Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Thermodynamically Emulsions tend to be unstable because liquid systems have a propensity to reduce the total area of contact between each phase ,hence it's interfacial energy.
It seems FOWE's Cavitech technology simply eliminates the need for any emulsifying agents whereas Quadrise requires it. Then again Quadrise only uses less than 1% of the total for an emulsifying agent/chemicals which in all honesty is tiny and better as it keeps the oil in water emulsified pretty much indefinitely. FOWE'S technology only seems to keep the oil emulsified for upto 6 months which is quite a large downside as practically speaking it would be required to be produced on demand and used as soon as possible due to the deterioration over time. You couldn't really stock it either as it would begin to slowly seperate as soon as its made and only deteriorate along the 6 month shelf life, whereas Quadrises blend wouldn't.
Whilst im sure most ships would use the fuel within the 6 months shelf life it still could be an issue for the engines for those that don't. The older the fuel gets the more seperated it will become leaving levels of seperated water in the oil which could have a net negative effect as engines dont tend to like water running through it. This could actually lead to more fuel wastage if the fuel seperates to a certain degree whilst held in the fuel tank and needs replacing, that's unless they have a way to remove the water or re-emulsify the fuel on board which would just be an added cost.
In addition, Quadrise saves the customer more money due to their 30% ratio of water whereas this FOWE's tech has only managed to make a blend between 10 - 19% water, so more HFO is required thus less savings compared to Quadrises 30%. This also means theres more CO2, particulates etc and less fuel efficiency than Quadrises blend.
It's a good they managed to blend oil in water with no chemicals/emulsifying agents but I do feel its much more limited because of this. Quadrise definitely has the edge on mutiple factors to this alternative but its still good emulsion fuels are getting more light shone on them.
Oil in water emulsion, because it uses cheaper residue (not HFO/MGO) and up to 30% water, can provide financial and environmental savings well beyond what this tech offers. Whilst it is competition, I should think any eventual users, if given a choice, would select msar over this fuel.
I agree though that it represents emulsion coming into the mainstream of bunker fuels and for that reasons it’s a good development.
Interesting find Vince.
While it is WiO not OiW tech. No additives required and the emulisified fuel remains stable for 6 months. Tested on vessels by a MAN approved engine manufacturer. They are using HSFO as the source fuel, with preference for mixing on land, and believe MGO and VLSFO can also be emulsified with their tech.
So this is a very similar path to the one MSC are taking, where they are not looking to use residue as the primary fuel source but HFO. The C02 reductions they offer appear considerably lower than MSAR and bioMSAR.
First mover into the market could take the prize here, although there is certainly room for more than one player, and having different emulsified fuels accepted and launched on the market could be a benefit.
I agree, but it shows that emulsion fuels are now being widely accepted as an alternative fuel, that other emulsions besides BioMsar are available. Scorpio found it attractive enough to want to test it and was thinking was this our Bulk Carrier that fell off the radar.
I suspect that is a water-in-oil emulsion and will not reduce CO2 emissions as bioMSAR does.