Connect with us

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.

Admin

Published

on

RESIZED VPS logo

Steve 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:

Off Specification Rates by Fuel Type

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.

FQT Bunker Samples by ISO8217 Revision

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:

SC

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 

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS: Off-spec Total Sediment Potential bunker fuels in ARA region

FOBAS has tested several VLSFO samples from ARA (Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam) with Total Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO 8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m.

Admin

Published

on

By

Louis Reed from Unsplash

Lloyd’s Register Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) on Friday (7 February) released a bulletin regarding FOBAS testing several samples from ARA (Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam) with Total Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO 8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m:

In recent days, FOBAS has tested several samples from ARA (Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam) with Total Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO 8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m. The samples were all 0.50% sulphur (VSLFO) fuels and TSP results ranged from 0.16% m/m to 0.38% m/m.

In recent days, FOBAS has tested several samples from ARA (Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam) with Total Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO 8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m. 

The samples were all 0.50% sulphur (VSLFO) fuels and TSP results ranged from 0.16% m/m to 0.38% m/m.

Fuels with high sediments can result in excessive sludge deposition in tanks and throughout the fuel handling, treatment, and injection systems. 

Furthermore, in certain cases the attempted use of such fuels may result in highly compromised combustion leading to engine and turbocharger damage.

In view of the above, if your ships are planning to bunker in these ports, we recommend that suppliers are advised of your concerns regarding the stability of the fuel in the area, and that they provide you with additional reassurance that they will adhere to the ISO 8217 requirements for the grade ordered.

Additional attention should be given to the collection of bunker samples. It should be ensured that all parties have witnessed the sampling process and have signed witness forms accordingly, and that the supporting documentation includes records of all the samples considered representative of the fuel as Loaded.

 

Photo credit: Louis Reed from Unsplash
Published: 10 February, 2025

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

IBIA: Dutch authorities to enforce ISO 13739 bunker sampling in Rotterdam by 2026

IBIA Secretariat has received information that Netherlands’ Inspectorate for Environment and Transport is planning for the port to strictly enforce rules for fuel oil sampling on board the receiving vessel.

Admin

Published

on

By

IBIA: Dutch authorities to enforce ISO bunker sampling standard in Port of Rotterdam

International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) Secretariat on Tuesday (3 February) said it was informed by Port of Rotterdam that the Inspectorate for Environment and Transport in Netherlands is planning for the port to strictly enforce the rules for fuel oil sampling (the MARPOL sample) on board the receiving vessel via drip sampling to conform with ISO 13739.

“If both parties agree on a different sample point (that is other than the receiving vessel’s manifold), then the Inspectorate will have to be informed, and can issue a waiver,” IBIA secretariat stated. 

“Other samples may be taken via the bunker barge sample point.”

All seal (numbers) and counter seals have to be noted on the BDN.

“As this rule is not currently standard practice in ARA, the Dutch Inspectorate are initially expected to be flexible, but are likely to start to enforce this rule during this year and no later than the beginning of 2026,” it added. 

This will coincide with the obligation of  mass flow meter (MFM). 

Manifold Times previously reported that the use of a bunker measurement system for bunker vessels in the ports of Antwerp-Bruges and Rotterdam will be mandatory from 1 January 2026.

Related: MFM bunker measurement system to be mandatory in Antwerp-Bruges and Rotterdam

 

Photo credit: International Bunker Industry Association
Published: 5 February, 2025

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

VPS explains how to engineer and manage green bunker fuels

Stanley George, Group Technical and Science Manager, shares key insights on how to engineer and manage green shipping fuels—covering VLSFO, biofuels, and the impact of new regulations.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED VPS logo

Stanley George, Group Technical and Science Manager at marine fuels testing company VPS, recently shared key insights on how to engineer and manage green shipping fuels—covering VLSFO, biofuels, and the impact of new regulations: 

Effective management strategies and insights for evolving fuel use.

Back in 2020, the IMO 2020 regulations, which reduced the global upper limit on the sulphur content of ships' fuel oil from 3.5% to 0.50%, posed significant challenges for the marine industry.

Beyond compliance, ship operators faced difficulties stemming from very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) blends. Key issues included poor cold-flow properties, short shelf life, sludge formation, stability concerns, and, most critically, liner scuffing in large two-stroke engines.

Liner scuffing, a significant contributor to main engine damage, was initially thought to be unrelated to fuel quality, engine maintenance, or fuel compatibility. However, further investigations identified interactions between VLSFO blends and cylinder oils as the root cause.

Cylinder oil plays a vital role in maintaining engine health through:

  • Lubrication: creating an oil film to minimise friction and wear between cylinder liners and piston rings.
  • Deposit removal: detergent properties clean combustion deposits from critical engine components.
  • Acid neutralisation: additives in the cylinder oil neutralise acidic byproducts of fuel combustion.

With the introduction of VLSFO, oil majors and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) recommended a shift from high Base Number (BN) cylinder oils (70/100 BN) to lower BN oils (40 BN). This change reduced calcium-based additives, which are crucial for neutralisation and detergency, leading to increased deposit formation and, in some cases, resulting in liner scuffing.

Addressing liner scuffing

By mid-2020, OEMs introduced Category II (CAT II) cylinder oils designed to enhance cleaning and deposit control. Alongside improved cylinder lubrication practices, close monitoring of liner wear helped mitigate scuffing issues. Some operators successfully adopted blend-on-board techniques, enabling customisation of cylinder oil properties such as neutralisation and detergency. This flexibility significantly reduced engine issues, demonstrating the importance of tailored cylinder lubrication strategies.

VLSFO also exhibited poor cold-flow properties, leading to wax precipitation and reduced stability in colder climates. These challenges emphasised the importance of proper fuel storage, handling, and management practices to maintain fuel integrity and engine reliability.

The evolving landscape of marine fuels, driven by regulatory and environmental pressures, demands better understanding and management of both traditional fossil fuels and emerging alternatives like biofuels. International standard ISO8217:2024 is seen as a major step forward in terms of setting specifications for marine fuel quality.

Biofuel alternatives

With the industry looking to decarbonise, and a view to introducing low- to zero-carbon fuels, biofuels such as methanol and various fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) blends 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.

Among these, cashew nutshell liquid (CNSL) and FAME have been explored as drop-in fuel options alongside several other alternatives. CNSL is a renewable resource with potential as a ready drop-in fuel. Its key phenolic compounds include:

  • Anacardic Acid (60–75%): a major contributor to CNSL's high acidity. Thermal decarboxylation converts this to cardanol, reducing acidity and enhancing stability.
  • Cardanol (5–15%): a stable phenolic compound derived from anacardic acid with improved combustion and lubricity properties.
  • Cardol (15–20%): A dihydroxybenzene derivative with surfactant-like behaviour.

While CNSL improves lubricity and energy content, its limitations include high acidity, poor combustion properties, and corrosive tendencies.

In 2022, CNSL-blended fuels caused operational challenges, particularly in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) region. Reported issues included:

  • Accelerated wear of fuel pump components.
  • Cracks and scratches in fuel systems.
  • Poor engine performance and power loss.

These issues were primarily attributed to CNSL's high acidity leading to corrosion of fuel systems and polymerisation tendencies, which in turn led to sludge formation. With regards to combustion characteristics, CNSL exhibited late ignition and extended period of combustion leading to after burning, high exhaust temperatures, carbon deposits in the exhaust system and less power developed. Even at low concentrations, CNSL requires careful management to avoid significant impacts on engine components.

Thermal decarboxylation – converting anacardic acid into cardanol, reducing acidity and increasing stability – and distillation – separating cardanol from other components to create a product better suited for fuel blending – can be applied to enhance CNSL characteristics.

While these treatments are known to improve CNSL's usability, further research is necessary to fully understand its long-term effects on engine performance and reliability.

FAME is the most widely used biofuel in marine applications. Although relatively new to the shipping industry, its extensive use in road transportation provides valuable insights.

Meanwhile, between 2023 and 2024, the use of used cooking oil methyl ester (UCOME) increased significantly.

Many operators tested B100 blends to prepare for regulatory requirements, including the GHG Strategy [greenhouse gas], EEDI [Energy Efficiency Design Index], CII [Carbon Intensity Indicator], and EEXI [Energy Efficiency existing ship Index]. In 2024, at Veritas Petroleum Services we noticed an uptake of B30 blends, a rise considered consistent with MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 18.3.2, which mandates verification of NOx impacts for blends exceeding 30%.

The impending implementation of FuelEU Maritime is expected to further boost the adoption of biofuel blends.

Operational considerations for FAME blends

There are some important operational considerations to consider for FAME blends. First, it has a tendency to absorb water, potentially leading to microbial growth. Proper storage and a first-in, first-out approach are critical to address this.

Second, at higher concentrations (B100, for example), there could be material compatibility issues. Third, FAME's solvency can dissolve deposits in fuel systems, potentially clogging filters. Lastly, due to its limited stability, FAME should be consumed promptly.

However, despite these considerations, when managed correctly, FAME blends can be used effectively alongside conventional fuels without significant operational issues.

The evolution of marine fuels, from VLSFO to alternative options like CNSL and FAME, underscores the need for comprehensive fuel and lubrication management strategies.

Addressing challenges such as liner scuffing, cold-flow properties, and compatibility is critical to maintaining engine reliability and operational efficiency. With increasing regulatory demands, the marine industry must continue to innovate and adapt to ensure a sustainable and efficient future.

Related: VPS shares review and position on new ISO 8217:2024 marine fuel specs
Related: VPS observes increase in demand for bio bunker fuel based on samples received in labs
Related: VPS appoints Steve Laino as new Americas Managing Director
Related: GCMD, VPS provide innovative means to detect fraud in sustainable biofuel supply chain
Related: VPS examines methanol as a marine fuel for decarbonisation

 

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 31 January, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement
  • Zhoushan Bunker
  • Aderco Manifold Website Advert EN
  • Sea Trader & Sea Splendor
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF
  • SBF2
  • Consort advertisement v2
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • E MARINE LOGO
  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • HL 2022 adv v1


  • metcore
  • Golden Island logo square
  • Mokara Final
  • Auramarine 01
  • pro liquid
  • Central Star logo
  • PSP Marine logo
  • Trillion Energy
  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • CNC Logo Rev Manifold Times
  • LabTechnic
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • 400x330 v2 copy
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • Headway Manifold

Trending