Alternative fuel bunkering SIMOPS: the issues and how to bypass them

Bunkering alternative fuels affects cargo operations and brings challenges for both procedures. But there are new solutions to overcome such obstacles. These were among the main themes of Riviera’s webinar Box ship alternative fuel bunkering: the issues and how to bypass them.  

Kaleris senior product manager Gerald Lange said, “I want to highlight the impact on stowage planning and cargo operations – the loading and unloading in ports. LNG and methanol are the main alternative fuels used. LNG must be carried at a low temperature and methanol at a higher temperature in a special tank, so there are a lot of things to consider. The systems have toxicity and are flammable and measures have to take these into account when handling fuels. In the terminal, it is time sensitive and vessels need to be as fast as possible. Bunkering and cargo operations take place at the same time and bring some challenges.” 

Alternative fuel bunkering takes place on one side of the vessel while loading and discharging operations are going on. This, Mr Lange explained, has an impact on certain zones on the vessel in which higher safety standards need to be applied. It also has an impact on the loading plan in bunkering ports.  

Kaleris has introduced its software module SimOps to deal with such challenges. It includes IMDG checks with class 2.1 or class 3 for any cargo loaded into the safety zone during bunkering; reefer checks as a source of ignition within the safety zone during bunkering; restrictions for container moves including restowers in the safety and monitoring zone during bunkering; restrictions for lashing operations in the safety and monitoring zone during bunkering; and multiple safety and monitoring zones per vessel depending on the bunkering port.

A bunkering port library is available to define allowed bunkering ports and their properties, implementation of company rules about cargo ops and alternative fuel bunkering. Warnings are given when container type and cargo conflict with company rules and when container operations conflict with company rules.

Mr Lange highlights the problems solved: complicated safety settings on board due to simultaneous fuelling and loading/discharge operations; missing distinction of different port types in the planning stage at the liner; missing declaration of a POL or POD as the bunkering port locked into the system; manual segregation checks of cargo loaded into safety zones; and no automated bunker-related warnings in the condition check on the loading computer.

The module is integrated within stowage planning in Kaleris’ Stowman and condition checking in MACS3.

Meanwhile, panellist International Chamber of Shipping senior manager for crewing and training Arvind Natrajan examined how IMO is addressing training seafarers on alternative-fuelled ships and provided an update on the direction of future regulatory framework.

He said, “For the mid-2020s and 2030s, we are working towards single training for all alternative fuels that have similar characteristics. That training is going to be a global standard and must be reinforced by the company providing a ship-specific or equipment-specific training technology. Support from shore-based staff in the form of a robust safety management system is going to be essential.”