Connect with us

Analysis

Contaminated bunkers: Protecting the purchaser

Gard issues pointers to fuel buyers on disputes concerning the bunker supplier and the supply contract.

Admin

Published

on

5b9f3facda476 1537163180

Maritime protection & indemnity insurer Gard Thursday issued a notice informing the shipping community of contaminated bunkers: 

Following our earlier insight on contaminated bunkers, we now focus on the bunker supplier and the supply contract.

Before looking at these in more detail, however, we briefly summarize the situation at present.

No new developments

Little or no headway has been made in identifying the root cause of contamination and advanced testing, such as detailed Gas Chromatography combined with Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), still remains the only reliable means of establishing whether the bunkers are contaminated. There is still a considerable backlog when it comes to advanced testing. No authority other than USCG has issued an official circular or alert on this issue to date.

The latest information available indicates that:

  1. There have been unconfirmed reports that bunker suppliers are altering their standard bunker supply forms by excluding reference to ISO 8217 and shortening the time bars from 30 days to 15 days, or even 7 days; and are also offering contaminated bunkers at a cheaper price.
  2. The contaminated fuel is being de-bunkered in various ports across the world and this presents a clear risk as it could find its way back into the supply chain. Some states may treat de-bunkered fuel as ‘waste’ which may further complicate de-bunkering activities.
  3. Vessels suffering from engine problems due to off-spec fuels may attract the attention of Port State Control Authorities, especially in states under the Riyadh MOU and Vina Del Mar MOU since the ongoing CIC in these regions are focusing on machinery.
  4. Owners and charterers should be familiar with the International Bunker Industry Association’s (IBIA) “Best practice guidance for suppliers for assuring the quality of bunkers delivered to ships” which was released early this year. The guidelines are a good source of information for members and clients in knowing how suppliers can ensure better fuel quality.

Exercise prudence when selecting a bunker supplier

There should be a process in place for selecting bunker supplier as the assurance of the quality of fuel is important and the decision should not be based on price alone. Some of the factors which should be borne in mind when selecting the supplier are:

  1. Market reputation of the supplier
  2. Whether the supplier has any recent history of being involved in the supply of contaminated bunkers
  3. Supplier’s financial standing
  4. Whether supplier can furnish evidence of insurance for poor quality bunkers
  5. Extent of control exercised over the bunker barge by the supplier
  6. Terms and conditions offered. Specifically, supplier’s willingness to renegotiate the contract

Pay attention to the bunker contract

Buyers, i.e. owners and charterers, usually may have a difficult time negotiating contractual terms with the supplier or trader. However, in light of the current situation where suppliers are potentially facing expensive claims, they may be more forthcoming than previously to discuss the contractual terms. Some of the key points at the contractual stage are:

  1. Clearly describe the fuel requested: The bunker order should contain a clear description of the bunkers to be supplied as the supplier is obliged to supply fuel as requested. At the requisition stage, it may be mentioned to the supplier that the bunkers should be free of various anomalous components and be fit for purpose. It is worth noting that although the buyer may deem the fuel to be unsuitable due to contaminants and in breach of Cl.5 of ISO 8217, there is a valid argument against this line of thought that the fuel was nonetheless within contractual parameters. It remains to be seen how courts will interpret the openly worded Cl.5.
     
  2. Vet the bunker contract: Carefully read the contract. It may also be compared with previous contracts to ascertain if key contractual terms have been altered. These will be clauses typically referring to:
  • ISO 8217;
  • the time bar; and
  • disclaimer excluding warranty as to fitness of the fuel.

It is in the suppliers’ interest for the contract to exclude any reference to ISO 8217 and/or for time bars to be excessively short if there are no clauses warranting that the fuel must be fit for consumption. Ensure that the supply contract is not worded in favour of the supplier. It is recommended to use BIMCO’s Standard Bunker Contract as it is more evenly balanced. With regards to ISO 8217 contracts should expressly specify that anomalous components must not be present. Simply stating that ISO 8217 standard must be met may not be sufficient.

  1. Pre-delivery testing should be part of the contract: It is best if buyers (owners or charterers) know beforehand that the fuel supplied conforms to the specs and is not in any way contaminated. This is achievable only through advanced screening or testing, such as detailed GCMS, FTIR etc. Try making the supplier contractually responsible for such testing and if possible also obtain information as to where the bunkers are sourced from. This information will influence how adamant a buyer should be about pre-delivery testing.
     
  2. Know how the selected forum treats bunker disputes: If unable to renegotiate the law and jurisdiction clause governing the supply contract, buyers should at least familiarise themselves with how the relevant jurisdiction treats bunker disputes.
     
  3. Be aware that the full extent of loss may not be claimable: Bunker supply contracts invariably have a limitation of liability clause, usually limited to the cost of the bunkers, and exclude consequential losses, i.e. a claim for lost time and engine repair cannot be put forward. Depending on the bargaining power of the buyer, the wording of the clause could be re-negotiated.

Claiming against the supplier

  1. In bunker disputes, evidence in the form of bunker samples, test reports, damaged parts, records etc., is vital. A comprehensive list of documents which may be needed can be found by clicking here. When conducting additional testing and survey of damage parts, the bunker supplier should be invited to witness the same.
  2. Very often the physical supplier and the contractual supplier are not the same. In the absence of a contractual link between the buyer and the physical supplier, any claim will most likely have to be made in tort.
  3. Claim against the contractual supplier is very much dependent on the jurisdiction it is heard in and on the terms and conditions of the bunker contract.
  4. Claimants, i.e. buyers of bunkers, will have to shoulder the burden of proof to show that the bunkers supplied were not of the contractual description and that the off-spec bunkers were indeed the cause of machinery damage. Whilst the former can easily be satisfied with the advanced test results, for the latter, detailed documentary evidence, as mentioned in ‘a’ above, and expert evidence may be needed.
  5. Upon purchase a buyer should reserve their position vis-à-vis the time bar in the bunker contract. Such reservations may not work in every jurisdiction, nonetheless this precautionary step is still advisable. There is also an argument, though not tested, that the court will take cognizance of the fact that these contaminants cannot be detected in a short time period.
  6. As far as English Law is concerned the position is that under Section 14 of Sale of Goods Act 1979 the implied terms of fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality will apply assuming the bunker contract is construed as a contract of sale, though it was not in the OW litigation.
  7. Members and clients are reminded to notify the club as soon as contaminants are detected or suspected.

Conclusion

Bunker quality disputes can be very lengthy, costly and complex but can be avoided if a sound decision is made as regards selection of the supplier and negotiation of the bunker contract. Increased dialogue between suppliers and buyers (time charterers or owners of voyage chartered vessels) may be needed to achieve the right level of understanding and cooperation.

Related: Gard: Contaminated bunker issue continues to spread

Photo credit:
Published: 17 September, 2018

 

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