Connect with us

Analysis

The Standard Club: Off-specification bunkers, Houston area

Issues with contaminated bunker supplies at Houston continue and have begun to spread worldwide.

Admin

Published

on

5b7f61205f0b7 1535074592

The Standard Club, a specialist marine and energy insurer, Thursday issued a web alert updating shipowners about contaminated bunker fuels:

Widespread issue
The issues with contaminated bunker supplies in the Houston area earlier this year continue and have begun to spread worldwide.

At present, the source and magnitude of the contaminated bunkers has not been satisfactorily identified and the number of cases is still increasing. The club is presently dealing with a number of cases, but the issue is reported to be impacting over 150 cases worldwide, with varying levels of severity. One grounding so far has been a direct result from the use of these contaminated bunkers.

The contaminants
The main contaminants are phenol and styrene which cannot be identified from standard tests on the bunker sample under ISO 8217, with samples being confirmed as 'in specification' despite phenols and styrene contaminants being present. Multidimensional Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) testing is required to identify and quantify these types of contaminants, but has to be requested as an additional set of tests.

The nature of these particular contaminants leads to very sticky, waxy like deposits which have actually resulted in main and auxiliary engines’ fuel pumps seizing, in addition to blocked heaters, purifiers, filters and excessive sludge build up.

Testing
GCMS is not a standard testing procedure, and there are only a few laboratories with the necessary equipment/facilities to conduct these tests. This also includes those of the larger fuel oil testing laboratories. 

Normal testing period for GCMS ranges from 5 to 15 days depending on the type of contaminant present as well as the type of tests carried out, as GCMS testing is currently not uniform amongst the various fuel oil testing laboratories. Unfortunately from our research so far, the larger (well known) fuel testing companies in the Houston area have been overwhelmed with sample testing requests resulting in delays of up to 4 to 5 weeks for GCMS, although this period can be reduced to 10 to 15 days when using laboratories in Singapore and the Middle East, due to current low demand. 

Based on information received, the additional costs involved for GCMS testing are considerable, in excess of $1,000 per sample. 

Due to this prolonged period awaiting GCMS analysis results, the opportunity to raise a claim for bunker quality issues could be lost as a result of the time bar on such disputes which usually ranges between 2 to 4 weeks after delivery. Members should familiarise themselves with these time bar periods and take all possible steps to address quality issues under the applicable contract. However, when quality issues are identified outside these time bars there may still be alternative ways to tackle these problems and members are encouraged to contact the club to discuss their options. 

Loss prevention advice
Considering the potential limitations/restrictions presently existing in respect to GCMS testing, it is strongly recommended that members be proactive and implement best practices in line with the following procedures, to limit their exposure to receiving and subsequently consuming contaminated bunkers. 

  • Contact the manufacturers of your engines and purifiers and request advice on what limitations exist concerning fuel quality for safe, normal operation of their equipment. 
  • Ensure good bunker management is in place across the fleet. 
  • Only use known, reputable suppliers and insist that charterers do the same (understood this may be difficult depending on terms & conditions of charter party). 
  • Check historical records of bunker suppliers with fuel testing laboratories and identify any previous quality issues. 
  • Samples should be sent for laboratory analysis immediately upon completion of bunkering operations. 
  • Ensure bunkers are segregated with no comingling taking place during loading.
  • Do not consume new bunkers until the analysis report has been received

Contaminated bunkers received onboard?
If contaminated bunkers are identified as having been delivered onboard, it is essential that a proactive approach is taken to minimising their effects wherever possible. Owners and charterers need to cooperate to find the most practical resolution to the issue. 

  1. If possible, bunkers should be chemically treated (if possible) to bring them back within specification, by the use of additives.
  2. Both owners and charterers will need to ensure that there is alternative fuel supply available onboard to consume during the interim period whilst looking for the best option to remove/offload the affected bunkers ashore.
  3. Consideration should be given to ensure that adequate cleaning is undertaken of any tanks or pipelines that held the contaminated bunkers prior to discharge to ensure that there is no cross-contamination of future stemmed bunkers.

Conclusion
As mentioned previously, close liaison with the club is vital to assist in exploring different options open to the member under such circumstances.

Source: The Standard Club
Published: 24 August, 2018

 

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Singapore: Bunker sales volume raises to year record high of 4.88 million mt in May

Bio-blended variants of marine fuel oil jumped 671.7% to 40,900 mt when compared to figures seen in May 2024.

Admin

Published

on

By

SG bunker performance May 2025

Bunker fuel sales at Singapore port inched forward by 1.1% on year in May 2025, the highest volume seen in 2025, according to Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) data.

In total, 4.88 million metric tonnes (mt) (exact 4,878,100 mt) of various marine fuel grades were delivered at the world’s largest bunkering port in April, up from 4.83 million mt (4,826,800 mt) recorded during the similar month in 2024.

Deliveries of marine fuel oil, low sulphur fuel oil, ultra low sulphur fuel oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil in May (against on year) recorded respectively 1.89 million mt (+8.6% from 1.74 million mt), 2.45 million mt (-7.2% from 2.64 million mt), 1,200 mt (from zero), 1,700 mt (-88% from 14,300 mt) and zero (from zero).

SG bunker port performance May 2025

Bio-blended variants of marine fuel oil, low sulphur fuel oil, ultra low sulphur fuel oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil in May (against on year) recorded respectively 40,900 mt (+671.7% from 5,300 mt), 95,800 mt (+97.9% from 48,400 mt), 700 mt (from zero), zero (from zero) and zero (from 300 mt). B100 biofuel bunkers, introduced in February this year, recorded 1,900 mt of deliveries in May.

LNG and methanol sales were respectively 45,000 mt (-7.8% from 48,800) and zero (from 1,600 mt). There were no recorded sales of ammonia for the month and so far in 2025.

Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales increase by 4% on year in April 2025
RelatedSingapore: Bunker fuel sales increase by 0.5% on year in March 2025
Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales down by 8.1% on year in February 2025
Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales down by 9.1% on year in January 2025

A complete series of articles on Singapore bunker volumes reported by Manifold Times tracked since 2018 can be found via the link here.

 

Photo credit: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
Published: 16 June 2025

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Panama bunker sales volume up 13.9% on year to 453,397 mt in May 2025

Total bunker sales at Panama was 453,397 metric tonnes (mt) in May 2025, compared to sales of 398,964 mt during the similar period in 2024.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED Panama

Bunker fuel sales at Panama increased by 13.9% in May 2025, according to the latest data from La Autoridad Maritima de Panama, also known as the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA).

Total bunker sales at Panama was 453,397 metric tonnes (mt) in May 2025, compared to sales of 398,964 mt during the similar period in 2024.

In May 2025, the Pacific side of Panama posted bunker sales of 368,419 mt; 213,589 mt of VLSFO, 117,297 mt of RMG 380, 1,538 of marine gas oil (MGO), and 35,995 mt of low sulphur marine gas oil (LSMGO) were delivered.

The similar region saw total marine sales of 323,084 mt a year before in May; with VLSFO sales at 184,761 mt, RMG 380 sales at 112,011 mt, MGO sales at 2,199 mt, and 24,113 mt of LSMGO being sold.

Panama’s Atlantic side, meanwhile, recorded total bunker fuel sales of 84,978 during May 2025; the figure comprised 63,318 mt of VLSFO, 8,575 mt of RMG 380, 1,987 mt of MGO, and 11,098 mt of LSMGO.

It saw total sales of 74,980 mt in May a year before; with VLSFO sales of 59,855 mt, RMG 380 sales of 6,508 mt, 1,545 mt of MGO, and LSMGO sales of 7,072 mt.

 

Photo credit: George Keel
Published: 16 June 2025

Continue Reading

Research

GCMD presents key learnings from ammonia STS transfer trial at Pilbara, Australia

Findings share operational recommendations for both bunker tankers and receiving vessels for ammonia bunkering operations.

Admin

Published

on

By

GCMD path to zero carbon shipping

The Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) on Friday (13 June) launched its Path to Zero-Carbon Shipping – Insights from ammonia transfer trial in the Pilbara report.

The document captures key learnings from a pilot involving the ship-to-ship transfer of liquid ammonia between two gas carriers — the Green Pioneer and the Navigator Global — at anchorage off Port Dampier in the Pilbara, Western Australia.

The trial demonstrated that ship-to-ship ammonia transfer at anchorage can be both safe and practicable, provided that recommended safeguards and operational controls are implemented.

To share these crucial learnings with the industry, the report offers quantitative insights from executing the trial, forming a reference for future pilots and eventual commercial-scale operations.

The report offers:

Project background and objectives: An overview of the trial’s goals and operational context

Detailed safety studies covering four key areas:

  • Feasibility: Response motions and mooring analysis
  • Risks: HAZID and HAZOP findings and mitigations
  • Consequences: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) plume dispersion modelling
  • Response: Emergency Response measures and protocols

Operation execution overview: A detailed account of the actual transfer operation, including the Joint Plan of Operations (JPO), assets deployed and a timeline of key events.

Optimising ammonia bunkering: Operational recommendations for both bunker tankers and receiving vessels, covering aspects such as transfer system setup, manifold arrangement, sample collection and more. A checklist of ERP resources required onboard is also included.

“In the past, bunkering guidelines took years to develop and were typically derived from experience with actual operations,” said Professor Lynn Loo, CEO of GCMD.

“In this case, guideline development is preceding actual commercial-scale operations, making it all the more important that these trials are as informative and comprehensive as possible so they can serve as a relevant reference for industry bodies in refining safe handling procedures, emergency response plans, and operational guidelines.”

Note: The full report of Path to Zero-Carbon Shipping – Insights from ammonia transfer trial in the Pilbara can be downloaded here.

 

Photo credit: Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation
Published: 16 June 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending