US calls for IMO guidelines to be used for sulphur verification
Fuel oil samples tested as part of a compliance inspection 'must meet the 1.00% standard' officials advise Bunkerworld.
SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED

To read this news article you need a subscription to Bunkerworld which includes the News Module.

   
ALREADY A MEMBER?

Username
Password
 
 
 remember me on this computer
Comments on this Article
Ara Barsamian - Refinery Automation Institute
17th July 2012
Unni:

So which one is it? ISO8754 or what?
Unni Einemo - The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA)
17th July 2012
It is a bit complicated. The r&R principles described in the IMO sulphur verification procedure are the same as those in ISO 8754. But test results are compared with the actual sulphur limit, not the sulphur limit +95% confidence as per industry practice, guided by ISO 8754. So under IMO's sulphur verification guidelines, only a test result of 1.00% sulphur or less will be fine. Hope that is clear. If you want a short and simple answer, then I guess it is: No. On paper, US authorities will not accept ISO 8754 for sulphur verification i.c.w. ECA compliance.
Ara Barsamian - Refinery Automation Institute
19th July 2012
So we throw out the window all ASTM and ISO test methodology based on r&R 95% confidence? All the work done by the volunteer organizations (like ASTM, IP, ISO) to establish the methodology in the last 50 years? Who came up with this brilliant idea?

IMHO I think we should organize and fight these "voodoo"-based improvisations by governmental entities gone berserk...who always know what's best for us...
Martin Smits
20th July 2012
All bunker fuels are bought and sold within the worldwide known and accepted ISO 8217 specifications, and the herein mentioned applicable test methods (ISO 8754 for the Sulphur content) so it should be very clear for all parties involved when a product meets the requested specifications and or limits. The different interpretations which are still used instead of using the right mathematic tolerances as described in the ISO specifications makes it only very confusing for all parties involved. It starts with the right interpretation of the applicable test methods as described in the ISO 8217 specifications. When this will be done then all problems and or misunderstandings will be solved. But how can it be possible that a mathematic tolerance which is applicable can just be ignored. Especially since several test done on the same product by the same equipment can never have exactly the same outcome of a result ! Why does IMO makes wants their own interpretation of a acceptable test limit whilst there is already a clearly described one in the ISO specifications ?
Heinz Otto
21st July 2012
Hello Ara, Unni and Martin,regarding to the confusion between methods of measurement and ISO regulations on the way to a low-CO2 world shipping - I can only assume: It is possibly intended to win by confusing a longer grace period for the use of sulfur contaminated heavy fuel oil. This grace period helps shipowners to earn the money necessary in order to then build modern wind-propelled merchant ships, because: Even now, every owner realizes that it does not go on with this amount of ship exhausts. For example: Maersk has its 30% emission reduction from seven of its ships successfully achieved without damage to the machines. Why they have done it?
Please check: http://www.naftrade.com/9/post/2012/07/slow-steaming.html?goback =% 2Egde_2698436_member_136901457
If instead of a velocity of 24 kn ships are driven at just now 12 kN to operate, which is usefully in the range of target speeds of sailing ships. The necessary conclusion from this is: all fast ships which are build in these days, are the wrong way and there's no money left for transforming the world fleet in the direction of sailing ships with only auxiliary engines instead of main engines
This is my opinion for many years, but no one listens to me. yes, I'm just a small engineer with the experiance at shipping trial trip tours.
And it was in the 80-ies of last century. However, I worked with an ecological point of view, for which the makers in the maritime world had been little understanding. Check the website of German www.windschiffe.de, Best regards from Heinz Otto

Comments have been closed for this article.

Rate This Article

Rate this article to help us build the quality of our reporting.

Additional comments you can give to the accuracy, completeness and relevance of our reporting will focus our efforts.

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Additional comments: