RE: FRANKENSTEIN FUEL...9 Jan 2021 17:32
Any full fat sulphur fuel would've had too much sulphur for companies like Maersk that decided to go the untested poisonous, polluting 'low sulphur' easy option. ..not so easy on the conscience now eh?
Clearly the Maersk trial went well as an interim LONO was acheived as this RNS in june 2017 informed..
"Further to the Company's announcement on 7 June 2017, Quadrise is pleased to confirm receipt of the Interim LONO issued by Wärtsilä which confirms that:
· The MSAR® emulsion fuel has satisfactorily completed 1370 hours of a 4000 hours validation test on-board the vessel SEAGO ISTANBUL equipped with a Wärtsilä 12RT-flex96C-B engine, including a maximum duration of MSAR® continuous operation of 139 hours.
· Based on the results of engine inspections and cylinder condition monitoring, Wärtsilä has envisaged no detrimental effect on the RT-flex96C-B engines with the use of MSAR® fuel used during the test. With the number of hours on test being lower than the full test requirement of 4,000 hours, together with the current maximum continuous hours of operation on MSAR®, there remain points that would be assessed further in the next stage of testing as part of the normal process for issuing a full LONO. "
As for buoygate, well, if there had've actually been a buoy it probably wouldn't have happened. The Seago Istanbul hit an un-marked submerged wreck off Alexandria and ruptured its outer hull skin below the waterline. All containers had to be unloaded and the vessel sailed to a major repair yard in Turkey. Disciplinary action on the Captain and Pilot ensued we were informed at the QRF visit a couple of years ago.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
