium repairs to the damage to the machinery
the vessel experienced a total blackout, to water content was also reported, was below the deductible. For loss
including the loss of all navigational indicating the presence of seawater in of hire, the vessel was off hire but
the bunkers. within the off hire deductible. The P&I
1. Gard Loss Prevention circulars related to bunkers are: Loss Prevention circular 01-00 (Main Engine Damage Due to Ignition
Delay), Loss Prevention circular 03-01 (Bunker Quality), and Loss Prevention circular 04-01 (Charterer’s Liabilities and Bunkers).
These circulars can be found on the Gard website at www.gard.no.
2. Gard Handbook on P&I Insurance by Simon Poland and Tony Rooth. Published by Assuranceforeningen Gard. Arendal, Norway
1996. The preface of this handbook can also be found on the Gard website at www.gard.no.
3. Det Norske Veritas Annual Report 2000 can be accessed via their website at www.dnv.com.
Ship Type: Panamax bulk carrier Extent of the Damage of the quality of the fuel received on
(built 1980) The result was a complete breakdown board. There is however little value
Course of Events of all pistons, cylinder liners and in companies spending money on
In a Gulf of Mexico port, the vessel cylinder heads with related parts. Due sampling and testing if shipboard
received heavy fuel oil IFO 180 to lack of availability of spare parts engineers are not properly trained to
according to ISO category RME 25 onboard ship, only preliminary repairs understand the fuel quality analysis
with a density of 989,6 kg/m3 and a were made. Thus, the voyage to the and provided with procedures and
viscosity of 172 Cst. The bunker receipt discharge port was made at reduced instructions on how to adjust the fuel
information and the following DNVPS speed. Meanwhile, the company had equipment and engines accordingly.
analysis coincide with respect to these to make arrangements at the discharge
parameters. port to acquire spare parts and make Procedures and instructions should
preparation for final repairs. The vessel be established in the technical or
was taken off-hire upon arrival at the operational departments on how to:
Based on the density and viscosity
discharge port. - establish requirements for fuel quality
information, the ignition qualities of
depending on the fuel treatment
this fuel (CCAI) were calculated to 860
As a result the total cost to repair is equipment and engines on board
which is acceptable for slow speed
approximately $530,000 USD and the - follow-up the vessels’ bunkering
engines. The vessel is equipped with a
total time off-hire is approximately 45 schedules, ensure correct sampling and
16-cylinder medium speed main engine
days. where to send samples for analysis
of European design, and this fuel is on
- ensure the engineers on board and
the limit of where operational problems
Probable Cause technical staff ashore will understand
could be expected for medium speed
The ship manager and/or commercial the analysis and the limitations for their
engines. As a result, the chief engineer
on board and the ship management operator of the vessel made the error in equipment, and
office were informed by DNVPS that believing that a lower viscosity fuel (180 - in the event of having taken on
Cst) was of better quality than a high fuel of inadequate quality, establish
precautions should be taken to ensure
satisfactory combustion. viscosity fuel (380 Cst). This is commonly communication with the engine makers
seen when a fuel supplier lowers the and fuel analysing company in order
The chief engineer on board and the viscosity by adding lighter components to provide proper instructions to the
that may seriously alter the ignition vessel.
ship manager ashore did not pay
any attention to the fuel analysis. characteristics.
They did not considered the specific
recommendations issued by the engine The ship manager had arranged for
maker or DNVPS’s precautions for sampling and analysis of fuel. However,
operating the main engine with fuel the ship manager had not ensured that
with inferior ignition characteristics. their chief engineers were provided
To compound the problem, the vessel with proper procedures and instructions
was sent to areas for trading including to take the necessary precautions
days with river passage with variable against damages that could be incurred
loads on the main engine. This made by inferior quality fuel.
it difficult to maintain maximum
combustion temperature and thus The result was that the vessel left the
made it virtually impossible to follow bunkering port with no preventive
the operational recommendations. actions and precautions on how to deal
with a situation with a fuel on board
The delayed combustion resulted with inferior combustion characteristics.
in increased combustion pressure,
combustion close to the cylinder walls Lessons to be Learned
and the consequential failure of the The importance of fuel sampling and
lubrication of the pistons and liners. analysis is essential for verification
Thruster
7%
Collision Other 2% Propeller/
Machinery Rudder 5%
14%
42%
Other 15%
Grounding Auxiliary
15% engine
Main 25%
Heavy engine
w eather 48%
Contact Fire 3% 4%
damage
20%
Engine – Problems:
Cylinder wear
Piston ring groove deposits
Cylinder liner polishing
Piston crown deposits
Gas leakage
Crankcase deposits
Fuel oil leakage to the crankcase
Bunker spills
Gard News 165,
February/April 2002
Every vessel needs bunkers. Some are to come out of the hole, and five litres monitored an operation from the
run by fuel oil, others by gas oil, and reached the sea. The costs paid by shoreside, or that shoreside monitoring
some need both for their machinery. Gard reached USD 3,000, in addition was sloppy, and that the speed was
In addition, vessels need lubricating to what the member had to pay under excessive compared to what had
oils and hydraulic oils. The oils are the agreed deductible. How could been agreed. How can that be proved
normally taken on from barges or shore this have been avoided? First of all, afterwards? Is there evidence that the
connections through hoses. Hydraulic were the scuppers plugged? No. So, vessel had told shore personnel to slow
oils or lubricating oils may be taken on whose fault is this? Is there a routine on down? It has to be remembered that
in drums. the vessel for plugging the scuppers it is the spiller who is the responsible
when bunkering? Somebody must be person and who shall have to pay in the
Seamen know these things. They know responsible for that job and it should first place. Under OPA 90 the spiller can
how to plan the bunkering operation, be set out in the safety programme. It only avoid responsibility if he can show,
how to follow the routines set out in the is essential that the responsibility for by a preponderance of evidence, that
vessel’s safety programme. They know doing a job be allocated to a specific somebody else, not being at all related
how to calculate their need for bunkers individual – not in order to be able to to him, was the sole cause of the oil
and how to order. They know how to blame somebody when something discharge.
hook up the bunker barge and how to goes wrong, but in order to make sure
connect the hoses to their manifolds. that the job gets done. Could the None of the cases mentioned above
And they know how to monitor the “blurp” have been avoided? A “blurp” involved criminal investigation of the
bunkering operations. is most often caused by an air pocket responsible crewmember or company.
being trapped between the beams However, nowadays it is quite likely
And yet, bunkering spills do happen. underneath the tanktop depending that the Coast Guard will look closely
Over the last 20 months, 350 pollution on the trim of the vessel. It is essential into the vessel’s routines and safety
incidents have been registered in the that the person in charge is aware of programmes whenever a spill occurs.
Gard system. Many of these cases what trim the vessel has, and what If they find that something is not in
(165) have been reported merely can happen in certain circumstances. accordance with rules and regulations,
for precautionary reasons and are Hence, it is better to stop the operation e.g., MARPOL 73/78, the FBI may be
not expected to cost anything. Of one or two centimetres short and informed about the case and start
the remaining cases, the majority is avoid the very expensive oil being a criminal investigation. This means
expected to cost Gard between USD lost overboard. [5litres = USD 3,000; that criminal lawyers may have to
100 and USD 100,000 each. There are i.e., 1 ton = about USD 750,000]. be appointed to defend the master,
also a few cases expected to cost more Another way of trying to avoid the oil chief engineer and others, and, if
than USD 100,000 each, of which three slipping overboard is of course to have non-compliance is grave enough, the
are expected to cost more than USD absorbent material ready near to every shipowning or operating company.
1 million. The most expensive will cost opening from which oil could possibly At this stage Gard and its local
somewhere around USD 25 million. escape – not only by the manifold. correspondents have to step aside
because of the attorney/client privilege
It is true that not all of these incidents Another vessel was bunkering in aspect.
involve bunker spills. However, the Texas. In order to be able to follow the
majority of the 165 no-cost cases operation a manhole had been taken Japan
involve minor spills during bunkering off. Despite such a precaution, the A vessel was transferring oil internally
operations – spills so miniscule that tank was filled faster than expected into the settling tank. Unfortunately the
they would not, some years ago, have and 1,000 litres were reported to have tank overflowed and some oil found its
been reported to Gard at all. It is also reached the surrounding waters. The way into the sea through the airpipe.
true that the majority of the remaining product was heavy fuel oil, and the Whenever there is a pollution incident
cases relates to bunker spills one way vessel’s response plan under OPA 90 in Japan the Maritime Police will start
or the other and this article will analyse was activated. Everything went well in investigating to find the culprit of the
some of these events to provide a the end, but the operation, including mishap. Such investigation may take
picture of what happens, and how a QI (Qualified Individual), OSM (Oil Spill some hours, but it may also take days,
mishap is treated in different countries Manager), oil spill response company, and in the meantime the vessel is not
around the globe. US Coast Guard, etc., cost USD 180,000. allowed to leave the port. After having
How could this have been avoided? interrogated the chief engineer and
United States Obviously, by closer monitoring of the other engineers it was found that the
The vessel was bunkering in Oregon. It operation. The person responsible second engineer was the wrongdoer.
appeared that the engineer in charge for the operation should not be The investigation took two days,
of the operation had unscrewed an distracted by having to do other things which meant that the operators of the
ullage pipe cover to be able to check simultaneously. liner vessel involved, being on a tight
the quantity in the particular tank. schedule, had all sorts of problems with
Unfortunately, as often happens, a What about the bunkering speed? their customers. Criminal proceedings
“blurp” forced a small quantity of oil Quite often it is said that nobody started and bail of USD 10,000 had to
Charterer’s Liabilities
Loss Prevention Circular
No. 04-01, May 2001
and Bunkers
Introduction agency stated that the amount of water It was determined that both the IFO
Neither shipowner nor charterer likes in the IFO was likely to be difficult to and MDO bunkers contained non-
receiving poor quality bunkers. This remove. hydrocarbon additives typical for
can lead to a number of problems for motor vehicles lubricants. These
shipowners and charterers. These A dispute arose between the owners additives may negatively influence
problems include: and the providers of the bunkers. It is ship’s machinery (see the Gard Loss
– damages to main or auxiliary common practice that the fuel supplier Prevention Circular 03-01, Bunker
engines; attends the bunker sampling procedure. Quality). Their use may lead to
– finding terminals willing to receive In this case, the request to witness increased wear rates of machinery by
de-bunkered fuel; the sampling had been signed by the inhibiting the separators that remove
– co-ordinating and bearing the costs supplier prior to commencement of the abrasive particles and water from the
associated with diverting the vessel bunkering. The validity of the samples bunker fuel and contribute to fouling
for off spec bunker discharge; drawn by the ship was questioned in the exhaust spaces, turbocharger
– coordinating and bearing the costs since neither the fuel supplier nor blades and nozzle rings. In addition, it
of providing new bunkers to the other unbiased personnel observed was explicitly stated in the charterparty
vessel; the sampling procedure and handling. agreement that no spent lubricants
– reducing speed to accommodate The supplier contested that the were to be found in bunker fuel used
the use of off spec bunkers; and or contamination of the bunkers occurred onboard the ship.
– Co-ordinating and bearing the cost after being loaded onboard the vessel.
of lost time, i.e. off-hire. The vessel informed the owner and
The vessel secured a continuous drip charterer of the results of the analysis.
These problems can lead to disputes sample using the flange sampler The owner then requested that
between ship owners and charterers. fitted at the ships bunker manifold. immediate action be taken to discharge
Therefore, it is important for both The bunker supplier took the bunker the off spec bunkers. On the same
shipowners and charterers to protect samples at the point where the bunker day that the sample evaluation was
themselves in the event of disputes. hose was connected to the shore received, it was arranged for additional
The objective of this circular to present bunker installation. The supplier samples to be taken by a survey
case study examples of these types refused to make arrangements to agency appointed by the charterer.
of incidents, how disputes can arise, arrange for the discharge of the inferior The surveyor took various samples of
and provide some guidance as to how bunkers contending that it was the the IFO and MDO. Analyses of the
shipowners and charterers can protect vessel’s fault for the contaminated three samples showed that for one
their interests. bunker. They contended that other sample, blending with another fuel
vessels had bunkered soon before had occurred and hence less spent
Case 1: Fresh water contamination and after ship A and had no water lubricants in the mixture. The MDO was
Upon arrival in port, ship A had a contamination problems. The vessel needed to run the auxiliary engines and
remaining 24.8 MTs of bunker fuel in was required to retain and use the the donkey boiler. Results from the two
the settling tank and requested that bunkers and eventually discharge the other samples showed no drop in the
an additional 150 MTs of intermediate remaining unsuitable fuel during a elements that indicated the presence of
fuel oil (IFO) be stemmed. The bunkers scheduled dry-docking some months the automotive lubricants. However, it
were loaded into an empty bunker later. The off spec bunkers added was the view of the charterer’s surveyor
tank. Since there were little remaining additional deadfreight to the vessel, that the bunkers were not as bad as the
bunkers onboard prior to loading the thus reducing the amount of cargo that owner had suggested.
new bunkers, the Master and Chief could be carried.
Engineer agreed that the new bunkers The charterer then arranged that the
should be used. When the separators Case 2: Motor lube oil original shipboard sample be sent to
were started, it was noticed that large contamination a second bunker-testing agency for
quantities of sludge and water were Ship B took on IFO and marine diesel analysis. The results of that test showed
clogging sludge discharge passage. A oil (MDO) bunkers and the bunker- that the IFO and MDO conformed
separate sludge line was then fitted to testing agency received the bunker to the requirements of ISO 8217 as
collect the sludge in drums so as not to samples 5 days after the operation. The required by the chartering agreement,
overload the vessels sludge tank. bunkers were placed into 7 different but contained spent automotive
tanks. The sampling procedure was in lubricants.
It was determined that approximately accordance with the vessel’s bunkering
15% of the separators throughput was procedure. Two days later the bunker- The charterer contended that none
sludge. It was believed that the IFO did testing agency informed the vessel of of the surveyors or the bunker-testing
not have the proper time to settle due the results of the sample analysis. The agency ever requested for the bunker
to the short time period between the specifications stated in the charterparty to be removed. In addition, some of
stemming and purifying the bunkers. required that the bunkers be in the presumed off spec bunkers had
This created the large quantities of accordance with ISO 8217. already been mixed with other bunkers
emulsified sludge. The bunker-testing onboard by that time. However, the
The phrase “stone cold bonkers” (stone form), albeit that the charterers also question, may assist in avoiding
in coal bunkers), which was used to referred to a clause dealing with a problems or, at least, if problems do
describe a chief engineer’s demeanour on vessel’s description where the fuel was occur, in identifying which party bears
discovering large lumps of flint amongst described as “IF 180 CST”. The vessel, the risk involved. Of course, if there is
what was supposed to be best Welsh after taking fuel on board, sustained an express stipulation with regard to the
anthracite, suggests that the problems problems with the fuel injection bunkers then that must be complied
concerning bunkers, if not just fuel equipment, which led to damage to with.
oil, coincide with the introduction of both cylinder liners and piston crowns,
mechanical propulsion on vessels. which necessitated a deviation for Quantity of bunkers
repairs. The charterers argued that their Disputes in respect of the quantity
Whilst the problems associated with obligation was confined to supplying of bunkers delivered
poor quality bunkers have given rise to fuel with a designation “IF 180 CST”, It will come as no surprise to anyone
a number of serious disputes between given that that was the sole criteria to hear the complaint from a vessel
the respective parties involved in bunker contained within the charterparty. The owner alleging that he has been
operations (owners, charterers, physical owners, on the other hand, referred charged for bunkers in excess of what
suppliers and brokers), it has been noted to the passage in Wilford on Time he, purportedly, received. Whilst
by a London solicitor that the potential Charters3 at page 138, namely: tanks that are large and of a regular
for a major casualty is enormous where “The bunkers supplied by the charterers shape pose few difficulties insofar as
such casualty arises out of the provision of must be of reasonable general quality, ascertaining quantities, tanks which
substandard bunker fuel. suitable for the type of engines fitted to are of an irregular shape pose much
the particular ship.” greater problems. Any dispute will
The question of bunkers has provided largely depend upon the evidence
a considerable number of disputes for The tribunal found in favour of the available (this comment applies equally
members and clients over the years. owners. It is perhaps of note that for disputes in respect of quality). If
The following disputes appear most the tribunal seemed to have placed operational circumstances permit, the
frequently: considerable reliance upon the fact that bunkers can be loaded into previously
– Disputes in respect of bunker quality. it was the charterers who had control empty tanks, then it will be easier,
– Disputes in respect of bunker quantity of the bunker supply operation, in from an evidential standpoint, to
(quantity actually stemmed and quantities that they contracted with the supplier, convince a judge/tribunal that the
upon re-delivery). controlled where the vessels bunkered, position is correct. Further, well kept
– Disputes in respect of damage done to at what price were the bunkers and how records and contemporary documents
bunkers whilst aboard the vessel. much was to be bunkered. are of paramount importance. Lastly,
as disputes of this nature arise
Bunker Quality Finally, the authors of Bunkers4 opine as between the owner/charterer and the
The solicitor referred to above also follows on page 109: bunker supplier, it should be noted
mentioned that he could not recall the “(…) there appears to be a growing that the contracting party with the
last time he had seen a decent bunker consensus that, even without a bunker bunker supplier may have to act with
clause in a charterparty and, by and large, quality clause/fuel specification in considerable speed, as it is a feature
that comment holds true. In Nippon the charterparty, charterers are under of many bunker supply contracts that
Yusen Kaisha v. Alltrans Group of Canada an absolute obligation to provide should claims not be presented, or
Limited,1 the court was asked to consider bunkers which are reasonably fit for proceedings commenced, within a
whether Clause 2 of the NYPE form (1946 the vessel’s engines. If the engines are reasonably short period of time, then
edition) imposed a strict liability on the non-standard in any respect, thereby the purchaser waives all its rights
charterers with respect to the quality and requiring non-standard bunkers, then it against the bunker supplier; this is, by
fitness of the fuel supplied to the vessel, is of course for the owners to so advise and large, to be contrasted with the
or, in the alternative, the charterers were charterers whose obligation, otherwise, position between owner and charterer.
merely under a duty to use due diligence is simply to provide bunkers which
in ensuring that there were proper would be reasonably fit for the standard
bunkers. The court held that the duty on engine of the type in question.” Disputes in respect of bunkers
the charterers was an absolute one. upon re-delivery
The point being made reinforces the There are usually two types of dispute
In a subsequent London arbitration2 a comment referred to at the beginning in respect of bunkers upon re-delivery,
tribunal was asked, again, to deal with of this section: a properly drafted but there is one common denominator:
this issue (namely Clause 2 of the NYPE clause, applicable to the vessel in the volatility of bunker prices. The
1 1984, unreported.
2 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter 1/88.
3 Time Charters by Wilford, Coghlin & Kimball, 2nd Ed, 1982.
4 Bunkers by Fisher & Lux, 2nd Ed, 1994.
5 THE CAPTAIN DIAMANTIS (1997)1 Lloyd’s Rep. 362 and (1978)1 Lloyd’s Rep. 346.
6 Liability for said damage falls under the P&I cover – see Rule 39 of Assuranceforeningen Gard’s 2001 Statutes and Rules.
7 London Arbitration 8/98.
1 Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
2 See the article “Annex VI of Marpol 73/78 – Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships” in Gard News issue No. 176.
not to do it – Bunker
operations
A Member’s vessel – a bulk carrier – and the slick spread, contaminating The above incident demonstrates how
recently had a spill of bunker oil in a the walls of four berths. A number of simple deficiencies and a small amount
dock area and clean up costs alone barges and other vessels in the vicinity of oil spilled can have significant
amounted to around USD 130,000. of these berths were also contaminated. consequences. Before any bunkering
The vessel was conducting an internal The vessel’s discharge operations were operation, including the internal
transfer of heavy fuel oil from a deep temporarily suspended. transfer of oil, procedures must be
tank to a settling tank and as a result followed to ensure that any potential
the bunker line became pressurised. Clean up was made difficult and deficiencies are rectified before it is too
Whilst ordinarily this might not have protracted because heavy fuel oil is late. On this occasion the importance
been a problem, the deck manifold for persistent in nature, meaning that it of blanking off manifold connections
the bunker line had not been closed. naturally dissipates slowly. not in use and plugging the scuppers
Consequently fuel escaped onto the became regrettably obvious.
starboard side of the deck and via the Claims from stevedores and barge
scuppers into the dock. owners for idle time, as a result of the
spill and clean up, are currently being
It was estimated that a quantity of 5 to reviewed. The Master is also to be
10 MT of oil found its way overboard fined.
BIMCO has updated its bunker fuel the Vessel is ordered to trade within having supplied the Vessel with fuels
sulphur content clause. that zone. The Charterers also warrant in accordance with Sub-clause (a),
that any bunker suppliers, bunker craft the Charterers shall not otherwise be
The article “Annex VI of Marpol 73/78 operators and bunker surveyors used liable for any loss, delay, fines, costs
– Regulations for the Prevention of Air by the Charterers to supply such fuels or expenses arising or resulting from
Pollution from Ships”, which appeared shall comply with Regulations 14 and the Vessel’s failure to comply with
in Gard News issue No. 176, made 18 of MARPOL Annex VI, including the Regulations 14 and 18 of MARPOL
reference to the BIMCO Fuel Sulphur Guidelines in respect of sampling and Annex VI.
Content Clause for Time Charter the provision of bunker delivery notes. (c) For the purpose of this Clause,
Parties. Readers will be interested to “emission control zone” shall mean
learn that BIMCO has now updated The Charterers shall indemnify, defend zones as stipulated in MARPOL Annex
the clause in response to the entry and hold harmless the Owners in VI and/or zones regulated by regional
into force on 19th May 2005 of Marpol respect of any loss, liability, delay, fines, and/or national authorities such as,
Annex VI. The amended clause seeks to costs or expenses arising or resulting but not limited to, the EU and the US
provide a clearly worded and balanced from the Charterers’ failure to comply Environmental Protection Agency.”
provision to help owners and charterers with this Sub-clause (a).
comply with the requirements of For more information about the new
Regulations 14 and 18 of Annex VI (b) Provided always that the Charterers clause readers should refer to www.
of Marpol and with the requirements have fulfilled their obligations in respect bimco.org.
of other regulations relating to fuel of the supply of fuels in accordance with
sulphur content emission limits. The Sub-clause (a), the Owners warrant that:
new clause reads as follows:
(i) the Vessel shall comply with
“BIMCO Bunker Fuel Sulphur Content Regulations 14 and 18 of MARPOL
Clause for Time Charter Parties 2005 Annex VI and with the requirements of
(a) Without prejudice to anything else any emission control zone;
contained in this Charter Party, the and
Charterers shall supply fuels of such (ii) the Vessel shall be able to consume
specifications and grades to permit the fuels of the required sulphur content
Vessel, at all times, to comply with the when ordered by the Charterers to
maximum sulphur content requirements trade within any such zone. Subject to
of any emission control zone when
English Channel
This circular is issued to remind all to the full implementation of Annex is the need for proper changeover
operators of the general requirements VI. The EU fuel sulphur regulations procedures and the importance of
for the North Sea and English Channel will enter into force in the North Sea following these. Even with the required
SECA . More details on the subject, Area and English Channel SECA on fuel on board, a mistimed or improperly
including charterparty and bunker sales 11 August 2007 and requires ships to executed changeover will result in
contracts can be found in Gard News burn fuel oil with less than 1.5% sulphur violation of the SECA rules.
187, August/October, which will be by mass. This limit will also apply to
published in August 2007. passenger vessels operating on a In the event the fuel onboard does
regular service to or from any EU port. not meet the Marpol requirements,
The North Sea SOx Emission Control The sulphur limit will be enforced for port state or flag state authorities may
Area (SECA) entered into force on vessels of all flags from this date by port require a deviation, de-bunkering and
21st November 2006, and will be fully state control of all EU state ports. replacement of fuel, causing delay and
implemented 12 months later, on 22nd additional costs.
November 2007. Annex VI of Marpol Marpol Annex VI also requires ships of
73/78 limits the content of sulphur 400 gt or more, engaged in voyages Marpol violations may also result
oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) to or from countries who have ratified in fines against the vessel. The
emissions from ship exhausts and the Convention or, ships flying the flag enforcement has reportedly been light
prohibits the deliberate emissions of of the same countries, are required so far, but there is reason to believe
ozone-depleting substances. to have onboard an International Air that enforcement of Annex VI will follow
Pollution Prevention certificate issued that of Annex I and severe penalties will
Any vessel entering a SECA must switch by the flag state. To enable flag and be imposed if the industry is slow to
to a low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) before port states to monitor compliance comply with the new rules.
entering the area. The regulations with the regulations, Marpol Annex VI
require ships to allow sufficient time for requires a bunker delivery note to be
the fuel oil systems to be fully flushed obtained and retained on board stating
of all fuels exceeding 1.5% sulphur prior the sulphur content of the bunkers, as
to entry. well as a sample of the oil.
The European Union Directive 2005/33/ There are several challenges involved
EC dealing with the sulphur content of in complying with the regulations
marine fuels will come into force and contained in Marpol Annex VI. One of
will apply to the North Sea SECA prior the key issues for operators to address
www.gard.no