Connect with us

Uncategorized

Integr8 Fuels: VLSFO then, now and next

Variance in VLSFOs from port to port continue to challenge all stakeholders across the industry, especially with documented stability challenges, says Chris Turner.
Admin

Published

5 years ago

on

Screen Shot 2021 04 09 at 3.22.25 PM

Chris Turner, Manager – Bunker Quality and Claims at Integr8 Fuels, the bunker trading and brokerage arm of Navig8, on Thursday (8 April) published a summary on how the energy and shipping industry navigated the low sulphur fuel transition, and what future directions will take given the upcoming carbon reduction targets:

Twenty-one months ago seems an eternity given the challenges the world now faces yet I clearly recall sitting on a trading floor and hearing excited chatter that enquiries were being received for VLSFO. I have to say I gave a little sigh of relief to think that buyers were indeed proactively planning for what many of us will ultimately define as one of the biggest challenges within the industry and our careers, the IMO 2020 changeover.

Short term teething

Whenever a specification makes a step change it is quite normal for this to be accompanied by a spike in reported problems and / or claims and the IMO 2020 changeover was no different.

Trains of thought differ as to how and why this occurred, but from my perspective I would suggest this was perhaps as a result of Sulphur cross-contamination or compatibility issues either within the supply chain or even, occasionally in a continuous drop sampler resulting in false elevated Sulphur results. It was however reassuring to note that these quickly settled down and to see that suppliers were not necessarily blending to the hilt, targeting 0.47% weight instead of 0.50% weight Sulphur.

The lack of availability was also championed by many an industry voice as a major challenge, whether it be for HSFO or VLSFO depending on which camp you were stationed in.

Thankfully again neither availabilities for HSFO or VLSFO were too badly affected with VLSFO ports rapidly ramping up to more than 400 globally.

Screen Shot 2021 04 09 at 3.22.37 PMAs for unavailability, the simplest way of tracking this was via the IMO website and specifically the number of FONAR’s (Fuel Oil Non Availability Reports ) lodged which quickly fell away from around 50 in January 2020 to less than a handful by April 2020.

Bumps in the road

In most years we routinely face bumps in the road but in 2020 a proverbial sinkhole appeared in the shape of COVID-19.

Bad news on the Television eventually made their way into our day to day, challenging not only how we work but where we would work.

Again I can only praise the resilience of the industry in general when looking back on some of the unexpected consequences of COVID-19.

One of the first alerts raised was the possibility of vessels storing fuels for far longer than anticipated, resulting in degradation . Thankfully this did not result in too many issues from our perspective but the storage temperatures of the “goldilocks” fuels (as they have been so eloquently recently christened) remains important to carefully manage – Like the porridge in the story, not too hot, not too cold but just right.

Another consequence was the lack of demand for road fuels challenging the bunker space with VGO flowing into the marine pool rather than the catalytic cracker and as a result spiking paraffinicity and Pour Point.

As the price crack narrowed between VLSFO and MGO the residual pool unsurprisingly became a new home for distillates, this tracked by significantly lower viscosities across Q1 and Q2 of 2020, although these have since recovered.

As for Quality, Claims have been sporadic to this point mainly revolving around Stability, Sulphur non-compliance or Water content, but in early May ARA was significantly affected by TSP issues

Any Alleged difficulties onboard also generally revolved around change-over or handling practices which from experience on occasion did not move with the changing goalposts as a result of the new fuels.

Where are we now?

The sheer variance of VLSFOs from port to port continues to challenge all stakeholders across the industry, especially In addition to the well-known and documented stability challenges where questions remain as to the long-term stability of VLSFO. Unfortunately this has not been helped by inconsistent cold flow advice being provided to end users which may result in further fuel degradation.

It is true VLSFOs are waxier but we must balance the temperatures of storage and purification to the animal itself and not just the waxes as we may inadvertently tip the fuel over the edge from the point of thermal stability with it falling apart as a result.

That said, the knowledge of Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT) and Wax Dissolution Temperature (WDT) are useful to know but I remain concerned too much bias is given towards them from some quarters.

After all WAT is simply the point at which, when cooling the first wax crystals detected and WDT the point waxes are last detected when heating the fuel.

Low Viscosity combined with the higher storage temperatures needed due to the waxy fuels may result in fuels becoming non-homogenous across the supply chain.

These conditions create the possibility of creating a settling tank scenario, allowing particles/water/metals etc to settle out due to the bigger density differential from VLSFO to Water 0.945 Kg/Ltr v 1.00 kg/Ltr compared to 0.99kg/Ltr v 1.00 Kg/Ltr for HSFO which could result in some very poor fuels making their way to a vessel, if for example a shore tank is on low suction – where such contaminants will concentrate.

A Silver lining however here is that from a claim’s perspective the runnier and lighter VLSFO does allow for the more efficient removal of contaminants such as elevated Aluminium and Silicon which may be a way of preventing costly and litigious Debunkering’s.

From time to time we also have our heads turned technically by what appears to be very aggressive blending.

These fuels tend to be present in more outlying ports than the blending hubs but have been noted to have Viscosity as low as 5 cSt and Pour Point at the same time being 30 Deg C.

Such fuels create an impossible position for the Chief Engineer when trying to meet Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) requirements for Purification or Injection (which require 20cSt and 12cSt respectfully) as the settings onboard needed to achieve the viscosities are impossible to achieve given the fuel would already resemble a candle at the corresponding temperatures required. It is arguable that the industry did not see this coming.

Where are we heading?

The industry continues to cry out for transparency across the supply chain rather than the historic opaque world of smoke and mirrors. Interestingly COVID-19 may have provided a catalyst for the industry to work more remotely and with that move with the times technically.

One such development is the use of electronic BDNs or documentation and this, combined with traceable and regulated measurements (such as in Singapore) may ultimately negate many of the safety issues associated with access and egress to vessels and barges and may also ultimately provide for efficiency savings too.

This would of course not be an overnight fix, the industry has some way to go to compete with the level of traceability that the aviation industry has for example, but I do not think we are too far away from a ‘blockchain’ type scenario where the end-to-end traceability removes many of the historic BDN inaccuracies or malpractice concerns.

Pricing and commercial factors will continue to challenge the bunker space and blend recipes as a result. Given the growing crack between MGO and VLSFO It would not be entirely unexpected to see Sulphur climbing towards the 0.50% limit with infractions creeping up nor would it be unexpected to see water content increasing.

Thankfully, we are yet to see wholesale evidence of obscure cutters making their way into the market, similar to the Houston problem – we can but hope lessons were learned in 2018.

As for the direction of travel for ISO 8217 Specifications, as already mentioned no one predicted a fuel could be sold as a 380cst RMG with a viscosity of 5cst yet it has come to pass.

Commercially there is nothing to stop this but ultimately operationally such fuels can create huge challenges. Therefore minimum viscosity specs would be a sensible addition with table 2. Of ISO 8217.

We also cannot forget that operational setups have changed significantly with fuels no longer being purified at high temperatures (98 deg c) – due to lower viscosities, and this creates the argument that the TSP test (which uses 100 deg C) is not mirroring what we are actually doing onboard.

Ultimately however until such time that we as an industry move to a single latest specification we will never rid ourselves of the challenges that historically remain, within the almost 16 year old ISO 8217:2005 for example. Indeed driving change on this level from Refinery to the Hull of the ship, in doing so spanning bunker contracts and charter parties alike is the only way to finally resolve this situation.

And last but not least, We cannot forget the drive for the industry to reduce Carbon Emissions, one of which Is Bio-fuels and with these in mind I want to raise awareness of the likely increase of biofuels in certain tonnages going forwards.

This may be particularly relevant for the older tonnage as they pave the way to meet Carbon Reduction targets without expensive retrofits (ammonia/methanol etc) and ultimately prolong the lifespan of the ship.

This will however again need wholesale changes, including specifications and tact in the industry in general given some of the recent GCMS alerts raised are for exactly the components we will inevitably be blending.

Until the next time, stay safe.


Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 9 April, 2021

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Availability

ENGINE: Europe & Africa Bunker Fuel Availability Outlook (1 April 2026)

East Mediterranean ports see high demand; Malta sees rough weather; high demand increases lead times in West Africa.
Admin

Published

4 months ago

on

April 2, 2026

By

RESIZED ENGINE Europe and Africa

The following article regarding Europe and Africa bunker fuel availability has been provided by online marine fuel procurement platform ENGINE for post on Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times:

  • East Mediterranean ports see high demand
  • Malta sees rough weather
  • High demand increases lead times in West Africa

Northwest Europe

Availability of all fuel grades is stable in the ARA bunkering hub, but buyers are recommended to enquire about stems around five days ahead to get competitive offers from a wide selection of suppliers, a trader said.

The ARA’s independently held fuel oil stocks slumped 20% lower in March, according to Insights Global data.

The region imported around 160,000 b/d of fuel oil in March, down from 192,000 b/d imported in February, according to cargo tracker Vortexa. Most supplies have arrived from Denmark (21%), Poland (14%) and Libya (13%).

The region’s independent gasoil inventories – which include diesel and heating oil – have dipped 1% lower in March, compared to February.

The ARA imported 289,000 b/d of gasoil, down from the 304,000 b/d in February, according to Vortexa data. Around 27% of cargo volumes have come from Kuwait, while the US has sent around 24%.

In Germany’s Hamburg, buyers are being advised to book stems with a lead time of five days, a trader said.

Bunker fuel availability is very tight in Sweden’s Gothenburg and off Denmark’s Skaw, a trader told ENGINE.

Mediterranean

Securing supplies promptly is challenging in the Gibraltar Strait ports, and buyers are advised to book around seven days in advance to secure supplies of any fuel grade, a trader said.

Demand is stable in the Port of Gibraltar, with around 40 vessels expected to call for bunkers between 1-8 April, shipping agent A Mateos & Sons said.

Congestion caused in the port last week due to rough weather conditions has completely cleared as of Wednesday morning, port agent MH Bland said.

In Barcelona, buyers are usually requested to give a week’s notice for any delivery, but supplies can be arranged sometimes on a prompt basis, a trader told ENGINE.

Bunker availability is tight in the Canary Islands bunkering hub of Las Palmas, a trader said. Suppliers are giving earliest delivery dates around 10 days out for stems with competitive prices, the trader added.

Bunkering operations are currently being conducted in the inner anchorage and at the berth due to rough seas, port agent MH Bland said.

Malta is experiencing rough winds of more than 25 knots and waves of more than 2.5 metres, and the conditions are expected to persist until 3 February.

Bunkering operations off Malta have been currently suspended, port agent MH Bland said.

Some operations can be conducted in the sheltered Area 1 and Area 4, and operations are expected to resume normally in the offshore area around Saturday, shipping agent WMR told ENGINE.

Bunker demand has decreased recently off Malta, a trader said.

Fuel availability is steady in the Greece’s Piraeus, but high demand for bunkers is causing operational challenges related to barge and berth availability, a local supplier said. The port may face tight product availability around late April or early May if the conflict continues and crude flows through the Strait of Hormuz continue to remain disrupted, the supplier added.

Fuel availability is stable in Turkey’s Istanbul and demand is very strong, a local supplier told ENGINE. Buyers are securing bunkers as they anticipate tight availability next month, the supplier added.

Africa

Ships re-routing around the Cape of Good Hope have increased bunker demand in African ports, suppliers and traders told ENGINE.

West African ports are experiencing low product availability as demand is rising and supply is not able to keep up, a major supplier in West Africa said.

Lead times have increased significantly in many bunkering hubs due to the additional demand.

In Togo’s Lome and off Namibia’s Walvis Bay, buyers are recommended to enquire about stems around 10-11 days ahead, a trader said.

In Angola’s Luanda, one supplier has stopped supplying VLSFO, while LSMGO supplies may need around 7-10 days of notice, a supplier told ENGINE.

Getting VLSFO supplies in Nigeria’s Lagos anchorage also requires around 10 days of notice, a local supplier said.

In South Africa, availability is stable off Algoa Bay, a trader said. In Durban, LSMGO is priced around $3000/mt.

By Nachiket Tekawade

 

Photo credit and source: ENGINE
Published: 2 April 2026

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

IMO: Caribbean maritime leaders draft policy recommendations to decarbonize shipping

Participants focused on moving from analysis to implementation by aligning policy, infrastructure planning, energy systems and finance.
Admin

Published

6 months ago

on

February 5, 2026

By

IMO: Caribbean maritime leaders draft policy recommendations to decarbonize shipping

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) on Tuesday (3 February) said Caribbean policymakers and financiers have emphasized that decarbonization will not succeed through isolated projects or technologies alone, but through coordinated action across sectors and countries, supported by evidence-based planning and investment-ready pathways. 

Senior representatives from Caribbean governments, maritime administrations, ports, energy authorities, development banks and financial institutions met for a regional roundtable convened in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago (29 – 30 January) by IMO’s GreenVoyage2050 Programme, in collaboration with Global MTCC Network (GMN Phase II). 

The event, under the theme Unlocking maritime decarbonization, resulted in key draft policy recommendations for the region, including proposals for: 

  • enhanced regional coordination to harmonize national policies; 
  • knowledge-sharing; 
  • capacity building; and 
  • investment facilitation.  

Participants focused on moving from analysis to implementation by aligning policy, infrastructure planning, energy systems and finance. The participation of multilateral and regional development banks alongside policymakers and industry linked technical ambition with financial realism at an early stage. 

Dr Jose Matheickal, Director of the IMO’s Technical Cooperation and Implementation Division, underscored the need to bridge global ambition and national delivery: “The IMO GHG Strategy sets a clear global direction, but implementation happens at country and regional level. What is critical is creating the conditions, policy, institutional capacity and credible project pipelines, that allow finance to flow and turn ambition into action.” 

The first day of discussions connected the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy with delivery through technical cooperation and regional collaboration.  

Findings from the Jamaica Maritime Alternative Fuels Study, supported by the GreenVoyage2050 Programme, were shared to ground the regional dialogue in a concrete country example. The study illustrated how Caribbean States can assess future fuel demand, supply pathways, infrastructure needs and policy implications to inform investment and planning decisions. 

Building on this evidence, participants discussed credible fuel pathways for the region, barriers to adoption and where regional coordination could accelerate progress. Interactive mapping exercises captured existing initiatives, infrastructure gaps and opportunities for collaboration across the Caribbean, while practical examples demonstrated how policy intent is already translating into action through green port development, fleet initiatives and pilot projects. 

 

The second day of the roundtable focused on unlocking investment, with development banks and financial institutions outlining what is needed to improve project bankability and mobilize public and private finance.  

Discussions explored financial instruments, risk-sharing approaches and policy signals required to support investment in ports, clean fuels and maritime infrastructure, reinforcing the importance of aligning national priorities with financier expectations. 

Ms Thandi McAllister, Director – Legal Services, Maritime Administration Department, Guyana, said: “This Regional Roundtable provided a vital platform for States and other maritime stakeholders to gain valuable insights into the impact and opportunities that are optimizable by Caribbean SIDs and LDCs in their pursuit of decarbonisation goals.” 

Finally, the participants visited the ammonia-fuelled ship Fortescue Green Pioneer for a first-hand look at alternative fuel technology in use onboard.

 

Photo credit: International Maritime Organization
Published: 5 February, 2026

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

ICS and 47 governments submit GHG pricing mechanism proposal to IMO

Key purpose of mandatory GHG charge will be to reduce cost gap between zero/near-zero GHG emission fuels and conventional bunker fuels to incentivise accelerated uptake of green energy sources.

Admin

Published

2 years ago

on

January 10, 2025

By

IMO

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) on Thursday (9 January) said it has joined 47 governments in a joint submission to the final round of negotiations at the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) to adopt a maritime greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pricing mechanism to achieve net zero GHG emissions from international shipping by 2050. 

The joint text is supported by major shipping nations such as Greece, Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, the world’s largest flag States including Bahamas, Liberia, Marshall Islands and Panama, all EU States (and the European Commission), other African countries such as Nigeria and Kenya, plus Small Island Developing States from the Caribbean and the Pacific.

The joint submission by governments sets out convergent regulatory text for amendments to the IMO MARPOL Convention, which will require shipping companies operating ships on international voyages to make GHG contributions per tonne of CO2e emitted to a new “IMO GHG Strategy Implementation Fund”.

ICS said the key purpose of this mandatory GHG charge will be to reduce the cost gap between zero/near-zero GHG emission (ZNZ) fuels such as green methanol, ammonia and hydrogen and conventional bunker fuels, to incentivise the accelerated uptake of green energy sources. 

Revenue generated will be used to reward the production and uptake of ZNZ marine fuels, whilst also providing billions of US dollars annually to support the maritime GHG reduction efforts of developing countries.

International Chamber of Shipping Secretary General, Guy Platten, said: “The industry fully supports the adoption by IMO of a GHG pricing mechanism for global application to shipping.”

“The joint text put forward by this broad coalition is a pragmatic solution and the most effective way to incentivise a rapid energy transition in shipping to achieve the agreed IMO goal of net zero emissions by or close to 2050.”

“We are very pleased that such a large and diverse group of nations now firmly supports a common approach to maritime carbon charging. This proposed joint text has been hard fought and is broadly based on ideas which ICS has been advocating for the past ten years.

“While a large number of governments now support a universal flat rate GHG contribution by ships – or something similar – a minority of governments continue to have concerns. Working in co-operation with all IMO Member States we will do our best to allay such concerns during the final stages of these critical negotiations about regulatory text.”

This mature regulatory proposal will be considered by a critical IMO meeting in February – in the week of 17 February 2025 at ISWG-GHG 18. 

If the MARPOL amendments are approved by IMO in April 2025, they should enter into force globally in early 2027, with the collection of annual GHG contributions from ships commencing in 2028.

Note: The joint proposal to IMO for a maritime GHG emissions pricing mechanism can be found here.

 

Photo credit: International Maritime Organization
Published: 10 January, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending