Connect with us

Analysis

VPS, Maersk Line and SDE International discuss first 100 days of IMO 2020 at ICS webinar

Panellists covered several marine fuel related topics including bunker fuel quality testing, COVID-2019, and long term storage of VLSFOs experienced during the first 100-day period.

Admin

Published

on

ICS fuel 2020 webinar cover photo

Representatives of Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS), Maersk Line and SDE International gathered at a webinar organised by the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) Singapore branch on Thursday (30 April).

The panellists discussed several marine fuel related topics, including bunker fuel quality testing, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-2019), and the long term storage of very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) post IMO 2020.

The First 100 Days of IMO 2020

Captain Rahul Choudhuri, the Managing Director (Asia, Middle East, Africa) at international fuel testing and inspection company VPS, moderated the session by offering a solution to ongoing quality issues, such as the elevated levels of Total Sediment Potential (TSP), Catfines (Al+Si) and Wax content currently seen in the new generation of IMO 2020 compliant bunker fuels.

“I do feel going ahead, a potential solution is in the introduction of robust data analytics in marine fuel quality management and its role on how shipping manages marine fuels,” he suggests.

Simon Neo, Executive Director at marine fuels consultancy SDE International, shares the transition from traditional 3.5% sulphur limit bunker fuel to the lower 0.5% sulphur limit VLSFOs has been “very smooth” in terms of physical bunkering operations at Singapore port.

“But, on the quality part, we have seen some pour point issues since December 2019 till January 2020 where it is believed certain cargo traders may have used bunker blends containing waxy residues and components combined with an unsuitable pour point,” he explains.

“This has resulted in some debunkering cases taking place, where I have personally seen two.”

Neo further noted the sulphur content found within marine fuels delivered at Singapore port to be edging close to IMO 2020 limits – between 0.47% to 0.49% – and advised stakeholders to take note.

“The first 100 days were very interesting times due to the coronavirus, the closure of several ports, and the financial troubles faced by Hin Leong,” he says.

“It seems all the problems of the oil and shipping sectors are happening at the same time. This is not very good news for both industries but let’s hope they will be able to move forward when the market reopens.”

Captain Samir Fernandez, Global Head – Commercial Operations, Optimisation and Claims at Maersk Oil Trading Singapore, noted the 100-day timeline for IMO 2020 has recently passed.

“But for us at Maersk it has been two years in the making. The first batch of VLSFO bunkered by a Maersk Line vessel was carried out in March 2019 and this vessel continued to trail different batches right until the switchover date,” he said.

“We learnt from our mistakes and we corrected them. Our colleagues in Fleet Management developed ship implementation plans and tested them on 25 vessels while our colleagues at sea provided feedback on what fuel worked and what did not; including what every vessel had to do when it came to the switchover date.

“IMO 2020 was the perfect example of ‘One Maersk’ – we came together to achieve a seamless switch. With approximately 700 ships there are challenges and one of the biggest things we learnt during preparation is being far more careful when switching between two batches of VLSFOs. Previously, with heavy fuel oil, such issues were minimal.

“The preparation we spent on research and development truly paid off and allowed us to switch to IMO 2020 compliant fuels without any disruption whatsoever.”

Bunker suppliers pick up on quality testing, Maersk’s ‘Three Lines of Defence’

The session progressed to Captain Choudhuri enquiring with Neo and Captain Fernandez on respective actions taken by Singapore bunker suppliers and Maersk Line in preventing the delivery and acceptance of off-spec marine fuel.

Neo pointed out certain Singapore bunker suppliers taking an interest in testing their own bunker samples due to IMO 2020.

“A solution implemented by some physical suppliers was to test samples after loading in an effort to detect off-spec or contaminated fuel,” he said.

“This is not a fool proof solution due to the quick barge turnover times in the Singapore market. Occasionally, within a 24-hour period, the fuel will have already been delivered before test results are out so that is the challenge.

“If more suppliers continue to test samples to show quality is being delivered, ship owners will feel safer to take bunkers here in Singapore.”

Captain Fernandez, meanwhile, said Maersk has implemented a “3 lines of defence” to ensure that no oil is consumed without its quality being verified at multiple points across the bunker value chain as part of a company policy.

“Way back in October 2019, we decided any fuel consumed on a Maersk Line vessel has to be tested three times beforehand. The steps consist of test information from the COQ (Certificate of Quality), barge pretesting and post supply testing,” he said.

“It is this stringent system of testing that has allowed us to put about 3,000 stems of VLSO on our vessel without any major quality issues.”

Solution to role of bunker surveyors and cargo officers amidst COVID-2019

The webinar moved on to cover COVID-2019 and its effect on the Singapore bunkering sector.

An earlier Manifold Times article written in mid-April found bunker surveyors not being allowed to board some bunker tankers due to social distancing policies implemented by their bunker supplier owners/charterers – which contravened the procedures of SS600 and SS648.

Neo noted some bunker suppliers have since introduced a solution to overcome the problem.

“Quite a number of bunker suppliers have now set up a bunker station outside the accommodation area where the bunker surveyor, chief engineer and cargo officer can gather to inspect and witness activities on board the bunker tanker,” he shared.

“This arrangement allows all stakeholders to still observe social distancing measures as required by the port authority, while following proper bunkering procedures as required by SS600 and SS648.”

Long term storage of VLSFO

The panellists ended the session by answering questions from the audience where a member asked about the long term effects of VLSFO, a fuel well documented with stability and wax concerns, being stored on board vessels during a long term layup or storage situation.

The global imbalance between oil supply and demand due to COVID-19 has recently led to the increased use of oil tankers (which contain VLSFO in their bunker tanks) as temporary offshore storage facilities for crude oil.

“We do feel even one month of VLSFO storage can be too long. However, these are very early days and we are going into unknown territory,” said Captain Choudhuri, whose company recently introduced a service that tests and monitors marine fuels under long term storage conditions.

Captain Fernandez shared Maersk Line has earlier conducted tests to determine the useful life of VLSFO.

“It is important to know the blend mix before deciding whether the fuel should be stored. More than important is to make sure all recommendations of the fuel analysis report, such as storing the product at the right temperature well above the pour point and correct handling procedures, are followed,” he advised.

“Since this is a new development, the most important is to test and draw samples to verify that the fuel is still stable and the quality hasn’t deteriorated.”

Neo, noted current 0.5% sulphur VLSFO fuel blends were less stable when compared to past 3.5% sulphur HFO products consumed by vessels.

“A lot of the vessels in the past did not encounter issues when using HFO a month after picking up the fuel. Last time, there were no issues as HFO was only one product,” he said.

“Today, we do not know the components going in to reduce sulphur content of the fuel [VLSFO]. I agree with what Captain Samir says, where the stability for bunkers will need to checked and tested especially in layup conditions.”

 

Photo credit: Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers Singapore branch
Published: 6 May, 2020

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Alkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August

Update covers dual supply crisis currently shaping global bunker markets — a stalled Strait of Hormuz peace process and Rhine water levels at a 140-year record low — and the implications for Singapore.

Admin

Published

on

By

Alkagesta

Malta-based global commodity trading house Alkagesta recently shared latest market insight examining the dual supply crisis gripping global energy markets as diplomatic efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz stall and Rhine water levels fall to record lows, creating what the company describes as a “state of emergency” for European inland fuel distribution.

In an article published on Alkagesta Market Insights on 11 August, the company’s trading and market intelligence teams outlined how the convergence of two simultaneous logistical crises is tightening prompt fuel availability across Singapore, Northwest Europe, and the Mediterranean:

Strait of Hormuz transits fell to a near-one-month low of 13 ships on August 9 following an attack on an ADNOC-linked tanker, as both the US and Iran demand war reparations before any reopening agreement can be reached. Simultaneously, Rhine water levels at the Kaub chokepoint fell to 16 cm on August 10 — the lowest since records began in 1880 — with forecasts pointing to a further drop to just 4 cm by August 14, effectively halting barge traffic and trapping fuel oil stocks at the ARA hub.

The supply picture across both key hubs has deteriorated sharply. In Singapore, Middle Eastern fuel oil imports nearly tripled week-over-week to 328,878 mt by July 29 — the highest volume since March — providing some relief as onshore commercial heavy distillate stocks rose to a five-week high of 19.58 million barrels by August 5. However, July bunker fuel sales are estimated to have fallen 3.7% month-over-month to 4.44 million mt, with elevated premiums redirecting prompt demand toward alternative ports including Zhoushan and Port Klang.

In Europe, the VLSFO market remains acutely undersupplied as refiners continue to prioritize high-margin diesel over low-sulfur blending components, while the Rhine crisis has forced barges to operate at just 15–20% of normal capacity — with freight rates from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe rising more than 400% in two months.

Alkagesta’s strategic outlook points to a potential total breakdown in Rhine-linked inland distribution by mid-August, a VLSFO Hi-5 spread likely to remain above $200/mt through Q3, and a global crude market that analysts warn requires an additional 2.1 million b/d for 18 months to rebuild depleted inventories.

Note: The full article can be read here.

 

Photo credit: Alkagesta
Published: 17 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Why bunker markets could be lower than we thought

Marine fuel prices could prove lower than previously anticipated as easing refinery margins and improving bunker market fundamentals outweigh a still-uncertain crude oil outlook, says Integr8 Fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

6 5

By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come? 

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market. 

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days. 

Jul 2026 Graph 01 1024x613 1

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt.  However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again.  It looks like we could be at another false dawn. 

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality. 

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge 

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium. 

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch. 

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology 

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl. 

Jul 2026 Graph 02 1024x572 1

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be. 

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up. 

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months. 

Jul 2026 Graph 03 1024x570 1

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections? 

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Jul 2026 Graph 04 1024x579 1

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand.  This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s. 

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

 

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

LR’s latest FOBAS Fuel Quality Report reveals that the biggest fuel quality risks are no longer confined to off-specification fuels, with some compliant fuels creating operational challenges.

Admin

Published

on

By

New FOBAS report warns growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge. 

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

 

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending