1. Bunkers: Qualifying Quality
A supplier's view of what really happens
John Stirling – World Fuel Services
Quality Manager
June, 2014

2. World Fuel Services Corporation
2013 Revenue $41.6 billion
Market capitalization $3.28 billion
Stock symbol NYSE: INT
Fortune 500 Ranking*
Global headquarters Miami, Florida, USA
Founded
Number of employees** 2,500
All figures, except employee count, are as of 12/31/12
* Source: Fortune 500 Ranking Issue Date May 6, 2013
** As of February 2013

3. Global Presence with Over 60 Offices
Miami
London
Singapore
Afghanistan
Australia
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Denmark
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece
Hong Kong
India
Japan
Kyrgyzstan
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Taiwan
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States 3

4. WFS is #1 in market with 10% share
WFS Manages the Largest Bunker Volume
WFS is #1 in market with 10% share
Million MT

5. Marine Technical – who are we?
Five professionals with broad technical knowledge and marine educational backgrounds
About 180 years experience
marine fuel and lubrication quality
bunker fuel testing
ship machinery and hull Inspection
new ship construction
project management
marine consulting
shipboard engineering
marine engine design and construction
Bob Thornton
Dennis Eley
John Stirling

6. Marine Technical Sea experience Members of
Multiple types of diesel and steam vessels
Members of
ISO 8217 Marine Fuel Specifications Working Group
ISO Bunkering Protocol Working Group
CIMAC Heavy Fuels Working Group
IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee
IBIA Board (International Bunker Industry Association)
Immediate past
Gajanan Pawar
Manuel Vinas

7. Technical Issues Facing the Industry
Frequency of fuel claims
Quantity disputes both higher in number & Mt
Related to high price of fuel
Quality claims more complex – FTIR / GCMS
Influence of the testing services

8. Technical Issues Facing the Industry
Environmental Legislation
Proliferation of ECAs
Rules and enforcement not uniform
2015 – Max 0.1% sulfur in an ECA
2020 – Max 0.5% sulfur global
Scrubbers vs using LSGO or 0.5% LSFO if available
Is LNG really the future?

9. Technical Issues Facing the Industry
Changing fuel quality
Suppliers blending to meet legislation v.s. spec
Law of unintended consequences

10. Typical concerns Quantity disputes Use of surveyors
Barge vs ship figures
Cappuccino – real or an excuse for sleeve oil
Vnet
Quality claims
Sulfur test accuracy
MARPOL vs Commercial testing
Study of “normal” bunkers
Debunkering may no longer be possible
Using what’s on board
Sulfur legislation
Revision of the EU Sulphur Directive
North American ECA : U.S. & Canada
Reports of detentions & fines in Europe & USA

11. Additional worries Fuel quality Is it really getting worse?
ISO 8217: 2005 vs 2010 vs 2012 vs Future
Blending to meet LSFO with MGO
Cost to meet sulfur specs with 95% & 99% certainty
Responsibility of the vessel to clean the fuel
Future availability – an educated guess
Sampling
MARPOL vs Commercial samples
Why suppliers insist on sampling on the barge
Why Owners want it on the vessel
What we’ve seen
Contractual requirements
Supplier’s terms of sale
Charter party clauses

12. WFS Bunker Claims

13. Split of Registered Claims - 2013

14. WFS Quality Claims
98.5% of products (MGO & IFO) delivered by WFS are free of claims
Of the 1.5% having a claim, only 32% relate to quality
Quality Claims = 32% of 1.5% or less than 0.5% of WFS deliveries
WFS claims results are 50x lower than the 25% off-spec test results cited by some test labs
Some off spec not claimed?
Frequently the contractual sample is subsequently tested and found to be on-spec
Pay attention to the T&C sample!
Since some WFS quality claims relate to experience from vessels, not lab results, the difference is even higher
Are we that good or is there some explanation for the extreme difference?

15. But first – Since perception becomes truth
Ask Anything!
But first – Since perception becomes truth
Is the quality of bunkers really getting worse?
Are Catfines increasing dramatically as claimed by many?

16. Are Bunkers Getting Worse?
Courtesy of DNVPS

17. Focusing on Al+Si
Courtesy of DNVPS
1717

18. A Dramatic Increase or?
Data - courtesy of DnVPS

19. An Accurate Depiction
Data - courtesy of DnVPS

20. Use of Truncated Graphs
ISO 2005
ISO 2010/2012
Note that both of these graphs display identical data; however, in the truncated bar graph on the left, the data appear to show significant differences, whereas in the regular bar graph on the right, these differences are hardly visible.
Data - courtesy of DnVPS

21. It’s not always the fuel

22. GC-MS Analysis

23. Quality – What’s in Bunkers

24. Would you use this? Sulphate SO4 - 534.6 mg/kg (ppm)
Calcium Ca mg/kg (ppm)
Chloride Cl mg/kg (ppm)
Magnesium Mg mg/kg (ppm)
Sodium Na mg/kg (ppm)
Potassium K mg/kg (ppm)

25. San Pellegrino Mineral Water

26. San Pellegrino Mineral Water
Sulphate
Bicarbonate
Calcium
Chloride
Magnesium
Sodium
Silica Residue
Strontium
Potassium
Borates
Nitrate
Fluoride
Bromide
Lithium
SO4 –
HCO3 –
Ca++
Cl –
Mg++
Na+
SiO2
Sr++ K+
H3BO3
NO3 –
F –
Br –
Li+
534.6 mg/kg (ppm)
222.7 mg/kg (ppm)
208.0 mg/kg (ppm)
68.0 mg/kg (ppm)
53.5 mg/kg (ppm)
42.0 mg/kg (ppm)
9.4 mg/kg (ppm)
3.5 mg/kg (ppm)
2.8 mg/kg (ppm)
1.2 mg/kg (ppm)
0.77 mg/kg (ppm)
0.61 mg/kg (ppm)
0.40 mg/kg (ppm)
0.18 mg/kg (ppm)

27. THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMBUSTION ENGINES
CIMAC is a worldwide non-profit association consisting of National Member Associations, National Member Groups and Corporate Members in 26 countries in America, Asia and Europe.
CIMAC covers diesel and gas engines and gas turbines which are used for power generation, marine propulsion and locomotives.
Worldwide members include engine manufacturers, engine users such as ship owners, component suppliers, fuel and lubricant companies, research organisations, classification societies, universities and other interested bodies.

28. CIMAC WG7 - Fuels Who we are
• Engine manufacturers • Handling equipment manufacturers
• Ship owners • Fuel analyst institutes
• Classification societies • Fuel additive suppliers
• Fuel suppliers
What we do Prepare recommendations for:
• LSFO quality & operation • Bio fuels considerations
• Combustion properties • Follow fuel quality worldwide
• Fuel grade rationalization • Investigate different fuel compositions
Who we work with We are a working group of experienced specialists within marine fuels, represented by the major players, and our goal is to prepare recommendations and make tools for the industry on how to operate on fuel, and choose fuels that will ensure safe operation of the diesel engines. Many CIMAC WG7 members also participate in ISO 8217 TC28/SC4/WG6 Marine Fuels

29. CIMAC - Guide on Sulphur Testing
International Bunker Conference
April 3 & 4, 2014
Copenhagen

30. Interpreting a test result in accord with ISO 4259
For the supplier, with a single test result
In the case of a maximum specification limit, the specification limit has been met, with 95% confidence, if the test result is less than or equal to the specification limit minus 0.59R.  
However, it is further given that this is for the guidance of the supplier, not an obligation, and that a value between the specification limit and the limit minus 0.59R is not proof that that the specification has not been met.  
For the recipient, with a single test result
In the case of a maximum specification limit, the specification limit has not been met, with 95% confidence, if the test result is greater than the specification limit plus 0.59R. 
This means that the recipient with a single test result with a value above the specification limit but below the ‘limit plus 0.59R’ cannot claim that the specification has not been met and consequently has to accept that the product met the specification.

31. The implications of ISO 4259 interpretations
The Supplier
If a supplier intends to meet a particular maximum specified limit, they should target a value at or below the specified limit.
If the supplier blended the fuel such that the ‘true value’ was equal to the specified limit then there would be as many test results above the specified limit as there were below that limit (50/50)
Therefore, despite all the care taken, there remains a slight chance that the result variation will be outside this ‘0.59R’ margin.
The supplier has to accept the risk that any test result obtained by the supplier which exceeds the specified limit indicates that the product has not met that specification limit
The Recipient
The recipient can only consider that a maximum specified limit value has been exceeded if their test result exceeds the limit plus ‘0.59R’.
There is the same chance that a result which indicated that the limit plus ‘0.59R’ had been exceeded is not supported by subsequent analysis.
Such is the reality of fuel oil testing.

32. ISO 4259 Clear and unambiguous
Since all fuel oil testing is subject to inherent variations, in commercial practice, the assessment of fuel oils as supplied is governed by the provisions of ISO 4259.
This in essence requires that the supplier must not obtain a test result over the required specification limit value
In contrast the receiver cannot consider a product out of specification unless it exceeds that value by more than the 95% confidence limit which, for a single test result, is given by the reproducibility of the test method multiplied by 0.59 (0.59R)
This statistically based process, gives a clear and unambiguous finding with the necessary margin to allow for the reality of variations in test results.

33. The implications of ISO 4259 interpretations

34. Enforcement? Enforcement is inconsistent – confusing
Different from country to country and even port to port
Bunkerworld 12th June 2014 11:11 GMT

35. Enforcement?

36. Rotterdam in the forefront….EMSA and Europe
“Follow Rotterdam model”

37. US? Chamber of Shipping America advice

38. A final distillate slide...

39. CP/CFPP/PP CP CFPP PP Cloud point
Temperature at which dissolved particles precipitate and form a cloudy appearance
CFPP
Cold filter plugging point
Lowest temperature at which the fuel will pass through a filter under specified conditions PP
Pour point
Lowest temperature at which the fuel will flow
Courtesy of DNV Petroleum Services

40. Distillates are all very different.....
Courtesy of DNV Petroleum Services

41. Cloud Point (CP)/Pour Point (PP)
Measured using the ASTM D-2500/ISO 3015 test method.
Generally, each diesel fuel supplier sets their own cloud point maximums which may vary seasonally.
Definition : PP
Pour point is measured using ASTM D-97/ISO 3016 test method.
Fuel suppliers typically set pour point specifications seasonally.
It may not be possible to re-liquify a fuel that has gone solid
Fuel must be kept in storage at 5 centigrade degrees above its pour point at all times to reduce the risk of solidification.

42. Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP)
Definition : CFPP
The Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP) is the temperature at which a fuel will plug a 45-micron screen under prescribed test conditions.
CFPP is measured using European Test Method IP 309, and is currently the most commonly used cold-weather operability indicator.
Although widely used, CFPP has its limitations.
(CFPP) Reduction
The CFPP of a typical diesel fuel can be reduced by the addition of kerosene.
The maximum blending volume is limited by the effect kerosene will have
on specific physical and performance properties of the diesel fuel (eg flash, visc) As a general rule the diesel fuel CFPP can be reduced by about 10 C to 20 C for each 10% of added kerosine.
Geographically specific
Hot and cold climates
Arctic

43. Land Based? EN 590

44. What can the challenges look like...

45. Now you can ask anything!
Hopefully!