Interferry says meeting low-sulfur deadline is "mission impossible"

I find this interesting in contrast with the study done by the Glosten Associates on the conversion of Washington State Ferries to LNG Propulsion. (Refer to our  21 November Blog Post.) I guess that the contrast comes from the economic hardships facing Europe versus our own here in the United States. I think this deadline hits them economically where we were three or four years ago. It will be interesting to see how they emerge from it.

From MarineLog News Article.
28 November 2011

The international trade association for the ferry industry, Interferry, claims that ferry operators in northern Europe face a "near-impossible" choice in trying to meet the 2015 deadline for ultra-low sulfur emissions from bunker fuel. It also says that the low-sulfur legislation will " percentprompt an environmentally damaging modal shift from short-sea to overland transport and pose severe financial implications for the overall European economy.

Under pending IMO and soon to be agreed European Union (EU) environmental requirements, vessels operating in the Baltic, North Sea and Channel Emission Control Areas (ECAs) will have to comply with a 0.1 percent limit on fuel sulfur content.

Interferry says that meeting the 2015 deadline is "mission impossible" because of "unsustainable cost increases."

The association argues that, despite the ferry industry's efforts to develop alternative technologies and feasible alternative fuels, abatement technologies and financial support will not be available or sufficient enough to avoid a modal shift from sea to road.

A "toolbox" of technical and financial solutions proposed by the European Commission (EC) suggests the use of clean LNG fuel or, for vessels that continue to run on heavy fuel oil, the use of scrubbers - exhaust gas cleaning systems. It also points operators towards EU funding initiatives and state aid.

Interferry says that these are not realistic options because:

• It is widely recognised in Europe that LNG is only an option for new vessels due to the prohibitive cost of converting existing vessels, and in any case the LNG fuel supply infrastructure is inadequate
• Scrubber technology is not a "miracle cure." Ferry operators have contributed financially and operationally to developing the technology and Interferry says it is a solution that seems to be able to remove sulfur particles from the exhaust gases on some ships. However, a new Interferry feasibility study covering 108 vessels from six leading operators reveals that scrubbers would not be technically or financially viable for 60 percent of the existing fleet. Furthermore, trial installations among association members have shown that it will not be possible to have scrubbers in operation in time for 2015 for the other 40 percent
• EU funding is virtually non-applicable as it applies largely to newbuilds and new routes – a low priority among operators who have invested heavily in new tonnage in recent years, and who now face a desperate economic climate that also reduces the likelihood of state aid

"There is no financial support for existing ferries, while LNG and scrubbers are not feasible," says Johan Roos, the association's executive director of EU and IMO affairs. "In effect, the toolbox is completely empty.

"Our only option is to use marine gas oil – technically straightforward but very costly and potentially counter-productive in environmental terms. Operators have warned that they will not be able to pass on the 70 percent or more fuel cost increase to customers with a choice of transport modes, which will inevitably push up to 50 percent of cargo off short-sea ships and back on to the road network."

Mr. Roos added that, apart from cost, availability is also an issue with MGO, stressing: "At the very least, the IMO must bring forward its availability review from 2018, as mandated in MARPOL Annex VI, to 2012 or 2013. It's also clear that the ongoing revision of the EU Directive must put provisions in place as to what should happen if low-sulfur fuel is simply not available to operators in 2015."

Interferry conducted the scrubber feasibility study among six Interferry members operating in the north European ECAs - Brittany Ferries, DFDS, Grimaldi Group, P&O Ferries, Stena Line and TT-Line.

The conclusion that more than half their existing ships could not be fitted with scrubbers was based on five critical parameters:
Vessel age and the consequent commercial viability of making a massive technical investment

• Stability reserves taking into account the weight of scrubber units and how high up the stack they would be fitted
• Deadweight reserves and the resulting impact on cargo capacity
• Casing – because many ferries have very limited void in the ideal stack casing location and would therefore need special scrubber casing that reduces cargo capacity
• Whether or not Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology was already fitted to reduce NOx emissions – if so, retrofitting wet exhaust scrubbers would be more challenging as these cool gases to below 100 degrees C compared with temperatures above 400 degrees C required by SCR

The detailed results are being offered to the European Maritime Safety Agency for independent audit and will also be made available to relevant authorities.

The EC toolbox was discussed in Helsinki on November 18 when senior personnel from Interferry members joined Mr. Roos at a special seminar organized by the Finnish Ministry of Transport & Communications and the Finnish Transport Safety Agency. Invited delegates also came from national authorities, shipowners' associations and equipment manufacturers.

Mr. Roos reports that at the meeting, where an EC representative and various national administrators also participated, it became obvious that current funding support programs are only allowed for new ships or new routes and are not available to address the "real problem"of safeguarding existing fleets and the routes they already service – offloading millions of trucks from the European road network every year.

November 28, 2011

Chevron Assumes Responsibility For Oil Spill. (What Spill?)

The article below from the Dow Jones Newswires  caught my attention this morning. I have actually been following this story for a couple of days now and realized I haven't seen this anywhere in the mainstream media. Why not? Granted this isn't the same as the horrific Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, however it is a spill nonetheless. Chevron is taking responsibility for it which is commendable. BP took responsibility for Deepwater Horizon, but they are vilified still today. (This is despite the fact several other companies have been found  to share the blame - which we don't hear about either.)

RIO DE JANEIRO (Dow Jones)–The Brazilian unit of major U.S. oil company Chevron Corp. (CVX) takes “full responsibility” for a leaking well bore that left a sheen of crude staining the Atlantic Ocean, a company official said Sunday.
“Any oil on the surface of the ocean is unacceptable to Chevron,” said George Buck, president of Chevron Brasil.
Chevron has plugged the appraisal well that was the primary source of the leaking crude, which traveled to the surface through a hole in the well bore after the rock wall of the well failed, Buck said.
Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency, or ANP, estimated the leak at between 200 and 330 barrels of crude per day, which was “in the ballpark,” Buck said. Another government estimate put the total volume of the spill at 5,000 to 8,000 barrels. Buck said that estimate was also “in the ballpark, perhaps high.”
Chevron has not used any chemical dispersants on the oil slick on the ocean’s surface, using only mechanical dispersion and collection, Buck said. He denied that Chevron was using sand on the sheen.
-By Jeff Fick, Dow Jones Newswires

Does anybody have any theories on why this environmental disaster isn't being covered? I would love to hear any input or theories.

Coast Guard, partner agencies continue preparations for international offshore drilling

From a US Coast Guard Press Release:
Date: November 18, 2011

Contact: Public Affairs Office
(305) 415-6683


MIAMI — The U.S. Coast Guard continues to work closely with federal, state and local agencies as well as maritime industry officials to update contingency plans to ensure readiness to respond to any potential oil spills in international waters that could potentially impact U.S. waters and coastline.
At the local-level, Coast Guard Sectors Jacksonville, Miami, Key West and St. Petersburg are updating their respective Area Contingency Plan, which will have specific response guidance pertaining to, the near and on-shore response efforts to be conducted along all of the State of Florida coastline that is within the 7th Coast Guard District’s area of responsibility.
On a broader scale, the Coast Guard is overseeing work on an Offshore Drill Response Plan and Regional Contingency Plan that focuses on response operations; strategies and tactics that will be employed out at sea to combat a spill and other response operations.
"Our primary focus for the past several months has been updating our contingency plans, ensuring they are ready to be activated in the event an incident was to occur that posed a substantial risk to our marine environment, and ensuring that lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are incorporated into our plans," said Capt. John Slaughter, chief of planning, readiness, and response for the 7th Coast Guard District.
Another important focus has been ongoing interagency engagement. More than 80 Coast Guard representatives and officials from South Florida coastal counties, Departments of Commerce, Defense, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of Treasury, Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Management and Department of Environmental Protection, and maritime industry held a table top exercise Thursday utilizing response plans to address a fictitious international spill off the coast of Florida. The exercise allowed participants to discuss sensitive environmental areas, planning strategies, likely issues and response coordination principles that responders would face, as well as gather additional information to use in future planning.
"Our engagement with these preparedness efforts has been and continues to be far reaching and therefore includes a host of federal, state, and local and private entities," added Slaughter.
The exercise is one of the many actions to ensure readiness and mutual cooperation among the U.S. response community. As the designated federal on scene coordinator for any coastal spill, the Coast Guard's objective is to ensure the response community has the opportunity to review plans, identify needed updates and be ready for proposed offshore drilling outside U.S. waters.
“Protecting the marine environment from accidental oil and chemical spills is a key mission of the U.S. Coast Guard," said Rear Adm. Bill Baumgartner, commander of the 7th Coast Guard District. "These efforts are ongoing and the U.S. Coast Guard will continue to maximize information sharing, preparation, and training with all involved to ensure sound strategies and liaisons are built to prepare for and respond to any potential environmental threat to U.S. waters.”

More Needs to be Done to Stop Invisive Species

The following is a Press Release from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center:

(EDGEWATER, Md.) -- Invasive species have hitchhiked to the U.S. on cargo ships for centuries, but the method U.S. regulators most rely on to keep them out is not equally effective across coasts. Ecologists from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have found that ports on the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico are significantly less protected than ports on the West Coast.

Invaders are frequently introduced across oceans and along coastlines through the ballast water in ship hulls, water that often includes plankton and larval stages of marine and estuarine species. Large vessels need this water for balance as they load and unload cargo. However, by dumping ballast water in their ports of entry, they accidentally bring in new species that can alter or damage the local ecosystem. In 2004 policymakers thought they had found a solution: have cargo vessels exchange their ballast water in the open ocean, at least 200 nautical miles from land. This method, called “open-ocean exchange,” flushes out or kills potential invaders by exchanging coastal water for water from the deep ocean.

But some ships do not use the practice and many more cannot without veering drastically off course. In perhaps the most comprehensive study to date, Whitman Miller and a team of scientists from SERC looked at all international ships entering the contiguous U.S. over three years. Published today in the journal BioScience, the study analyzed approximately 105,000 vessel reports from January 2005 to December 2007. While most ships opted not to discharge their ballast water at all, a substantial number continued to dump unexchanged or improperly exchanged water into their ports of entry.

Not all coasts are affected equally. The Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast received much larger fractions of unexchanged ballast water than the West Coast. Roughly 5 percent of the ballast water discharged on the West Coast had not undergone open-ocean exchange. By contrast 21 percent of the discharged water in the Gulf and 23 percent on the East Coast went unexchanged.

Much of the problem comes down to simple geography. Depending on a ship’s transit route, it may not have the time or space to conduct open-ocean exchange. A mere 24 percent of the ballast water discharged by ships journeying to U.S. ports along coastal routes, from Central or South America, for example, underwent open-ocean exchange. In contrast 91 percent of ballast water discharge by transoceanic shipping was exchanged in the open ocean, where ships have more opportunities to manage their water properly. Because so many of their incoming ships do not pass through the open ocean, ports in the Gulf and East Coast receive more potentially harmful water.

The vast discrepancies point to the need for another solution, ecologists say. If ships could treat their ballast water on board without having to journey to the open ocean, every coast would be safer.

“The Gulf of Mexico coast receives more overseas ballast water discharge than the East or West coasts, and most of this water is either unexchanged or exchanged inside coastal waters,” said Miller. “Given the geographic constraints of shipping, and the complexity of the invasion process, it is clear that we need to move to onboard ballast water treatment technologies that will allow ships to operate anywhere in the world without fear of releasing harmful invasive species.”

The full paper is available upon request. To receive a copy, to speak with Miller or for more information, contact Kristen Minogue at (443) 482-2325 or Monaca Noble at (443) 482-2467.

STX Anounces Eoseas Concept Ship, Incredible Eco-Friendly Design!

The Following is an Article from Ship Technology . This is a pretty incredible design. I would venture to call it the mother of all Sailing Vessels! 

 (11/9/2011)

www.ship-technology.com

Eoseas is a concept cruise ship being developed by STX Europe in collaboration with Stirling Design International (SDI).

The 105,000t ship will have an overall length of 305m, breadth of 60m and draft of 8m. Eoseas is being developed as a part of the Ecorizon programme launched by STX France in 2007.

STX's Ecorizon programme

Ecorizon is a technical programme aimed at developing innovative marine clean technologies and alternatives to oil fuels. The project attained maturity in 2009 after two years of research and development work.

Jointly funded by STX Europe and the Regional Council, Ecorizon consists of five major work programmes including energy management, air emission management, water management, waste management and sustainable design.

Ecorizon addresses the entire environmental footprint of the ship throughout the design, construction and operation stages. The long-term goal of the concept is to reduce the use of non-sustainable energy to 50% by 2015.

Eoseas design and features

Eoseas incorporates a pentamaran hull design. The double hull design will feature long promenade decks on both sides of the ship.

The ship will be a trimaran on five hulls, of which two hulls on either side will have the same fore-and-aft plane. An air cushion under the main hull optimises the hydrodynamic characteristics of the vessel.

The double skin on the ship will function as a natural air conditioning system. The frictional resistance of the ship is reduced with the air film injection and the froude number is reduced by incorporating vertical bow.

Fresh water is generated onboard using highly efficient multistage evaporators and reverse osmosis. The ship will feature an advanced wastewater purification system to treat grey and black waters. An absorption chiller absorbs rain water from the upper decks. It uses heat generated from engines.

The design objectives of the Eoseas are to reduce power consumption by 50%, emissions of CO2 by 50%, SO2 by 100%, NOX by 90% and ash by 100%.

Accommodation onboard the concept cruise ship

Eoseas can accommodate 3,311 passengers in 1,403 cabins. There are 555 cabins for 1,089 crew members. The ship allows the passengers to fully explore the maritime environment. The passenger space ratio of the ship will be 31.7 when full and 37.4 based on lower berths occupancy.

The cabins are designed to use natural lighting and are fitted with presence sensors and light sensors. The energy management systems in the cabins reduce energy consumption by 30%.

Propulsion and power

Eoseas will be powered by four dual-fuel LNG diesel electric generator sets. Each genset provides 8MW power for propulsion and hotel load. There are four screws, two pump propellers with shaft lines on the outriggers and two pump propeller pods on the central hull.

LNG is stored in a storage system similar to that of LNG carriers and is transferred in a pressurised service tank. The ship will have an advanced heat recovery plant to recover thermal energy.

8,300m² photovoltaic panels fixed on side and upper deck provide maximum power of 108MW and an average of 270kWe. The organic waste gasification plant onboard generates 300kWe syn gas which is used in the generator sets.

The ship is equipped with an innovative sail concept patented by STX France. The sails mounted on five masts over 12,440m² significantly use wind energy for propulsion.

STX France conducted 13 tank tests with different hulls and propulsion configurations during 2008 and 2009, achieving 17% improvements over conventional propulsion / hull systems.

The innovative propulsion system aboard the ship enhances fuel efficiency, redundancy and manoeuvring.

Shipping Company Pleads Guilty to Pollution Charges

(11/7/2011)

The following is the text of a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon: (PORTLAND, Ore.)– U.S. Attorney S. Amanda Marshall and Oregon Attorney General John Kroger jointly announced that the owner and operator of a Cyprus-based ship pleaded guilty today to felony oil pollution charges. A.E. Nomikos Shipping Inv. Ltd. and Lounia Shipping Co. Ltd. pleaded guilty to one count each of violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, and knowingly making false statements to the U.S. Coast Guard. As part of the plea agreement, the companies agreed to pay a $750,000 fine. Half of the fine – $375,000 – will go to the Oregon Governor’s Fund for the Environment, which is dedicated to local environmental cleanup and restoration efforts focused on preserving and protecting Oregon’s rivers, watersheds, and fish and wildlife. Nomikos was the operator and technical manager of the Arion SB, a bulk carrier that operated under the flag of Cyprus. Nomikos provided management services pursuant to a contract with Lounia, the registered owner of the Arion SB. Nomikos is headquartered in Piraeus, Greece. Lounia is headquartered in Cyprus. Representatives of the companies entered guilty pleas before U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon today, after which Judge Simon imposed sentence. In addition to the $750,000 fine, Judge Simon sentenced both defendants to three years probation, during which both defendants will be required to fund and implement an Environmental Compliance Plan. An investigation revealed that between at least June 2011 and October 16, 2011, Nomikos and Lounia, acting through their agents and employees, directed subordinate engine room crew to run the Arion SB’s Oil Water Separator improperly. Specifically, the Chief Engineer instructed the Second Engineer to pipe fresh, clean water directly into the Oil Content Meter for the purpose of blinding the Arion SB’s Oil Content Meter, so that it would not function properly to prevent the overboard discharge of oil-contaminated waste in excess of 15 ppm. The Chief Engineer failed to include any entries in the Arion SB’s Oil Record Book relating to the crew’s improper use of fresh water to manipulate the vessel’s Oil Content Meter, and also included inaccurate entries in the Oil Record Book regarding the crew’s use of the vessel’s Waste Oil Incinerator. “The sentences imposed today should send a clear message that the United States will hold vessels responsible for dumping oil in our oceans and for lying to the United States Coast Guard. We are pleased that the court allocated $375,000 of the fine to be used here in Oregon to benefit our environment,” said U.S. Attorney S. Amanda Marshall. “The Oregon Department of Justice is deeply committed to holding polluters accountable when they break the law,” said Attorney General John Kroger. This case came to light after the United States Coast Guard boarded the Arion SB, on or about October 16, 2011, to conduct a Port State Control Safety Exam for the vessel. “This case demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that vessels calling on U.S. ports fully comply with U.S. laws and international treaties,” stated Rear Admiral Keith A. Taylor, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District. The case was jointly investigated and prosecuted by federal and state authorities. The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service, and Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacie F. Beckerman and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Flanagan of the Oregon Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Unit prosecuted the case.

House prepares to vote on ship ballast standard.

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Environmentalists tried to rally opposition Thursday to a proposed national policy for cleansing ship ballast water to kill invasive species, contending it is too weak and would pre-empt stronger state and federal rules.
The U.S. House was expected to vote as early as Friday on the measure, which comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to release its own regulations of ship ballast — a leading culprit in the spread of invaders such as zebra and quagga mussels in the Great Lakes and ocean coastal waters.
Sponsored by Rep. Frank LoBiondo, a New Jersey Republican, the bill would adopt a standard proposed by the International Maritime Organization limiting the number of live organisms that would be permitted in ballast water. Vessel operators would have to install technology to meet the standard.
The shipping industry has pushed for a single nationwide policy, saying the current patchwork of more than two dozen state and tribal regulatory systems is unworkable because vessels move constantly from one jurisdiction to another.
Great Lakes shippers are particularly unhappy about New York rules that set live-organism limits 100 times tougher for existing ships than those under the international standard. For newly built ships, New York's standards would be 1,000 times stronger. State officials have postponed the effective date to 2013, giving shippers more time to comply.
The industry says technology to meet the New York requirements doesn't exist. Shippers say the state's strict limits could close the Great Lakes to oceangoing vessels, since they must pass through New York waters to reach the rest of the system.
"While individual state standards and those set by the Clean Water Act function well for factories that are fixed in one location, it simply does not work for vessels engaged in interstate or international commerce," LoBiondo said.
Environmental groups said the bill would prevent EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is also developing ballast rules, from imposing standards tough enough to make sure no more exotic species reach the Great Lakes. About two-thirds of the 185 invasive species in the lakes are believed to have arrived in ballast water. They've done billions in damages and are implicated in a variety of ecological problems, from runaway algae blooms to a shortage of plankton crucial for the aquatic food web.
"This bill is designed to keep the shipping industry off the hook and violates states' right to protect their waters from invasive species," said Marc Smith, senior policy manager for the Naional Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office.
The measure would allow EPA to strengthen the federal standard beginning in 2016, or earlier if a state requests it, according to LoBiondo's office.
But the wildlife group said the bill would make it "difficult, if not impossible, to add new protections, even if the EPA and other agencies determine that the (international) standard is not doing the job."

JOHN FLESHER, AP Environmental Writer

Updated 12:28 p.m., Friday, November 4, 2011

What If Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Happened In Cuban Waters?

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–Several U.S. companies are asking the Obama administration for permission to respond to potential oil spills in Cuban waters, a top offshore drilling regulator said Wednesday, hoping to overcome embargo restrictions that currently limit their ability to do so.

The companies’ requests coincide with a growing concern among oil-industry experts who say the U.S. embargo on Cuba could cripple the ability of spill-containment companies to respond to potential spills that start in Cuban waters but then move to U.S. shores.

Speaking at a congressional hearing Wednesday, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Director Michael Bromwich said several companies have asked the U.S. Commerce Department for licenses that would allow them to use subsea well containment systems and other types of equipment to respond to spills in Cuban waters.

Bromwich said he had “a high level of confidence” the Commerce Department would approve the licenses, in large part because it had already issued separate approvals for oil-spill containment systems and cleanup items. U.S. government agencies “are very much on alert, looking for the licenses [applications] as they come in and my understanding is that they’re giving them very rapid attention and they’re approving them as promptly as they can.”

The administration’s efforts are not without controversy. The chairman of the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R., Colo.), said Wednesday that he is concerned “this administration will weaken the U.S. embargo on Cuba.”

Earlier in the week, the head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to do more to prevent Cuba’s oil-drilling plans. “This scheme endangers U.S. security and environmental interests, and will enrich the Cuban regime,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), a Cuban-born American, said.

Many environmental and oil-industry experts have taken a different approach and have urged the administration to give broad flexibility to U.S. companies that are equipped to respond to spills.

They contend Cuba will pursue oil exploration, regardless of whether the U.S. disapproves, so the U.S. should simply prepare for possible accidents.

Cuba’s offshore drilling plans get under way in coming months when Spanish company Repsol YPF SA (REPYY, REP.MC) starts to conduct exploratory drilling off the country’s northern coast. Repsol is transporting a Chinese-built rig to be used for the exploration work.

Repsol has voluntarily agreed to allow U.S. officials to inspect the rig before it enters Cuban waters. The company has also agreed to comply with U.S. drilling standards.

-By Tennille Tracy, Dow Jones Newswires

Coast Guard Reccomends Changing Shipping Lanes For Blue Whales.

From the Los Angeles Times, November 1, 2011:

The U.S. Coast Guard has recommended shifting the shipping lanes in the Santa Barbara Channel to move cargo ships out of the way of whales feeding in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

A proposal published Tuesday would narrow the lanes and move one of them north of a steep, underwater drop-off near Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands where endangered blue, fin and humpback whales have been congregating to feed on krill, saying it would “help in preserving the marine environment.”

Federal wildlife officials and environmental groups have been alarmed by the presence of whales in shipping lanes, which they worry puts the giant marine mammals at greater risk of being struck and killed by the hulking vessels that ferry goods in and out of the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex.

Four blue whales were struck and killed by vessels near the Channel Islands sanctuary in 2007, prompting authorities to start issuing notices asking large vessels to slow down when whales are in the area.

The threat of collisions also has been of growing concern outside Los Angeles Harbor, where blue whales have been gathering to feed in dense concentrations in the path of a major shipping lane.

The Coast Guard proposal also calls for establishing new shipping lanes south of the Channel Islands, where some freighters have been navigating to avoid the state's strict air pollution curbs, prompting complaints from the Navy that they were getting too close to military testing ranges.

Unbounded ship traffic, the Coast Guard says, is a safety concern and a defined route would ensure more predictability.

Environmental groups, who have petitioned the Obama administration to establish a ship speed limit through California's four national marine sanctuaries to protect whales, praised the idea to move the lanes away from feeding areas. But they expressed disappointment that the Coast Guard’s proposal did not include speed restrictions.

 --Tony Barboza

Photo: A blue whale feeding on krill outside Los Angeles Harbor in October surfaces near a shipping lane. Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times

Mercury Marine's Report/Testimony on Ethanol to Congress

There was a House Committee hearing on the unintended consequences of increasing Ethanol in fuel  from 10 to 15 percent. I would be willing to bet no one in the news covered this at all. The following is a summary from a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE). Mercury Marine was contracted to conduct these tests, and demonstrates some disturbing effects of E15 fuel. Thes tests were exclusively performed on marine engines, and I hope that similar tests are performed on other outdoor power equipment.

The abridged version of the results are that two of three E15 test engines did not finish the test. All three of the non-ethanol control engines finished with no problems.The two-stroke E15 test engine was damaged so badly that Mercury Marine could not determine the cause of failure.

I feel that this information wasn't given enough attention in the hearing. The two stroke engine that was damaged beyond repair retails for approximately $15,000. Nobody mentioned this at the hearing. More attention was given to the testimonies of the EPA and the various individuals representing the Oil, Gas and Ethanol industries.

Click here to view the complete report. The Summary follows:

Objective:

The objective of this work was to understand the effects of running a 15% ethanol blend on outboard marine engines during 300 hours of wide-open throttle (WOT) endurance – a typical outboard marine engine durability test. For the three engine families evaluated, one test engine each was endurance tested on E15 fuel with emissions tests conducted on both E0 and E15 fuel, while a second control engine was emissions and endurance tested on E0 fuel for each engine family.

Summary of Results:

Results are based on a sample population of one engine per test fuel. As such, these results are not considered statistically significant, but may serve as an indicator of potential issues. More testing would be required to better understand the potential effects of E15.

9.9HP Carbureted Four-Stroke:

• The E15 engine exhibited variability of HC emissions at idle during end-of-endurance emissions tests, which was likely caused by lean misfire.

o Both the E0 control engine and E15 test engine ran leaner at idle and low speed operation at the end of endurance testing compared with operation at the start of the test.

o The trend of running lean at idle coupled with the additional enleanment from the E15 fuel caused the E15 engine to have poor run quality (intermittent misfire or partial combustion events) when operated on E15 fuel after 300 hours of endurance.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to the leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

• The E15 engine exhibited reduced hardness on piston surfaces based on post-test teardown analysis.

o The exhaust gas temperature increased 17°C at wide open throttle as a result of the leaner operation when using E15 fuel. Higher combustion temperatures may have caused observed piston hardness reductions. Lack of pre-test hardness measurements prevented a conclusive assessment.

• Several elastomeric components on the E15 engine showed signs of deterioration compared with the E0 engine.

o Affected components were exposed to E15 fuel for approximately 2 months; signs of deterioration were evident.

300HP Four-Stroke Supercharged Verado:

• The E15 engine failed 3 exhaust valves close to the end of the endurance test.

o Metallurgical analysis showed that the valves developed high cycle fatigue cracks due excessive metal temperatures.

• The pistons on the E15 engine showed indications of higher operating temperatures compared to the E0 engine’s pistons as evidenced by the visual difference in carbon deposits.

• The E15 engine generated HC+NOx values in excess of the Family Emissions Limit (FEL) when operated on E15 fuel, but did not exceed that limit when operated on E0 emissions certification fuel.

o The primary contributor to this increase in exhaust emissions was NOx due to enleanment caused by the oxygenated fuel.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

200HP EFI 2.5L Two-Stroke:

• The 200 EFI two-stroke engine showed no signs of exhaust emissions deterioration differences due to the fuel.

o The E15 fuel caused the engine to run lean resulting in reduced HC and CO emissions. NOx was of little concern on this type of engine since NOx accounted for less than 2% of the total regulated HC+NOx emissions.

• The E15 engine failed a rod bearing at 256 hours of endurance, which prevented completion of the 300 hour durability test.

o Root cause of the bearing failure was not determined due to progressive damage.

o More testing would be necessary to understand the effect of ethanol on oil dispersion and lubrication in two-stroke engines where the fuel and oil move through the crankcase together.

4.3L V6 EFI Four-Stroke Catalyzed Sterndrive:

• Since E15 fuel was readily available in the test facility and an engine equipped with exhaust catalysts was on the dynamometer, emissions tests were conducted on a 4.3L V6 sterndrive engine to better understand the immediate impacts of ethanol on this engine family.

o At rated speed and load (open-loop fuel control) E15 caused exhaust gas temperatures to increase by 20°C on average and the catalyst temperatures to increase by about 30°C.

o More rapid aging of the catalyst system occur due to the elevated catalyst temperature when considering the high load duty cycle typically experienced by marine engine applications.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

Several issues were discovered in this study from an exhaust emissions and an engine durability standpoint as a result of running E15 fuel in outboard marine engines. Run quality concerns were also identified as a result of the lean operation on the carbureted engine.

Additional investigation is necessary to more fully understand the observed effects and to extrapolate them to all types of marine engines over broader operating conditions. Effects on operation at part load, transient acceleration/deceleration, cold start, hot restart, and other driveability-related concerns need to be evaluated. This test program was mainly testing for end-of-life durability failures, which would not likely be the first issues experienced by the end users. A customer would likely be affected by run quality/driveability issues or materials compatibility/corrosion issues before durability issues. The wide range of technology used in marine engines due to the wide range of engine output will complicate this issue (Mercury Marine produces engines from 2.5HP-1350HP).

More testing is needed to understand how ethanol blends affect lubrication systems in two-stroke engines that have fuel and oil moving through the crankcase together. Crankcase oil dispersion is the only mechanism by which two-stroke engines of this architecture provide lubrication at critical interfaces such as bearings and cylinder walls. Ethanol may have an effect on the dispersion or lubricity of the oil.

A better understanding of how long term storage affects ethanol blends in marine fuel systems would require more real-world testing. Marine vessels often go through long periods of storage that could affect the fuel systems given the fact that the ethanol portion can absorb water when exposed, especially in humid areas near saltwater.

British Petroleum is Back!

By Ryan Tracy And Angel Gonzalez, The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—BP PLC on Wednesday got permission to drill its first well in the Gulf of Mexico since the company’s massive oil spill there last year.

The decision was expected after the U.S. Interior Department approved the company’s broader plan for four exploratory wells in the Gulf late last week. It represents another milestone in the U.K. oil company’s efforts to return to the good graces of federal regulators since it lost control of a deep-water well after a blowout in April 2010. The incident killed 11 workers and caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

The Interior Department said the company had met new safety requirements put in place since the spill and had adhered to voluntary standards that went beyond the agency’s requirements.

The approval comes a day after the U.K. oil company reported quarterly earnings of $5.3 billion, surpassing analyst expectations and boosting hopes that the company was emerging with renewed strength from one of the darkest—and costliest—periods of its history. The company had to shed billions of dollars in assets in order to pay for spill costs, while facing the wrath of U.S. legislators, environmental activists and the public.

“We have now reached a definite turning point,” Chief Executive Bob Dudley said in a statement Tuesday. “Our operations are regaining momentum and we are facing the future with great confidence.”

BP said Wednesday’s permit came “after several months of hard work developing and implementing our new drilling standards and sharing those standards with industry partners and regulators.”

The well is located about 246 miles south of Lafayette, La., and is part of BP’s Kaskida prospect. It will be drilled in 6,034 feet of water.

To demonstrate it could contain a blowout at the new well, BP contracted with the Marine Well Containment Co., an industry consortium formed after last year’s spill. The company maintains a “capping stack” that can be scrambled to the scene of a spill and is designed to contain an out-of-control well in deep water.

Environmental groups have questioned whether the new containment system can fulfill those claims, but federal regulators have endorsed it.

“This permit was approved only after thorough well design, blowout preventer, and containment capability reviews,” Michael Bromwich, director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said Wednesday.

BP, one of the largest leaseholders in the U.S. Gulf and until the spill one of the most successful wildcatters there, can now join the flock of big oil and gas companies returning to the oil-rich area. On Tuesday, Hess Corp. said it was moving forward with the $2.3 billion development of the Tubular Bells deep-water oil and gas project in the Gulf—the helm of which it took over from BP in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

The Interior Department said it has approved permits for 46 deep-water wells since February, when a company first demonstrated it could contain a deep-water spill.
(c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc