Connect with us

Analysis

North P&I: Bunker contaminants fuelling confusion

‘2018 has not been a good year for marine fuels,’ say Directors of protection and indemnity insurance club.

Admin

Published

on

5bb3ecd28d4fd 1538518226

The following article regarding marine fuel contamination has been written by Alvin Forster, Deputy Director (Loss Prevention), and Louise Ferrari, Deputy Director (FD&D), at the North of England P&I Association Limited:

Contamination problems in the US Gulf and the Far East have affected hundreds of vessels. Engines have been damaged, in some cases putting vessels in danger, vessels have been delayed and numerous disputes have arisen. Ships’ crews work long hours and put in huge effort when dealing with the consequences of bad bunkers. Digging out sludge from equipment and pipework and repeatedly cleaning filters and centrifugal separators is a massive undertaking.

Specialist testing can identify the source of the contamination problems but the lack of clarity on acceptable limits is causing confusion.

Pinpointing the cause
It has been very difficult to pinpoint the cause of the recent problems. VPS, a fuel testing company, has reported that numerous different suppliers have been involved. This suggests that the contamination is likely to have originated upstream. The general consensus from industry experts is that the source was cutter stock (a distillate used to reduce the viscosity of a heavier residual fuel by dilution) that contained damaging compounds – possibly waste products from the petrochemical industry.

Muddying the waters even further, different contaminants have been found in different areas. The initial problems in Houston were attributed to the presence of 4-cumyl-phenol, commonly used in the manufacture of epoxy resins. Problems further afield in the US Gulf and the Far East appear to be due to phenols and fatty acids.

Testing the limits
ISO 8217 is the most commonly used reference when agreeing the quality of marine fuels. Its use is widespread in bunker supply contracts and time charterparties. While it provides a useful guide for fuel quality it does not address the types of contaminants that have been found in recent months.

These contaminants are only likely to be identified by additional specialist tests which are not included in ISO 8217; namely, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using the correct sample preparation technique.

Relying on Clause 5
Clause 5 of ISO 8217 differs in each edition (2017 being the current) but in general terms it requires the fuel delivered to be a homogenous blend and free from materials that could cause harm to an engine or people.  

Contaminants such as 4-cumyl-phenol are not listed parameters of ISO 8217 and their presence does not necessarily mean that a supplier (whether bunker trader or charterer) of an otherwise compliant fuel will be in breach of contract. Referencing Clause 5 of the relevant edition of ISO 8217 and the terms of the particular contract or charterparty, the question to be asked might be “is the fuel reasonably fit for use?

Care should be taken to ensure that Clause 5 has not been removed from supply contracts because of the wider protection it provides to purchasers. MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 18.3 has similar terms and may be relevant if there is no reference to ISO 8217 in the bunker supply contract.

Harmful or acceptable
At the first sign of a problematic fuel or engine operation issues, many shipowners are sending bunker samples for GC-MS testing.  This is a prudent and sensible measure and the potential for such additional tests should be borne in mind during bunkering to make sure sufficient samples are drawn. Matters are complicated further when the bunker supply contract stipulates the barge sample is binding rather than the sample drawn by the vessel. In such cases, it’s even more important for the crew to be vigilant and be satisfied the barge’s sampling is representative of the whole stem.

Where contaminants are found at concentrations proven to be damaging, a shipowner has valuable evidence when pursuing a claim against a bunker supplier or, where relevant, a time charterer who arranged the bunkers.  Standalone GC-MS results can, however, present difficulties in deciding if the identified contaminants in the fuel are harmful to the engine or not.

A typical GC-MS report may consist of a long list of contaminants identified by the test. But ‘acceptable’ limits of each of these constituents have not been established. For example, one of the main culprits behind the recent problems in the US Gulf was 4-cumyl-phenol and concentrations were found to be in excess of 300ppm. However, since then a number of other contaminants have also been recorded in fuels but at concentrations significantly lower than 300ppm.

Tying this in with Clause 5 of ISO 8217 can be tricky. Experts are divided on whether some of the problematic compounds can be considered to breach the Clause 5 requirements of being “derived from the refinery process” and there is no expert consensus on what concentrations of contaminants might “jeopardise the safety of the ship or adversely affects the performance of the machinery”.

This ultimately raises the question of whether or not the mere presence of these contaminants – or combinations of these contaminants – is enough to breach Clause 5 or whether they have to be at a ‘harmful’ concentration.

As a result, shipowners are understandably reluctant to use the bunkers where contaminants have been identified by GC-MS testing but are at lower concentrations. The lack of clear guidance on what concentrations would damage their particular engine or cause operational problems does not easily allow for an informed decision to be made on whether to use the bunkers or not. It could also impact on determining if a shipowner’s refusal to burn the fuel is reasonable. 

Reacting fast or overreacting?
Bunker quality disputes can be expensive and they make fuel management on board the vessel very difficult for the crew. Problematic fuels are very much in the spotlight at the moment and it is reported that some bunker suppliers are concerned that buyers are too quick to allege ‘bad bunkers’ at the first sign of a blocked filter.

However, with tight time bars stipulated by bunker suppliers and in charterparties for quality claims to be made and the fact that many fuel testing laboratories are working at full capacity, shipowners and time charterers have little choice but to act fast. Complying with time bars is even more challenging in situations where any defect in the fuel is only discovered when the vessel starts consuming it, which is sometimes several weeks after the bunkers were actually supplied.   

There is no alternative method to GC-MS testing to identify these problematic contaminants. However, bunkers contaminated with compounds that result in sludge build-up sometimes show poor stability characteristics. An early warning could therefore be provided by laboratory testing the initial bunker sample for reserve stability in addition to the traditional ISO 8217 tests for total sediment potential/existent (TSP/TSE). Poor stability results can then alert the shipowner to consider sending samples for GC-MS testing. However, stability testing alone is not a guaranteed indicator of all types of contamination and would not have alerted a shipowner to the presence of ‘sticky’ contaminants such as 4-cumyl-phenol.      

Look to the future
The issues experienced in the US Gulf and Far East may turn out to be a rare occurrence, but many in the industry are concerned that this is a sign of the future. Will contamination by unusual compounds that are increasingly difficult to detect become the new normal?

There are concerns that the reduced global sulphur limit, being introduced in 2020, may lead to more of these types of problems. As new fuels enter the market, creating them will require more blending with less-established products (shale oil, tall oil etc.) and the potential for contamination and incompatibility will be much greater.   

Source: North P&I Club
Published: 3 October, 2018

 

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Alkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August

Update covers dual supply crisis currently shaping global bunker markets — a stalled Strait of Hormuz peace process and Rhine water levels at a 140-year record low — and the implications for Singapore.

Admin

Published

on

By

Alkagesta

Malta-based global commodity trading house Alkagesta recently shared latest market insight examining the dual supply crisis gripping global energy markets as diplomatic efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz stall and Rhine water levels fall to record lows, creating what the company describes as a “state of emergency” for European inland fuel distribution.

In an article published on Alkagesta Market Insights on 11 August, the company’s trading and market intelligence teams outlined how the convergence of two simultaneous logistical crises is tightening prompt fuel availability across Singapore, Northwest Europe, and the Mediterranean:

Strait of Hormuz transits fell to a near-one-month low of 13 ships on August 9 following an attack on an ADNOC-linked tanker, as both the US and Iran demand war reparations before any reopening agreement can be reached. Simultaneously, Rhine water levels at the Kaub chokepoint fell to 16 cm on August 10 — the lowest since records began in 1880 — with forecasts pointing to a further drop to just 4 cm by August 14, effectively halting barge traffic and trapping fuel oil stocks at the ARA hub.

The supply picture across both key hubs has deteriorated sharply. In Singapore, Middle Eastern fuel oil imports nearly tripled week-over-week to 328,878 mt by July 29 — the highest volume since March — providing some relief as onshore commercial heavy distillate stocks rose to a five-week high of 19.58 million barrels by August 5. However, July bunker fuel sales are estimated to have fallen 3.7% month-over-month to 4.44 million mt, with elevated premiums redirecting prompt demand toward alternative ports including Zhoushan and Port Klang.

In Europe, the VLSFO market remains acutely undersupplied as refiners continue to prioritize high-margin diesel over low-sulfur blending components, while the Rhine crisis has forced barges to operate at just 15–20% of normal capacity — with freight rates from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe rising more than 400% in two months.

Alkagesta’s strategic outlook points to a potential total breakdown in Rhine-linked inland distribution by mid-August, a VLSFO Hi-5 spread likely to remain above $200/mt through Q3, and a global crude market that analysts warn requires an additional 2.1 million b/d for 18 months to rebuild depleted inventories.

Note: The full article can be read here.

 

Photo credit: Alkagesta
Published: 17 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Why bunker markets could be lower than we thought

Marine fuel prices could prove lower than previously anticipated as easing refinery margins and improving bunker market fundamentals outweigh a still-uncertain crude oil outlook, says Integr8 Fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

6 5

By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come? 

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market. 

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days. 

Jul 2026 Graph 01 1024x613 1

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt.  However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again.  It looks like we could be at another false dawn. 

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality. 

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge 

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium. 

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch. 

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology 

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl. 

Jul 2026 Graph 02 1024x572 1

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be. 

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up. 

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months. 

Jul 2026 Graph 03 1024x570 1

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections? 

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Jul 2026 Graph 04 1024x579 1

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand.  This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s. 

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

 

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

LR’s latest FOBAS Fuel Quality Report reveals that the biggest fuel quality risks are no longer confined to off-specification fuels, with some compliant fuels creating operational challenges.

Admin

Published

on

By

New FOBAS report warns growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge. 

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

 

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending