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, argues Steve Bee, Group Commercial Director, VPS.
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:
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.
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:
- Implement robust onboard fuel and lubrication oil management systems
- Carry out dip sampling when bunkering. Avoid consuming the fuel until analysis results are available
- In addition to onboard testing of lubrication oil, submit samples for laboratory analysis at regular intervials, at least every third month
- At regular intervals, carry out system checks of purifiers and filters for both fuel and lubrication oil systems
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 views presented are only those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SAFETY4SEA and are for information sharing and discussion purposes only.
