IMO published this document July 15, 2011 providing the summary for the sixty-second session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 62). The document covers Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water (7 system receiving Basic Approval, 2 systems receiving Final Approval, and other matters covered by the GESAMP-BWWG), Recycling of Ships, Interpretation of and Amendments to MARPOL and Related Instruments, Implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol and Relevant Conference Resolutions, etc.
What I found interesting is contained in "Matters Related to MARPOL Annex I" under para 7.18 noting that THE MOST SIGNIFICANT REVISION OF REGULATION 12 OF MARPOL ANNEX I AND THE ASSOCIATED UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS WAS THAT IT NO LONGER CONTAINS THE PROVISION TO ALLOW FOR AN INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN THE SLUDGE TANK DISCHARGE PIPING AND BILGE-WATER PIPING...
I emphasize the comment because, in our experience, nothing good comes from a connection between sludge and bilge-water. De-canting sludge to bilge-water makes bilge-water treatment unnecessarily difficult and expensive because the sludge components transferred must be removed in adsorption media or cartridges.
Whereas the above provision applies only to ships delivered after 2014, I'd recommend considering this recommendation on existing ships, as a safe guard as well as part of an IBTS.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Carbon Emissions
From time to time I get an e-mail alert from Jim Hansen, as happened today, regarding his recent trip to New Zealand.
On page 3 of his reflections, Jim Hansen shows fossil fuel carbon emissions for 4 countries, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and New Zealand. The reason I mention this is that national carbon emissions can be reduced. Sweden's emissions peaked around 1970 and declined from 25Mt/y to 15Mt/y in 2010; Denmark's are on a downward slope and Norway's seem to be declining for the last 3 years.
How is Canada doing? Our carbon emissions seem to have peaked in 2007 at 750Mt/y, as they are 2% lower in 2008, according to Environment Canada.
Could we do better and save money? I think we could.
The combined greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light duty gasoline trucks were 85.4 million tons for 2008, representing 11.6% of the national total. That means we burned about 35.5 billion liters of gasoline that year in cars, SUVs and pick up trucks that year.
From my experience with an 8-cylinder GMC Sierra, a VW TDI and Passat 2.0T, I have a fair notion of actual fuel consumption. On my way to town my GMC uses about twice what the Passat used and the TDI uses about 25% less than the Passat did on the highway. By shifting from the Passat to the TDI I reduced my emissions significantly without a penalty on driving comfort; actually it's more comfortable in the TDI than in the Sierra.
For simplicity, using a gasoline price of $ 1.00/liter, then Canadians paid $ 35.5 billion for gasoline in 2008. With a shift from SUVs, trucks and vans to cars, we can reduce our fuel consumption by at least 5-10%, which equates to reducing our fuel expenses by between $ 1.75 billion to $ 3.55 billion a year! With gasoline prices going up, the savings today are 25%+ higher, well ahead of inflation.
Maybe the environmental argument is too abstract, the potential fuel cost savings make a pretty good argument.
On page 3 of his reflections, Jim Hansen shows fossil fuel carbon emissions for 4 countries, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and New Zealand. The reason I mention this is that national carbon emissions can be reduced. Sweden's emissions peaked around 1970 and declined from 25Mt/y to 15Mt/y in 2010; Denmark's are on a downward slope and Norway's seem to be declining for the last 3 years.
How is Canada doing? Our carbon emissions seem to have peaked in 2007 at 750Mt/y, as they are 2% lower in 2008, according to Environment Canada.
Could we do better and save money? I think we could.
The combined greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light duty gasoline trucks were 85.4 million tons for 2008, representing 11.6% of the national total. That means we burned about 35.5 billion liters of gasoline that year in cars, SUVs and pick up trucks that year.
From my experience with an 8-cylinder GMC Sierra, a VW TDI and Passat 2.0T, I have a fair notion of actual fuel consumption. On my way to town my GMC uses about twice what the Passat used and the TDI uses about 25% less than the Passat did on the highway. By shifting from the Passat to the TDI I reduced my emissions significantly without a penalty on driving comfort; actually it's more comfortable in the TDI than in the Sierra.
For simplicity, using a gasoline price of $ 1.00/liter, then Canadians paid $ 35.5 billion for gasoline in 2008. With a shift from SUVs, trucks and vans to cars, we can reduce our fuel consumption by at least 5-10%, which equates to reducing our fuel expenses by between $ 1.75 billion to $ 3.55 billion a year! With gasoline prices going up, the savings today are 25%+ higher, well ahead of inflation.
Maybe the environmental argument is too abstract, the potential fuel cost savings make a pretty good argument.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
OPEC May 2011 MOMR
At the middle of the month OPEC release their Monthly Oil Market Report, a document of over 80 pages. The MOMR reviews the global economies and discusses the oil outlook.
For 2011, OPEC projects a 1.4mb/d demand increase over 2010, which is now somewhat lower than the 2.1mb/d they projected earlier. That means oil demand grew from the 84.57mb/d in 2009 to 86.67mb/d in 2010 and is projected to increase to 88.08mb/d for the year 2011.
The principal drivers of this demand growth are the emerging economies. Total demand in the developed world, North America, Western Europe and OECD Pacific (Total OECD) is projected to increase by only 0.19mb/d from 2009 to 2011. 87.23% of global oil demand growth comes from outside the OECD. In a couple of years the "total other regions" will consume more oil than the "total OECD".
The interesting development, for the marine market, is contained in the forecasted y-o-y growth in product demand. For 2011 the trend in declining residual fuels continues unabated at -6%, gasoline and diesel demand lead the refined product growth at 21% and 41% respectively.
For 2011, OPEC projects a 1.4mb/d demand increase over 2010, which is now somewhat lower than the 2.1mb/d they projected earlier. That means oil demand grew from the 84.57mb/d in 2009 to 86.67mb/d in 2010 and is projected to increase to 88.08mb/d for the year 2011.
The principal drivers of this demand growth are the emerging economies. Total demand in the developed world, North America, Western Europe and OECD Pacific (Total OECD) is projected to increase by only 0.19mb/d from 2009 to 2011. 87.23% of global oil demand growth comes from outside the OECD. In a couple of years the "total other regions" will consume more oil than the "total OECD".
The interesting development, for the marine market, is contained in the forecasted y-o-y growth in product demand. For 2011 the trend in declining residual fuels continues unabated at -6%, gasoline and diesel demand lead the refined product growth at 21% and 41% respectively.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Bilge Water Discharges
Canadian Inland Water regulations authorize the treatment of oily bilge water through approved equipment overboard with the ship making way. The required effluent quality must be better than 5 parts per million (ppm) of oil in the discharge water, while the ship is moving.
The regulations class oil and oily water as a pollutants that mustn't be discharged from a ship. Therefore, since the regulations authorize the treatment of oily bilge water, the effluent that falls within the regulated discharge requirements becomes then a discharge free of oil under the oil pollution prevention regulations.
How oil-free is then the 5ppm bilge water discharge from a ship? Are compliant bilge water discharges a pollution threat for the Great Lakes - Seaway system?
1 liter is a cube with sides of 100mm each, or equal to 1 Million cu.mm; therefore 1 cu.mm of oil in 1 liter of bilge water is 1ppm; 5ppm is one cube with sides of 1.7mm in 1 liter of bilge water. Which means that the upper limit for compliant bilge water discharges is a small drop of oil in 1 liter of bilge water. This quantity of oil is evenly dispersed in the effluent, in very fine droplets, too fine to coalesce into larger oil droplets to form visible pollution.
So not only do the regulations require fairly clean water, but in addition the ship has also to "make way".
Here is a quick calculation on "typical" worst case discharges from Canadian Lakers. One of the most common bilge separator sizes installed is a 16GPM system, which processes bilge water at about 3,600 liters per hour equal to 3.6 liters per second. A ship making way at 2 knots, the ship does 2 nautical miles per hour, equal to about 3.6km/hr or about 1 meter per second. Therefore, in the worst case under the regulations this ship discharges 1 liter bilge water per second containing an oil drop of 1.7mm over a distance of 1 meter traveled. Since the actual oil content must be below the 5ppm limit and the ship's speed is typically above the 2KN mentioned, therefore a smaller "drop of oil" gets stretched further than the 1 meter mentioned.
I am quite comfortable stating that compliant bilge water discharges are not a pollution threat for the inland waters. Bilge water discharges are not point sources like refinery effluents or run-off from roadways and parking lots, or any other oil pollution from land based sources.
The regulations class oil and oily water as a pollutants that mustn't be discharged from a ship. Therefore, since the regulations authorize the treatment of oily bilge water, the effluent that falls within the regulated discharge requirements becomes then a discharge free of oil under the oil pollution prevention regulations.
How oil-free is then the 5ppm bilge water discharge from a ship? Are compliant bilge water discharges a pollution threat for the Great Lakes - Seaway system?
1 liter is a cube with sides of 100mm each, or equal to 1 Million cu.mm; therefore 1 cu.mm of oil in 1 liter of bilge water is 1ppm; 5ppm is one cube with sides of 1.7mm in 1 liter of bilge water. Which means that the upper limit for compliant bilge water discharges is a small drop of oil in 1 liter of bilge water. This quantity of oil is evenly dispersed in the effluent, in very fine droplets, too fine to coalesce into larger oil droplets to form visible pollution.
So not only do the regulations require fairly clean water, but in addition the ship has also to "make way".
Here is a quick calculation on "typical" worst case discharges from Canadian Lakers. One of the most common bilge separator sizes installed is a 16GPM system, which processes bilge water at about 3,600 liters per hour equal to 3.6 liters per second. A ship making way at 2 knots, the ship does 2 nautical miles per hour, equal to about 3.6km/hr or about 1 meter per second. Therefore, in the worst case under the regulations this ship discharges 1 liter bilge water per second containing an oil drop of 1.7mm over a distance of 1 meter traveled. Since the actual oil content must be below the 5ppm limit and the ship's speed is typically above the 2KN mentioned, therefore a smaller "drop of oil" gets stretched further than the 1 meter mentioned.
