Connect with us

IMO 2020

Argus Media Q&A: Viswa Group advises on additional bunkers testing

Dr Vis discusses challenges shipowners could face with 0.5pc sulphur fuel and tests they should be running.
Admin

Published

7 years ago

on

5db293a5560c3 1571984293

Global energy and commodity price reporting agency Argus Media on Thursday (24 October) published a marine fuels industry interview with Dr Vis of Viswa Group:

Ram Vis is chief executive and founder of international marine fuel specifications testing company Viswa Group. In this Q&A, Vis discusses some of the challenges shipowners could face with the various 0.5pc sulphur fuel specifications and the fuel tests shipowners should be running. The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Should shipowners run additional specification tests to the standard specifications test they already run? If so what are they and how long does it take to get the results? Should shipowners be testing for catfines? If so is this a standard test?

Yes. Since 0.5pc sulphur fuel oils are generally classified as residual fuels under ISO 8217, we recommend that the client carry out stability, gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) screening to identify contaminants and fourier transform infrared (FTIR) screening to identify fatty acid methyl esters(FAMEs).Catfines will be tested as part of the standard ISO 8217 testing scope.

Some suppliers in the US Gulf coast have talked about selling 0.5pc sulphur vacuum gasoil (VGO) as IMO 2020 complaint fuel. Do you know if 0.5pc sulphur VGO would be compatible with 0.5pc sulphur residual fuel oil?

VGOs are predominantly paraffinic so the possibility of their incompatibility is high when they are mixed with aromatic based fuels. In different studies, it is recommended not to mix aromatic fuel with paraffinic fuel.

For vessels that cannot procure 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil at the port they are bunkering, and they buy marine gasoil (MGO) instead to burn in their main engines, what problems do you foresee? What are the lessons learned from 2015, when the Emission Control Areas (ECAs) switched to 0.1pc sulphur fuel from 1pc sulphur fuel?

The changeover from 1pc to 0.1pc sulphur fuel in 2015 in ECA areas did result in numerous problems including a number of blackouts of the California coast. One important lesson learned was the importance of checking the viscosity and not allowing it to drop below 2 centistokes (cst). Some ships installed coolers or chillers for this purpose. The other important lesson was the importance of lubricity. A number of our clients keep lubricity additives in stock in case the 0.1pc sulphur MGO supplied has borderline or off-specification lubricity properties.

What do you think of the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) published the end of September?

At this time there is no specification for 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil products in ISO 8217. There is such a wide difference between the supplies globally from port to port that it is very difficult to come up with an all-encompassing specification. The 0.5pc sulphur fuels vary from the residual fuel oil type (high density, high viscosity but originating from very-low sulfur crude oil) to light-middle distillate type (density 0.87 kg/l, viscosity of about 6cst at 100°C). The viscosity vary widely even within the same grade. For example, some lower viscosity fuels may have other characteristics such as density, carbon residue and catfines typical of higher viscosity grades.

Already hundreds of 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil samples have been tested and typically viscosity falls in the range of 10-380cst and density from 870-991 kg/m3.

Based on PAS, there are several tests recommended for stability and compatibility. One is ASTM D4740 for compatibility. This method is developed for aromatic fuels containing asphaltenes. If a black ring or spot is formed in the middle of the filter paper, asphaltenes have precipitated and the fuels may be incompatible. While some of the new 2020 fuels may be highly paraffinic/waxy fuels. Very paraffinic fuels and distillate blends may show false results, indicating that fuels are incompatible, when they are actually compatible. The false-negative result is due to pigment separation, light wax, and heavy wax. Care should, therefore, be taken when evaluating the results. The ISO 10307 total sediment potential, (TSP) is a stability test. It can be applied for different fuel types (paraffinic or aromatic fuel) but the test will take 24 hours. The ASTM D7060 (Zematra) test is for stability and the ASTM D7112 (PORLA-P value) and the ASTM D7157 (ROFA-S value) tests are for for stability and compatibility. The last three tests can provide further insight into the stability of the fuel by investigating the asphaltene flocculation point. P-value and S-Value methods can predict the compatibility by calculating the P-value and S-value of the blends but it has been shown that calculating these values is not applicable for all blends.

What stands out about the 0.5pc sulphur bunker fuels specifications you have tested thus far, compared with conventional 3.5pc sulphur 380cst fuel oil bunkers?

Based on our available data set, we find that some of the 0.5pc sulphur fuels have a waxy/paraffinic base which may cause wax deposition when the temperature goes below the wax appearance temperature. Some of these fuels contain slurry components (high density, low viscosity fuels) which may cause incompatibility issues after blending.

Do you foresee problems such as low viscosity causing pump failures and leakages due to low viscosity and low lubricity? There is high probability of paraffinic blends making their way into marine bunker market, which will not only increase the need to address higher pour points but also the general cold flow properties of fuels. What can the shipowners do to protect themselves?

Based on our research and finding of major engine manufacturer, viscosity becomes an issue when it falls below 2cst at 40°C. All the 0.50pc sulphur products in the market so far have had a viscosity of 10cst and above. Lubricity becomes an issue when the Sulfur is below 0.05pc sulphur. This has not been an issue with the 0.50pc sulphur products.

But with 0.1pc sulphur marine gasoil (MGO) forming a large part of the bunker market in 2020, both low viscosity and lubricity need to be closely watched for the MGO supplied in the Emission Control Areas.

We have seen two predominant groups of 0.5pc sulphur oils: aromatic based (with lower pour point) and paraffinic based (with higher pour point). At this time the highest pour point we have seen for 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil in 27°C. While within specification, this would mean that the fuel has to be heated to 10 degrees higher than the pour point to prevent the wax portions solidifying. This becomes a greater challenge in winter. It is important to have sufficient heating capacity on board in order to handle these higher paraffinic fuels.

Should shipowners consider changing their bunkering and fuel testing procedures to better protect themselves from 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil-caused engine problems? If so, what procedures would you advise?

It is very important to have a ship implementation plan for every ship. Shipowners should review their fuel transfer filtration and delivery systems and their bunkering arrangements.

If shipowner is planning to mix 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil from two different suppliers in the vessel's bunker tank, what is the lowest level of fuel compatibility they could tolerate without jeopardizing their vessel? How long does it take to run a compatibility test?

A rule of thumb for compatibility used to be that if the two fuels are similar in density and viscosity values, they are likely to be compatible. But with the numerous new blends, this thumb rule may no longer be practical. Based on past experience with the 0.1pc sulphur fuel oils that came into the market in 2015, it is safe to blend 3.5pc sulphur fuel oil and 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil at no more than 2pc to 98pc ratios without checking their compatibility. The compatibility spot test (ASTM D4740) can be carried out onboard in about 90 minutes but this method does not work with all the 0.5pc sulphur fuels. Most of the other tests mentioned can be carried out in the lab in about two hours.

Do you foresee engine problems when shipowners switch from burning 0.5pc sulphur fuel oil in the open seas to burning 0.1pc sulphur marine gasoil at the ports or in the ECAs?

As long as the viscosity and lubricity values are known and correct changeover policies are followed, we do not see a major difference in going from 0.5pc to 0.1pc sulphur. It should be similar to going from 3.5pc to 0.1pc sulphur.

What is the stability test method you would recommend to shipowners bunkering 0.5pc sulphur. How long does it take to run it?

The total sediment potential (TSP) which is assessment and indication of the stability and cleanliness of fuel needs to be tested. This test will take one day and when TSP exceeds 0.1pc, the fuel is considered to be unstable.

Has the bunker contamination problem from the spring/summer of 2018 in the US Gulf, Singapore and Panama changed the way shipowners bunker fuel and test the fuel?

The bunker contamination story in the Houston area, Singapore and Panama was an eye-opener to the shipping industry. Never had there been such huge number of damages over a significant period of time. We saw a lot of our clients request advanced testing such as gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) for all their bunkers. We also found that a lot of ships waited to get a green flag from the testing lab before using the fuels. On the supplier side there has been an effort to run complete tests on blended fuels, not just for ISO 8217 parameters.

Source: Argus Media
Published: 25 October, 2019
 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

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.

Admin

Published

2 months ago

on

June 3, 2026

By

india flag

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

Continue Reading

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.
Admin

Published

8 months ago

on

December 8, 2025

By

shraga kopstein on Unsplash

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

Continue Reading

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.
Admin

Published

9 months ago

on

October 31, 2025

By

Sheen Mao MT

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.

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 31 October 2025

Continue Reading

Trending