Connect with us

Analysis

North P&I: Bunker contaminants fuelling confusion

‘2018 has not been a good year for marine fuels,’ say Directors of protection and indemnity insurance club.
Admin

Published

8 years ago

on

5bb3ecd28d4fd 1538518226

The following article regarding marine fuel contamination has been written by Alvin Forster, Deputy Director (Loss Prevention), and Louise Ferrari, Deputy Director (FD&D), at the North of England P&I Association Limited:

Contamination problems in the US Gulf and the Far East have affected hundreds of vessels. Engines have been damaged, in some cases putting vessels in danger, vessels have been delayed and numerous disputes have arisen. Ships’ crews work long hours and put in huge effort when dealing with the consequences of bad bunkers. Digging out sludge from equipment and pipework and repeatedly cleaning filters and centrifugal separators is a massive undertaking.

Specialist testing can identify the source of the contamination problems but the lack of clarity on acceptable limits is causing confusion.

Pinpointing the cause
It has been very difficult to pinpoint the cause of the recent problems. VPS, a fuel testing company, has reported that numerous different suppliers have been involved. This suggests that the contamination is likely to have originated upstream. The general consensus from industry experts is that the source was cutter stock (a distillate used to reduce the viscosity of a heavier residual fuel by dilution) that contained damaging compounds – possibly waste products from the petrochemical industry.

Muddying the waters even further, different contaminants have been found in different areas. The initial problems in Houston were attributed to the presence of 4-cumyl-phenol, commonly used in the manufacture of epoxy resins. Problems further afield in the US Gulf and the Far East appear to be due to phenols and fatty acids.

Testing the limits
ISO 8217 is the most commonly used reference when agreeing the quality of marine fuels. Its use is widespread in bunker supply contracts and time charterparties. While it provides a useful guide for fuel quality it does not address the types of contaminants that have been found in recent months.

These contaminants are only likely to be identified by additional specialist tests which are not included in ISO 8217; namely, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using the correct sample preparation technique.

Relying on Clause 5
Clause 5 of ISO 8217 differs in each edition (2017 being the current) but in general terms it requires the fuel delivered to be a homogenous blend and free from materials that could cause harm to an engine or people.  

Contaminants such as 4-cumyl-phenol are not listed parameters of ISO 8217 and their presence does not necessarily mean that a supplier (whether bunker trader or charterer) of an otherwise compliant fuel will be in breach of contract. Referencing Clause 5 of the relevant edition of ISO 8217 and the terms of the particular contract or charterparty, the question to be asked might be “is the fuel reasonably fit for use?”

Care should be taken to ensure that Clause 5 has not been removed from supply contracts because of the wider protection it provides to purchasers. MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 18.3 has similar terms and may be relevant if there is no reference to ISO 8217 in the bunker supply contract.

Harmful or acceptable
At the first sign of a problematic fuel or engine operation issues, many shipowners are sending bunker samples for GC-MS testing.  This is a prudent and sensible measure and the potential for such additional tests should be borne in mind during bunkering to make sure sufficient samples are drawn. Matters are complicated further when the bunker supply contract stipulates the barge sample is binding rather than the sample drawn by the vessel. In such cases, it’s even more important for the crew to be vigilant and be satisfied the barge’s sampling is representative of the whole stem.

Where contaminants are found at concentrations proven to be damaging, a shipowner has valuable evidence when pursuing a claim against a bunker supplier or, where relevant, a time charterer who arranged the bunkers.  Standalone GC-MS results can, however, present difficulties in deciding if the identified contaminants in the fuel are harmful to the engine or not.

A typical GC-MS report may consist of a long list of contaminants identified by the test. But ‘acceptable’ limits of each of these constituents have not been established. For example, one of the main culprits behind the recent problems in the US Gulf was 4-cumyl-phenol and concentrations were found to be in excess of 300ppm. However, since then a number of other contaminants have also been recorded in fuels but at concentrations significantly lower than 300ppm.

Tying this in with Clause 5 of ISO 8217 can be tricky. Experts are divided on whether some of the problematic compounds can be considered to breach the Clause 5 requirements of being “derived from the refinery process” and there is no expert consensus on what concentrations of contaminants might “jeopardise the safety of the ship or adversely affects the performance of the machinery”.

This ultimately raises the question of whether or not the mere presence of these contaminants – or combinations of these contaminants – is enough to breach Clause 5 or whether they have to be at a ‘harmful’ concentration.

As a result, shipowners are understandably reluctant to use the bunkers where contaminants have been identified by GC-MS testing but are at lower concentrations. The lack of clear guidance on what concentrations would damage their particular engine or cause operational problems does not easily allow for an informed decision to be made on whether to use the bunkers or not. It could also impact on determining if a shipowner’s refusal to burn the fuel is reasonable. 

Reacting fast or overreacting?
Bunker quality disputes can be expensive and they make fuel management on board the vessel very difficult for the crew. Problematic fuels are very much in the spotlight at the moment and it is reported that some bunker suppliers are concerned that buyers are too quick to allege ‘bad bunkers’ at the first sign of a blocked filter.

However, with tight time bars stipulated by bunker suppliers and in charterparties for quality claims to be made and the fact that many fuel testing laboratories are working at full capacity, shipowners and time charterers have little choice but to act fast. Complying with time bars is even more challenging in situations where any defect in the fuel is only discovered when the vessel starts consuming it, which is sometimes several weeks after the bunkers were actually supplied.   

There is no alternative method to GC-MS testing to identify these problematic contaminants. However, bunkers contaminated with compounds that result in sludge build-up sometimes show poor stability characteristics. An early warning could therefore be provided by laboratory testing the initial bunker sample for reserve stability in addition to the traditional ISO 8217 tests for total sediment potential/existent (TSP/TSE). Poor stability results can then alert the shipowner to consider sending samples for GC-MS testing. However, stability testing alone is not a guaranteed indicator of all types of contamination and would not have alerted a shipowner to the presence of ‘sticky’ contaminants such as 4-cumyl-phenol.      

Look to the future
The issues experienced in the US Gulf and Far East may turn out to be a rare occurrence, but many in the industry are concerned that this is a sign of the future. Will contamination by unusual compounds that are increasingly difficult to detect become the new normal?

There are concerns that the reduced global sulphur limit, being introduced in 2020, may lead to more of these types of problems. As new fuels enter the market, creating them will require more blending with less-established products (shale oil, tall oil etc.) and the potential for contamination and incompatibility will be much greater.   

Source: North P&I Club
Published: 3 October, 2018

 

Related Topics:
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

7 days ago

on

July 15, 2026

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

Interview

Interview: Alkagesta navigates risk from bunkering ops during turbulent times

As the industry navigates this period of uncertainty, the key question is no longer ‘what will fuel cost?’ but rather ‘will fuel be available?’, highlights Mithat Çiftçioğlu.
Admin

Published

3 months ago

on

May 7, 2026

By

Mithat MT

Mithat Çiftçioğlu, Marine Fuels Director at Alkagesta, shared his opinion on risk management for bunkering operations under current geopolitical tensions through the April edition of shipping magazine Deniz Ticaret.

The maritime publication, part of the Turkish Chamber of Shipping (İMEAK Deniz Ticaret Odası), has given Manifold Times permission to republish the article:

Fueling Ships in Turbulent Times

From Oil Shock to Fuel Access Crisis: A New Risk Map for Maritime 2026

The final weeks of the first quarter of 2026 mark one of the most complex periods in recent years for global energy and maritime markets. The sharp rise in oil and refined product prices since February 28 may look like a classic energy shock at first glance, but developments in the maritime sector point to a far deeper structural rupture.

What is being debated in the market today is no longer just oil prices. For traders and shipowners operating in the maritime sector and bunker market, the real issue is not the price of fuel — it is access to fuel. The fundamental question in the market has shifted: not what will the price of fuel be, but will fuel even be available?

In light of the Force Majeure cancellations at Asian ports over the past two weeks, another question must also be considered: Will pre-agreed bunker supply contracts actually be delivered?

From Oil Prices to Logistical Reality

Tensions in the Middle East have created a strong geopolitical risk premium in the oil market. Brent crude briefly surpassed the $100 per barrel mark, triggering a search for a new equilibrium across markets. This will inevitably bring inflation and recession back onto the global agenda in the months ahead.

But the rise in oil prices does not only reflect the risk of supply disruption — it also signals the return of one of the most fragile chokepoints in global energy trade:

The Strait of Hormuz

Approximately one-third of the world’s oil trade passes through this narrow waterway. Around 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transit Hormuz daily. Any disruption here would therefore affect not only oil prices, but also global refined product flows and the bunker market directly.

Why Strategic Oil Reserves Are Not the Solution

A commonly proposed solution in energy crises is the release of strategic petroleum reserves. However, releasing these reserves does not directly resolve a bunker crisis. Strategic reserves consist of crude oil. To produce bunker fuel, the following chain must be completed:

Crude oil → Refinery → Product logistics → Bunker port

This process takes time. Strategic reserves can temporarily stabilize oil prices, but they cannot solve the access problem in the bunker market in the short term.

Furthermore, the announced reserve release of 400 million barrels, to be drawn down at a rate of 2.5–3 million barrels per day, can only cover a small fraction of the estimated daily loss from the Middle East — optimistically 8–10 million barrels, pessimistically 18–20 million barrels per day.

A Historic Surge in Bunker Fuel Prices

The per-ton price of VLSFO (0.5% sulfur) bunker fuel has surpassed $1,000, reaching approximately double pre-war levels. This also represents some of the highest prices seen since July 2022.

While prices at bunker hubs such as Singapore and Fujairah are approaching $1,100 per ton, European markets have remained comparatively lower.

The Real Problem Is Not Price — It Is Fuel Access

Obtaining bunker quotes for April has become increasingly difficult, particularly at Asian ports. Even where shipowners and traders can secure quotes, the absence of supply guarantees makes pricing extremely challenging.

A senior executive at Oldendorff Carriers summarized the situation in these words:

“We cannot price cargo because we cannot calculate fuel costs; we cannot calculate fuel costs because there is no supply guarantee.”

The CEO of Maersk has compared the current situation to the pandemic era, stating that companies are attempting to source fuel through methods they have never tried before in order to keep global shipping networks supplied.

While supply is tight and prices are near their peak in Singapore and Fujairah, Rotterdam appears relatively more balanced. However, as the conflict drags on, risk perception in European markets is also rising.

The surge in bunker prices will not only increase costs — it will also affect global maritime transport capacity. Ships are expected to reduce their speeds to conserve fuel. This could lead to a reduction in effective carrying capacity, creating new logistical bottlenecks in global trade.

The importance of working with reliable, long-term partners has never been more apparent than during a crisis such as this.

The Widening Price Spread Between Fuel Types

A notable development in the bunker market in recent weeks is the rapid widening of price differentials between different fuel types. Two spreads in particular have expanded significantly:

  • Marine Gas Oil (MGO) – VLSFO
  • VLSFO – HSFO

Rising demand for distillate products, refinery production balances, and regional supply tightness are all contributing to this widening. As a result, bunker purchases have become not merely a matter of price level, but a strategic decision tied to product type and port selection.

An Unexpected Development: Biofuels Becoming Competitive

Another noteworthy development in the bunker market is that biofuels have remained at relatively competitive price levels. This creates two important opportunities for shipowners.

On one hand, biofuels remain competitively priced in certain markets. On the other, they offer a means of compliance with new regulations entering into force in Europe — particularly the FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS frameworks, which require reductions in carbon intensity. In this context, biofuels have become a strategic option for many shipowners.

Conclusion: Active Bunker Management Is The New Normal

The 2026 bunker market presents one of the most complex energy trading environments in recent years. The rise in oil prices, geopolitical risk at the Strait of Hormuz, tightness in physical fuel supply, and widening price spreads between fuel types have made bunker fuel management more critical than ever.

The prevailing view in energy markets is that as long as the risk at the Strait of Hormuz persists, turbulence in the bunker market will persist with it. As time passes, the depletion of commercial stocks may deepen the existing supply tightness further.

For this reason, the current situation is viewed not merely as an energy crisis, but as a new stress scenario testing the logistical infrastructure of global trade.

The view increasingly heard across energy markets is this:

“As long as Hormuz remains closed, it will not be oil prices but fuel access that constitutes the defining risk for global shipping.”

Finally, for shipowners and operators, bunker strategies are shifting away from a passive purchasing approach toward a model grounded in active risk management.

 

Photo and article credit: Deniz Ticaret
Published: 7 May 2026

Continue Reading

Analysis

T&E: Overreliance on traditional bunker fuels costs shipping USD 395 million a day due to Iran conflict

Development has made alternative fuels increasingly more competitive, states Eloi Nordé, shipping policy officer at T&E.
Admin

Published

4 months ago

on

April 2, 2026

By

The Hormuz crisis adds over 300 million a day to shippings fossil fuels bills

The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) on 27 March highlighted the adoption of green marine fuels would reduce the shipping industry’s exposure to fuel price shocks in future.

It noted shipping companies are spending an extra €340 million (USD 394.74 million) a day in additional fuel costs as a result of the latest conflict in the Gulf.

As 99% of the global fleet runs on fossil fuels, the industry is directly exposed to fuel price volatility and supply disruptions. Efficiency measures, electrification and e-fuels would reduce the industry’s exposure to price fluctuations.

According to T&E, marine fuel prices have escalated rapidly, with VLSFO reaching €941 per tonne in Singapore, up 223% since the start of 2026. At the same time, LNG prices have risen by 72% since early March. Since February 28, shipping companies have incurred more than €4.6 billion in additional fuel costs.

The development has made alternative fuels increasingly more competitive. As fossil fuel prices reach record highs again, the cost gap with e-fuels is narrowing.

T&E’s research shows that the cost gap between marine gas oil – one of the more expensive fossil fuels – and e-fuels has shrunk to near parity (+5%) in some ports.

Hormuz oil crisis boosts potential e fuel competitiveness

While the trend may be temporary, it shows that the volatility of fossil fuel markets offsets much of the structural cost disadvantage of clean fuels.

“Chaos in the Strait of Hormuz is putting global maritime trade under the spotlight. But it’s on the oil markets where its impact will be felt the most. The war is costing the industry millions every day,” said Eloi Nordé, shipping policy officer at T&E.

“Some governments and parts of the industry have spent the last year bashing green maritime measures as being too expensive, yet those costs pale in comparison to this super-disruption.

“If anything, this crisis should be the catalyst for more investment in European e-fuels and greater uptake of energy efficiency measures to avoid fossil fuel shocks in the future.”

 

Photo credit: European Federation for Transport and Environment
Published: 2 April 2026

Continue Reading

Trending