Connect with us

Analysis

ICS FUEL 2020 webinar: ISO 8217:2017 marine fuel quality standard takes center stage in panel discussions

Representatives of Veritas Petroleum Services, Maersk, INTERTANKO, ElbOil Singapore, and SDE International provide insight from their respective fields of expertise on what lies ahead.

Admin

Published

on

ICS FUEL 2020 Seminar main photo

Representatives from different fields of the bunkering sector gathered at the FUEL 2020 webinar organised by the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) Singapore branch on Friday (4 December).

Though panellists discussed an overview of the year and provide insight from their respective fields of expertise, a pillar central to their respective presentations was the uptake of ISO 8217:2017 specification marine fuels within the shipping industry.

Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS) – Summary of bunker fuel quality

Captain Rahul Choudhuri, Managing Director (Asia, Middle East, and Africa) at VPS, who moderated the webinar started off the session by providing a snapshot on marine fuel quality in 2020.

Providing a breakdown of the different types of bunker fuels consumed by commercial vessels this year, he noted the percentage of very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) to be approximately 66%; marine gasoil (MGO) to be 12%; high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) to be up to 20%; and ultra-low sulphur fuel oil (ULSFO) to be around 2%.

“What is interesting to note is that globally, as we end the year, the global off-spec fuels that we see stand about 6%,” shared Captain Choudhuri.

“The figure has not changed much even though the fuel types have changed over the year.”

He points out the issue of fuel stability continuing to be encountered by vessels, and foresees this to be “a serious challenge ahead” moving into 2021.

VPS testing has also shown chemical contamination to be still present in bunker fuels; Captain Choudhuri stressed shipping industry players need to conduct thorough evaluation to correlate certain chemical compounds with associated damages caused onboard vessels.

Overall, VPS records have shown a 10% increase in vessels adopting the use of ISO 8217:2017 marine fuel quality standard during 2020 when compared to 2019 data, says Captain Choudhuri.

Maersk – ISO 8217:2017 is a ‘matter of mindset’ 

Captain Samir Fernandez, Global Head – Commercial Operations, Optimisation & Claims at Maersk Oil Trading, shares Maersk has adopted the ISO 8217:2017 marine fuel quality standard for VLSFO this year.

“The hesitation to use ISO 8217:2017 specs for the VLSFO grade is more a mindset. If we look at VLSFO as a product, the difference between the 2010 and the 2017 specs is almost non-existent,” said Captain Fernandez.

He was quick to note the maritime industry being the only sector which is affected by the dilemma of on-spec products that are potentially not fit for purpose.

“This is an unacceptable idea in any other industry. When you go to buy something, if the product is based off a certain specification it is acceptable to use,” he states.

“So, I vouch for the idea of rather than everyone claiming the fuel needs to be fit for purpose, I think what is most important is the specification needs to be fit for purpose then automatically the fuel will follow.”

ElbOil Singapore – Upbeat on current shipping market and year ahead

Dennis Ho, Managing Director at bunker trading company ElbOil Singapore Pte Ltd was largely positive about the performance of the bunkering sector this year and looks forward to 2021.

“I think the shipping market reacted pretty well to last year’s migrating of HSFO to VLSFOs,” said Ho.

Any off-spec issues were largely kept to a minimum with no major issues unlike in 2018 when chemical contamination in bunkers were widespread.

“Moving forward, I don’t expect any issues to surface quality wise; in fact, I can only see the quality side of things continuing to improve as bunker suppliers and traders become more adept to the new bunker fuels.”

Ho further notes he is seeing more shipowners asking for the ISO 8217:2017 marine fuel quality standard and believes the development is “something very positive” for the maritime industry, though current avails for the material remain limited.

The direction to have more avails of ISO 8217:2017 bunker fuel in the shipping industry can only be possible though a mandate from regulators – followed by compliance from oil majors.

Regarding issues of limited credit from banks due to the recent commodity trading mishaps, Ho believes financial institutions will eventually return to the oil and bunker trading sector in the current low interest rates environment and eventual measures that will be put in place to ensure greater accountability.

“Banks that were affected by the recent incidents have withdrawn themselves from this sector. But I believe it is only a matter of time when they will take a relook into this industry again, and they will be back,” he states.

“Going forward, I am optimistic for next year and I think the market will come up stronger. Relative to the other sectors, shipping has done really well this year.”

SDE International – Bunker sample for IMO 2020 compliance ‘important’

Simon Neo, Executive Director of bunker consultancy SDE International Pte Ltd, echoes Ho’s thoughts of shipping’s positive performance in 2020 but stated issues regarding bunker fuel sampling for 0.5% compliance still exists and will continue to be present moving forward.

“The debate on how bunker samples are taken for measurement of 0.5% sulphur will not end or will not disappear. You could be in any part of the world and this problem still keep reappearing,” states Neo.

“We need to agree on how bunker samples are to be taken, and what’s good to be taken. Internationally, I think this is very, very important. If the samples are not taken properly you’re going to have problems over bunker samples with 0.51% and 0.52% sulphur content without end.”

Another matter highlighted by Neo was the availability of HSFO as a marine fuel for shipowners operating scrubber equipped vessels.

“The buyers are worried and are asking ‘Hey, where can I get high sulphur fuel?’ The product is available in Singapore and China, but does many of the other smaller ports has it?” he informs.

“They know for a fact that HSFO and VLSFO cannot be mixed and need to be segregated. The concern for availability of HSFO was why Singapore port recently saw a huge increase in HSFO demand.

“Even one of my buyers actually fixed term contract for HSFO all the way up to June 2021 as they are worried of HSFO availability at the smaller ports.”

Regarding limited avails of ISO 8217:2017 bunker fuel in the market, Neo believed bunker suppliers cannot guarantee the specification due to their agreement with their cargo providers. As long as cargo traders or providers do not want to guarantee ISO821:2017 specs, physical suppliers can only guarantee what was agreed which can be ISO8217:2010 or 2012 specs.

“A lot of avails comes from the cargo traders or cargo providers, because suppliers will only act on what the cargo traders are providing them.”

INTERTANKO – Supports VPS call for latest version of ISO 8217 to be used for bunker procurement

Elfian Harun, Environment Manager & Assistant Regional Manager Asia-Pacific at INTERTANKO, started his presentation by stating the shipping association views the implementation of IMO 2020 as a success.

“We know this success is possible only because of the coordination made by IMO member states, ship owners, charterers, suppliers, oil producers, and even the standards development organisations working hand in hand,” notes Harun.

“Yes, we hear of issues surfaced at the early part of this year but right now we are in December and we note the declining number of issues being reported. So, we can only assume the issues have been sorted out by the shipowners and bunker suppliers.”

A joint survey conducted by BIMCO, International Chamber of Shipping, INTERCARGO and INTERTANKO, revealed three main issues experienced by shipowners during the IMO 2020 transition to use 0.5% sulphur limit bunker fuels, shares Harun.

In the survey, 62% of respondents pointed out to increased sludge deposition in the fuel oil system; 32% of respondents shared increased wax appearance in fuel oil tanks and filters; while 31% of respondents experienced operational issues caused by increased wear and tear of cylinder liners, piston rings to other components during the transitional phase.

“Our point of view is you need good fuel to be supplied to ships. If bunker suppliers deliver lousy fuel, the engines of the ships can be affected, and for tanker owners this is especially risky when they are fully loaded,” he said.

“The risk to safety of navigation to the ship, crew, and cargo is very high if the engine breaks down especially in busy ports.”

Harun emphasised it is important for vessels to receive bunker fuel that is not only on-spec, but also fit for purpose.

This is even more important due to the complex nature of marine fuel blends; where chemicals (such as contaminants which are unlisted under ISO 8217 specification) may still form part of an on-spec product that could harm the engine.

Harun echoed a message of support to Captain Rahul Choudhuri of VPS before ending his turn in the panel.

“Captain Rahul, I heard of your suggestion during SIBCON for ISO 8217:2017 to be mandated?” Harun asks.

“This is for the local regulators to decide but definitely we [INTERTANKO] are of the opinion that bunker procurement should be based on the latest version of ISO 8217, if this is one way to ensure that safe fuel is supplied to ships.”

Related: Industry survey shows switch to low-sulphur fuel has not been without problems
Related: SIBCON 2020: VPS proposes mandate of latest bunker fuel quality standards for Singapore market

 

Photo credit: Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) Singapore branch
Published: 9 December, 2020

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