Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore on Monday (25 November) said to date, it has not received reports of vessels experiencing operational problems related to fuel bunkered in Singapore.

This comes following bunker fuel testing and marine surveying business Maritec Pte Ltd (CTI-Maritec) issuing a bunker flash stating testing of Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) samples from ships in the Singapore and Rotterdam area which reported operational problems, indicated it was blended with Cashew Nutshell Liquid (CNSL). 

“All bunker fuels supplied in the Port of Singapore must meet the ISO 8217 standards,” MPA said. 

“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), in consultation with relevant industry experts, has also developed a provisional national standard on specifications of marine biofuel (WA 2:2022) to supplement the international standards.”

MPA added an enhanced set of testing parameters was implemented on 1 June 2024, in addition to the existing quality assurance measures, to test the quality of fuels upstream before they are supplied as bunker fuel in Singapore.

CTI-Maritec said in the recent-past few months several ships in the Singapore and Rotterdam area reported operational problems including fuel sludging, injector failure, filter clogging, system deposits and corrosion of turbocharger nozzle rings.

In light of the reported problems, CTI-Maritec swiftly carried out extended Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) testing for Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) samples from these said vessels.

GC-MS testing by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) method showed the presence of high concentrations (>10000 PPM) of cardol, cardanol, anacardic acid and other alkyl resorcinols. All mentioned compounds, which are substituted long chain phenols, indicated the fuel was blended with Cashew Nutshell Liquid (CNSL) from undeclared source materials or production processes.

CTI-Maritec recommended that shipowners should not use 100% CNSL as a marine fuel or use CNSL as a blending component in marine fuel, which is contrary to the guidance by IMO on best practices for suppliers on the quality of fuel oil delivered to ships.

Related: CTI-Maritec warns of CNSL biofuel bunker blends found at Singapore, Rotterdam
Related: Singapore: MPA tightens testing parameters to reduce contaminated bunker fuels

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 25 November, 2024 

Steve Bee, Group Commercial Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Tuesday (1 October)  wrote about mitigating fuel quality risks and safeguarding vessel operations against poor-quality bunker fuels:

As the global marine fuel mix grows, becoming more varied and consequently more complex in terms of fuel management, there is a potential increasing risk to vessels, crew and the environment, from the possible impact of poor-quality fuels.

Yet, whilst shipping looks to decarbonise, with a view to introducing low-to-zero carbon fuels, such as biofuels and methanol, these fuels 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, with almost 230 million MT of marine fuels being bunkered last year.

The VPS database shows for all fossil fuels tested the following current Off-specifications have been identified:

VPS Bunker Alerts, are also a good indication of current fuel quality and so far to date, VPS have issued 21 Bunker Alerts this year. These alerts have highlighted witnessed quality issues with the three main fuel types of HSFO (6 alerts), VLSFO (9 alerts) and MGO (6 alerts). The 2024 alerts show significant off-specifications for 8 different test parameters, from 11 different locations, across Europe, Middle-East, Asia and the Americas. This proves fuel quality issues can arise anywhere at any time, for any fuel type or test parameter.

June 2024, saw the 7th revision of the marine fuel standard ISO8217, released to the industry. ISO8217:2024 is seen as a major step forward in terms of setting specifications for marine fuel quality. This latest revision has moved from two fuel specification tables, to four. It now includes, for the first time, specifications for VLSFO and ULSFO fuels containing 0.50% or 0.10% sulphur respectively, plus biofuels containing FAME, HVO, GTL, BTL, bio-components.

Acknowledging that ISO8217:2024, is an improvement on previous revisions of the standard, it still does not cover enough of the further potentially problematic issues of chemical contamination, cold-flow properties, microbial-growth, plus wider bio-components such as Cashew Nut Shell Liquid (CNSL), to name but a few areas of concern.

In addition, the industry has a very poor track record of purchasing fuel against the very latest revision of the ISO8217 standard. To date, VPS as the world’s largest marine fuel quality testing company, still see 12.6% of samples received for quality testing, being purchased against the 2005 revision of the standard. So, vessels are purchasing fuel against a standard which is actually only 3 months off being 20 years old? That revision has since been replaced by four further revisions of the standard over the years and it bears very little relevance to today’s fuels. Therefore, these vessels are really operating at a significantly increased level of risk, if they are relying on ISO8217:2005 to fully protect them.

The most common revision against which marine fuel is purchased today, is still ISO8217:2010. 48% of all fuel samples received by VPS, are being tested against this revision. Again, ISO8217:2010 is almost 15 years old, so why is almost half of the fuel being purchased to it? There is no consideration of VLSFO, or ULSFO fuels, with FAME also being classed as a contaminant.

The 2017 revision, still only accounts for 20% of the fuel samples VPS receive for testing, even though its nearly eight years old. However, it does consider the presence of FAME within certain distillate grades, but still offers no specification for the lower sulphur grades of residual-based fuels, where VLSFOs are the most widely purchased fuel type.

All this means is the global fleet is buying fuel and testing its quality against a standard which is between 8-20 years old?

To date, VPS have not received a fuel sample, fossil fuel, or biofuel, purchased to the 2024 revision. Based on past history it maybe sometime before such a sample is received? Even then ISO8217:2024, whilst a major improvement to previous revisions, is not an all-encompassing standard.

As far back as 2018, The Swedish Club released their independent report, “Main Engine Damage”. This report highlighted how to avoid engine damage, including information showing the average cost of a single fuel management incident onboard a vessel was $344,069. It also stated the average cost of a single lubrication failure was $763,320.

The Swedish Club’s advice and recommendations were:

Back in 2019, in the lead up to IMO2020 and the reduction in the global sulphur cap to 0.50%, VPS foresaw potential quality issues with the new incoming VLSFO fuels. These fuels would be of higher paraffinic content, leading to poorer cold-flow behaviour, potential wax precipitation and major stability issues. VPS recognised that the ISO8217 standard did not provide sufficient protection to a vessel, when using VLSFO, or even HSFO and MGO fuels.

Therefore, the VPS Additional Protection (APS) service was launched prior to 2020. This service offers the full ISO8217 test scope, plus a number of additional tests, in one package offering, at a significantly reduced price, in order to ensure a greater level of protection to vessels and enhanced peace-of-mind to the, now more informed operator, using this service.

The APS Package is customised by fuel type, to cover, HSFO, VLSFO, or Distillates. The additional tests included, will provide much more information and greater understanding of the fuel in relation to stability, chemical contamination, cold-flow properties, lubricity and microbial-activity. The package can also be further customised to individual customer requirements. Many VPS customers have used and continue to use APS, to mitigate the potential risks from poor quality fuel and benefit from the added-value and cost savings, the service delivers.

In 2022, the incoming range of marine biofuels, warranted VPS to research a number of different additional tests to assist in identifying biofuel management issues and understanding their behaviour and operational risks.  As a consequence, VPS launched the APS-BIO packages. Once again, these include the ISO8217 as a base test slate, but also include additional tests to measure energy content, stability, renewable content, microbial-activity, corrosivity and cold-flow properties. The APS-BIO suite of test slates cover different bio-components such as FAME, HVO, CNSL, plus the fossil fuels used in a bio-blend, eg HSFO, VLSFO, MGO.

Once again VPS customers, are seeing real benefits and added-value, as they look to use biofuels as their decarbonisation option, knowing that in VPS they have an experienced, expert fuel management partner.

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 2 October, 2024 

Bunker fuel testing and marine surveying business Maritec Pte Ltd (CTI-Maritec) on Friday (6 September) said it recently tested VLSFO samples from vessels that took up fuel/bunkered in Malta, and found high concentrations of chemical compounds, that can potentially prove harmful for vessel health:

Findings & Insights:

In the last few weeks CTI-Maritec has tested multiple fuel oil bunker samples from vessels that have taken fuel/bunkered in MALTA and reported operational issues and/or tested to have the presence of high levels of chemical compounds.

Extended Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) testing by ASTM D7845 was conducted for two Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) samples, which showed the presence of high concentrations of acetophenone, phenolic compounds (4-cumylphenol, phenol and others), styrene glycol and phenethyl alcohols. Furthermore, testing by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) GC-MS technique indicated low levels of bisphenol isomers, fatty acids, long chain fatty acids and dehydroabietic acid. All mentioned compounds are non-hydrocarbons. Our GC-MS analysis also indicated the presence of reactive hydrocarbons like DCPD, Dihydro-DCPD, Styrene and Indene.

The common problems encountered, as reported by the vessels, were sludging, filter clogging and in some instances, fuel pump issues associated with phenolic compounds and phenethyl alcohols.

Due to the high levels of these chemical compounds, the fuels do not meet the general requirement and is considered as off-spec fuel as per clause 5 of ISO8217 and MARPOL Annex VI regulation 18 which states:

“The fuels shall be homogeneous blends of hydrocarbons derived from petroleum refining. This shall not preclude the incorporation of small amounts of additives intended to improve some aspects of performance.”

The fuels shall be free from inorganic acids and from used lubricating oils. The fuel should not include any added substance or chemical waste which,

1. a) jeopardizes the safety of ships or adversely affects the performance of the machinery; or
2. b) is harmful to personnel; or
3. c) contributes overall to additional air pollution.”

CTI-Maritec Recommendations:

CTI-Maritec recommends to:

• Closely observe the vessel fuel system/s for signs of filter clogging and purifier sludging and additionally, increase vigilance on the centrifuges to monitor overloading.
• Increase frequency of their de-sludging cycle depending on the accumulated sludge.
• Possibly reduce the Mean Time between bowl cleaning of the purifier and fuel system filters.
• Avoid blending with other fuels, in particular marine diesel and gas oil and also other fuel oil as such mixing may well increase the sediment problem.

Furthermore, at these levels of concentration of chemical compounds present in fuel oil, there is an increased risk of excessive wear to the vessel’s fuel pump plunger and barrel assembly. Therefore, it is advised to monitor the fuel pump index closely to check for deteriorating performance. As a back-up, ensure there are sufficient spare seals and plunger barrel assembly to replace damaged units if necessary.

In addition, as a precaution, it is advised to closely monitor the performance of the engines while using this fuel to detect any deterioration of the fuel injection equipment performance and the sealing effect of the piston rings.

This document, however, does not reflect on the overall quality of fuel being supplied in Malta. If you intend to bunker in this region, please request for a Certificate of Quality prior to loading.

Photo credit: Louis Reed from Unsplash
Published: 9 September, 2024