Connect with us

Bunker Fuel Quality

VPS: Avoid expensive, catastrophic engine failures with GCMS screening of bunker fuel

Steve Bee, VPS Group Commercial Director, discusses how pre-burn chemical screening of bunker fuels can help prevent costly and catastrophic engine failures.

Admin

Published

on

RESIZED VPS logo

Steve Bee, Group Commercial Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, talks on the vital importance of pre-burn chemical screening of bunker fuels in preventing catastrophic engine failures:

The past five years have given rise to numerous high-profile, chemically-contaminated marine fuel cases. Hundreds of vessels have experienced costly engine damages during these events, in Houston (2018 and 2023), Europe (2022) and also in Singapore (2022). 

In addition to these highly publicised contamination events, there have been many single cases of vessel damage across the world due to the presence of chemical contaminants within fuel. All of these cases, large or small, have shown numerous different chemical contaminants, or combinations of contaminants, which have been identified as being responsible for these damages.

To highlight the consequences of chemically contaminated marine fuel, one recent case study, illustrates perfectly the issues and expense, ship owners and operators can face, when chemicals are present within their fuel.

In April 2023, a Singaporean-owned chemical and product tanker bunkered 415 m/tons of VLSFO in Houston. The vessel began to burn the fuel in May and quickly began to experience numerous issues with the auxiliary and main engines, such as exhaust gas deviating temperatures and the wearing of fuel pumps and plunger barrels. In addition, problems such as start-failure due to insufficient fuel injection, pressure build up, as well as worn out and leaking fuel pumps.

Of greater concern was the complete engine stoppage enroute to the next US port, when the main engine failed. Multiple attempts were made to start the engine, all without success.

Subsequent VPS forensic laboratory testing, utilising a proprietary Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) Acid Extraction methodology, detected the presence of several phenols and fatty acid compounds within the fuel.

The vessel initiated the necessary repairs to both auxiliary and main engine fuel pumps, at a total spares cost of $200,000.

Following these repairs, Class and Engine Manufacturer representatives attended the vessel to assess both auxiliary and main engine performance. A sea trial was then arranged in order to gain USCG approval to berth and manoeuvre the vessel in US coastal waters.

Eventually towards the end of July the contaminated fuel was de-bunkered in Houston.

Captain Subhangshu Dutt, Managing Director of OM Maritime, said: “It seems many more fuel quality details need to be considered while bunkering nowadays in order to avoid such incidents in the future, & chemical screening can be a useful tool to raise the red flag. Prudent testing can also keep us abreast of new contaminants that can enter the bunker market. Using technology and digitalization to trace the upstream history of the fuel could be considered. A perfect world would be when rigorous & relevant testing procedures are completed before the fuel is declared “fit” to be delivered on board”.

Hindsight with this and many other cases, would see ship owners and operators, looking for a more pro-active, pre-burn means of detecting the presence of volatile contaminants within their fuel. The VPS Chemical Screening service provides such a solution and ensures a higher level of vessel protection.

Since 2018, 41% of vessels engaged in the VPS fuel testing programme, have used the numerous Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) services available to detect chemical contaminants within fuel.

Focusing specifically on the GCMS-Head Space Chemical Screening service, 19.9% of applicable marine fuel samples received by VPS since 2018, have undertaken this rapid, pre-burn protection service, with an average 8% of samples tested, giving rise to a “Caution” result, indicating the presence of at least one chemical contaminant.

VPS report GCMS-HS screening results within 24-hours of sample receipt and once a “Caution” result is identified, VPS customers can immediately place their supplier on notice, pending further investigation, avoiding restrictive time-bar agreements.

Further investigation usually begins with a GCMS-HS Extended analysis, followed by more detailed forensic GCMS analysis, if required.

However, the initial GCMS-HS chemical screening service offers great benefits and value to VPS customers, as an inexpensive, rapid detection service, prior to the fuel being burnt. To put this into context, the $200,000 cost of replacement parts highlighted in the above case study, could have provided over 3,500 GCMS-HS screening tests.

A Swedish Club report in 2018, stated the average cost of a single fuel-related damage case is $344,000. With current fuel prices at $700/mt and an average bunker stem of 1,000mt, then a single GCMS-HS screening test to check for the presence of volatile chemicals within that one fuel delivery, equates to less than 0.008% of the cost of the fuel. Yet this service would provide a much greater level of protection to the vessel and avoid the risks associated with volatile chemicals within marine fuel. Which raises a final thought-provoking question, “Can you afford not to screen your fuel for chemicals?”

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 2 November, 2023

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

IBIA: Dutch authorities to enforce ISO 13739 bunker sampling in Rotterdam by 2026

IBIA Secretariat has received information that Netherlands’ Inspectorate for Environment and Transport is planning for the port to strictly enforce rules for fuel oil sampling on board the receiving vessel.

Admin

Published

on

By

IBIA: Dutch authorities to enforce ISO bunker sampling standard in Port of Rotterdam

International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) Secretariat on Tuesday (3 February) said it was informed by Port of Rotterdam that the Inspectorate for Environment and Transport in Netherlands is planning for the port to strictly enforce the rules for fuel oil sampling (the MARPOL sample) on board the receiving vessel via drip sampling to conform with ISO 13739.

“If both parties agree on a different sample point (that is other than the receiving vessel’s manifold), then the Inspectorate will have to be informed, and can issue a waiver,” IBIA secretariat stated. 

“Other samples may be taken via the bunker barge sample point.”

All seal (numbers) and counter seals have to be noted on the BDN.

“As this rule is not currently standard practice in ARA, the Dutch Inspectorate are initially expected to be flexible, but are likely to start to enforce this rule during this year and no later than the beginning of 2026,” it added. 

This will coincide with the obligation of  mass flow meter (MFM). 

Manifold Times previously reported that the use of a bunker measurement system for bunker vessels in the ports of Antwerp-Bruges and Rotterdam will be mandatory from 1 January 2026.

Related: MFM bunker measurement system to be mandatory in Antwerp-Bruges and Rotterdam

 

Photo credit: International Bunker Industry Association
Published: 5 February, 2025

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

VPS explains how to engineer and manage green bunker fuels

Stanley George, Group Technical and Science Manager, shares key insights on how to engineer and manage green shipping fuels—covering VLSFO, biofuels, and the impact of new regulations.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED VPS logo

Stanley George, Group Technical and Science Manager at marine fuels testing company VPS, recently shared key insights on how to engineer and manage green shipping fuels—covering VLSFO, biofuels, and the impact of new regulations: 

Effective management strategies and insights for evolving fuel use.

Back in 2020, the IMO 2020 regulations, which reduced the global upper limit on the sulphur content of ships' fuel oil from 3.5% to 0.50%, posed significant challenges for the marine industry.

Beyond compliance, ship operators faced difficulties stemming from very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) blends. Key issues included poor cold-flow properties, short shelf life, sludge formation, stability concerns, and, most critically, liner scuffing in large two-stroke engines.

Liner scuffing, a significant contributor to main engine damage, was initially thought to be unrelated to fuel quality, engine maintenance, or fuel compatibility. However, further investigations identified interactions between VLSFO blends and cylinder oils as the root cause.

Cylinder oil plays a vital role in maintaining engine health through:

  • Lubrication: creating an oil film to minimise friction and wear between cylinder liners and piston rings.
  • Deposit removal: detergent properties clean combustion deposits from critical engine components.
  • Acid neutralisation: additives in the cylinder oil neutralise acidic byproducts of fuel combustion.

With the introduction of VLSFO, oil majors and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) recommended a shift from high Base Number (BN) cylinder oils (70/100 BN) to lower BN oils (40 BN). This change reduced calcium-based additives, which are crucial for neutralisation and detergency, leading to increased deposit formation and, in some cases, resulting in liner scuffing.

Addressing liner scuffing

By mid-2020, OEMs introduced Category II (CAT II) cylinder oils designed to enhance cleaning and deposit control. Alongside improved cylinder lubrication practices, close monitoring of liner wear helped mitigate scuffing issues. Some operators successfully adopted blend-on-board techniques, enabling customisation of cylinder oil properties such as neutralisation and detergency. This flexibility significantly reduced engine issues, demonstrating the importance of tailored cylinder lubrication strategies.

VLSFO also exhibited poor cold-flow properties, leading to wax precipitation and reduced stability in colder climates. These challenges emphasised the importance of proper fuel storage, handling, and management practices to maintain fuel integrity and engine reliability.

The evolving landscape of marine fuels, driven by regulatory and environmental pressures, demands better understanding and management of both traditional fossil fuels and emerging alternatives like biofuels. International standard ISO8217:2024 is seen as a major step forward in terms of setting specifications for marine fuel quality.

Biofuel alternatives

With the industry looking to decarbonise, and a view to introducing low- to zero-carbon fuels, biofuels such as methanol and various fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) blends currently account for approximately 1% of the fuel mix. The more traditional fossil fuels are continuing to satisfy the day-to-day demand in terms of fuels supplied to vessels at this time.

Among these, cashew nutshell liquid (CNSL) and FAME have been explored as drop-in fuel options alongside several other alternatives. CNSL is a renewable resource with potential as a ready drop-in fuel. Its key phenolic compounds include:

  • Anacardic Acid (60–75%): a major contributor to CNSL's high acidity. Thermal decarboxylation converts this to cardanol, reducing acidity and enhancing stability.
  • Cardanol (5–15%): a stable phenolic compound derived from anacardic acid with improved combustion and lubricity properties.
  • Cardol (15–20%): A dihydroxybenzene derivative with surfactant-like behaviour.

While CNSL improves lubricity and energy content, its limitations include high acidity, poor combustion properties, and corrosive tendencies.

In 2022, CNSL-blended fuels caused operational challenges, particularly in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) region. Reported issues included:

  • Accelerated wear of fuel pump components.
  • Cracks and scratches in fuel systems.
  • Poor engine performance and power loss.

These issues were primarily attributed to CNSL's high acidity leading to corrosion of fuel systems and polymerisation tendencies, which in turn led to sludge formation. With regards to combustion characteristics, CNSL exhibited late ignition and extended period of combustion leading to after burning, high exhaust temperatures, carbon deposits in the exhaust system and less power developed. Even at low concentrations, CNSL requires careful management to avoid significant impacts on engine components.

Thermal decarboxylation – converting anacardic acid into cardanol, reducing acidity and increasing stability – and distillation – separating cardanol from other components to create a product better suited for fuel blending – can be applied to enhance CNSL characteristics.

While these treatments are known to improve CNSL's usability, further research is necessary to fully understand its long-term effects on engine performance and reliability.

FAME is the most widely used biofuel in marine applications. Although relatively new to the shipping industry, its extensive use in road transportation provides valuable insights.

Meanwhile, between 2023 and 2024, the use of used cooking oil methyl ester (UCOME) increased significantly.

Many operators tested B100 blends to prepare for regulatory requirements, including the GHG Strategy [greenhouse gas], EEDI [Energy Efficiency Design Index], CII [Carbon Intensity Indicator], and EEXI [Energy Efficiency existing ship Index]. In 2024, at Veritas Petroleum Services we noticed an uptake of B30 blends, a rise considered consistent with MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 18.3.2, which mandates verification of NOx impacts for blends exceeding 30%.

The impending implementation of FuelEU Maritime is expected to further boost the adoption of biofuel blends.

Operational considerations for FAME blends

There are some important operational considerations to consider for FAME blends. First, it has a tendency to absorb water, potentially leading to microbial growth. Proper storage and a first-in, first-out approach are critical to address this.

Second, at higher concentrations (B100, for example), there could be material compatibility issues. Third, FAME's solvency can dissolve deposits in fuel systems, potentially clogging filters. Lastly, due to its limited stability, FAME should be consumed promptly.

However, despite these considerations, when managed correctly, FAME blends can be used effectively alongside conventional fuels without significant operational issues.

The evolution of marine fuels, from VLSFO to alternative options like CNSL and FAME, underscores the need for comprehensive fuel and lubrication management strategies.

Addressing challenges such as liner scuffing, cold-flow properties, and compatibility is critical to maintaining engine reliability and operational efficiency. With increasing regulatory demands, the marine industry must continue to innovate and adapt to ensure a sustainable and efficient future.

Related: VPS shares review and position on new ISO 8217:2024 marine fuel specs
Related: VPS observes increase in demand for bio bunker fuel based on samples received in labs
Related: VPS appoints Steve Laino as new Americas Managing Director
Related: GCMD, VPS provide innovative means to detect fraud in sustainable biofuel supply chain
Related: VPS examines methanol as a marine fuel for decarbonisation

 

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 31 January, 2025

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS: Off specification sediment fuels from UK Ports Belfast and Fishguard

FOBAS has tested several VLSFO bunker fuel samples from UK ports, Belfast and Fishguard with Total Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m.

Admin

Published

on

By

Louis Reed from Unsplash

Lloyd’s Register Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) on Friday (17 January) released a bulletin highlighting several VLSFO fuel samples from UK ports, Belfast and Fishguard were found to have Total Sediment Potential (TSP) exceeding the ISO8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m:

In recent days, FOBAS has tested several samples from UK ports, Belfast and Fishguard with Total Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m. The samples were all VSLFO fuels and TSP results ranged from 0.22% m/m to 0.29% m/m. Extended analysis indicated these results were due mainly to extraneous dirt.

Fuels with high sediments can result in excessive sludge deposition in tanks and throughout the handling and treatment/fuel injection systems. Furthermore, in certain cases the attempted use of such fuels may result in highly compromised combustion leading to engine and turbocharger damage.

In addition to the above, fuels containing a high amount of extraneous dirt can result in heavy loading on

purifiers which can lower the purifier plant efficiency with respect to removing harmful contaminants such as aluminium, silicon, and / or water. Purifiers should be monitored and operational adjustments made as necessary.

In view of the above, if your ships are planning to bunker in these ports, we recommend that suppliers are advised of your concerns regarding the stability of the fuel in the area, and that they provide you with additional reassurance that they will adhere to the ISO 8217 requirements for the grade ordered.

Additional attention should be given to the collection of bunker samples. It should be ensured that all parties have witnessed the sampling process and have signed witness forms accordingly, and that the supporting documentation includes records of all the samples considered representative of the fuel as loaded.

 

Photo credit: Louis Reed from Unsplash
Published: 20 January, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement
  • Sea Trader & Sea Splendor
  • Zhoushan Bunker
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF
  • SBF2
  • Aderco advert 400x330 1
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01
  • Consort advertisement v2

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • E MARINE LOGO
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • HL 2022 adv v1


  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • Kenoil
  • Auramarine 01
  • Victory Logo
  • PSP Marine logo
  • Golden Island logo square
  • endress
  • Mokara Final
  • MFA logo v2
  • Innospec logo v6
  • LabTechnic
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • 400x330 v2 copy
  • Headway Manifold

Trending