Fuel Contamination: What went wrong in Houston?


What went wrong in Houston?

Mon 26 Nov 2018 by Selwyn Parker

What went wrong in Houston?
Houston bunkering contagion – investigators still searching for a definitive explanation

The investigation into what caused the contamination of fuel in the Houston area earlier this year has so far come up empty handed, with the seemingly random nature of those affected adding confusion to the task

The latest investigation into problems encountered by vessels that used residual fuels bunkered in the Houston area earlier this year has failed to come up with an explanation as to why some vessels were unaffected, while others suffered a wide variety of problems, some of them serious.

The International Council on Combustion Engines (CIMAC), organised by the International Bunk Industry Association, remains baffled and investigations are continuing.

But as more evidence emerges, the extent of the problem only grows. A number of ships had to resort to tows when their engines completely failed after bunkering the contaminated product, while others lost electrical power. According to CIMAC, the main problem involved sticking engine fuel pumps, but separator sludging and filter blockages were also reported.

While it has not been possible to identify the root cause of the incidents, the CIMAC investigation noted that a number of suppliers were affected, which indicates that an upstream incident probably contaminated the fuel delivered. The investigation has revealed that the problematic fuels were supplied by about 10 different suppliers from a range of barges. But otherwise the working group looking into the affair, which is composed of refiners, suppliers, ship operators, fuel-testing laboratories and classification societies, has come up empty-handed.

“As more evidence emerges, the extent of the problem only grows”

The absence of a definitive explanation highlights the importance of more reliable fuel testing, as lower-sulphur fuels become obligatory after January 2020. It also raises the issue of existing standards, as all the analysed fuels met the ISO 8217 Table 2 requirements.

The investigation has however turned a light on the results of the contaminated fuel, if not the cause of the contamination itself. A review of the reported cases revealed the incidences were not isolated to any specific machinery, make of components or brands of the affected separators, filters, two-stroke or four-stroke engines.

The difficulties faced by the CIMAC committee also illustrate the shortcomings of fuel-testing in general. “To complicate matters, the analytical investigations revealed that not all of these fuels had the same fingerprint parameters. And further to this, a vast majority of the ships bunkering in the affected ports during this period [May] did not report any issues, despite having received fuels which seem to have originated from the same source,” the committee reports.

Extensive analyses of the fuels was undertaken by a number of the laboratories represented within the working group. These revealed a range of “chemical species” in the fuel oils used; most were present at “very low levels” although they showed up in “more significant concentrations” in certain samples.

One of the troubling issues here is that nobody is able to say whether these unwelcome chemical species are also present in ‘good’ fuel. That means it is impossible to say at this stage whether the blending process was deficient in some way, or even whether the chemical species arrived by accident or design.

Source: www.mpropulsion.com

Leave a Reply

SSCP   CAS-002   9L0-066   350-050   642-999   220-801   74-678   642-732   400-051   ICGB   c2010-652   70-413   101-400   220-902   350-080   210-260   70-246   1Z0-144   3002   AWS-SYSOPS   70-347   PEGACPBA71V1   220-901   70-534   LX0-104   070-461   HP0-S42   1Z0-061   000-105   70-486   70-177   N10-006   500-260   640-692   70-980   CISM   VCP550   70-532   200-101   000-080   PR000041   2V0-621   70-411   352-001   70-480   70-461   ICBB   000-089   70-410   350-029   1Z0-060   2V0-620   210-065   70-463   70-483   CRISC   MB6-703   1z0-808   220-802   ITILFND   1Z0-804   LX0-103   MB2-704   210-060   101   200-310   640-911   200-120   EX300   300-209   1Z0-803   350-001   400-201   9L0-012   70-488   JN0-102   640-916   70-270   100-101   MB5-705   JK0-022   350-060   300-320   1z0-434   350-018   400-101   350-030   000-106   ADM-201   300-135   300-208   EX200   PMP   NSE4   1Z0-051   c2010-657   C_TFIN52_66   300-115   70-417   9A0-385   70-243   300-075   70-487   NS0-157   MB2-707   70-533   CAP   OG0-093   M70-101   300-070   102-400   JN0-360   SY0-401   000-017   300-206   CCA-500   70-412   2V0-621D   70-178   810-403   70-462   OG0-091   1V0-601   200-355   000-104   700-501   70-346   CISSP   300-101   1Y0-201   200-125  , 200-125  , 100-105  , 100-105  , CISM   NS0-157   350-018  , NS0-157   ICBB  , N10-006 test  , 350-050   70-534   70-178   220-802   102-400   000-106   70-411  , 400-101   100-101  , NS0-157   1Z0-803   200-125  , 210-060   400-201   350-050   C_TFIN52_66  , JN0-102  , 200-355   JN0-360   70-411   350-018  , 70-412   350-030   640-916   000-105   100-105  , 70-270  , 70-462   300-070  , 300-070   642-999   101-400   PR000041   200-101  , 350-030   300-070  , 70-270  , 400-051   200-120   70-178   9L0-012   70-487   LX0-103   100-105  ,