As the issues with contaminated bunker supplies in the Houston area seem to acquire a global dimension, the Standard P&I Club published loss prevention advice informing that this issue is related to over 150 claims worldwide, including a ship grounding directly attributed to the use of these contaminated bunkers. This follows INTERTANKO’s Critical Review, released in late August, which raised concerns about contaminated marine fuels and the lack of any response by authorities over the last five months.
The main contaminants are phenol and styrene which cannot be identified from standard tests on the bunker sample under ISO 8217, with samples being confirmed as ‘in specification’ despite phenols and styrene contaminants being present. Multidimensional Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) testing is required to identify and quantify these types of contaminants, but has to be requested as an additional set of tests, explain Andrew Russ, Marine Surveyor, and Yves Vandenborn, Director of Loss Prevention at the Club.
The nature of these particular contaminants leads to very sticky, waxy like deposits which have actually resulted in main and auxiliary engines’ fuel pumps seizing, in addition to blocked heaters, purifiers, filters and excessive sludge build up.
Testing
According to Standard, GCMS is not a standard testing procedure, and there are only a few laboratories with the necessary equipment to conduct these tests. This also includes those of the larger fuel oil testing laboratories.
Normal testing period for GCMS ranges from 5 to 15 days depending on the type of contaminant present as well as the type of tests carried out, as GCMS testing is currently not uniform amongst the various fuel oil testing laboratories.
Unfortunately from our research so far, the larger (well known) fuel testing companies in the Houston area have been overwhelmed with sample testing requests resulting in delays of up to 4 to 5 weeks for GCMS, although this period can be reduced to 10 to 15 days when using laboratories in Singapore and the Middle East, due to current low demand.
Additional costs involved for GCMS testing are estimated in excess of $1,000 per sample. Due to this prolonged period awaiting GCMS analysis results, the opportunity to raise a claim for bunker quality issues could be lost as a result of the time bar on such disputes which usually ranges between 2 to 4 weeks after delivery.
Members should familiarise themselves with these time bar periods and take all possible steps to address quality issues under the applicable contract. However, when quality issues are identified outside these time bars there may still be alternative ways to tackle these problems and members are encouraged to contact the club to discuss their options.
Recommendations
Considering the current limitations in respect to GCMS testing, the Standard Club recommends that operators be proactive and implement best practices in line with procedures, to limit their exposure to receiving contaminated bunkers. Namely:
- Contact the manufacturers of your engines and purifiers and request advice on what limitations exist concerning fuel quality for safe, normal operation of their equipment.
- Ensure good bunker management is in place across the fleet.
- Only use known, reputable suppliers and insist that charterers do the same (understood this may be difficult depending on terms & conditions of charter party).
- Check historical records of bunker suppliers with fuel testing laboratories and identify any previous quality issues.
- Samples should be sent for laboratory analysis immediately upon completion of bunkering operations.
- Ensure bunkers are segregated with no comingling taking place during loading.
- Do not consume new bunkers until the analysis report has been received
If contaminated bunkers are identified as having been delivered onboard, owners and charterers need to cooperate to find the most practical resolution to the issue:
- If possible, bunkers should be chemically treated (if possible) to bring them back within specification, by the use of additives.
- Both owners and charterers will need to ensure that there is alternative fuel supply available onboard to consume during the interim period whilst looking for the best option to remove/offload the affected bunkers ashore.
- Consideration should be given to ensure that adequate cleaning is undertaken of any tanks or pipelines that held the contaminated bunkers prior to discharge to ensure that there is no cross-contamination of future stemmed bunkers.
