Connect with us
DNV Decarbonization Insight Series August 2026 - What maritime professionals should know about AI Training

Business

VPS: Houston contaminated VLSFO bunker fuel was also supplied in Singapore

Out of 14 vessels bunkered with contaminated VLSFO, 12 of them received their fuel in Houston while two vessels received their fuel in Singapore; fuel delivered by four suppliers.

Admin

Published

on

Untitled design 16

Marine fuel testing firm VPS on Monday (7 August) delivered an update on the recent VLSFO marine fuel contamination in Houston, revealing out of 14 vessels, two vessels were supplied with contaminated fuel oil in Singapore and 12 vessels received it in Houston.  

On 10 July, VPS informed its customers and the wider market, of the presence of Dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) isomers at significantly high levels within VLSFO bunker fuel deliveries in Houston. The contaminants were detected using in-house GC-MS (Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometer) analytical methodologies.

Initially, VPS highlighted eleven vessels had suffered operational issues, such as loss of power and propulsion whilst at sea. These effects resulted from fuel leakage in the ICU (Injection Control Unit) units and fuel pumps not being able to develop the required fuel pressure, affecting only the Auxilary engines and not Main engines. The contaminated VLSFO had been delivered in Houston, by one single fuel supplier.

Four weeks later, VPS can now provide a further update on the spread of this fuel contamination issue: Fourteen vessels in total, have now received this contaminated fuel and suffered some form of damage to their auxiliary engines and fuel delivery systems. Twelve of the vessels received their fuel in Houston, whilst a further two vessels received their fuel in Singapore, with the fuel delivered by four suppliers.

The specific contaminants are:

  • Di-hydro dicyclopentadiene
  • Chemical CAS Number: 448-57-7
  • Tetra-hydro dicyclopentadiene
  • Chemical CAS Number: 6004-38-2

DCPD’s are unsaturated chemical compounds which can polymerise and oxidise under certain conditions. However, the rate of this polymerisation process can be reduced by the presence of inhibitors that are typically found within fuel oil.

Should these compounds start polymerising, the fuel begins to exhibit a level of stickiness and become more viscous, making it difficult for moving components, such as fuel pump plungers and the fuel injector spindles to move freely. These effects cause damage to the fuel injection system.

Over a period of time excessive sludge formation is likely to be experienced. The DCPD compounds that were detected in this fuel ranged from 3,000 to 7,000 ppm (0.3-0.7%) per delivery.

VPS employed it’s own proprietary GCMS Vacuum distillation methodology to detect DCPD, in preference to the ASTM D7845, Standard Test Method for Determination of Chemical Species in Marine Fuel Oil by GCMS. The VPS methodology is capable of detecting and measuring the DCPD and its isomers, whereas the ASTM D7845 methodology is limited to detecting only 29 chemical contaminants, which does not include DCPD species.

In addition to the fourteen vessels suffering damages from burning this fuel, a further 18 vessels who received the contaminated fuel from thirteen additional suppliers, either witnessed no adverse reactions, or simply did not provide any feedback regarding any damages.

In total, the volume of contaminated fuel delivered to the 32 vessels, was 61,494 metric tonnes. Three vessels de-bunkered the contaminated fuel prior to burning, following a “Caution” result from the VPS Chemical Screening service, highlighting the value of this pre-burn service.

A further three vessels de-bunkered the fuel after suffering initial engine damage from burning the fuel. Whilst another two vessels burnt the fuel in their main engines without issue after switching it from their auxiliary engines, where it had caused operational damage.

Figures showing sludge formation in filters (top) and ceased fuel pump plunger (bottom)

VPS: Houston contaminated VLSFO bunker fuel was also supplied in Singapore
Picture2 2

Related: VPS identifies new bunker fuel contamination at Houston
Related: FOBAS: Possible bunker fuel contamination in Houston and US Gulf area
Related: Viswa Group gives update on bunker fuel issues in Houston
Related: FuelTrust analysis finds fuel content discrepancies in 39% of global bunker deliveries

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 8 August, 2023

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notices of annual meeting issued for Vroon Shipping Asia and related firms

Annual meetings of the companies will be held by electronic means on the 6 October 2026 at 3pm, according to Government Gazette notices.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Notices of annual meeting were issued by liquidators of Vroon Shipping Asia Pte Ltd and related firms, which are in members’ voluntary liquidation, on the Government Gazette on Thursday (27 August). 

The other companies involved are Vroon Offshore Asia Pte Ltd and Vroon Ship Holding Pte Limited. 

According to the notices, the annual meetings of the companies will be held by electronic means on the 6 October 2026 at 3pm.

The purpose of the meeting is to have an account laid before the meeting showing the acts and dealings of the liquidator, Knut Unger, and the conduct of the winding up in the preceding year.

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Methanol

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

Under a MoU, Hyundai Corporation will buy the methanol produced in Taebaek and sell it on to the two carriers, which will burn it as fuel in their own fleets.

Admin

Published

on

By

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

South Korean firm EcoMethanol on Wednesday (26 August) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the supply of green methanol with Taebaek City, Hyundai Corporation, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS of Norway and EUKOR Car Carriers. 

The signing took place at EUKOR’s head office in Seoul.

EcoMethanol is the special purpose company set up by South Korean clean energy firm Plagen to build a green methanol plant in Taebaek, Gangwon State. 

Under the MoU, Hyundai Corporation will buy the methanol produced in Taebaek and sell it on to the two carriers, which will burn it as fuel in their own fleets. Taebaek City takes part as an equity co-investor and will provide administrative and policy support. Production, trading and end use are tied together in a single chain, the first such arrangement in Korea.

Manifold Times previously reported Taebaek City and Plagen signing an investment agreement for a new green methanol production plant in the South Korean city that will be supplied as bunker fuel.

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

The plant will produce 15,000 metric tonnes (mt) a year from forestry residues, using dual fluidized bed (DFB) gasification, a process already proven in commercial operation. Total investment is KRW 120 billion.

EcoMethanol holds Korea’s integrated environmental permit, has secured its site in the Dongjeom Industrial Complex and has completed basic design. Construction is due to start in December 2026 and commercial production in January 2029. The plant will employ 36 people locally.

Taebaek’s role as a production hub is written into both national and provincial plans. The Taebaek Jangseong Colliery Economic Revitalization Project cleared preliminary feasibility review in 2025 with a green methanol facility included in its scope, and Gangwon State lists a green methanol cluster in its mid- to long-term investment plan for former coal-mining regions. Dongjeom will be the first of these facilities to be built, because its industrial site is already developed.

Carbon regulation in shipping is no longer a prospect. The EU Emissions Trading System now covers maritime transport, the FuelEU Maritime regulation on greenhouse gas intensity is in force, and the International Maritime Organization is moving toward adoption of its Net-Zero Framework.

Korean carriers are already buying green methanol. HMM’s methanol-fueled container ships HMM Green and HMM Forest took on 2,900 mt and 3,110 mt at Yangshan Port in Shanghai in March and May 2025. 

The car carrier Arctic Tern, operated by EUKOR, loaded about 2,800 mt in Shanghai in July 2026 before starting commercial service on the Asia-Europe route. All of that fuel was made in China.

Korea produces none of its own. Ulsan Port was the first port anywhere to bunker green methanol for a ship, in 2023, but the fuel had been imported. 

Korea consumes roughly 2 million mt of methanol a year, most of it imported and made from fossil feedstock.

The Taebaek plant would be the country’s first domestic source of clean marine fuel.

Related: Korea: Taebaek City and PLAGEN to build green methanol bunker fuel plant

 

Photo credit: EcoMethanol
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

DNV report: Regulatory uncertainty demands fleet strategies built for multiple futures

Report examines four regulatory scenarios, ranging from adoption of IMO NZF in its current form to its outright rejection, energy efficiency uptake, and long-term bunker fuel and technology strategies.

Admin

Published

on

By

DNV report: Regulatory uncertainty demands fleet strategies built for multiple futures

Regulatory uncertainty is increasing pressure on shipowners to make investment decisions that remain viable across multiple future scenarios, said classification society DNV on Thursday (27 August). 

According to DNV’s 10th Maritime Forecast to 2050, stronger global regulatory signals could accelerate the uptake of energy-efficiency measures, enabling the global fleet to consume up to 25% less energy by 2050 compared to a scenario where regulation is driven by regions.

The report examines four regulatory scenarios, ranging from adoption of the IMO Net-Zero Framework (NZF) in its current form to its outright rejection, which could lead to a period of prolonged regulatory gridlock, and explores the implications of these outcomes for fuel demand, energy efficiency uptake, and long-term fleet fuel and technology strategies.

Cristina Saenz de Santa Maria, CEO Maritime, DNV, said: “Ships ordered today will operate well beyond 2050, but many of the factors shaping their future performance remain uncertain. Regulatory requirements are advancing faster than the fuel, infrastructure, and technological systems needed to support them, making long-term investment decisions increasingly complex. The industry therefore needs greater clarity and alignment among all stakeholders to provide the confidence required for long-term investment. In the meantime, shipowners need strategies that deliver benefits today while remaining resilient across a range of regulatory and market outcomes.”

Energy efficiency is one of the most immediate and practical levers available to shipowners, delivering value across regulatory outcomes whether implemented at the newbuild stage or as a retrofit. A case study of a hydrodynamic measures retrofit on a 5,000 TEU container vessel showed potential annual fuel savings of 16%, with a payback time of around one to four years depending on future fuel prices. Retrofits can add similar value across many ship types and with sufficient planning can typically be completed during a standard class-renewal dry docking.

The development of the marine low-GHG fuel market remains a key challenge. While significant progress has been made in expanding alternative-fuel capabilities of vessels, scaling fuel production depends on confidence that demand will materialize. DNV projects shipping demand for low-GHG fuels to range from 4 to 22 Mtoe by 2030 and 33 to 185 Mtoe by 2050, depending on regulatory outcomes, with uptake also shaped by future uptake of shore power, plug-in hybridization, nuclear power, and onboard carbon capture systems.

Current project pipelines indicate a maximum global supply of 270 Mtoe by 2030, although actual volumes are likely to be lower due to project delays and other uncertainties, and shipping will need to compete with other industries for its share. However, the cost of reducing emissions varies significantly between fuel pathways, with abatement costs ranging from about 180 to 1,290 USD per tonne of CO₂ avoided, highlighting the importance of regulation and market incentives in enabling low-GHG fuel markets to develop.

Øyvind Sekkesæter, lead author of Maritime Forecast to 2050, said: “Scenarios explored in this year’s report show how different regulatory futures can lead to very different outcomes in energy efficiency uptake, fuel demand, and consequently, GHG emissions. By testing fuel and technology choices across multiple scenarios, shipowners can identify strategies that create value today while preserving flexibility as regulation, fuel availability, prices, and technologies evolve. Strategies that each owner chooses will also be dependent on their fleet type and operating context.”

Key findings from the report: 

  • Several regulatory futures remain possible as the IMO continues negotiations on the Net-Zero Framework, with these outcomes shaping investment decisions, low-GHG fuel uptake, and energy-efficiency deployment across the global fleet.
  • With global regulatory incentives in place, the world-fleet could consume 25% less energy by 2050 than under a scenario limited to regional regulations.
  • Energy efficiency can pay off regardless of regulatory outcome – 5,000 TEU container ship case study shows 16% annual fuel savings from hydrodynamic measures retrofit.
  • Shipping demand for low-GHG fuels could range from 4 to 22 Mtoe by 2030, and 33 to 185 Mtoe by 2050, depending on regulatory outcomes and the availability of these fuels in a competitive global market.
  • Current project pipelines indicate that a maximum of 270 Mtoe of supply could be available by 2030, though actual volumes are likely to be lower due to project delays and other uncertainties, and shipping will need to compete with other industries for its share.
  • Testing fuel and technology strategies across different scenarios can help shipowners identify robust choices for an uncertain transition. Testing, piloting, and verifying technologies can provide the trusted performance data needed to make investment decisions with greater confidence.

Note: DNV’s 10th Maritime Forecast to 2050 can be found here. 

 

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending