1. Presentation for NAMEPA By Dr.R.Vis, VISWA GROUP
THE NEW FUEL PARADIGM
Presentation for NAMEPA
By Dr.R.Vis, VISWA GROUP

2. WHAT IS A PARADIGM SHIFT?
“A typical example or pattern of something”
WHAT IS A PARADIGM SHIFT?
“A fundamental change in approach”
Newtonian Physics challenged by Albert Einstein,
Galileo about Earth going round the Sun
Swiss Watch Industry – Switch to digital watch in Japan

3. Is it an incremental shift?
THE NEW FUEL PARADIGM
Is it about new low sulfur fuels that have entered the market?
Is it about alternate fuels that are entering the market (LNG, Methanol etc.)
Is it about low sulfur hybrid fuels?
What about the ISO 8217 standard evolution?
Is it a paradigm shift?
Is it a tectonic shift?
Is it an incremental shift?

4. BUNKER OPTIONS IN 2020
0.5% Sulfur fuel Globally and 0.1% Sulfur fuel in ECA’s
Use MGO
Use Hybrid Fuels (like Exxon HDME50)
Use Emulsion Fuels
Use LNG
Use Methanol
Continue to use Heavy Fuel with Scrubbers for Exhaust
Desulfurize Heavy fuels at liquid fuel level

5. Relative Emissions

6. MGO HYBRID FUELS PRO Simplest Option. No major changes
Reduce SOx and PM
Less maintenance on engines
Availability - Worldwide
CON
Costly
No reduction in NOx
Minimal reduction in CO2
PRO
Less Expensive than MGO
Designed to meet 0.1% ECA
Good Ignition and Combustion
Low in Catfines and other elements
CON
Only 13+ suppliers
No specific grade in ISO 8217
Compatibility an issue with HFO
Not available worldwide

7. EMULSION FUELS LNG PRO Cheaper than HFO Reduced NOx and PM
Better atomization of the fuel
Minimal changes to existing equipment
CON
Additives required to form emulsion
Long term effect on engines unknown
Only few vessels on trial
PRO
Free of sulfur and ash
Reduce NOx, SOx, CO2 and PM emissions???
Low Cost
CON
High Initial costs
Major Modification to machinery and tanks
Storage and handling more risky
Density is half of HFO - more storage required
Low load operation an issue – dual fuel required
Not available Worldwide

8. METHANOL SCRUBBERS PRO Biodegradable, clean-burning
Reduce NOx, SOx and PM emissions
Existing facilities can be used
CON
Needs more space and twice the quantity to burn to get same energy as MGO
Engine modifications required
Has a lower flashpoint than MGO
Only 4+ ships on trial
Not available worldwide
PRO
High Return on investment (1 to 2 years)
Will reduce SOx and PM (VS Twin venturi) emissions
Problems with earlier models solved
No availability problems globally – Use any sulfur fuel
CON
Initial CAPEX can be high
Retroffiting is complicated
NOx or CO2 emissions not reduced significantly

9. DESULFURIZATION
PRO
Sulfur removed from liquid fuel before supply to vessel
No infrastructure changes onboard
Asphaltene removed during process resulting in cleaner fuel
Improved combustion and better SFOC
Increase MTBO
Can supply multiple vessels
Much better ROI than other technologies
Viswa Lab has made substantial progress in achieving this.
Please contact us.

10. HOW MARINE FUELS EVOLVED
HFO 4.5S
HFO 3.5S
HFO 1.0S ECA
MGO 0.1S ECA
HFO 0.5S
THE PREDICTED EVOLUTION AS PER VISWA LAB
SCRUBBER
LARGE HEAVY EXPENSIVE
SMALLER LIGHTER CHEAPER
LIQUID DESULFURIZATION
NO SCRUBBER NEEDED

11. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A FUEL STANDARD
ISO says
“A standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose.”
Why should standards be evolving?
The quality of a product is expected to improve with time. The evolving fuel standards will reflect this.
They also evolve to meet new developments or constraints in the manufacture of the product.
Standards also evolve to meet the acceptability by all countries

12. THE SHIFT IN THE FUEL STANDARDS
No International bunker fuel standards upto 1980’s
In 1982, ISO (International Organization of Standardization) introduced draft standard that became ISO 8217.
First edition in 1987
1987 to 1996 – Changes for the better
1996 to 2005 – Changes for the better
2005 to 2010 – Changes not for the better
2010 to 2016 – Changes not for the better
Why?

13. STRUCTURE OF BUNKER FUEL STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS
ISO only accepts representation from countries (Exception – IBIA this year)
Each country has an ISO committee and in this committee, only simple majority rules. Unless at least half the members of this committee are interested in improving the quality of the fuel, the default position is the others who mainly consist of suppliers, oil companies, engine makers and sometimes navy personnel who make the decisions.
Changes favorable to the suppliers are introduced first in the Annex.
In the subsequent revision, Annex items move into the body of the standard.

14. WHY NOTHING HAPPENS? Understand the structure
CIMAC
Committee of around 25
Engine makers, suppliers, equipment makers, labs etc.
Only 1-2 fuel users who have sailed on the ship
ISO
Consensus body which depends mostly on CIMAC for all things
Main job is to get consensus among nations for global standard to promote international trade.
IMO
The only body interested in fuel quality from the point of view of emission, health and safety of general public and the ship board personnel. Depends on ISO/CIMAC for technical input
ANECDOTE – EXPERIENCE IN ENTERING THE ISO COMMITTEE

15. WHY ARE FUEL USERS NOT ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES BENEFICIAL TO THEM?
Fuel users are a disparate group with no common voice, common forum or common constituency
They are hardly represented in CIMAC and ISO committees
The ISO standards voting structure effectively keeps them out
CIMAC committee of 25 consists of only one or two persons who have sailed on a ship
The Global Fuel Quality is dictated by people who have not even been on a ship!
The structure of the marine industry is peculiar, see below

16. THE PLAYERS IN THE BUNKER INDUSTRY
Ship (Asset Owner) - uses Managers to run it, charters the ship out, no control over fuel quality
Charterer – Uses the ship, buys lowest cost fuel meeting CP, not bothered about asset protection or fuel quality
Ship Manager – Mandate only to run the ship at minimum cost, no other interest

17. WHY FUEL SUPPLIERS NOT INTERESTED IN QUALITY?
There is no premium for better quality
They have to quote and supply against the single criteria of lowest cost
The disconnect between Fuel Quality and Fuel Prices – Jeddah, Japan and Singapore
Because of the above, they focus on how to reduce the cost

18. “The most effective blender is one who meets the fuel specification limit while using the lowest cost blend stock” - Quote from a Senior Blending expert

19. CHANGE IS POSSIBLE ROTTERDAM AUTHORITIES TAKE ACTION

20. CHANGE IS POSSIBLE - ROTTERDAM
Rotterdam authorities took strong action and ban undesirable contaminants
Since 2015, number of contaminated bunker cases in Rotterdam has plummeted.
Substance
Relevant regulation or standard
Reason for inclusion in list
Inorganic acids
Marpol 18.3
Addition is illegal. Corrosive, jeopardizes ship safety and adversely affects machinery performance.
Waste
EU Directive 2008/98/EC
Addition of any substance classified as waste is illegal.
Any PCB containing oil
EU Directive 96/59/EC USA TSCA
Addition of PCB’s is illegal. Toxicity, formation of dioxines during combustion, i.e. contributes to additional air pollution
Any oil containing organic halogen compounds e.g. solvents, freon coolants
Regulated in some EU member states
Addition is illegal. Toxicity, formation of dioxines during combustion, i.e. contributes to additional air pollution.
Used lubricating oil
ISO 8217
Should be qualified as chemical waste
Biodiesel (FAME)
Blending is not allowed in residual fuel oil and most distillate marine fuel grades. Will only be allowed in new DF distillate fuel grade (2016).

21. CHANGE IS POSSIBLE - ROTTERDAM
Other substances identified by Port of Rotterdam that are not derived from petroleum refining and may violate Marpol Annex VI
Non- hydrocarbon combustables derived from biomass
ISO 8217:2016 will allow only the following hydrocarbons from renewable sources: HVO, BTL and co-processed renewable feedstock. Other biomass derived fuels are therefore undesirable as fuel oil blend component until there is sufficient technical evidence that they do not violate Annex VI requirements. Examples of such fuels are: Vegetable and animal fats and oils, Fatty and organic acids, Tall oil, Biodiesel production residues
Coal derived combustibles
These are sometimes offered as bunker components. There are concerns about compatibility, sludge formation. Examples of such fuels are - Coal Tar, Brown coal tar, Creosote oil
Styrene monomer
May polymerize at high concentrations in the presence of precursors and cause deposits in engine systems.
Polymers
Have been the cause of incidents resulting in engine system problems
Resins e.g. polyurethane-, epoxy- en alkydresin.
Not compatible, poor mixability with hydrocarbons.

22. CHANGE IS POSSIBLE PROTECT YOUR ASSET WITH EXTENDED TESTING VISWA PEACE OF MIND PACKAGE
Asphaltene
GCMS Screening
Particle Count
Fuel Stability
Toluene Insolubles
pH Acidity

23. WHAT PARADIGM SHIFT CAN BE A CURE ALL FOR BUNKER INDUSTRY
Only Ship Owner (Asset owner) should buy the fuel under all circumstances
He will buy the best fuel. He will not want to damage the machinery.
He will be willing to pay a higher price for a better quality fuel (Not available now)
He will invest in treating the fuel in making it better quality
He will be interested in how the fuel is injected and combusted in the cylinder
The whole industry will change character.
Will not chase low cost bunker fuels = poor quality bunker fuels
Last but not least, the poor fuel user on the ship deserves a better fuel. Their suffering should not come at the cost of benefits to unscrupulous suppliers (Msg from C/E)

24. VISWA – MORE THAN JUST TESTING
Following instruments developed for Ship Board use
- Scuffing detection instrumentation through acoustic emissions
- Filter Blocking detection instrumentation
- Onboard Compatibility/Stability kit
- Viswa Energy Efficiency Monitoring System (VEEMS) Instrumentation – Fitted on several ships becoming nerve center of ship performance and activities
- Exhaust Gas Scrubbers
New Developments in molecular transformation of petroleum products including desulfurization of bunker fuels
Fuel problems solved using state of the art instruments – NMR, TGA, GCMS, Ion Chromatography
Reputation as “Problem Solving Lab” 

25. Thank You!
VISWA.MFAME.GURU