Bunker Fuel Quality
VPS on lifeboat fuel quality: A safety of life at sea critical risk
Neil Chapman and Steve Bee said regular fuel testing, correct fuel selection, and proactive fuel management are essential to ensure lifeboats are ready when they’re needed most.
Neil Chapman, Managing Director of Americas, and Steve Bee, Group Marketing and Strategic Projects Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Monday (13 July) said regular fuel testing, correct fuel selection, and proactive fuel management are essential to ensure lifeboats are ready when they’re needed most:
Performance when its most critical
In an emergency, a lifeboat engine is not simply a mechanical asset, it is a life-saving system. If the fuel in that system is of poor quality due to degradation, contamination, or simply unsuitable for the operating environment, then the result may be failure to launch, manoeuvre, or sustain operation, when human lives depend on it. Fuel failures in lifeboats onboard Cruise Liners are high-consequence life-safety risk as the engine may be the only power source available during an emergency. It is a key SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) requirement that lifeboats should hold sufficient fuel to enable them to run at 6 knots for no less than 25 hours.
The primary consequence of a lifeboat failure is not the commercial loss, but the potential failure of a safety-critical system during an abandon-ship scenario. Financial, legal and reputational consequences will undoubtedly follow but the immediate risk is to life.
Now with the inclusion of Biofuels and FAME in the marine fuel mix and assuming the same fuel used in the main engines may be used in the emergency systems, how do you verify the operability of the lifeboats in times of crisis?
Fuel grade DMX within the ISO8217 specification is specifically intended for use within emergency equipment. However, since this is not a mandatory requirement, marine gas oil (MGO grade DMA) used for other purposes on board, is often used to fill up lifeboat fuel tanks. This could lead to hazardous outcomes as the DMA grade fuel might not be suitable for its intended use. DMA fuel whilst acceptable for general machinery use, will unlikely provide the same assurance of low-temperature operability, ignition quality, storage reliability, or starting reliability required for emergency craft. The quality of the fuel in the lifeboat tanks may also deteriorate during storage. Hence it is essential to test and ensure that the quality of the fuel being taken into the tanks is ’fit for purpose’ and monitored at regular intervals. DMX fuel should be chosen due to its ability to operate at a lower temperature, superior ignition quality and improved starting capabilities. However, this fuel only accounts for approximately 1-2% of the global supply, compared to the regular DMA grade.
Failure Modes in Emergency Operations
SOLAS compliance should not be viewed only in terms of carrying the required quality of fuel. The fuel must also remain fit-for-purpose regarding stability, cleanliness and be capable of supporting reliable engine operation throughout the vessel’s operation. Lifeboat failures are rarely a singular dramatic event, rather a chain of events. These are typically caused by degraded fuel, filter blockages or storage issues. Incorrect handling and storage can result in the ingress of water, which with modern fuels, can promote the growth of filter blocking bacteria rendering the engine inoperable. So rather than the issue being no fuel, it is more likely to be an issue of fuel that is of poor quality. As lifeboat engines may sit idle for long periods it potentially allows the fuel to degrade, if the correct due care and attention is not paid to this key piece of emergency equipment.
The handling and storage of fuel, coupled with the observance of quality operating procedures can lessen the risk of these failures, but are unlikely to eliminate them completely. However, the failure to follow established procedures can result in issues that are likely to cause catastrophic financial and reputational damage to the cruise line operator.
The most common failure modes in emergency lifeboats can be categorised as follows:
- Fuel Starvation
- Contamination
- Degraded Fuel
- Blocked Filter/Injectors
Contamination in the engine due to the presence of water, as previously mentioned, can be catastrophic as this can induce corrosion and oxidation, along with promoting microbial growth which results in filter blocking and fuel starvation to the engine.
If an engine fails to start, or runs poorly under load, due to fuel related issues this would likely cause a secondary emergency, compounding the reason the lifeboat was required in the first instance.
The danger with degraded fuel is that the risk is often hidden. A lifeboat may appear available, inspected and compliant, whilst he fuel inside its tank is steadily losing the properties required for reliable emergency operation.
IMO guidelines indicate that inspectors and regulators are increasingly looking at emergency systems for fuel compliance, highlighting its importance in the operation of a vessel.
Seasonal & Regional Fuel Requirements
Often overlooked are the cold flow properties of diesel and biofuels. While hydrocarbon-based diesel has very good (low temperature) cold flow properties, this is not the case for biofuels, so lifeboats fuelled in the Caribbean for the summer season may be completely inoperable if the vessels are transferred to the Northeast or higher location, for a winter period.
Root Cause Failure Mechanisms
The failure to follow the appropriate standards which result in engine failure can be categorised as follows:
The Effect of Biofuels on Marine Fuel Quality
In a study recently completed by a major shipping line, blends of biofuels were tested for a wide range of parameters. The findings were:
Biological growth appeared within the first month, increasing rapidly with exposure to light.
Within 3 months oxidative corrosion started to occur requiring regular monitoring.
46 CFR § 169.837 states:
“(2) The fuel tanks of motor propelled lifeboats have been emptied, and fuel changed once every twelve months.”
Yet the evidence shows fuel stability effectively starts to deteriorate within the first month and can be unusable by month 3.
Prevention Strategy
Fuel testing should be viewed as part of the vessel’s safety assurance programme. It provides evidence that the lifeboat fuel remains fit-for-purpose, not only on the day it was supplied, but throughout storage and across changing operational conditions. A strong housekeeping policy requires a multi-pronged approach to ensure operability in times of crisis; such steps include:
- Housekeeping – ensuring the fuel system remains closed when not in use to eliminate the ingress of water.
- Operation – frequently run the engines so that fuel and lubricants are cycled through the units.
- Testing program – likely to be cheaper and more efficient than changing out the fuel. A well-developed fuel testing program can eliminate the need to change the fuel.
- Documentation – by recording all the actions taken to protect the emergency systems historic data can be tracked.
Advanced Testing Programs
Due to the importance of these emergency assets several different tests should be considered to ensure the suitability of the fuel. Testing should include:
- Cold-Flow properties using Pour Point, Cold Filter plugging Point, Cloud Point
- Water content for moisture
- BYF for Microbial testing
- Acid Number for corrosion tendencies
- FAME for biofuels content
- Sulphur for MARPOL Annex VI compliance
- Visual Appearance
- Viscosity for flow properties
- Density
- Flash Point for SOLAS compliance
- Cetane Index
Conclusion
It is possible to avoid engine failures, but this can only be achieved with a well-documented and well-followed operating procedure. Regular fuel sampling and testing along with general good housekeeping techniques will ensure these units are ready go when they are most needed. Once they are seen as an active safety-critical asset rather than a dormant emergency component the value in this process will be realized.
Lifeboat fuel quality is not a housekeeping detail, it is a Safety of Life at Sea issue. Emergency craft must be capable of starting manoeuvring and operating for the required duration whenever called upon. Sub-standard, degraded, contaminated, or unsuitable fuel can compromise that capability and turn an emergency response into a secondary emergency. Regular testing, correct fuel choice, controlled storage and documented fuel management provide the evidence and assurance that lifeboats remain ready when lives depend on them.
Photo credit: VPS
Published: 14 July, 2026
Bunker Fuel Quality
VPS: High bunker prices meet declining fuel quality
Of the current 29 Bunker Alerts issued by VPS from January to July 2026, the combination of abrasive issues due to elevated cat-fines, plus fuel stability issues, account for 72% of these alerts.
Steve Bee, Group Marketing and Strategic Projects Director of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Monday (24 August) reviewed 2026 marine fossil fuel quality to date and the high number of issues being witnessed:
Marine fuel buyers entered 2026 facing a perfect storm, suffering some of the highest bunker prices ever experienced, paired with a sharp and concerning decline in fuel quality. Across the traditional marine fossil fuel supply chain, VPS has seen a marked rise in fuel quality issues, with the Middle East conflict playing a major role in driving both price volatility and quality deterioration. For ship owners/operators, the message is clear, today’s fuel market is not only more expensive, it is also becoming more complex and unpredictable, with a higher degree of operational risk.
This deterioration is already showing itself in the test data VPS have produced. Between January and July 2026, VPS issued 29 Bunker Alerts, more than the total issued across the whole of 2024 and already closing in on the 37 alerts recorded throughout all of 2025. In just seven months of 2026, the scale and frequency of these alerts underline a clear, accelerating rise in fuel quality problems across the industry. Of the current 29 Bunker Alerts issued so far, Jan-Jul 2026, the combination of abrasive issues due to elevated cat-fines, plus fuel stability issues, account for 72% of these alerts. The ports requiring cat-fines and/or stability-related bunker alerts were, ARA, Balboa, Busan, Callao, Hamburg, Houston, Las Palmas, Philadelphia, Piraeus, Rotterdam, San Roque, Singapore and Valencia.
What is of additional interest is that marine gas oil does not account for a single Bunker Alert so far in 2026. It is HSFO and VLSFO dominating the fuels requiring such warnings.
Looking at the rate of off-specifications across each of the main marine fossil fuel types, HSFO is currently running at 8.87% of samples tested, being off-specification for at least one ISO8217 test parameter, whilst VLSFO has 9.88% off-specification level, MGO has 9.03% and ULSFOs is at 19.58%. ISO 8217 provides specification requirements for marine fuel as delivered to the ship. From a commercial perspective the fuel is only required to meet the specification at the point of custody transfer, ie at the ship’s manifold. However, compliance at this point, is not a guarantee of assurance that the fuel can be used without operational difficulties throughout its onboard lifecycle. This includes, how the fuel is stored, treat and consumed in main engines, generator engines, boilers, or other machinery. The condition of the fuel which ultimately reaches the machinery, is also strongly influenced by onboard fuel management, including storage and settling temperatures, settling time, purification temperature and throughput, purifier configuration and desludging arrangements, filtration, maintenance of the correct injection viscosity and other operational factors.
This is why knowing the characteristics of the bunkered fuel is critical to managing it correctly onboard. Appropriate testing can identify characteristics which, although not necessarily resulting in an ISO 8217 specification failure, may warrant additional operational attention. VPS therefore evaluates bunker fuels not only against the applicable specification requirements, but also provides operational advice where analytical findings indicate that additional precautions may be appropriate during storage, treatment or consumption.
VPS testing and observations, based on over 45 years of marine fuel testing experience and expertise, strongly align with a recent Linkedin post by marine and energy consultants, Brookes Bell. Their post highlighted a growing concern within the industry, stating a P&I Club had reported that bunker-related claims are up 50% this year, with many of the fuels involved having technically passed ISO8217 standard specification testing.
The same post noted that some ISO8217-compliant fuels have still caused operational damage. This has left shipowners to manage complex evidentiary disputes after problems arose. Its key warning was clear: Standard compliance testing alone isn’t catching the problem. If “passing spec” is not necessarily the same as being “safe-to-burn”, then the critical question becomes, “What additional testing is needed to identify the real operational risks?”
VPS have recognised that for some time, the ISO8217 standard is not an all-encompassing set of tests providing the highest level of asset, crew and environmental protection. For this reason, VPS offer a range of additional tests, as well as our Additional Protection Service (APS) test bundles. For example in the case of avoiding damages from cat-fines, the Fuel System Check (FSC) service, can provide valuable information in regard to monitoring purifier efficiency and the removal of cat-fines, protecting the engine to a higher degree. Whereas, Separability Number testing, is a key compliment to the hot filtration stability tests of TSP, TSA and TSE in mitigating stability risks. Should additional cold-flow information be required, the VPS proprietary Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT) testing provides key storage and fuel transfer temperature information. Whilst the VPS chemical screening services can identify potentially harmful chemicals within a fuel before the fuel is burnt. Then more detailed Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) forensic analysis provides key information to potentially support the fuel claims process.
VPS account managers and technical specialists can help shipowners and operators determine which laboratory tests are most appropriate for their fleet, based on the fuel characteristics, vessel operations and potential risk exposure. This guidance can support the mitigation of risks linked to engine damage, SOLAS compliance, legislative requirements and wider operational reliability.
The VPS Technical Advisory Team reviews bunker analysis results together with the vessel operational observations to provide practical advice on fuel storage, handling, purification and overall fuel management. Where appropriate, additional laboratory tests, or test bundles, may be recommended to further evaluate the fuel and assist in identifying the cause of an operational issue, supporting more informed decision-making.
VPS continues to monitor regional and global fuel quality trends through its laboratory network and customer feedback. Information received from vessels experiencing similar operational issues is valuable in helping VPS identify emerging trends and provide timely technical guidance to the wider shipping industry.
Photo credit: VPS
Published: 25 August, 2026
Bunker Alerts
Low flashpoint found in Indonesia bunker fuels, alerts Maritec-Naias
Firm tested eight bunker samples representing LSMDO and B40 fuel grade from vessels that took fuel oil /bunkered in Indonesia ports, which indicated flashpoints as low as 39.5°C.
Bunker Alerts
Maritec-Naias: High levels of Phenolic compounds in China bunker fuels
Firm tested multiple fuel oil bunker samples from vessels that took fuel/bunkered in China ports from 7 June to 28 July, which indicated the presence of high levels of Phenolic compounds.
OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS
Singapore: Notices of annual meeting issued for Vroon Shipping Asia and related firms
Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol
DNV report: Regulatory uncertainty demands fleet strategies built for multiple futures
Green fuel bunkering part of Australia’s maritime emissions plan
NAPA: Why operational efficiency remains shipping’s golden ticket
Baltic Exchange: Bunker Report (27 August 2026)
ENGINE: Americas Fuel Availability Outlook (27 August 2026)
Singapore-flagged tugboat “Kim Heng 3203” placed under Sheriff’s arrest
Singapore bunkering community supports Living Hope Evangelism’s 7th anniversary outreach for residents in need
US targets five bunker companies in latest sanctions campaign against Iran
China: CIMC Enric and Sinopec to team up on LNG, methanol bunker fuels in new deal
Olam Agri, Vitol Bunkers wrap up co-processed VLSFO bio-bunkering operation in Singapore
Alkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August
Azane signs ammonia bunkering deal with Equinor, first deliveries due in H2 2026
-
Vessel Arrest3 days agoSingapore-flagged tugboat “Kim Heng 3203” placed under Sheriff’s arrest
-
Events6 days agoSingapore bunkering community supports Living Hope Evangelism’s 7th anniversary outreach for residents in need
-
Sanctions4 days agoUS targets five bunker companies in latest sanctions campaign against Iran
-
Alternative Fuels1 week agoChina: CIMC Enric and Sinopec to team up on LNG, methanol bunker fuels in new deal
-
Alternative Fuels1 week agoOlam Agri, Vitol Bunkers wrap up co-processed VLSFO bio-bunkering operation in Singapore
-
Bunker Fuel2 weeks agoAlkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August
-
Ammonia1 week agoAzane signs ammonia bunkering deal with Equinor, first deliveries due in H2 2026
-
Methanol3 days agoNingbo-Zhoushan Port completes Zhejiang’s largest single-ship green methanol bunkering op