Connect with us

Bunker Fuel Quality

The Shipowners’ Club: Introducing maritime technology to bunker fuel supply chain

Georgia Maltezou of The Club and Darren Shelton of FuelTrust share on how maritime technology can help shipowners and charterers ensure bunker fuel quality and quantity.

Admin

Published

3 years ago

on

RESIZED Chris Pagan

Mutual insurance association The Shipowners’ Club on Thursday (28 September), together with FuelTrust, published an article on how shipowners and charterers can ensure bunker fuel quality and quantity through technology to reduce the financial impact of off-spec bunkers.

By Georgia Maltezou, LCC Manager – London, the Shipowners’ Club and Darren Shelton, VP & Co-Founder, FuelTrust

Bunkering is one of the most common shipping operations occurring daily worldwide, irrespective of the type or size of the vessel. Supplying or receiving fuel happens on every single sea voyage but despite it being such a routine operation, there are still several disputes arising from it, especially with regards to the quality or quantity of the bunkers stemmed.

The possibility of placing off-spec bunkers onboard the vessel remains a constant worry for shipowners and the ship’s charterers, as its consequences can be detrimental. Burning off-spec bunkers raises immediate safety concerns and leaves the owners facing not only fuel system failures and engine breakdowns, but also loss of time, underperformance and delay claims, arrests, and the eventual cost of de-bunkering.

Bunker quality and quantity claims are usually quite complex and fact sensitive, so owners must be vigilant and act fast. Preserving evidence such as the consumption documentation, the relevant logbooks and checklists, the damaged parts and most importantly the fuel samples, is essential; cases are won or lost on evidence and the owners’ ability to prove a sufficient causal link between the bunkers and the damage to their vessel. Accurate and complete documentation is, therefore, crucial.

“Cases are won or lost on evidence and the owners’ ability to prove a sufficient casual link between the bunkers and the damage to their vessel,” said Georgia Maltezou.

Furthermore, owners and charterers will be aware that bunker supply contracts are typically drafted on the bunker suppliers’ terms and conditions which limit or even exclude entirely the supplier’s liability for quality or quantity claims. Bunker supply contracts often impose a very short timeframe for notification of claims (sometimes as short as seven days from the day of the supply of the bunkers) and failure to notify the potential quantity or quality issue within this timeline means that the claim is deemed waived. Whilst these short time frames can be contested in some jurisdictions, they may leave the owners or their time charterers with no avenue of recouping their losses.

In the event of a bunker related dispute, we recommend Members approach the Club’s LCC Team at an early stage. The team has considerable experience in handling these types of claims and will be able to provide prompt and accurate guidance to Members on how to deal with what can be time-consuming and challenging disputes.

In the following article, the latest in our Technology in Shipping series, the Club has invited FuelTrust, a GreenTech SaaS Company, who say they can assist shipowners and charterers to ensure the quality, quantity and compatibility of the fuel purchased, to explain how they feel they can harness technology to reduce the financial impact of bad fuel, mitigate the regulatory risk and empower greener fleets.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the idea of tracing fuel origins by measuring molecules seemed inconceivable. However, today we not only know it is possible, but also that there’s significant value in examining the digital DNA of fuels. Understanding carbon intensity by individual parcels of fuel can help predict a vessel’s emissions based on its unique engine combustion. This information is crucial for calculating potential taxes and credits, which have financial implications for ship owners and charterers.

Equally relevant is the issue of fraud, which has been prominent throughout maritime history. Advanced technology now allows principals to detect fuel quality disparities before making a purchase, minimising harm. If a problem arises after receiving the fuel, they can resolve it swiftly using machine learning atop lab analyses for evidence.

To address these concerns, FuelTrust has patented AI technologies that create chemical digital twins to track fuel lifecycles and identify molecular disparities. Certificates of quality reports from accredited labs ensure integrity for the machine learning and reliable data-driven calculations.

Modelling of fuels is key to reducing instances where contaminated fuels impact the market. FuelTrust’s research reveals that between 2019 and 2022, over 39% of fuels globally had a content difference of 2% or more when comparing lab reports to delivery receipts. The primary cause was water introduced during delivery, resulting in average losses of US$ 14,910 per affected delivery. At scale this is costing the industry hundreds of millions of dollars, the majority of which is avoidable.

“Fuel quality assurance is achievable and risk can be mitigated, without question, by using the right solutions to source fuels from transparent suppliers,” said Darren Shelton.

Although the implementation of electronic mass flow meters has fortunately curbed fraud in the paper trail, the introduction of transitional and alternative fuels has created new challenges. FuelTrust’s technology offers new confidence to principals, ensuring that sourced fuels are not only suitable for the engine but also align with what was paid for. When purchasing premium fuels to achieve sustainability goals, it’s critical buyers receive exactly what they ordered.

Fuel quality assurance is achievable and risk can be mitigated, without question, by using the right solutions to source fuels from transparent suppliers. If a claim does arise, stakeholders can resolve it quickly by working with a single, unbiased source of truth.

Detecting fraud remains a concern due to human predictability. Dilution of fuels, whether by water or some form of chemical contaminant as seen in recent cases in Houston and Singapore, will unfortunately continue. FuelTrust technology identifies fuel supply chains that introduce risks, enabling informed buying decisions by operators. Prudent procurement processes can safeguard against questionable suppliers and facilitate deals with trustworthy ones, benefiting everyone involved.

In the event contaminated fuel enters the market, FuelTrust’s software alerts operators immediately if the AI detects a disparity in a lab analysis. Whether it’s an alarming level of metals, a surprising amount of water or a significant disparity between side-by-side supplier and ship certificates of quality, this tool is considerably valuable for risk-averse buyers.

For this to work, fuel suppliers can seamlessly share their lab reports with buyers on the FuelTrust platform. This not only helps clients clearly identify fuel qualities but also validates the value of the suppliers’ products. It’s a win-win situation, preventing fraud, helping achieve Net Zero goals and supporting transparent suppliers of low-carbon fuels.

Many fuels that are considered “on-spec” still have quality issues that harm engines. Due to the broad nature of fuel specifications, numerous ships have suffered losses as a result of on-spec products, impacting the global supply chain. Ensuring fuel quality is a massive burden on the ship’s crew and shore staff, made more challenging by the difficulty of detecting disparities and filing related claims within contract deadlines.

A large portion of P&I claims are categorised as “machinery” issues and damage to main engines caused by off-spec bunkers has been identified as a common root cause for those claims. Reducing these impacts benefits all stakeholders in the supply chain.

Not only can fuels be sourced with minimal risk of fraud, but savvy buyers can also employ this technology to reduce their risks and improve their emissions profiles. This presents a new challenge for stakeholders: how to compare different fuels effectively.

Many alternative fuels that are being marketed show growing promise, but shipowners struggle to decide which dual-engine combination is the best investment. FuelTrust’s technology enables a side-by-side comparison of fuel types and utilises existing data on a ship’s historical performance to offer true by-ship, by-fuel, by-voyage insights taking into consideration carbon intensity, consumption and compliance. This detailed exploration helps owners determine the best path forward for their vessels.

Tracing a fuel’s lifecycle solves major problems in the shipping industry. FuelTrust’s patented technology allows a fuel to be tracked digitally, through its unique DNA, using lab data from stakeholders along the energy supply chain. It can be safely shared cryptographically offering transparency and provenance.

In addition to mitigating risks and resolving disputes, traceability provides much needed visibility into the Scope 3 supply chain, addressing a significant problem for the shipping and energy industries. FuelTrust’s blockchain solution allows principals to see beyond the limitations of Scope 1 and 2 datasets, providing robust metrics to meet sustainability goals while satisfying regulators, boards and consumers’ concerns.

Through the invention of new technology, organisations like FuelTrust are not only helping shipowners to solve an age-old problem but also assisting the shipping industry as a whole to achieve Net Zero goals while mitigating risk from fraudulent fuels.

Photo credit: Chris Pagan on Unsplash
Published: 3 October, 2023

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

VPS: High bunker prices meet declining fuel quality

Of the current 29 Bunker Alerts issued by VPS from January to July 2026, the combination of abrasive issues due to elevated cat-fines, plus fuel stability issues, account for 72% of these alerts.

Admin

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 25, 2026

By

RESIZED VPS logo

Steve Bee, Group Marketing and Strategic Projects Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Monday (24 August) reviewed 2026 marine fossil fuel quality to date and the high number of issues being witnessed: 

Marine fuel buyers entered 2026 facing a perfect storm, suffering some of the highest bunker prices ever experienced, paired with a sharp and concerning decline in fuel quality. Across the traditional marine fossil fuel supply chain, VPS has seen a marked rise in fuel quality issues, with the Middle East conflict playing a major role in driving both price volatility and quality deterioration. For ship owners/operators, the message is clear, today’s fuel market is not only more expensive, it is also becoming more complex and unpredictable, with a higher degree of operational risk.

This deterioration is already showing itself in the test data VPS have produced. Between January and July 2026, VPS issued 29 Bunker Alerts, more than the total issued across the whole of 2024 and already closing in on the 37 alerts recorded throughout all of 2025. In just seven months of 2026, the scale and frequency of these alerts underline a clear, accelerating rise in fuel quality problems across the industry. Of the current 29 Bunker Alerts issued so far, Jan-Jul 2026, the combination of abrasive issues due to elevated cat-fines, plus fuel stability issues, account for 72% of these alerts. The ports requiring cat-fines and/or stability-related bunker alerts were, ARA, Balboa, Busan, Callao, Hamburg, Houston, Las Palmas, Philadelphia, Piraeus, Rotterdam, San Roque, Singapore and Valencia.

What is of additional interest is that marine gas oil does not account for a single Bunker Alert so far in 2026. It is HSFO and VLSFO dominating the fuels requiring such warnings.

VPS: High bunker prices meet declining fuel quality

Looking at the rate of off-specifications across each of the main marine fossil fuel types, HSFO is currently running at 8.87% of samples tested, being off-specification for at least one ISO8217 test parameter, whilst VLSFO has 9.88% off-specification level, MGO has 9.03% and ULSFOs is at 19.58%. ISO 8217 provides specification requirements for marine fuel as delivered to the ship. From a commercial perspective the fuel is only required to meet the specification at the point of custody transfer, ie at the ship’s manifold. However, compliance at this point, is not a guarantee of assurance that the fuel can be used without operational difficulties throughout its onboard lifecycle. This includes, how the fuel is stored, treat and consumed in main engines, generator engines, boilers, or other machinery. The condition of the fuel which ultimately reaches the machinery, is also strongly influenced by onboard fuel management, including storage and settling temperatures, settling time, purification temperature and throughput, purifier configuration and desludging arrangements, filtration, maintenance of the correct injection viscosity and other operational factors.

This is why knowing the characteristics of the bunkered fuel is critical to managing it correctly onboard. Appropriate testing can identify characteristics which, although not necessarily resulting in an ISO 8217 specification failure, may warrant additional operational attention. VPS therefore evaluates bunker fuels not only against the applicable specification requirements, but also provides operational advice where analytical findings indicate that additional precautions may be appropriate during storage, treatment or consumption.

VPS testing and observations, based on over 45 years of marine fuel testing experience and expertise, strongly align with a recent Linkedin post by marine and energy consultants, Brookes Bell. Their post highlighted a growing concern within the industry, stating a P&I Club had reported that bunker-related claims are up 50% this year, with many of the fuels involved having technically passed ISO8217 standard specification testing.

The same post noted that some ISO8217-compliant fuels have still caused operational damage. This has left shipowners to manage complex evidentiary disputes after problems arose. Its key warning was clear: Standard compliance testing alone isn’t catching the problem. If “passing spec” is not necessarily the same as being “safe-to-burn”, then the critical question becomes, “What additional testing is needed to identify the real operational risks?”

VPS have recognised that for some time, the ISO8217 standard is not an all-encompassing set of tests providing the highest level of asset, crew and environmental protection. For this reason, VPS offer a range of additional tests, as well as our Additional Protection Service (APS) test bundles. For example in the case of avoiding damages from cat-fines, the Fuel System Check (FSC) service, can provide valuable information in regard to monitoring purifier efficiency and the removal of cat-fines, protecting the engine to a higher degree. Whereas, Separability Number testing, is a key compliment to the hot filtration stability tests of TSP, TSA and TSE in mitigating stability risks. Should additional cold-flow information be required, the VPS proprietary Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT) testing provides key storage and fuel transfer temperature information. Whilst the VPS chemical screening services can identify potentially harmful chemicals within a fuel before the fuel is burnt. Then more detailed Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) forensic analysis provides key information to potentially support the fuel claims process.

VPS account managers and technical specialists can help shipowners and operators determine which laboratory tests are most appropriate for their fleet, based on the fuel characteristics, vessel operations and potential risk exposure. This guidance can support the mitigation of risks linked to engine damage, SOLAS compliance, legislative requirements and wider operational reliability.

The VPS Technical Advisory Team reviews bunker analysis results together with the vessel operational observations to provide practical advice on fuel storage, handling, purification and overall fuel management. Where appropriate, additional laboratory tests, or test bundles, may be recommended to further evaluate the fuel and assist in identifying the cause of an operational issue, supporting more informed decision-making.

VPS continues to monitor regional and global fuel quality trends through its laboratory network and customer feedback. Information received from vessels experiencing similar operational issues is valuable in helping VPS identify emerging trends and provide timely technical guidance to the wider shipping industry.

 

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 25 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Alerts

Low flashpoint found in Indonesia bunker fuels, alerts Maritec-Naias

Firm tested eight bunker samples representing LSMDO and B40 fuel grade from vessels that took fuel oil /bunkered in Indonesia ports, which indicated flashpoints as low as 39.5°C.
Admin

Published

3 weeks ago

on

August 13, 2026

By

RESIZED Shaah Shahidh on Unsplash

Bunker fuel testing and marine surveying business Maritec-Naias on Wednesday (12 August) issued an alert regarding bunker samples from vessels that took fuel oil/bunkered in Indonesia showing flashpoints as low as 39.5°C:

During the period of 21 July to 04 August 2026, Maritec-Naias tested eight bunker samples representing Low Sulfur Marine Distillate Oil (LSMDO) and B40 fuel grade from vessels that took fuel oil /bunkered in Indonesia ports, which indicated Flashpoints as low as 39.5°C.

All eight fuel samples tested were sourced from a single supplier.

Regulatory Implications:

Based on the results of the eight samples tested, the fuels do not comply with the minimum flashpoint requirement of 60 °C set by SOLAS and ISO 8217.

As per SOLAS requirements, the minimum flashpoint of any fuel carried in the tanks of a ship should be not less than 60 °C (with exception of fuel for lifeboats, which can be grade DMX with a flash point min of 43 °C).

ISO 4259 interpretation for tested flashpoint temperature is not taken into consideration here as the safety of onboard crew and vessel is of higher precedence.

Since 01 May 2024, it has been a MARPOL Annex VI requirement that the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) includes either the actual flashpoint of a fuel as supplied or a declaration that its flashpoint has been determined as being at or above 70°C.

From 1 January 2026, SOLAS amendments clarified that the flashpoint requirement applies to fuels, which were specifically intended to have a flashpoint not less than 60°C as required under SOLAS II‑2/2.1.1 These amendments now align with MARPOL by requiring flashpoint details to be recorded on the BDN. Additionally, prior to bunkering, suppliers must provide the ship’s representative with a signed declaration confirming that the fuel meets the SOLAS flashpoint standard.

MARITEC-NAIAS RECOMMENDATIONS

When ordering fuels from Indonesia it is advised to insist on getting the actual flash point values from the supplier. If your vessel has bunkered a low flashpoint fuel it is prudent to observe/implement the precautions below:

  • Flame screens on tank vents should be maintained in good condition and there should be no sources of ignition in the vicinity of the vents. This will assist in safe natural ventilation of volatile components in the fuel.
  • No Smoking, no naked flame and no hot work must be allowed at any areas near to tank air vents.
  • Send additional tank(s) samples upon arrival in port to check the fuel properties and flash point results especially if there has been co-mingling of fuels in bunker tanks
  • If the vessel is out at sea, it may be possible to obtain dispensation from your Flag State Administration up to the next arrival port.
  • Put the supplier on notice promptly and notify your P&I club.

 

Photo credit: Shaah Shahidh on Unsplash
Published: 13 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Alerts

Maritec-Naias: High levels of Phenolic compounds in China bunker fuels

Firm tested multiple fuel oil bunker samples from vessels that took fuel/bunkered in China ports from 7 June to 28 July, which indicated the presence of high levels of Phenolic compounds.
Admin

Published

3 weeks ago

on

August 12, 2026

By

Louis Reed from Unsplash

Bunker fuel testing and marine surveying business Maritec-Naias on Friday (7 August) issued an alert regarding high levels of Phenolic compounds found after conducting testing on multiple fuel oil bunker samples from China ports:

During the period of 07 June to 28 July 2026 Maritec-Naias tested multiple fuel oil bunker samples from vessels that took fuel/bunkered in China ports, which indicated the presence of high levels Phenolic compounds.

Ten cases were found to have Phenolic compounds, and its derivatives, in the range of 5200 – 15750 PPM. Out of ten cases, the fuel samples tested were sourced as follows: four from Tianjin port, two from Qinhuangdao port, two from Rizhao port, one from Zhoushan port, and one from Shandong port.

The fuel samples containing Phenolic compounds in excess of 5000 PPM returned a marginally stable classification (P-value 1.00 to <1.30) under the SMS 1600 stability reserve test. Prolonged storage of these fuels carries the risk of reduced fuel stability and resulting operational issues. Operational issues like excessive sludge formation in purifiers, filter choking and fuel pump wear-and-tear have been observed and reported when similar levels of phenolic compounds were present in a vessel’s bunker fuel.

Phenolic compounds in the bunker fuel samples were precisely identified using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) with both Direct Liquid Injection (DLI) and Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) methods, ensuring robust detection. The detected chemical compounds may have originated from the following sources:

1) liquid fuels derived from coal-tar
2) shale-derived oil

Regulatory Implications:

Due to the high levels of these chemical compounds the fuels render unacceptable under the section of general requirement in the standard ISO8217:2010 and MARPOL Annex VI regulation 18, irrespective of Table 2 compliance.

General requirements as per para 5 of ISO8217:2010 states below:

“5.2 The fuel 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 fuel characteristics and performance. The fuels shall be free from inorganic acids and from used lubricating oils.

5.3 The fuel shall be free from any material that renders the fuel unacceptable for use in marine applications.

5.5 The fuel shall not contain any additive at the concentration used in the fuel, or any added substance or chemical waste that

  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.”

MARITEC-NAIAS RECOMMENDATIONS

  • 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.

 

Photo credit: Louis Reed from Unsplash
Published: 12 August, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending