Connect with us

Bunker Fuel Quality

VPS: Key steps in avoiding risk of receiving bad bunker fuels

Steve Bee, Dr Malcolm Cooper and Stanley George explain how to safeguard vessel operations against the impact of bad bunkers and share on the key steps that should be taken to avoid the risk of receiving bad bunkers.

Admin

Published

on

RESIZED VPS logo

Steve Bee, VPS Group Commercial Director, Dr Malcolm Cooper, VPS CEO and Stanley George, VPS Group Science & Technical Manager explained in an article on how to safeguard vessel operations against the impact of bad bunker fuels and shared on the key steps that should be taken to avoid the risk of receiving bad bunkers:

Bad bunkers can significantly impact vessel operations, necessitating intervention from the crew and in some cases result in operational failure - varying from operational damage through to loss of power and subsequently loss of propulsion. Mitigating the impact of bad bunkers can help to prevent damage to vessel’s equipment and protect the safety of those on board and the environment. Bad bunkers can lead to fuel stability problems, chemical contamination and poor cold-flow properties. This paper describes the key steps that should be taken to avoid the risk of receiving bad bunkers.

Bad Bunkers

Bad bunkers refer to fuel of substandard quality, which can lead to operational disruptions and challenges in fuel management. Common fuel quality concerns include poor stability, chemical contamination, corrosive tendencies, poor combustion and poor cold flow characteristics. Thorough testing of bunkered fuel prior to putting it in operation is highly advantageous as it reveals potential issues inherent in the fuel. This data often enables proactive measures to mitigate the risk of operational complications stemming from such fuel.

Whilst the general quality of bunker fuel has been consistent over recent years, it is important to note that off-specification fuel statistics are typically based on the criteria outlined in Table 1 and 2 of ISO 8217 standard. There have been numerous occasions when bunker fuel meeting these criteria has proven to be unsuitable for onboard use due to its poor quality and on a number of occasions has caused catastrophic failures (e.g. ARA contamination case - August 2022 and March 2024, Houston contamination case April 2023 and Singapore contamination case August 2022). This necessitates additional testing methodologies such as GCMS, WAT/WDT, and Reserve Stability Number to accurately assess fuel quality.

The increase in reported operational issues stemming from contaminated fuels, which often elude detection through routine ISO 8217 testing, has experienced a notable uptick in recent years. This trend can be attributed, at least in part, to the drive towards decarbonization, notably spurred by initiatives such as IMO 2020. Consequently, fuel suppliers are increasingly experimenting with a diverse range of feedstocks to serve as blend components in conventional fossil fuels.

As the world’s largest marine fuel quality testing company covering 50% of all fuel testing, VPS can offer valuable insights and advice in relation to poor quality and/or contaminated fuel. Proactive, pre-burn, fuel testing on a regular basis, is definitely a highly recommended approach to mitigating risks to vessel operations, crew safety and environmental impact. The typical off-specification parameters associated with engine failure are usually Pour Point, Total Sediment Potential, Cat-fines and/or Water content. Whilst the International Marine Fuel Quality standard, ISO8217, includes these test parameters, it’s certainly a more diligent and wiser approach, to consider a fuel’s overall stability, cold-flow properties, chemical contamination and potential corrosivity.

At VPS, we possess the proficiency and extensive experience necessary to conduct specialised tests specifically designed to detect these issues. Our tailored testing protocols enable us to identify potential fuel-related challenges and offer operational guidance to minimise associated risks effectively.

Fuel Stability

Both High Sulphur Fuel Oils (HSFOs) and Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oils (VLSFOs), can suffer with varying degrees of instability due to thermal-aging and over-heating, high sediment content, or chemical contamination, to name but a few potential causes. Instability usually manifests itself through sediment formation, which can in turn, block onboard filters, pipework, potentially then starving an engine of fuel.

ISO8217 includes the Total Sediment Potential (TSP) test, which is a good indicator of the amount of sediment which may be potentially produced in relation to a fuel’s stability. However, additional tests such as Total Sediment Accelerated (TSA), a deliberate fuel-aging test, Total Sediment Existent (TSE), a measure of fuel cleanliness and the determination of a fuel’s stability reserve, via Separability Testing, to measure the fuel’s capacity to hold long chain asphaltenes within the fuel solution, can provide much more information regarding fuel stability determinations.

In particular, Separability Number is an excellent accompaniment to the routine hot filtration methods. It can identify potentially troublesome unstable fuels even when the Hot Filtration Test methods indicate a low sediment content.   Conversely, it may indicate that a high sediment fuel is in fact quite stable and unlikely to form sludge. This information in combination, is extremely useful from an operational perspective, as it will indicate in advance if and what mitigation steps are appropriate.

VPS: Key steps in avoiding risk of receiving bad bunker fuels

Chemical Contamination

Over the years chemical contamination of marine fuels has resulted in many onboard operational issues, with numerous chemicals and chemical groups being identified as the cause. Major widespread contamination events, include Houston (2018), with over 200 vessels damaged due to a potential phenolic contamination, to Singapore (2022) where 80 vessels were affected by chlorinated hydrocarbons within the fuel and then more recently ARA (2023) where around 20 vessels suffered issues due to a cocktail of styrenes and dienes within the fuel. In between such times, many smaller cases of chemical contamination have been identified by VPS. Thankfully, many at a pre-burn stage, thus avoiding any operational issues or damage cases.

Over time, all of the following chemicals have been found by VPS in marine fuels. The effects of these are highlighted below:

VPS: Key steps in avoiding risk of receiving bad bunker fuels

Risks from chemical contamination of fuel can be significantly mitigated through pre-burn screening of fuels using VPS Chemical Screening Service. This low-cost test, utilising Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) analysis, will warn of the presence of over 70% of all volatile chemicals within fuel. With both VLSFO and HSFO we continued to see cases of vessel damages due to chemical contamination during 2023. Focusing specifically on the VPS GCMS-Head Space Chemical Screening service, as a damage prevention service, 19.9% of applicable marine fuel samples received by VPS since 2018, have undertaken this rapid, pre-burn protection service, with an average 8% of samples tested, giving rise to a “Caution” result, indicating the presence of at least one chemical contaminant and thus the notified vessel has avoided any damages.

In April 2023, a Singaporean-owned chemical and product tanker bunkered 415 m/tons of VLSFO in Houston. The vessel began to burn the fuel in May and quickly began to experience numerous issues with the auxiliary and main engines, such as exhaust gas deviating temperatures and the wearing of fuel pumps and plunger barrels. In addition, problems such as start-failure due to insufficient fuel injection, pressure build up, as well as worn out and leaking fuel pumps.

Of greater concern was the complete engine stoppage enroute to the next US port, when the main engine failed. Multiple attempts were made to start the engine, all without success.

Subsequent VPS forensic laboratory testing, utilising a proprietary Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) Acid Extraction methodology, detected the presence of several phenols and fatty acid compounds within the fuel.

The vessel initiated the necessary repairs to both auxiliary and main engine fuel pumps, at a total spares cost of $200,000. In hindsight the vessel owner stated pre-burn screening would have helped significantly in avoiding such damages and costs.

Cold-Flow Properties

VPS: Key steps in avoiding risk of receiving bad bunker fuels

The cold-flow properties of fuels are also important to monitor closely, especially when sailing in colder temperature regions. The Pour Point of HSFOs, VLSFOs and MGO fuels, should always be monitored when colder climates are encountered. Pour Point was the most common MGO off-specification parameter in 2023, with 36.6% of MGO off-specs attributed to Pour Point. However, prior to reaching the pout point of MGO fuel, its cloud point and cold-filter plugging point behaviour offer earlier warning-signs of potential cold-flow issues, relating to wax precipitation from the fuel. It is key fuel management practice to measure these two cold-flow parameters within MGO distillates.

VLSFO fuels have a higher paraffinic content than HSFO and as a consequence, have a greater potential to precipitate wax, which can cause filter and pipework blockages, which can ultimately starve an engine of fuel. As VLSFOs are dark fuels, the cloud point cannot be seen, as it can with a distillate fuel. Therefore in 2019, VPS developed a proprietary test method to measure the Wax Appearance (WAT) and Wax Disappearance Temperatures (WDT) of VLSFOs.

Generally, it is recommended that the fuel temperature is kept approximately 10oC above the PP to avoid risk of solidification. However, in the majority of the global bunker ports in 2022-23 the average WAT was often higher than 30oC, and WDT higher than 40oC. This may also mean heating the fuel to avoid solidification during transfer. However, this should not necessarily mean an increase in storage temperature. Fuel oil transfer pumps on board are generally positive displacement pumps and can handle certain amount of wax that are present in the fuel.

If the fuel has a high WAT/WDT, VPS recommend heating the fuel just before the transfer operation.

VPS: Key steps in avoiding risk of receiving bad bunker fuels

Therefore, additional fuel tests, such as, Total Sediment Existent (TSE), Separability Number (Reserve Stability Number, RSN), Wax Appearance/Wax Disappearance Temperature Testing, Cloud Point, Cold Filter Plugging Point and Chemical Screening, can provide significantly greater and more valuable protective information, when assessing fuel quality than ISO8217 alone. This is why VPS offer our Additional Protection Service (APS) “bundles”. The APS includes the standard ISO8217 parameters but also fuel-relevant additional tests, in order to support our customers to greater levels with respect to, asset, crew and environmental protection.

Over the years, VPS Off-specification fuel data has proactively highlighted the potential risks associated with certain parameters. The importance of regular and wider-ranging marine fuel testing, through the Additional Protection Service, will definitely support mitigation strategies to prevent disruptions in vessel power supply due to fuel-related issues. Even a minor fuel quality issue can prove costly. A 2018 report by the Swedish Club highlighted the average cost per incident of fuel-related damage on vessels is $344K.

 

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 9 April 2024

Continue Reading

Decarbonisation

VPS on IMO 2028: A new legislative measure for the decarbonisation of shipping

Steve Bee and Emilian Buksak break down what the newly approved IMO framework means for ship operators and how VPS can support compliance through fuel testing, emissions measurement, and strategic advisory.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED VPS logo

Steve Bee, Group Marketing and Strategic Projects Director, and Emilian Buksak, Decarbonisation Advisor of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Wednesday (16 April) broke down what the newly approved IMO net-zero framework means for ship operators and how VPS can support compliance through fuel testing, emissions measurement, and strategic advisory:

On Friday 11th April 2025, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) achieved another important step towards establishing a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships globally, aiming for net-zero emissions by or around 2050.

The IMO Net-zero Framework is the first in the world to combine mandatory emissions limits and GHG pricing across an entire industry sector.   Approved by the Marine Environment Protection Committee during its 83rd session (MEPC 83), the measures include a new fuel standard for ships and a global pricing mechanism for emissions.

These measures, set to be formally adopted in October 2025 before entry into force in 2027, will become mandatory for large ocean-going ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total CO2 emissions from international shipping.  This Net-Zero Framework will be included in a new Chapter 5 of MARPOL Annex VI.

With an estimated 900 renewable-fuel-ready vessels expected to be sailing the seas by 2030, it is felt necessary to implement global regulation to deliver renewable fuels at a commercially viable price, as current pricing for “green fuels” is 3-4 times the price of fossil fuels. Such regulations will make it possible for ships to operate on green fuels and also incentivise fuel and energy providers to invest in new production capacity.

Under the draft regulations, ships will be required to comply with: 

Global fuel standard: Ships must reduce, over time, their annual greenhouse gas fuel intensity (GFI) – that is, how much GHG is emitted for each unit of energy used. This is calculated using a well-to-wake basis, meaning total emissions are measured from fuel production through to its use on board.  

Global economic measure: Ships operating above GFI thresholds will need to acquire remedial units to balance their excess emissions, while those using zero or near-zero GHG  fuels or technologies will be eligible for financial rewards for their lower emissions profile.

Two-tier Compliance Targets: Each ship will have to meet both a Base Target and a Direct Compliance Target for its annual GFI. Vessels that stay under the stricter Direct Compliance Target are eligible to earn surplus units, whereas those over the thresholds face a compliance deficit that must be remedied.

Data Collection & Reporting: Operators must calculate and report their attained annual GFI each calendar year, verifying it against their target annual GFI. This includes rigorous recordkeeping and submission to the IMO GFI Registry, which tracks each vessel’s emissions performance and any remedial or surplus units.

IMO Net-Zero Fund Contributions: Ships that exceed their GFI limits are required to make GHG emissions pricing contributions to the new IMO Net-Zero Fund. Collected revenues will be used to reward ships using zero/near-zero fuels, support research and technological innovation in cleaner shipping, and help ensure a just and equitable transition for the maritime sector.

Net-Zero Framework Implementation and Green Balance Mechanism

From 2028 to 2030, ships will be subject to a tiered levy linked to their well-to-wake (WtW) carbon intensity. Based on a 2008 baseline of 93.3 gCO₂eq/MJ (the industry average in 2008), operators will face no charge for fuel emissions at or below approximately 77.44 gCO₂eq/MJ, a moderate levy of $100/mtCO₂eq for emissions between 77.44 and 89.57 gCO₂eq/MJ, and a higher rate of $380/mtCO₂eq for emissions exceeding 89.57 gCO₂eq/MJ. These thresholds and levies align with the overarching goal of driving down overall carbon intensity by a minimum of 4% by 2028 and 17%for direct compliance targets—with further, more stringent reductions taking effect in subsequent years. 

Surplus Units and Over-Compliance

A ship’s carbon intensity below the lower threshold (77.44 gCO₂eq/MJ) constitutes “over-compliance,” generating surplus units that can be banked or traded. Conversely, exceeding thresholds will require the purchase of remedial units to cover the compliance deficit.

Sustainable Fuel Certification Scheme (SFCS) and Fuel Lifecycle Label (FLL)

Under the new framework, all fuels must carry a Fuel Lifecycle Label (FLL), which documents their GHG intensity and other sustainability attributes on a well-to-wake basis. These values must be certified by a recognized Sustainable Fuel Certification Scheme (SFCS), ensuring accurate, transparent calculations and preventing any misrepresentation of environmental impact. 

Zero or Near-Zero GHG Technologies, Fuels, and Energy Sources

Recognising the importance of incentivising advanced solutions, the regulation sets specific lifecycle emission thresholds for what qualifies as a zero or near-zero GHG (ZNZ) fuel or technology: Initial threshold (valid until 31 December 2034): ZNZ fuels must not exceed 19.0 g CO₂eq/MJ on a well-to-wake basis. Post-2035 Threshold: Starting 1 January 2035, the permissible GHG intensity tightens to no more than 14.0 g CO₂eq/MJ.

Ships adopting fuels and technologies below these thresholds can earn financial rewards through the IMO Net-Zero Fund, effectively offsetting some of the initial costs of transitioning away from conventional fossil fuels. By gradually lowering the allowable GHG intensity, the regulation encourages ongoing innovation, investment, and broader adoption of advanced, low-emission solutions across the global fleet.

Green Balance Mechanism

Central to this approach is the Green Balance Mechanism, which integrates closely with the GFI. In essence, it applies a fee on higher-intensity fossil fuels and allocates those proceeds to green fuels, balancing costs across a diverse energy mix. The greater the well-to-wake emission reductions a fuel delivers, the larger the financial allocation it receives—effectively levelling the playing field and stimulating a shift to sustainable alternatives.

VPS on IMO 2028: A new legislative measure for the decarbonisation of shipping

Disbursement of Revenues

All revenues from levies and remedial unit purchases will be directed to the IMO Net-Zero Fund, which will then distribute the funds to:

  • Reward low-emission ships
  • Support innovation, research, infrastructure, and just-transition initiatives (particularly in developing countries)
  • Fund training, technology transfer, and capacity-building aligned with the IMO GHG Strategy
  • Mitigate impacts on vulnerable States, such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
  • By steadily lowering the permissible carbon intensity and introducing financial incentives for clean fuels, the new framework aims not only to reduce overall emissions but also to accelerate the maritime sector’s transition to sustainable energy solutions.

Note: The full article, including on how VPS can support compliance through fuel testing, emissions measurement, and strategic advisory, can be found here

Related: IMO MPEC 83 approves net-zero regulations for global shipping

 

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 17 April, 2025

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

VPS highlights importance of regular fuel system checks in preventing vessel engine damage

Steve Bee explores how regular checks can play a vital role in protecting a vessel’s engine, stressing that even bunker fuels meeting ISO 8217 standards can lead to severe engine damage if not properly managed post-delivery.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED VPS logo

Steve Bee, Group Marketing and Strategic Projects Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Monday (14 April) explored how Fuel System Check Monitoring can play a vital role in protecting a vessel’s engine as engine damage can be a very costly risk for vessel operators:

Statistically, data indicates that a vessel will suffer between one and two incidences of main engine damage over the course of its operational lifetime. The average damage costs have been estimated at around $650,000 per incident, with even more damaging incidents costing up to $1.2 million per claim. Therefore, it is important to identify the main causes of this damage and understand how it can be prevented.

Prevention of damage is, of course, preferable to cure. Fuel quality and handling issues remain a leading contributor to critical main engine failures. VPS frequently observe that such issues could have been prevented through the implementation of a robust and well-structured fuel management programme onboard vessels.

A common misconception is that a fuel meeting the international marine fuel quality standard, ISO 8217, means it is “fit for purpose”. But this is definitely not the case as even fuels that are “on specification”, at the point of delivery to the vessel, can cause major engine damage if not properly managed post-delivery. ISO 8217 specifies the requirements for petroleum fuels for use in marine diesel engines and boilers, prior to appropriate treatment before use, which means that fuels should then be treated onboard between delivery and being burnt

Catalysts used in petroleum refining are made of Aluminium Silicates, which over time breakdown. The resulting, coarse, dense fragments composing of aluminium and silicon, eventually reside in the residual portion of the refining stream. Known as “Cat-Fines”, these particles are highly abrasive and can cause severe damage to vessel engine parts.

Major marine engine manufacturers recommend a fuel should contain less than 10-15 mg/kg Aluminium plus Silicon (Al+Si) at the engine inlet. However, assuming a delivered fuel meets the stringent ISO8217:2024 limits of 40-60 mg/kg Al+Si, dependent upon the fuel grade, the fuel treatment plant would have to operate at an efficiency level capable of removing 75%-83% of these highly abrasive particles in order to meet the engine manufacturers’ requirements.

Furthermore, the International Council on Combustion Engines' (CIMAC’s) recommendation regarding fuel quality states “Fuel analysis is the only way to monitor the quality of fuel as delivered at the time and place of custody transfer, before and after the fuel cleaning onboard and at the engine inlet. Regular monitoring of the fuel cleaning plant will provide information, which will help to make decisions about the maintenance cycles of the equipment as well as potential engine problems resulting from malfunctioning or inadequate operation.”

Yet one of the most important, but often overlooked processes, is that of regular Fuel System Checks (FSCs) in order to assess the level of aluminium and silicon catalytic fines within fuel. The presence of “cat-fines” within fuel can be extremely damaging, causing rapid engine-part wear. Monitoring cat-fine levels before they can enter vessel engines, can prevent such damage. Therefore, sending samples for analysis which are taken Before & After purification processes, on a quarterly basis is the most effective way to monitor cat-fine levels. FSCs will also help comply to the engine manufacturers general recommendation of a maximum of 10-15 mg/Kg level of cat-fines in the fuel, entering the engines and assess purifier efficiency.

There are numerous reasons why regular fuel system checks are critical:

  • Help identify potential risks & operational issues before major damage occurs.
  • Confirm that the system’s flow rate, temperatures, discharge cycles are properly adjusted to handle the specific fuel that is being treated
  • Verify that the fuel treatment system is properly maintained
  • Reduce operating cost and increase lifecycles of critical components
  • Identify presence of unusual components that can enter fuel post- delivery.

Periodic sampling from the fuel treatment system will also identify problems such as water ingress from ballast systems, leaking heating coils and cargo contamination. The last thing anyone wants to see is a purifier working as a pump!

A prime example and case study is highlighted below:

An LPG Tanker bunkered HSFO in Fujairah where its fuel met ISO 8217 specifications. However, after using the bunkered fuel, the Chief Engineer reported the main engine expansion tank low level alarm, with the main engine exhaust gas temperature high on cylinder unit 2 & 4. The vessel commenced a gradual slowdown of the main engine. The Chief Engineer reported the vessel was unable to run the engine due to suspected leaks on the main engine cylinders. The vessel drifted for about 10 hours before dropping anchor off the coast of India.

Upon dismantling the engine, the following findings were made:

144251

The VPS Technical Advisor recommended the vessel submit fuel system samples and upon checking, the results from the system, these indicated that the purifier was in fact only working like a pump.

Sampling

The screening size of Al+Si on the before engine sample further confirmed why the vessel was having problems, as the physical size of Al+Si particles ranged: 5-45 µm.

cat fine 1

The ideal particle size range of cat-fines that can be effectively removed by a marine vessel's purifier system typically falls between 5 to 15 µm. Purifiers are designed to target these smaller particles, as they are the most common size found in heavy fuel oil and can cause significant wear and damage to engine components

If the particle size of catalytic fines is greater than 15 µm, it can pose significant risks to marine engines. Larger particles are more abrasive and can cause severe wear and damage to critical engine components such as cylinder liners, piston rings, and fuel injectors.

Note: The full article by VPS can be found here

 

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 15 April, 2025

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS: Off-spec Total Sediment Potential bunker fuels found in Civitavecchia, Italy

FOBAS has tested several samples from Civitavecchia with TSP results exceeding the ISO8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m; samples were all high sulphur residual fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

Louis Reed from Unsplash

Lloyd’s Register Fuel Oil Bunkering Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) on Friday (11 April) released a bulletin regarding its testing of several samples of high sulphur residual fuels from Civitavecchia withTotal Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m:

In recent days, FOBAS has tested several samples from Civitavecchia with Total Sediment Potential (TSP) results exceeding the ISO8217 specification limit of 0.10% m/m. The samples were all high sulphur residual fuels and TSP results ranged from 0.83% m/m to 1.05% m/m.

Further analysis on these fuels suggests a possible mix of both asphaltenes and some extraneous dirt.

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

In view of the above, if your ships are planning to bunker in this port, 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. Ideally including providing full TSA, TSE and TSP sediment test results.

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: 14 April, 2025

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

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • HL 2022 adv v1
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • MFT 25 01 E Marine Logo Animation
  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF


  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • NW Logo advertisement
  • PSP Marine logo
  • Auramarine 01
  • Mokara Final
  • Kenoil
  • Energe Logo
  • CNC Logo Rev Manifold Times
  • MFA logo v2
  • Cathay Marine Fuel Oil Trading logo
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • LabTechnic

Trending