IMO 2020

Lloyd’s Register: Focus on fuel segregation risks, not contaminated fuel

Segregation policy and crew preparation vital at this point in the process of preparing for IMO 2020 deadline.

Published

7 years ago

July 4, 2019

Admin

The following article entitled ‘Focus on fuel segregation risks, not contaminated fuel’, which BIMCO has shared with Singapore bunker publication Manifold Times, first appeared in the June edition of the BIMCO Bulletin here.

Poor quality bunkers and the incident of contaminated fuel in Houston last year has sparked fears of this happening to any shipowner and operator, as 1 January 2020 approaches. But, with seven months to go before the deadline, planning how to maintain segregation when the new 0.50% fuel starts coming on board, ought to be a more immediate concern.

Here, Tim Wilson, Principal Specialist on fuel, lubes and exhaust emissions at Lloyd’s Register, argues that the risk of contaminated fuel will remain as low as it is today when it comes to the new 0.50% fuels, and as the industry makes the switch from High Sulphur Fuel Oil to Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil outside Emission Control Area operations:

“Right now, seven months before the deadline, one of the biggest challenges, and what is uppermost in shipowners’ minds, is being ready to handle the segregation of the new 0.50% fuel that will come on board,” says Wilson.

“For poor quality bunker cases – when something in the fuel should not have been there, causing the ship operational problems – we are looking at less than 0.01%, or even lower, of the bunkers taken on board globally. Fuel contamination cases are rare, but the risk of operational problems caused by a lack of segregation of the new fuel on board is very real.”

Finding fuel stability – not an easy job

According to Wilson, while there is a small risk from contaminated fuel, it will be difficult to find a bunker supplier in the market that has not acknowledged the risk of selecting inappropriate blend stocks. With the 2020 sulphur regulation, attention to what is blended to keep the fuel below 0.50% has increased greatly.

“The suppliers need to understand the impact of the chosen blend stocks they plan to use on the ship machinery plant. The fuel contamination case in Houston was related to high sulphur fuel and had nothing to do with low sulphur fuel at all,” he says. But there are some serious lessons to be learned by all stakeholders.

“There is so much attention on what is being blended and the knowledge of what is actually going into that blend to make the 0.50% fuel. Not only are suppliers aiming for 0.50%, but the end product must be fully homogenous and stable at the point of delivery. They need to know what they have blended to be certain that it is not going to fall apart on board. That is a huge challenge for producers, and it is not an easy job, although we are encouraged to see a number of oil majors making their declarations as to where their fuels will be available globally,” says Wilson.

He adds that while the International Maritime Organization has raised the concept of “quality-oriented supplier”, it is difficult for the industry to decide or define exactly what that means. “Eventually, the user will make that decision,” says Wilson. “It is a similar situation to when you go through an airport and are asked to press the red or the green ‘smiley’. Is this airport a good one or a bad one? With the new regulation and the new fuels coming into the market, there are high risks at stake and, in the early days, suppliers cannot afford to give themselves a bad name.”

Every fuel type loaded will be different

According to Wilson, a ship operator can already find 0.50%-compliant fuel in some major ports, if sufficient notice is given, but the viscosity of the blends is, and will be, wide and varied.

A segregation policy and preparing the crew – from the motormen to the engineers in the engine room – is vital at this point in the process of preparing for the deadline. There is much concern that the new and diverse fuels will be incompatible. Working out a segregation and possible co-mingling strategy should be fundamental to the ship’s bunkering operations, as well as helping operators and owners to understand the implications for the crew on board.

“Every fuel type loaded now will be different, or slightly different, from the previous fuel, unlike what the crew is used to currently. Segregation of the fuel will be important. Having said that, we are still expecting a high number of these new fuels to be compatible. Despite this, segregation is still highly recommended,” says Wilson.

“Follow that policy, and you will cut out the majority of your problems on board when handling the fuels.”

Published: 4 July, 2019

Ammonia

AM Green plans to build green ammonia plant at Indian port

Initiative also includes development of green ammonia handling, storage and bunkering infrastructure, pilot bunkering operations, safety procedures and training programmes, says VOC Port Authority.

Published

2 months ago

June 3, 2026

Admin

VO Chidambaranar (VOC) Port Authority on Friday (29 May) said it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with India’s ammonia producer AM Green Ammonia to collaborate in the development of a green ammonia production plant.

The plant will have a capacity of one million tonnes per annum (MTPA) at Tuticorin.

The initiative also includes development of green ammonia handling, storage and bunkering infrastructure, pilot bunkering operations, safety procedures and training programmes.

The project is expected to support the development of green fuel corridors connecting VOC Port with major ports in Europe and Asia, thereby strengthening India’s position in the global green fuels value chain.

VOC Port also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Bureau Veritas (India) Pvt. Ltd., to collaborate on Green Port certification, emissions accounting, ESG reporting, safety validation, development of green bunkering practices, and establishment of a Centre of Excellence for green fuels and sustainability.

The port also plans for an upcoming 750 m³ green methanol bunkering facility.

Photo credit: Naveed Ahmed on Unsplash
Published: 3 June, 2026

Port & Regulatory

Study: Major drop in ship sulphur emissions confirmed following IMO regulations

National Centre for Atmospheric Science study found that the average sulphur content in ship fuel dropped nearly tenfold in open ocean areas following IMO’s 2020 regulation.

Published

8 months ago

December 8, 2025

Admin

Recent global regulations have significantly reduced sulphur emissions from ships, helping to improve air quality in coastal regions – confirmed by a recent international study led by researchers at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science.

The research, published in Environmental Science: Atmospheres, used aircraft and ground-based instruments to measure sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by ships in the North-East Atlantic and European coastal waters between 2019 and 2023.

The team found that the average sulphur content in ship fuel dropped nearly tenfold in open ocean areas following the International Maritime Organization’s 2020 regulation, which capped sulphur content in marine fuel at 0.5%.

Before the change, many ships exceeded the previous 3.5% limit. After 2020, only a small number of ships were found to breach the new standard.

In European sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), such as the English Channel and the Port of Tyne, sulphur levels were even lower – well below the stricter 0.1% limit. Interestingly, ports outside these zones, like Valencia in Spain, also showed low sulphur levels, likely due to EU rules requiring cleaner fuel when ships are docked for extended periods.

This is the first study to use aircraft-based measurements and predictions from the Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model (STEAM3) to assess ship emissions outside of sulphur control zones since the 2020 regulation came into effect. The findings support the widely held view that ships now emit around seven times less sulphur than before the rule change – an important step toward cleaner air and healthier coastal environments.

Note: The research, titled ‘SO2 and NOx emissions from ships in North-East Atlantic waters: in situ measurements and comparison with an emission model’ can be found here.

Photo credit: shraga kopstein on Unsplash
Published: 8 December, 2025

Interview

IBIA Annual Convention 2025: ‘Exciting times’ for post IMO 2020 bunker suppliers, states Equatorial

Choong Sheen Mao, Chief Operating Officer, Equatorial, describes to Manifold Times the pre/post IMO 2020 challenges and evolution of bunker suppliers.

Published

9 months ago

October 31, 2025

Admin

The International Bunkering Industry Association (IBIA) will be hosting its flagship Annual Convention in Hong Kong at the Hong Kong Convention Exhibition & Convention Centre between 18 to 20 November 2025, as part of Hong Kong Maritime Week.

Choong Sheen Mao, Chief Operating Officer, Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services (Equatorial), speaks to bunkering publication Manifold Times about the challenges of a post IMO 2020 bunker supplier.

MT: How does Equatorial continue to offer customer assurance and maintenance of marine fuel quality to ISO8217 standards despite increasing complexity of bunker fuel blends?

We maintain our focus to provide compliant, quality and competitively priced products to our customers. There is no shortcut. We source our products from a wide range of cargo producers and suppliers. We continue to be strict and vigilant with our testing programme for our products before delivering them to our customers. Equatorial has deepened our engagement with the wider industry to have a better and up-to-date understanding of the existing and new marine fuels.

MT: Can you share the evolution of commercial marine fuel procurement, blending and trading strategies on the back of increasing fuel types (pre/post IMO 2020)?

Pre IMO 2020, the main types of marine fuel procured and consumed by vessels were high-sulphur fuel oil, marine diesel oil and marine gas oil. Trading strategies were therefore closely linked to that within the oil industry.

However, many of the new fuel types are from other industries. For example, biofuels, methanol and ammonia are mainly products from the chemical and agriculture industries. There are marked differences between these industries and the energy industry (in particular, the marine fuels industry). LNG is from the gas industry which is distinct from the oil industry.

Without an existing liquid paper market for many of these commodities (especially as a marine fuel), the price risk management is less straightforward. Furthermore, commodity prices are no longer the sole consideration for price itself. The price of compliance must be considered. This could range from guaranteeing the origin of the marine fuel, its sulphur properties as well as its carbon intensity. The list goes on.

MT: Operational wise, what are the changing role and responsibilities of a bunker supplier to date, compared to before IMO 2020?

The role and responsibility of a bunker supplier have evolved. Fundamentally, it has been about providing quality marine fuels at competitive prices. Quantity assurance has been a critical concern which led to the mandatory implementation of the mass flow meter system for bunkering in the Port of Singapore. Interestingly, due to the nature of credit terms in the bunker industry, bunker suppliers also performed the role of “bankers” by extending favourable credit terms to shipowners and charterers.

These days, post IMO 2020, things have become even more complicated. Today, a bunker supplier retains the abovementioned roles and responsibilities, and much more – it has to ensure compliance with a plethora of rules and regulations. Compliance not only with sulphur cap requirements, but with international and regional sanctions and restrictions unrelated to the quality of the marine fuel itself. In fact, especially with alternative low- and zero-carbon marine fuels, this means compliance with standards, rules and regulations on sustainability such as the European Renewable Energy Directive and/or International Sustainability and Carbon Certification. There is also the need to comply with increasingly stringent safety regulations on both conventional and alternative marine fuels.

In addition to the above, a post IMO 2020 bunker supplier is still expected to supply compliant and quality fuel at competitive prices.

MT: Equatorial is Singapore’s largest local-born supplier; what is the next big thing for the company?

Equatorial continues to adapt and improve with the times, while maintaining its core values – Integrity, Teamwork, Commitment, Proficiency and Quality, and Safety and Environment. The bunker industry is a highly competitive one, and it is our intention to keep our competitive edge and remain relevant. This means that we have had to step out of our comfort zone and embrace the two mega trends of our time – digitalisation and decarbonisation.

We have been early adopters and developers of the electronic bunkering note as part of our own digital bunkering efforts. We have diversified our product offering to include low carbon marine fuels and are proud to be one of the pioneers for bunkering B100 biofuels earlier this year. This was made possible by the arrival of our IMO Type II chemical and oil bunker tankers. These same bunker tankers are also capable for carrying and delivering methanol. Equatorial has invested in an LNG bunkering vessel (LBV) newbuilding that is set to be delivered in Q3 2027. We are also involved in a study to develop low- or zero-carbon ammonia bunkering in Singapore.

These are exciting times.

Note: Choong Sheen Mao is amongst panellists featured in ‘Session Three: Bunker Sellers Panel’ at the IBIA Annual Convention 2025.

Join the Conversation

With over 300 delegates expected, the IBIA Annual Convention 2025 is set to be a defining moment for the marine fuels industry. Registration is now open via the IBIA Annual Convention website.