Bunker Fuel Quality
Singapore: Marine fuel quality testing agencies applaud move for mandatory enhanced bunker fuel tests
Representatives from Maritec, VPS, Intertek, FOBAS and Eurofins Mechem offer Manifold Times their perspective on the development.
Published
7 months agoon
By
AdminA move by Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) to introduce mandatory enhanced checks for marine fuel delivered at Singapore port effective 1 June 2024 has received largely positive feedback from several local bunker fuel testing agencies, learns Manifold Times.
MPA has stated all residual and bio-residual bunker marine fuel supplied in the Port of Singapore, bunker suppliers must ensure that they do not contain Chlorinated Organic Compounds (COCs) above 50mg/kg, and must be free from inorganic acids. Specifically,
- COC must be tested for using the EN 14077 accredited test method (concentration of total organic chlorine must not exceed 50mg/kg) and shall be reported in the “Certificate of Quality” (COQ) provided to receiving vessels;
- Inorganic acids must be tested for using ASTM D664 accredited test method as prescribed in ISO 8217 and the Strong Acid Number (SAN) (in addition to the Total Acid Number (TAN)) shall be reported in the COQ (i.e. SAN = 0) provided to receiving vessels;
Maritec
“The issue of chemical contamination had plagued the bunkering industry for years, and the risk of receiving contaminated bunker fuels is likely to persist,” Dr Jagannath Panda, Technical Manager, Maritec, told the bunkering publication.
“This is mostly due to the complex bunker supply chain which consists of a network of different stakeholders including refineries, traders, and physical suppliers operating their own barges, with some performing their own fuel blending operation.
“Standard industry practice requires bunker oil being to marine vessels must fulfil ISO 8217 requirements. However, ISO 8217 has another criterion which states that it should not contain chemical waste, waste lubricants or any other contaminants which would impair the efficiency of the purification or engine system on vessel.”
According to Dr Jagannath, the International Council on Combustion Engines (CIMAC) working group had assessed the situation around the organic chloride contamination cases in Singapore and recommended de-minimis levels of COC concentration not exceeding 50 ppm in marine fuels.
ISO8217:2023, which is currently in the draft stage, states in Annex B that ‘A fuel should be considered to be free from organic chlorides (COC) when the total organic halogen content as chlorine is not exceeding 50 ppm when tested in accordance with EN14077’.
“In dispute cases both CIMAC and ISO2024 recommend EN14077 test method to quantify total organic chlorides in marine fuel. It was also pointed out that presence of COCs can also be evaluated by other techniques like GCMS with required test precision data,” he shared.
“However, EN14077 test method is time consuming and expensive. It can be considered in case of dispute cases once organic chloride is detected by other technique.
“As such, CTI Maritec has adopted a modified ASTM D7845 test method for a quick screening and finding of COCs in marine fuel. The test was accredited by SAC SINGLASS and listed nine (9) COCs in basic GCMS package list. Maritec strongly recommends carrying out a GCMS test for all bunker fuels. Individual COC also can be quantified by using modified ASTM D7845 method.”
Dr Jagannath, meanwhile, agreed that strong acid in bunker fuel can be detected as Strong Acid Number (SAN) by the ASTM D664 test method which should not be greater than zero.
“Presence of strong acid also lower down pH which represents the highest potentiometric hydrogen ion concentration. The pH scale is logarithmic. Water has a pH of 7. A pH of 4 is ten times more acidic than a pH of 5 and 100 times more acidic than a pH of 6,” he said.
“SAN which represents presence of strong acids covered in ISO 8217:2005, ISO 8217:2012 and ISO 8217:2017 para 5.1 states that the “fuels shall be free from Inorganic acids...".
“Maritec recommends testing SAN along with Total Acid Number (TAN) via ASTM D664 method for all bunker fuels.”
VPS
Capt. Rahul Choudhuri, President Strategic Partnerships of VPS, felt the move is certainly a positive step to improve the level of confidence for shipowners receiving bunkers at Singapore port.
“MPA formed the Industry Expert Group (IEG) in 2022 right after preliminary investigations on the chemical contamination case that rocked the industry - and sought advice from local marine fuel testing agencies on implementing additional fuel quality checks that would screen for unacceptable chemicals,” he said.
Capt. Choudhuri noted VPS was in fact the first testing company to detect chemical contaminants at Singapore port using its proprietary GCMS Headspace Screening method, and later supported MPA in extensive sampling and fingerprinting of the contaminated fuels.
“The port authority has shown it has taken bunker quality assurance seriously and will not hesitate to take necessary actions against relevant parties. This is a testament to Singapore’s drive as the premier bunkering port of choice,” he continued.
“This case also shows that marine fuel quality complexity cannot rely on ISO 8217 standards alone, and additional quality checks are needed for the betterment of the industry in general & shipowners in particular.”
Intertek
Ang Chee Teck, Regional Managing Director, Intertek Caleb Brett SEAsia and Japan, believed the new implementation will provide additional assurance to bunker oil end users.
“For this mandatory implementation to be possible, we would expect more extensively stringent verification which would imply the need to increase the quantity of testing parameters on the bunker oil,” he noted.
“We welcome MPA’s measure in introducing more stringent standards on local bunker fuel supply, which is aligned with Singapore drive in driving quality standard.
“Apart from that, it will be instrumental in the reduction of pollution to environment and vessel sailing disruption due to engine damages.
“Currently, fuel oil from most suppliers are able to meet the enhance testing measurement. The key is the priority balancing between quality and profit.”
FOBAS
Partha Das, Global Technical Manager at FOBAS, felt the move to prevent chemical contamination in bunker fuel delivered at Singapore port was a “very good initiative by MPA”.
“In 2022, we saw about 200 ships effected by contamination of Organic Chloride in the bunker. Organic Chlorides are highly corrosive, which can cause increase wear of fuel pumps,” he explained.
“Also, the solvent nature of these chemicals can affect the lubrication surface of the fuel pumps which can cause seizure and excessive sludge which can block the filters/purifier.
“Please note, bunkers are purchased as per ISO8217 specification. So as per the specification, there is an important clause, which states that the fuel shall not contain any additive at the concentration used in the fuel; or any added substance or chemical waste that jeopardizes the safety of the ship or adversely affects the performance of the machinery; or is harmful to personnel; or contributes overall to additional air pollution.”
Eurofins Mechem
Dr Cai Qiantao, Technical & PIP Director at Eurofins Mechem, said the company has been taking steps to ensure full compliance.
“With over 95% of our analyses already accredited in the required list, we are working tirelessly to complete the remaining accreditations before the deadline,” he stated.
“Our dedication to compliance is rooted in the Asian ethos of adaptability and resilience. We understand the importance of staying ahead of the curve and are committed to being ready for any changes. Our team has been working hard to update our testing methodologies, incorporating the latest innovations to meet the MPA's standards. Even the analyses that have not yet been accredited maintain the highest quality, reflecting our commitment to excellence.
“Our blend of tradition and modernization mirrors Singapore's journey towards progress and tradition, where we respect our heritage while embracing the future. Our focus is on achieving full accreditation with diligence and determination, just like the Singaporean spirit.
“Rest assured that our commitment to excellence and reliability remains unwavering. Our dedication to compliance reflects the very essence of Singapore's success story.”
Related: Singapore: MPA tightens testing parameters to reduce contaminated bunker fuels
Related: MPA: Glencore and PetroChina supplied contaminated bunkers to about 200 ships in the Port of Singapore
Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 13 March 2024
Bunker Fuel Quality
VPS: Is your vessel fully protected from dangers of poor-quality bunker fuel?
VPS have issued 21 Bunker Alerts this year, which have highlighted witnessed quality issues with the three main fuel types of HSFO (6 alerts), VLSFO (9 alerts) and MGO (6 alerts), says Steve Bee of VPS.
Published
3 days agoon
October 2, 2024By
AdminSteve 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 Quality
NorthStandard includes VPS bunker fuel quality data in new platform
Fuel Insights app, powered by VPS PortStats, offers NorthStandard account holders with a view on fuel quality trends, based on data generated by VPS in key bunkering hubs across the globe.
Published
3 weeks agoon
September 11, 2024By
AdminMarine fuels testing company VPS on Tuesday (11 September) said it has been collaborating with global marine insurer NorthStandard over the past few months on incorporating fuel quality analytics into NorthStandard’s new Get SET! digital portfolio.
This collaboration has culminated into the launch of the NorthStandard Fuel Insights platform.
The NorthStandard Fuel Insights app, powered by VPS PortStats, offers NorthStandard account holders with a customised and exclusive view on fuel quality trends, based on the data generated by VPS’ laboratories located in key bunkering hubs across the globe.
Bunker procurement professionals can use this data to improve decision-making, by including off-specs and calorific value to the rationale, whilst technical managers can use the data to anticipate fuel quality risks to avoid bad bunkers.
The digital platform also provides insights beyond off-specs, by highlighting cautionary cases that may require additional treatment or operational advice.
With the advent of various types and blends of biofuels in the marine industry, VPS is committed to enriching this platform with relevant and actionable insights now and in the future.
“This is a unique collaboration in marine insurance,” said Colin Gillespie, Global Head of Loss Prevention, NorthStandard.
“It offers NorthStandard members easy access to global fuel statistics, as well as the tools to trade with confidence by managing risk and reducing claims in one of the most challenging areas of ship management.”
John Oosthoek, VP Operations Digital & Decarbonisation, VPS, said: “The launch of the Fuel Insights platform is the culmination of a growing partnership between NorthStandard and VPS over the past few years. By utilising reliable fuel quality data owners and operators can anticipate and mitigate the risks associated with fuel quality, such as cat fines, cold-flow, and stability.
“Testing remains essential for verifying quality, but accumulated data also helps vessel owners and operators make informed fuel procurement decisions,” said Steve Bee, Group Commercial & New Business Development Director, VPS.
“VPS services provide help in ensuring engines and fuel delivery systems do not suffer damage, crews stay healthy and safe, and ships achieve the required environmental legislation demands. For NorthStandard, Fuel Insights, powered by VPS will help ensure members and shipowners know what to look out for and subsequently enhance their ability to plan preventive maintenance.”
“Beyond mitigation, data could be invaluable to a claim or contract dispute,” added Gillespie. “For example, if substandard fuel was repeatedly linked to a single port, or if fuel issues on board had an onward impact of cargo delays. Shipowners and operators also need full transparency on fuel availability and quality, especially given the rapid rise of alternative fuels,” he said.
VPS controls shipping’s largest and most comprehensive marine fuel quality database, including the most extensive analysis of newer products, such as biofuels and methanol.
“Given that NorthStandard and VPS have the same forward-looking position on digitalisation, this partnership is a natural fit,” commented Bee.
“Accurate monitoring and reporting also help reduce emissions and will improve vessel performance against carbon intensity indices to ensure owners are on the right side of history.”
Photo credit: NorthStandard
Published: 11 September, 2024
Fuel Testing
FOBAS: Joint circular from MSC and MEPC on bunker fuel oil sampling guidelines
Joint circular extends the use of the MARPOL Delivered Sample to also be available for checking of the flash point requirement under SOLAS Chapter II-2/4.2.1.
Published
3 weeks agoon
September 11, 2024By
AdminLloyd’s Register Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) on Tuesday (10 September) released a bulletin on IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) jointly approving the fuel oil sampling guidelines during recent sessions (MSC 108 and MEPC 81):
IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) during recent sessions (MSC 108 and MEPC 81) jointly approved the fuel oil sampling guidelines MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.18 for compliance verification with MARPOL Annex VI and SOLAS chapter II-2.
This joint circular from MSC and MEPC was issued 11 July 2024 and revokes the previous MEPC resolution 182(59) titled ‘2009 Guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil for determination of compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex VI’.
In essence, this Circular simply extends the use of the MARPOL Delivered Sample to also be available for checking of the flash point requirement under SOLAS Chapter II-2/4.2.1 where it is referred to as the Representative Sample. The basic requirements as given by the 2009 Guidelines as regards the sampling location, arrangements and procedures are unchanged apart from the minimum sample size has been increased from 400ml to 600ml. Also unchanged are the sample labelling and sample storage aspects.
The joint circular now provides explicit references in the text to the need that personnel undertaking the sampling and the subsequent MARPOL Delivered Sample preparation, should be familiar with the use of the equipment and the Guidelines. Also, that the sampling operation itself should be witnessed by both the ship’s and supplier’s representatives.
The one particular addition is the new Section 10 which covers the procedures and documentation requirements in those instances where the fuel oil’s flash point is to be checked. This in no way impacts on the MARPOL Annex VI Appendix VI requirements in respect of the sulphur verification procedures which are unaltered.
Moreover, with regard to the key point of keeping track of these MARPOL Delivered Samples, this is now given as being the company’s responsibility rather than the ship’s master as previously. This will be important where samples are taken off the ship for testing, but the remaining material is not subsequently returned.
It should be noted that it is the sole prerogative of the representatives of the Parties to either MARPPOL Annex VI or SOLAS, as applicable, to take a MARPOL Delivered Sample for testing. Those sample cannot be opened or tested for any other purposes such as the resolution of commercial quality disputes.
Photo credit: Louis Reed from Unsplash
Published: 11 September, 2024
Argus Media: Bunkering sector needs deeper dive into B24 bio bunker fuel market
Brazil: Raízen launches new bunkering operation in Itaqui
Rahim Oberholtzer named as new Infineum Chief Financial and Strategy Officer
Report: E-Fuels projected to be available for next ZEMBA tender
Greece joins Clean Energy Marine Hubs to support low-carbon fuels
National Oceanography Centre conducts HVO biofuel trial on RRS duo
ENGINE: Americas Bunker Fuel Availability Outlook (3 Oct 2024)
Nunchi Marine: Big opportunities and challenges await bunker trading sector
Green bunker fuel demand on Rotterdam-Singapore could reach 5 mil mt by 2028
Interview: IRClass answers key questions on alternative bunker fuels
Pertamina International Shipping to invest in low-emission bunker fuels
DNV awards AiP to HD Hyundai for OOCS system retrofit design
DNV on IMO CCC 10: Interim guidelines for ammonia and hydrogen as bunker fuel
Trafigura appoints Richard Holtum to succeed Jeremy Weir as CEO
Trending
-
Interview5 days ago
Nunchi Marine: Big opportunities and challenges await bunker trading sector
-
Shipping Corridor2 weeks ago
Green bunker fuel demand on Rotterdam-Singapore could reach 5 mil mt by 2028
-
Alternative Fuels2 weeks ago
Interview: IRClass answers key questions on alternative bunker fuels
-
Alternative Fuels2 weeks ago
Pertamina International Shipping to invest in low-emission bunker fuels
-
Decarbonisation2 weeks ago
DNV awards AiP to HD Hyundai for OOCS system retrofit design
-
Alternative Fuels1 week ago
DNV on IMO CCC 10: Interim guidelines for ammonia and hydrogen as bunker fuel
-
Business1 week ago
Trafigura appoints Richard Holtum to succeed Jeremy Weir as CEO
-
Bunker Fuel4 days ago
Sea Trader subsidiary opens third Asia bunker trading office in Singapore