I guess they figured they better confess before they got caught because ships weren't meeting emissions control.


http://www.marinelink.com/news/manipula ... 06215.aspx

I thought it was just a consumption not an emission result skewing...

The more fuel you burn in the engine, the more emissions come out......
BP

haha of course; but would an average fuel consumption deviation of 1% spoil the results of the engine's best emission control set up to have it not meat emissions standards? There was no mention of not meeting standards in the article.
Maybe they wanted to take control of the news and make it look just as if fuel consumption was off and give no mention to meeting emission standards. Because I would see that as two issues with a big difference in consequence severity.

Is it 1%?
With the EU implementing more stringent emissions control 2 years ahead of IMO, ships may not meet them. Now that would have been interesting. Wartsila controls the message because they ' fessed up. The real story may never be known.

the company said its internal audit revealed that 2 percent of its ship engine deliveries may have been affected by the manipulations, and the deviations in the readings were on average 1 percent of fuel consumption.

Yeah so 2% of delivered engines saw an average of 1% fuel consumption - so it's only maybe a couple hundred engines.

And yeah as I felt - if they don't meet emission control that's a can of worms. If it's only a, roughly, 1% fuel consumption difference than expected well...that adds up, sure, but make some claim and wartsila should give some compensation, or something not too drastic.

Big Pete wrote:The more fuel you burn in the engine, the more emissions come out......
BP

. Ahh, true, out of the manifold BP but out of the CAT/SCRUBBER?

A lot of Wartsila engines claim to meet emission standards without a CAT or scrubbers, a very big selling point, a lot of buyers might claim that rather than have to retrofit CATS and scrubbers they would have bought a different engine in the first place. It would be interesting to know if the particular engines that were incorrectly tested, were "Border Lines" passes on emissions, 1% could make the difference between pass and fail.
Obviously CATS and scrubbers wont remove CO2 emissions!

Same problem as with BP in the Mexican Gulf, the Bankers a few years ago, and VW more recently, if you promise people large bonuses for meeting impossible targets and the sack if they don't, they will find a way to slip out sideways like a bar of wet soap under pressure. No one is going to ask how they met the targets, and the bean counters wouldn't understand.
Management culture is usually "rack up the pressure on people and get results, because the results are all that matter.

The Wartsila L20's on my last ship were supposed to meet emission standards without a CAT or scrubbers, but when the ship was built the owners made a big marketing point about the ship being "Green" and fitted a Cat. However, the ship was a PSV and spent about 1 day a week in Port, 2 days a week in transit and 4 days a week on DP. The exhaust temperatures were only high enough for the CAT to work in transit, so it was only possible to use about 25% of the time. The UREA to inject in it was expensive and difficult to obtain, so in the end the system was flashed up once a month for a couple of hours test and not used the rest of the time.

Wartsila is probably one the biggest engine Builder in the World, over the last few years it has bought up most of the European engine Makers from Sulzer downwards and built huge manufacturing plants in China.

BP

just as a sidenote, I had a Volkswagen rental last week in BC.
On the roadside speed check readouts on the highways, it consistently read 10-15 km/hr slower then what the odometer said.
Emission control of the practical sort. It probably saved a couple of speeding tickets going over the Malahat.