Bad Bunkers: What Can be Done to Protect a Shipowner's / Charterer's Fleet?

Alex Tang , Director, Sales & Marketing. Image Credit: Petro Inspect

In the wake of the recent spate of "bad bunkers" being delivered in major ports such as Houston, Panama and Singapore, owners/charterers are obviously worried about engine damage. Vessels have reported various operation and equipment problems like fuel pump damage and excessive filter blocking or sludging after or during using the fuel, and not to mention substantial off-hire and downtime for de-bunkering.

Here, I will look at some of the key issues and along with loss mitigation strategies for owners/operators.

Firstly, Petro Inspect is offering its clients a practical approach in dealing with this contamination and help identify the "fit for purpose fuel", rather than following the traditional fuel testing methods that WILL NOT identify contaminants at molecular level.

Only GCMS analysis would show phenolics compound, styrene and indene chemical contaminants.

Because of serious wait time up to 2-3 weeks in getting the analysis results for GCMS tests, Petro Inspect has partnered with major laboratories in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Singapore in providing a one-stop solution in deterring contaminated fuel from being bunkered onboard the vessel in the first place by offering "pre-testing" of bunker fuel at the source of loading from the refinery onto the barge. Here, the Petro Inspect surveyor will draw a representative sample from the designated bunker barge tanks and seal it.

While this may not be an ideal scenario for many due to time constraints and reluctance of suppliers to go the extra mile, we provide alternative methods of fuel testing, essentially mitigating losses that would have been brought about by consuming contaminated bunkers.

The turn-around time for such results is less than a week (two working days for sample delivery and 2 working days for analysis) and at almost half the cost which other major labs are charging (obviously taking advantage of the prevailing situation).

Post recommendations in dealing with contaminated fuels:

• Some suppliers/ traders have been trying to sell bunkers below the current market price, to essentially 'use up the current contaminated stock' as soon as possible and discount is between USD$5 to USD$8 per MT. Do not let this fool you as should the contaminated bunkers make their way into the engines, the damage in terms of monetary value could far outweigh what you would have paid for in bunkers at the discounted price.
• Some physical suppliers have been "removing" Clause 5 of some standard bunker sales contract which could limit shipowners/ fuel buyers' ability to claim damages in future since they have commercially agreed to take on "potentially" contaminated fuels. This is because as long as the full ISO ISO8217:2005/2010/2012 are on specification as tested, further forensic analysis like GCMS/ FTIR which are not part of ISO8217:2005/2010/2012, if found any chemical contaminants that would be harmful to the engine or operation, the claim will probably deem invalid. Clause 5 of ISO8217:2017 states the product "shall be free from any material at a concentration that causes the fuel to be unacceptable for use" together with other considerations.
• Understand the industry quality claim time is 15 days or less, it should be reviewed to provide a longer quality claim timeline to 30 days which should be we sufficient time to test the bunkers before usage.
• In a typical fuel analysis, carry out Routine ISO 8217:2005/2012/2017 for every bunkering + GCMS screening+ FTIR and TAN (total acid number) which is crucial in determining the presence of any chemical contaminants
• In the event that the above tests prove positive for any chemical contaminants, we recommend for a more detailed GCMS as per ASTM D7845 for the chemicals quantifications. Lots of large marine fuel testing agencies each have their own testing methodology which in theory cannot be replicated and agreed upon internationally as the recognized test method, but having said that, we would still recommend to go by ASTM D7845 method as reference.

By this pro-active approach, our clients are saving thousands of dollars in unnecessary expensive fuel testing cost / claims and benefit from our inclusive consultation and advisory reports.