34
Fuels & Lubes International Quarter Two 2016
The shipping industry
faces some choppy seas.
A need to cut emissions
has driven ongoing fuel
changes, with one result
being a scramble to find
an economical low-sul-
phur option. Looming
are possible mandates to
reduce shipping’s carbon
footprint.
It all adds up to unset-
tled times. The industry
is responding in various
ways, including im-
proving fuel testing and
developing alternative
fuels.
With regard to testing,
removing uncertainty is
one reason why Work-
ing Group 7, the Fuels
working group of the
International Council
on Combustion Engines
(CIMAC), a worldwide
non-profit association
consisting of national and
corporate members in
25 countries in America,
Asia and Europe, recently
issued new guidelines
on how to interpret fuel
analysis test results.
“We, as fuel experts in
the Working Group, have
seen misunderstandings
of the test results and
wrong interpretation of
the correctness of fuel
analyses and its repeat-
ability,” said Kjeld Aabo,
chairman of the working
group.
“One case is the un-
derstanding of the analy-
ses of sulphur measure-
ments when compliance
to the sulphur limitations
given in ECA areas has
to be accomplished,” he
said.
Getting the measure-
ment right and under-
standing the results are
of more than academic
interest. There are reg-
ulatory consequences to
not meeting the specifi-
cations. Emission control
areas (ECA) at one time
allowed 1% sulphur con-
tent fuel, but now have a
lower limit of 0.1% as of
January 1, 2015.
The standard practice
is for the supplier to test
the fuel. Some ships also
do their own testing, with
the assumption being
that the fuel is the same
throughout so that one
sample is the same as
another. But there are
some variations in the
fuels being supplied, as
well as some variability
in the results arising
from the use of different
laboratories. Hence, the
need for the guidelines,
to prevent uncertainty
over whether or not a fuel
actually meets ultra-low
sulphur requirements.
Concern over fuel
quality is not confined to
fuel suppliers and ship
operators alone. For ex-
ample, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB)
has reported that most
of the vessels burning
ultra-low sulphur fuel
in the waters under its
jurisdiction are not in
compliance with regula-
tions mandating sulphur
content. It’s one reason
why CARB said it was
keeping more restrictive
state regulations in place
for two more years within
24 nautical miles of the
California coast.
One result is that the
fuels used must meet
the specifications for
marine gas oil or marine
diesel oil. The regu-
lations also preclude
CIMAC issues guidelines on
interpreting fuel analysis test results
BY HANK HOGAN
CIMAC发布解释燃料分析试验结果的指南
航运业正面临着风浪。降低排
放在不断地推动燃料的变化，这
导致了难以找到一个经济的低
硫方案；而进一步降低航运业碳
足迹这个要求正在迫近。
时局不定。航运业正在以各种
方式进行应对，包括改进燃料测
试和开发替代燃料。
对于测试，国际内燃机委员会
（CIMAC）第七工作小组，燃料
油工作组，最近发布了有关解释
燃料分析结果的新指南，其目的
之一在于消除不确定性。该委员
会是一个非赢利性的全球协会，
其成员包括美洲、亚洲、欧洲25
个国家的政府和企业。“我们，作
为工作组中的燃料专家，看到对
燃料分析结果及其重复性的一
些误解和错误的解释，”工作组
主席Kjeld Aabo说。
他说：“我们的工作之一是在
Photo courtesy of Man Diesel & Turbo