I am quite comfortable stating that compliant bilge water discharges are not a pollution threat for the inland waters. Bilge water discharges are not point sources like refinery effluents or run-off from roadways and parking lots, or any other oil pollution from land based sources.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Marine Fuel - 3
Not all crude oil is created equal, as it ranges from light-sweet crude to heavy crude oil; with some of the heaviest stuff coming from Cold Lake Alberta.
In the "good old days" oil was refined in topping refineries. This was (as I understand it) basically atmospheric refining, where light products were boiled off. With light crude the refiner got about 75% light product with 25% residual oil. With the shift to heavier crude oil refiners added complexity to the refining process, squeezing more light product from the feedstock. Valero gives a good overview of this evolution on their Quebec City refinery website. What is evident from their comments is that they are configuring this refinery for heavier crude oil.
Industry consensus is that the supply of light crude is shrinking. The peak oil theory is proposed by some and opposed by others. However, the continuing drive towards cleaner refined product requires increased complexity of the refining process, which eventually configures the refinery to be able to use heavy feedstock, including residual fuel. Valero's Corpus Christie refinery is such a refinery, capable of refining the heaviest (and residual) oils into light product, asphalt and petroleum coke.
The way I read it is that with the shift towards heavier feedstock the refiner needs to increase his ability to squeeze more light product from the heavier oil; he needs to increase the complexity of the refinery. Then he needs to remove more pollutants from the refined product to meet the tightening fuel quality standards; again increasing the complexity of the refining process. On top of that demand for refined product keeps rising, which the refiner needs to satisfy with increased yield from existing refineries. So that eventually he has upgraded from the Quebec refinery in 1981 to the Corpus Christie refinery of 2010, cutting residual oil from something like 25 - 30% down to 0%., leaving no base stock for marine fuel blending. While this Valero example shows the extreme case, the continuing shift towards heavier residuals globally confirms the theory. Let's face it, refiners will supply premium products longer than furnishing residuals for a discounted marine product, which means heavy fuel will disappear before we run out of gasoline and diesel.
In the "good old days" oil was refined in topping refineries. This was (as I understand it) basically atmospheric refining, where light products were boiled off. With light crude the refiner got about 75% light product with 25% residual oil. With the shift to heavier crude oil refiners added complexity to the refining process, squeezing more light product from the feedstock. Valero gives a good overview of this evolution on their Quebec City refinery website. What is evident from their comments is that they are configuring this refinery for heavier crude oil.
Industry consensus is that the supply of light crude is shrinking. The peak oil theory is proposed by some and opposed by others. However, the continuing drive towards cleaner refined product requires increased complexity of the refining process, which eventually configures the refinery to be able to use heavy feedstock, including residual fuel. Valero's Corpus Christie refinery is such a refinery, capable of refining the heaviest (and residual) oils into light product, asphalt and petroleum coke.
The way I read it is that with the shift towards heavier feedstock the refiner needs to increase his ability to squeeze more light product from the heavier oil; he needs to increase the complexity of the refinery. Then he needs to remove more pollutants from the refined product to meet the tightening fuel quality standards; again increasing the complexity of the refining process. On top of that demand for refined product keeps rising, which the refiner needs to satisfy with increased yield from existing refineries. So that eventually he has upgraded from the Quebec refinery in 1981 to the Corpus Christie refinery of 2010, cutting residual oil from something like 25 - 30% down to 0%., leaving no base stock for marine fuel blending. While this Valero example shows the extreme case, the continuing shift towards heavier residuals globally confirms the theory. Let's face it, refiners will supply premium products longer than furnishing residuals for a discounted marine product, which means heavy fuel will disappear before we run out of gasoline and diesel.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
MARPOL matters
IMO posted the biannual agenda of the DE Sub-Committee for 2012-2013. For the DE-56 meeting a total of 23 agenda items are listed, of which item 19 caught my eye.
Under 19 the "Revision of the Revised guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants (resolution MEPC.159(55))" will be discussed. Target completion date for this task is 2012, suggesting that revised sewage regulations are in the works.
My friend, Dennis Bryant posted on his blog today the following from the USCG:
"The US Coast Guard issued a notice announcing that, in accordance with IMO Res. MEPC.191(60), the restrictions on discharges from ships in the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR) special area (SA), as specified in MARPOL Annex V, Regulation 5, will come into effect on May 1, 2011. The WCR includes the Gulf of Mexico. Once the restrictions come into effect, no person may discharge, within the SA, garbage from a ship except (under limited conditions) food wastes. 76 Fed. Reg. 19380 (April 7, 2011).
Under 19 the "Revision of the Revised guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants (resolution MEPC.159(55))" will be discussed. Target completion date for this task is 2012, suggesting that revised sewage regulations are in the works.
My friend, Dennis Bryant posted on his blog today the following from the USCG:
"The US Coast Guard issued a notice announcing that, in accordance with IMO Res. MEPC.191(60), the restrictions on discharges from ships in the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR) special area (SA), as specified in MARPOL Annex V, Regulation 5, will come into effect on May 1, 2011. The WCR includes the Gulf of Mexico. Once the restrictions come into effect, no person may discharge, within the SA, garbage from a ship except (under limited conditions) food wastes. 76 Fed. Reg. 19380 (April 7, 2011).
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Marine Fuel - 2
Carrying on from last weeks comments on declining residual oil quantities.
The Globe and Mail published recently an article about the fact that heavy oil is gaining weight in energy markets, based on comments at the World Heavy Oil Congress in Edmonton, earlier this month. According to the experts, by 2030 heavy oil will make up 16 - 20% of the world total supply of oil, up from below 6% today.
Refineries, to process heavier oil, require to upgrade the refining process in order to get adequate quantities of refined product from the feedstock. The upgrade of the refining process results in lower quantities of residuals that are not suitable as base for marine fuel blending. They are too heavy and S-content is way too high to be used as base for IFO blending. As a rule of thumb, the S-content in the residual is typically more than twice the S-content of the feedstock.
The EIA charts show how residual declined, without a major shift towards heavier feedstock. Looking forward we'll need to factor in the increase in heavier feedstock as well as increased synthetic crude oil quantities.
The Globe and Mail published recently an article about the fact that heavy oil is gaining weight in energy markets, based on comments at the World Heavy Oil Congress in Edmonton, earlier this month. According to the experts, by 2030 heavy oil will make up 16 - 20% of the world total supply of oil, up from below 6% today.
Refineries, to process heavier oil, require to upgrade the refining process in order to get adequate quantities of refined product from the feedstock. The upgrade of the refining process results in lower quantities of residuals that are not suitable as base for marine fuel blending. They are too heavy and S-content is way too high to be used as base for IFO blending. As a rule of thumb, the S-content in the residual is typically more than twice the S-content of the feedstock.
The EIA charts show how residual declined, without a major shift towards heavier feedstock. Looking forward we'll need to factor in the increase in heavier feedstock as well as increased synthetic crude oil quantities.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Marine Fuel - 1
From time to time I look at the EIA website, mostly out of curiosity. The US Energy Information Agency publishes the US statistics on oil related matters every Wednesday.
The EIA's weekly supply estimates have in their right columns the links to graphs, showing historic trends to 2011 for specific products and groups. The ones I find of interest are the trends for crude oil refinery inputs, gasoline, distillate fuels and residual fuels. What these graphs indicate to me is that refinery yields have increased over the years. US refiners are producing more refined product from lower feedstock quantities, thereby leaving less residual oil for marine fuel blending. The EIA figures suggest that US refineries produce a lower percentage of residual oil than others.
If we take the US refining trend towards higher refinery yields as indicative for how global refining evolves, then it is reasonable to project that somewhere down the line there won't be enough residual fuel to satisfy the demand for industrial and marine fuel.
The EIA's weekly supply estimates have in their right columns the links to graphs, showing historic trends to 2011 for specific products and groups. The ones I find of interest are the trends for crude oil refinery inputs, gasoline, distillate fuels and residual fuels. What these graphs indicate to me is that refinery yields have increased over the years. US refiners are producing more refined product from lower feedstock quantities, thereby leaving less residual oil for marine fuel blending. The EIA figures suggest that US refineries produce a lower percentage of residual oil than others.
If we take the US refining trend towards higher refinery yields as indicative for how global refining evolves, then it is reasonable to project that somewhere down the line there won't be enough residual fuel to satisfy the demand for industrial and marine fuel.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Bilge Alarm Readings
The test procedures for the 15ppm Bilge Alarm are described in MEPC 49 Test Specifications. Basically, the accuracy of the Bilge Alarm is determined by comparing its readings against a known flow of Test Fluid injected into a known flow of water. The grab samples are analyzed in a laboratory to Standard ISO9377-2:2000, using solvent extraction and gas chromatography for the determination of the hydrocarbon oil index in water.
The methodology is clear and the oil content for the test effluent is known. Therefore, in the approval process, the Bilge Alarm is demonstrated under controlled, predictable and repeatable conditions. To get the Bilge Alarm approved, the instrument needs to correctly display the optical effect created by the known oily water mixture, as the equivalent parts per million of oil content. In other words, the instrument is calibrated for this purpose before the approval test, then shown to read oil content correctly.
As we all know, bilge water aboard a ship, or more accurately the effluent from the Bilge Separator is not the same mixture of oil and water as the one in the approval process. In the approval process the IMO Test Fluid "C" is used, which is a 1kg mixture of water, containing 25g of heavy fuel RMG 35, plus 25g of light fuel DMA , plus 0.5g surfactant and 1.7g of iron oxides. By comparison,the effluent coming out of the Bilge Separator contains typically more than 2 types of oils as it contains heavy fuel, light fuel lube oils as well as other oils; it contains probably more than 0.5g of surfactants as cleaners and detergents are present, from the cleaning of surfaces and as part of modern lube oils as well; solids content of the effluent most likely is quite different too. Then of course there is the color of the bilge water, also different than the test liquid. All this to say that the Bilge Alarm does not compare apples with apples; it is tested with "apples" but then required to read "oranges" aboard a ship.
The Bilge Alarm is approved by IMO for on-line, continuous measuring, using an optical value as a reference for oil content. The measuring system is at best an approximation, rather than a scientific measurement of hydrocarbon content in water. Port State Control procedures confirm that compliant bilge water effluent is determined by a calibrated Bilge Alarm and not a laboratory analysis.
Because the Bilge Alarm is calibrated to a specific oily water mixture, there will be a difference between the actual hydrocarbon content of compliant real life effluent and the test liquid. How big the difference will be is dependent on the complexity of the bilge water the Bilge Separator has to treat.
The methodology is clear and the oil content for the test effluent is known. Therefore, in the approval process, the Bilge Alarm is demonstrated under controlled, predictable and repeatable conditions. To get the Bilge Alarm approved, the instrument needs to correctly display the optical effect created by the known oily water mixture, as the equivalent parts per million of oil content. In other words, the instrument is calibrated for this purpose before the approval test, then shown to read oil content correctly.
As we all know, bilge water aboard a ship, or more accurately the effluent from the Bilge Separator is not the same mixture of oil and water as the one in the approval process. In the approval process the IMO Test Fluid "C" is used, which is a 1kg mixture of water, containing 25g of heavy fuel RMG 35, plus 25g of light fuel DMA , plus 0.5g surfactant and 1.7g of iron oxides. By comparison,the effluent coming out of the Bilge Separator contains typically more than 2 types of oils as it contains heavy fuel, light fuel lube oils as well as other oils; it contains probably more than 0.5g of surfactants as cleaners and detergents are present, from the cleaning of surfaces and as part of modern lube oils as well; solids content of the effluent most likely is quite different too. Then of course there is the color of the bilge water, also different than the test liquid. All this to say that the Bilge Alarm does not compare apples with apples; it is tested with "apples" but then required to read "oranges" aboard a ship.
The Bilge Alarm is approved by IMO for on-line, continuous measuring, using an optical value as a reference for oil content. The measuring system is at best an approximation, rather than a scientific measurement of hydrocarbon content in water. Port State Control procedures confirm that compliant bilge water effluent is determined by a calibrated Bilge Alarm and not a laboratory analysis.
Because the Bilge Alarm is calibrated to a specific oily water mixture, there will be a difference between the actual hydrocarbon content of compliant real life effluent and the test liquid. How big the difference will be is dependent on the complexity of the bilge water the Bilge Separator has to treat.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
World Oil Demand in 2011
In the October 2010 Monthly Oil Market Report OPEC provides data on the current global oil situation.
Total world oil demand is projected to grow by 1.05 million barrels per day, or 1.22%. Demand is driven primarily by growth in the developing economies, where demand is expected to grow by 2.05%, whereas demand in the OECD will only grow by 0.13%. Primary drivers for the growth in oil demand are the developing countries, lead by China and India.
What may be of interest to marine is how OPEC sees residual oil shrinking. According to to the forecast, the primary drivers for growth in oil demand are gasoline (+19%), other products (+19%) and gas/diesel oil (+26%), while residual fuel is projected to shrink by 10% in 2011.
What seems evident is that refined product demand growth impacts on residual fuel availability. This trend seems to have started with the oil crisis in the mid 70's and is now accelerating with the tremendous growth in the developing economies. Additional pressure on residual oil comes from slow growth on the oil supply side, which forces refiners to increase yield. In North America, the increased reliance on feedstock from the oil sands, shrinks residual oil supply from local sources.
Declining residual supply suggests deteriorating residual fuel quality, which is diagonally opposite to the tightening fuel quality requirements of IMO. This raises the question, by when will heavy fuel oil no longer meet the required fuel quality standards?
Total world oil demand is projected to grow by 1.05 million barrels per day, or 1.22%. Demand is driven primarily by growth in the developing economies, where demand is expected to grow by 2.05%, whereas demand in the OECD will only grow by 0.13%. Primary drivers for the growth in oil demand are the developing countries, lead by China and India.
What may be of interest to marine is how OPEC sees residual oil shrinking. According to to the forecast, the primary drivers for growth in oil demand are gasoline (+19%), other products (+19%) and gas/diesel oil (+26%), while residual fuel is projected to shrink by 10% in 2011.
What seems evident is that refined product demand growth impacts on residual fuel availability. This trend seems to have started with the oil crisis in the mid 70's and is now accelerating with the tremendous growth in the developing economies. Additional pressure on residual oil comes from slow growth on the oil supply side, which forces refiners to increase yield. In North America, the increased reliance on feedstock from the oil sands, shrinks residual oil supply from local sources.
Declining residual supply suggests deteriorating residual fuel quality, which is diagonally opposite to the tightening fuel quality requirements of IMO. This raises the question, by when will heavy fuel oil no longer meet the required fuel quality standards?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What can we learn from the Irika sentencing
The US DoJ posted their news release on the Sentencing of Irika Shipping S.A.
When the MV IORANA arrived in Baltimore in January 2010, crew members alerted the USCG port state control officer of illegal dumping of oil and garbage at sea. Granted, this was a blatant case of willful pollution, which no respectable company will tolerate, however, there are a few points in the press release worth noting, if a company operates into the USA.
From reading some of the USCG publications and comments by lawyers, it seems to me the following 2 things probably played a significant part why the fine for the offence was ultimately $ 4,000,000.
Irika pleaded guilty, by my count, to 8 felony charges, each carrying a maximum penalty of $ 500,000. While lawyers frown upon admitting guilt, it seems to me that cooperation by ship officers can significantly reduce the criminal penalty. My math suggests that the court imposed the maximum $500,000 per felony. Cooperation by the senior officers would have reduced the count by at least 2, or the fine by $ 1,000,000 or more!
What I suggest is that a company who's ships call on US ports, should have in place a vigorously implemented environmental policy and that their ship officers are aware on how to work with USCG officers during a port state control.
When the MV IORANA arrived in Baltimore in January 2010, crew members alerted the USCG port state control officer of illegal dumping of oil and garbage at sea. Granted, this was a blatant case of willful pollution, which no respectable company will tolerate, however, there are a few points in the press release worth noting, if a company operates into the USA.
From reading some of the USCG publications and comments by lawyers, it seems to me the following 2 things probably played a significant part why the fine for the offence was ultimately $ 4,000,000.
- Irika admitted the company had no budget for the vessel and no waste management plan, and crew members received little training regarding the company's environmental policies.
- Irika admitted obstructing justice in a couple of ways, including false statements by ship officers, destroying evidence, etc.
Irika pleaded guilty, by my count, to 8 felony charges, each carrying a maximum penalty of $ 500,000. While lawyers frown upon admitting guilt, it seems to me that cooperation by ship officers can significantly reduce the criminal penalty. My math suggests that the court imposed the maximum $500,000 per felony. Cooperation by the senior officers would have reduced the count by at least 2, or the fine by $ 1,000,000 or more!
What I suggest is that a company who's ships call on US ports, should have in place a vigorously implemented environmental policy and that their ship officers are aware on how to work with USCG officers during a port state control.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Residual Fuel
As a follow up to last week, in the September issue of OPEC's monthly oil market report, on page 30 they show a pie chart of the projected demand growth for the various refinery products from 2010 to 2011. OPEC predicts a 1,0 million barrel/day increase in oil demand for 2011 and predicts all products to increase - except for residual fuel. OPEC predicts a decline in residual oil by 143,000 barrels/ day for the coming year.
In the previous blog I stated that according to data published by the IEA residual fuel represented 15.1% of global refinery output in 2008. Based on that figure the 143,000 barrel reduction in residual fuel, for the coming year, represents essentially a 1.1% drop in the supply of feed stock for heavy fuel blending. In other words, the quality of the blended fuel will continue to deteriorate and availability of IMO compliant HFO may become an issue, maybe not immediately but probably in the long term.
In the previous blog I stated that according to data published by the IEA residual fuel represented 15.1% of global refinery output in 2008. Based on that figure the 143,000 barrel reduction in residual fuel, for the coming year, represents essentially a 1.1% drop in the supply of feed stock for heavy fuel blending. In other words, the quality of the blended fuel will continue to deteriorate and availability of IMO compliant HFO may become an issue, maybe not immediately but probably in the long term.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
International Energy Agency
The 2010 Key statistics by the IEA are rather interesting. Oil consumption keeps rising, residual fuel production is declining and we see a shift in the global refining picture. The developing economies of China, Asia and the Middle East are adding refinery capacity aggressively while in the developed world capacity is being consolidated.
In 1973 33.8% of refinery throughput ended up as residual fuel, by 2008 this shrank to 15.1% globally. In Canada refineries produce only about 7% residual oil from their feedstock, in the USA it is lower still. The fact that refiners today produce more light product per barrel of oil, suggests that the quality of the residual fuel is deteriorating.
Regulations are tightening, calling for cleaner stack emissions from ships, on the other hand residual fuel quality is declining. The question then is, how will ship owners comply with these tightening regulations? Will they be able to burn lower quality residual fuels forever with secondary treatment of the exhaust gases, or will they be forced to burn premium-priced light fuel, because marine fuel won't be available anymore; in part due to the increased refinery yield, in part due to the shift in refining to the emerging economies?
Is it possible that tightening oil supply will some day force ship owners to burn distilled product?
In 1973 33.8% of refinery throughput ended up as residual fuel, by 2008 this shrank to 15.1% globally. In Canada refineries produce only about 7% residual oil from their feedstock, in the USA it is lower still. The fact that refiners today produce more light product per barrel of oil, suggests that the quality of the residual fuel is deteriorating.
Regulations are tightening, calling for cleaner stack emissions from ships, on the other hand residual fuel quality is declining. The question then is, how will ship owners comply with these tightening regulations? Will they be able to burn lower quality residual fuels forever with secondary treatment of the exhaust gases, or will they be forced to burn premium-priced light fuel, because marine fuel won't be available anymore; in part due to the increased refinery yield, in part due to the shift in refining to the emerging economies?
Is it possible that tightening oil supply will some day force ship owners to burn distilled product?
Monday, August 23, 2010
Air Toxics from Cement Plants
In the most recent EM magazine by the Air & Waste Management Association, on page 44 there is an article on the threat to the American cement industry by tight EPA air emission standards. According to the Portland Cement Association the stringent standards and need to install expensive controls could force 30 plants to close and it puts another 12 plants "at risk" of being forced out of business.
What the EPA wants to achieve with the tighter emission rules is a reduction in the annual emissions of mercury (by 11,600 tons), hydrocarbons (by 11,700 tons), particulate matter (by 10,500 tons), hydrochloric acid (by 2,800 tons) and sulfur oxides (by 160,000 tons).
The Portland Cement Association did a webinar on this and the power point presentation, as a summary, is posted on the web. What I found interesting is how well the cement plant population aligns with marine transportation arteries (as per slide 4 of the presentation).
To put two of the cement industry's toxins into perspective, considering the coming ECA:
What the EPA wants to achieve with the tighter emission rules is a reduction in the annual emissions of mercury (by 11,600 tons), hydrocarbons (by 11,700 tons), particulate matter (by 10,500 tons), hydrochloric acid (by 2,800 tons) and sulfur oxides (by 160,000 tons).
The Portland Cement Association did a webinar on this and the power point presentation, as a summary, is posted on the web. What I found interesting is how well the cement plant population aligns with marine transportation arteries (as per slide 4 of the presentation).
To put two of the cement industry's toxins into perspective, considering the coming ECA:
- With an ECA in domestic waters, SOx from ships would be cut by less than 40,000 tons, and
- Marine does not contribute to mercury pollution.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Horse Power
From time-to-time I wonder about the need for high powered personal vehicles.
A recent write-up on the new Jaguar cars got me thinking whether we needed 510HP in a car to go 280km/h rather than only the pedestrian speed of 240km/hr. Similarly, North American motor journalists tell us we need monster bikes of more then 1000cc to move us.
I think it is understood that oil is a finite source of energy, we will deplete it. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in their Vision 2050, suggest that with business as usual we will require every last resource on Earth, and another Earth, and a third more. "That's obviously a huge issue" says Dr. Mohammad Zaidi, executive VP and chief technical officer at ALCOA.
Vision 2050 suggests we better start acting now, changing from the current exploitation model to a sustainable model. Maybe we should look at the horse power issue on our vehicles?
In 2008 Canada generated 734Mt of greenhouse gases; emissions from cars, SUVs and motor cycles accounted for 85.664Mt equal to 11.67% of the total. I wonder how much the emissions from personal vehicles could be reduced by scaling back on engine power in our cars and bikes. My guess is that we'd be just as mobile with less than half the current average engine power. The reason I say this is that in North America we tend to drive European cars with larger engines than are common in Europe.
Vision 2050 suggests we are exceeding now Earth's capacity. If we look for sustainability to 2050 I suggest we heed WBCSD's call for action now; maybe reducing the engine power in our personal transportation is a good start?
A recent write-up on the new Jaguar cars got me thinking whether we needed 510HP in a car to go 280km/h rather than only the pedestrian speed of 240km/hr. Similarly, North American motor journalists tell us we need monster bikes of more then 1000cc to move us.
I think it is understood that oil is a finite source of energy, we will deplete it. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in their Vision 2050, suggest that with business as usual we will require every last resource on Earth, and another Earth, and a third more. "That's obviously a huge issue" says Dr. Mohammad Zaidi, executive VP and chief technical officer at ALCOA.
Vision 2050 suggests we better start acting now, changing from the current exploitation model to a sustainable model. Maybe we should look at the horse power issue on our vehicles?
In 2008 Canada generated 734Mt of greenhouse gases; emissions from cars, SUVs and motor cycles accounted for 85.664Mt equal to 11.67% of the total. I wonder how much the emissions from personal vehicles could be reduced by scaling back on engine power in our cars and bikes. My guess is that we'd be just as mobile with less than half the current average engine power. The reason I say this is that in North America we tend to drive European cars with larger engines than are common in Europe.
Vision 2050 suggests we are exceeding now Earth's capacity. If we look for sustainability to 2050 I suggest we heed WBCSD's call for action now; maybe reducing the engine power in our personal transportation is a good start?
Monday, August 9, 2010
How will that pan out?
The Dow Jones News wire gave updates on the vehicle sales in China, India and Russia. China has surpassed the USA as the world's largest car market. For the January to July 2010 period car sales in China grew by 42.8% year-over year! Sales increases in India and Russia on the side of personal use vehicles as well as trucks grow also in double digit percentages. In addition to the car sales there are then the sales of motor cycles and scooters, which are significant in these developing markets. Obviously gasoline and diesel consumption in these emerging markets will increase much faster than in the OECD, and with it there will be a shift in the global oil supply and refining markets.
The OECD is supplied by multinational oil companies within a free market trading principle. On the other hand, most emerging economies are supplied from state run oil companies. I am wondering whether or not this will affect easy access to oil for the OECD refiners.
The OECD is supplied by multinational oil companies within a free market trading principle. On the other hand, most emerging economies are supplied from state run oil companies. I am wondering whether or not this will affect easy access to oil for the OECD refiners.
Monday, August 2, 2010
A recent oil pollution case in the USA
The latest press release from the United States Dept. of Justice on a case of falsifying oil record book entries is interesting for the following reasons:
- The US lays criminal charges based on the "fraudulent statements" to the port state control officer, e.g. presenting an ORB with false entries. - In this case, the company and officers were convicted.
- The severity of the sentence and fines decreases with cooperation and forthcoming statements by the company and crew. - In this case the fine to the company and the sentences handed down (so far) are relatively mild.
- The fate of the C/E will be determined in a separate hearing. - Of interest is the reference to the sentencing guidelines in this paragraph.
- The company agreed to implement an elaborate and detailed environmental compliance plan for the fleet.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
I recently bought a TDI
I used to drive a car that used about 7 liters of premium gasoline per 100 km. Since I do a lot of driving, I jumped on the opportunity to purchase a Jetta TDI, anticipating lower fuel costs.
Here is my first assessment of my ecological performance, using the conversion figures as per the Canadian GHG summaries.
What I used to do on about 63 liters of premium gasoline I now do on about 45 liters of diesel fuel, I am using about 25% less fuel! By using less fuel and one requiring less energy input in the refining process, the proportional GHG reduction at the refinery level is about 27.5% (using the price difference as indicator of energy requirement).
The GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalents) from my use of the car changes from 7 x 2.45kg/l = 17.15kg/100km (for the premium gasoline powered vehicle) previously to 5 x 2.80kg/l = 14.00kg/100km. My environmental footprint is reduced by about 18%.
SOx (and with it PM) is a wash as both fuels have similar S-content.
All in all, I am satisfied with my GHG reductions so far.
In ecolonomic speak (ecological and economic benefits), there is a pretty good correlation between the 25% financial benefit and the over 18% GHG reduction.
Here is my first assessment of my ecological performance, using the conversion figures as per the Canadian GHG summaries.
What I used to do on about 63 liters of premium gasoline I now do on about 45 liters of diesel fuel, I am using about 25% less fuel! By using less fuel and one requiring less energy input in the refining process, the proportional GHG reduction at the refinery level is about 27.5% (using the price difference as indicator of energy requirement).
The GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalents) from my use of the car changes from 7 x 2.45kg/l = 17.15kg/100km (for the premium gasoline powered vehicle) previously to 5 x 2.80kg/l = 14.00kg/100km. My environmental footprint is reduced by about 18%.
SOx (and with it PM) is a wash as both fuels have similar S-content.
All in all, I am satisfied with my GHG reductions so far.
In ecolonomic speak (ecological and economic benefits), there is a pretty good correlation between the 25% financial benefit and the over 18% GHG reduction.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Bilge Water Discharge Line
Treated bilge water is considered an oil free effluent under the pollution prevention regulations.Therefore a port state control officer (PSCO) may expect that the O/B discharge line is completely free of oil.
Our experience with shipboard work is that sight glasses, installed in the O/B discharge line, become oil coated with time. Therefore, in a ship that processes a lot of bilge water, the same thing will happen in the discharge piping; traces of oil will become visible in the piping. The more bilge water is processed the more severe the oil accumulation.
Another factor that increases oil accumulation in the discharge line is when a 3-way valve is used to divert non-compliant effluent back to the bilge. Whenever the ppm level of the effluent exceeds the permitted discharge level, the pipe run between bilge separator and discharge shut-down device becomes contaminated.
We suggest therefore annual cleaning of the O/B discharge line, to make sure no oil shows in the line when a flange connection is broken. we suggest including this procedure in your best practices.
Our experience with shipboard work is that sight glasses, installed in the O/B discharge line, become oil coated with time. Therefore, in a ship that processes a lot of bilge water, the same thing will happen in the discharge piping; traces of oil will become visible in the piping. The more bilge water is processed the more severe the oil accumulation.
Another factor that increases oil accumulation in the discharge line is when a 3-way valve is used to divert non-compliant effluent back to the bilge. Whenever the ppm level of the effluent exceeds the permitted discharge level, the pipe run between bilge separator and discharge shut-down device becomes contaminated.
We suggest therefore annual cleaning of the O/B discharge line, to make sure no oil shows in the line when a flange connection is broken. we suggest including this procedure in your best practices.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Bilge Water Management
The United States (USCG and Dept. of Justice) recommend companies have in place a vigorously implemented management plan for bilge water, which should include a budget, adequate shipboard spares and training of the crew. The July 9, 2010 DoJ press release on the plea agreement with Irika Shipping is the first time I see reference made to the above. As stated previously, a vigorously implemented environmental management plan can reduce or prevent criminal charges against the officers and corporation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
