Chloride containments in HSFO bunkered in the Port of Singapore were only found with enhanced testing
Contamination to a significant quantity of high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) bunkered in the Port of Singapore in February and March has highlighted the possibility of expanded testing for chlorides.
Two suppliers sold the HFSO at the port between mid-February and mid-March. The first signs of the contamination emerged in an alert issued by Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS) on 11 March, reporting high levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons in fuel samples of HSFO deliveries from Singapore. VPS said the fuel deliveries from different suppliers met ISO 8217 requirements, and the contamination was only found during enhanced testing – Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometer (GC-MS) revealed chlorinated hydrocarbons and organic chlorides (COCs). ISO 8217 does not test for COCs, which are unusual to find in such high concentrations in bunker fuel.
Gard, which insures about 18,000 ships, said some of its insured vessels have reported operational issues that may be the result of contaminated fuels, including blackouts, loss of propulsion, high exhaust temperature deviation and excessive sludging in the fuel system.
Meanwhile, The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) is trying to alleviate industry fears that the incident could lead to a similar situation that took place in 2018, when bunker fuel issues that began in Houston spread to other regions. An investigation by the port authority revealed the HSFO was sold by Glencore Singapore and PetroChina International (Singapore) to about 200 ships. Of these, about 80 ships reported various issues with their fuel pumps and engines.
In response to the contamination, MPA said it is “in discussions with the industry on implementing additional fuel quality checks that would screen for unacceptable chemicals.”
MPA also intends to submit a paper on COC contamination of bunker fuels to IMO as an awareness-building measure.
“If quantities are not being properly tracked, if the industry is not transparent, if the emissions are not transparent, it’s a problem”
In response to the incident, The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) suggested the possibility of other tests being employed to find the presence of chlorides where “there is reason to suspect that there is a risk of chloride contamination.”
IBIA noted: “At present, that could be HSFO bunkered in Singapore during February and March from the suppliers/barges affected. As MPA says it has informed all the ships that received these fuels, those should be known.”
Bunker market examined
Bunker contamination was one of the topics tackled at a panel session at CMA Shipping 2022 in Stamford, Connecticut, held at the end of March. A veteran of the bunkering market, Blue Insight director Adrian Tolson, led a panel on ‘The Current State of the Bunkering Market’. In opening the session, Mr Tolson highlighted monthly data showing Panama bunker demand over the last two years, indicating an increasing market share for HFSO.
Panama, one of the largest bunkering hubs in the Americas, has average bunkering demand of about 400,000 metric tonnes for HSFO, very-low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) and marine gasoil (MGO). Post-2020, Mr Tolson said: “High-sulphur fuel oil has become a much more significant portion of bunker demand globally, and without a doubt, a more significant portion within Panama itself.”
Mr Tolson also pointed to “an increased amount of pressure” from regulators, suppliers, banks, insurers, shippers and the general public in an effort to increase transparency in shipping. This, he noted, was tied to ESG and decarbonisation concerns, but will require more openness from the bunkering industry. “If you have to measure greenhouse gas emissions, you have to know how much fuel goes on a ship and how much is consumed. Ultimately, if quantities are not being properly tracked, if the industry is not transparent, if the emissions are not transparent on the ship, it’s a problem.”
To support transparency in the bunker industry and to minimise scope for malpractice and reduce disputes over the quantity and quality of fuels supplied to ships, in February IBIA and BIMCO launched a survey on licencing and the introduction of mass flow meters at bunker hubs around the world.
Panel member IBIA director Unni Einemo said the switchover from 3.5% to 0.50% bunker fuel to comply with IMO 2020 “was the biggest energy transition the bunker industry has ever experienced.” This was followed by Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, she said. “Beyond the human tragedy,” Ms Einemo said, the invasion has “caused oil prices to spike to new records.” She added: “Russian oil products find their way to almost every corner of the globe, so it’s a pretty big deal when we are trying to limit our dependence on Russian oil and Russian oil products.”
While admitting this would be challenging, Ms Einemo said the situation offered “a unique opportunity,” noting it was not desirable to depend on oil and fossil fuels from countries like Russia. “Is this the opportunity to look at the next big energy transition ahead of us? Is it time to wean ourselves off oil?” she said.
“ISO 8217 does not test for COCs, which are unusual to find in such high concentrations in bunker fuel”
Such big energy transitions can only take place with clear deadlines. Drawing on lessons learned from compliance with the IMO 2020 0.50% sulphur cap, she said that while there was much concern and scepticism around VLSFO and the ability of the industry to comply with the IMO 2020 deadline, the maritime industry “did a pretty good job of it.” IMO 2020 “stimulated innovation on the refinery side, blending and [the] uptake of scrubbers,” she said.
“At the end of the day, price is more important than the fear of the unknown. Change happens when change is needed,” she concluded.
Bureau Veritas global service line business development manager Rob Leventhal said there were “initial hiccups” with the VLSFO blends in January 2020. “We saw 11-12% of the samples coming in exceeding the spec limit, with about 4% off spec,” he said. He noted, based on VeriFuel data, that this has steadily declined, with 2.2% of bunkers off spec in Q1 2021 and 1.5% in Q1 2022. Sulphur content levels have averaged 0.45 to 0.46%. Mr Leventhal said that, initially, sediments were a big issue and noted: “We still see some sediment issues. Sediment can be a stability issue, or once [the fuel] is delivered on ship, a capability issue.” He said this depends on how well the crew isolated the VLSFO from previous bunker operations.
© 2023 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.