Irene K. Notias
Bunkering today: Sulphur Verification and Standards
by Irene K. Notias, Managing Director, Prime’s Bunkerplus Services
“Let’s talk about sulphur verification” was the main theme at IBIA members meeting today, Thursday, August 13, 2020.
Forty-five representatives from the bunker industry and three bunker buyers met on-line to share experiences so far, regarding the IMO imposed new compliant fuel, VLSFO 0.50% implementation and product quality.
Most of us who buy (shipping firms) or sell (brokers & trading firms) and/or deliver (physical suppliers) bunker fuel have similar experiences of inconsistencies in the delivery, sampling and testing methods concerning this new fuel, adding to everyone’s stress levels.
The problem is non-cohesive planning from the IMO side, to bring together the bunker industry with the rest of the participants like owners, port authorities, legal and P&I clubs so that there is uniform means and ways.
Instead every entity has been left to make do on its own inclination because there are no accepted and binding standard sampling and testing methods. The P&I clubs and flag states with vessels interests in mind miss the logistics of the supplier who is delivering and experiences equal to his customer’s inconsistencies and burdens. Since we are all in this together, we must see that we need to align and agree on standards going forward.
For the sake of cleaner air, though, we must clear the air.
We must put some things in right order and in logical perspective.
Another problem as told by a senior bunker industry professional is that the IMO being just a regulatory entity mandates by using phrases like “should” instead of “shall”. This allows for non-compliance according to misinterpretations and costly choices made by the various world-wide port state controls and flag states. Hence, losses, discrepancies and gaps for our seagoing vessels which affect performance in the long run.
Globally, 95% of the new fuel is on spec while about 2% is totally off spec and 3% is not accounted for according to a recent study by a reputable firm which due to Chatham House rules of our meetings we cannot disclose in any article.
As a bunker brokerage firm, we were lucky so far and only saw two off spec VLSFO 0.50% claims. Both were very difficult to solve because the supplier and the buyer did not agree on the testing methods. The supplier did not accept the GC/MS Chromatography results which found dangerous chemicals in the fuel and no one knew how to treat this. The vessel put the supplier on notice and reserved its rights for future engine damage, but the supplier said he is not responsible after 15 day time bar and offered some handling solutions like using additives.
If you think about it the fuel testing agencies are limited to the one litre samples and yet the fuel in the tank is over 100 mts to 1000 mts. Although they have sophisticated analysis techniques, the markets do not accept them jointly.
“Despite all the reports presenting results of GC-MS and FTIR techniques, no standard has been achieved by the industry; neither on industry standardization for test methodology (except for ASTM D7845), on limits for detected parameters, nor on harmfulness of specific components and at which concentration.
Without standardization or data/knowledge sharing, no chemical species can be expected in coming ISO 8217 revisions, “states Peter J.M. Meeusen in IBIA’s WORLD BUNKERING magazine page 25, Summer 2020 edition”.
IBIA is trying to align all the participants including the P&I Clubs and legal firms by educating, training and informing accurately as possible in this mass info era. Technical departments from the procurement side must educate themselves and follow the instructions sheets.
I believe that we must implement the Singapore CPC 60 delivery method worldwide and BIMCO must define much more acutely the terms and conditions to fit both party’s needs, especially the customers. After all, without customers, there would be no suppliers.
