Bunkers: Trust and certainty is needed

This week I am focusing on Intertanko’s detailed review of contaminated fuel that it has tracked since late May that it says were initially supplied in the Houston area of the US. We published a news item about it and you can read Intertanko’s report here.

Intertanko focused on a current problem, but it opens up a much wider concern about bunker deliveries. I can fill my car with fuel without having to worry about whether I am getting the quantity and quality displayed on the pump yet shipowners start from a position of mistrust about one of their biggest costs.

The organisation does not point its finger at particular suppliers, saying that “one can only speculate at this stage the root cause of these contaminated fuels”, but it tracked incidents across the Caribbean and then to Singapore and Malaysia.

Its report is dated 7 August. Three days later, it posted a note on its website, addressed to members, saying that it had been informed that very day of a fresh case “where fuel oils bunkered in Hong Kong were found to contain components not normally found in marine fuels”. So that is another region to add to its list. By now, there may be more.

There seems to be no doubt, then, that this is a real and current problem that is spreading.

My initial reaction to the report was: why now? For as long as I have been writing about shipping, bunker quality has been a contentious topic. Water content, volume discrepancies, automotive oil and other contaminants have cropped up regularly over the years. And there are standards to be met and tests that can be done that have been set and developed over the years.

What makes this different is that this fuel passes the test for compliance with ISO-F-RMG 380 grade. As Intertanko put it in its report, “standard fuel oil test methods have failed to detect contaminants.” The first sign of trouble is when fuel filters become blocked.

Intertanko’s report protests about a “lack of investigation into such a serious breach of safety norms”, saying that ‘authorities’ seem to be “failing to appreciate or understand the high risks that these events are exposing ships (and their crew) to and the potentially (sic) environmental consequences that could arise as a result of ships left without power.”

It quotes one of its members affected by the problem, who had said that industry must “voice its deep concerns on this most likely criminal act … and start to provoke a mindset change on the side of the bunker industry people”.

I share that view. It is unacceptable that dangerous contaminants can be added to fuel with little or no risk of prosecution.

To its credit, the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) issued a note about this in June, which it updated on 31 July. Although it took a defensive stance, saying that the problems might “stem from cross-contamination due to a new product cargo being loaded into multi-purpose storage tanks that were not sufficiently emptied and cleared”, it committed to “develop a proposal to form a working group … to address the current issue and the potential solutions”.

That is too vague. IBIA should be definite that there will be a working group and that its terms of reference will include naming names and cooperating with law enforcement investigators to explore whether criminal activity has taken place.

For too long worries about bunker quality and disputes over deliveries have been part of a ship manager’s everyday job. That must stop. With 2020 just months away, bunker suppliers must ensure that quality fuels are available worldwide, delivered to a standard that shipowners can trust.

Source: Marine Propulsion