Despite the existence of internationally recognised supply specifications, fierce competition between suppliers may mean that the gap between high and low quality product supplies may well widen in the future.
Majors and quality.
You may have a more sceptical view of this and say: "Quality suppliers also need to have a viable business." Of course, quality suppliers also prefer their marine activities to be part of a viable and healthy marine company. So why wouldn't they save costs in the same way as others when margins are getting thinner and thinner?
Simply because they cannot afford to. They need to protect their brand and will therefore not compromise on quality and reliability. More importantly there are other ways to make a marine business healthy and at the same time make the customers more satisfied, without making cost savings on quality.
In addition to the traditional offer to customers of high quality marine fuels in all the ports where the customers requires bunkers, the marine companies of the future should expand their range of services. To a certain extent some marine suppliers are already making steps towards a more comprehensive offer. Today there are suppliers who offer:
・risk management products like hedging and swaps
・contracting out of bunker purchasing
・the provision of information on prices, fuels consumption levels and service levels
・ship management
But this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what it takes to provide a customer with a cost effective voyage. In this respect there is far more to offer the new demanding customer, e.g., what about services to assist the customer with:
・obtaining the cheapest routing of the vessels e.g. by advising on port costs or offering global pricing
・getting the most efficient and effective bunker product specification, which best suits the engines on the vessels
・improving his fuels consumption efficiency e.g. by having a special coat on the hull
・safe handling of marine fuels on board of a ship
・technical testing of spend lubricants
・technical advice on maintenance
・inspections of vessels
・vessel communication tools
・crewing
・chandlery
・surveys of freight market, cargo movements etc.
This list can be endless.
Measuring quality.
But the foregoing is a mere diversion to paint a brief overview of the rapidly changing characteristics of the bunker market. Our interest today lies more with considering bunker product issues rather than the bigger picture. One thing that has not changed over many years, and that is the consistent call from end users for better quality bunker fuel oil. Not of course that all current supplies are bad - but perceptions persist in the market that residual fuel oil in general is a "waste" product and thus there is always scope to improve quality. One of the great difficulties in responding to these perennial requests is to define the meaning of the ill-defined term "quality". "Quality" itself is often a perceptional issue. The term will have a different meaning across individual operators. A simplistic view is that if the fuel is able to be stored, handled, and burned in the engine without giving rise to operational problems, and does not give rise to incremental increase in consequential maintenance, and does not pose additional health and safety risk, then it can be deemed to be a "quality" fuel. It is fit-for-purpose.
Quality standards for marine bunker fuels are measured against published supply specifications (e.g. ISO 8217 or BS MA 100) or formal recommendations (e.g. CIMAC). Internationally recognised standards/specifications provide a number of fuel categories by which means the end user can classify the quality of fuel to be purchased. A specification is a detailed statement of engine or other application requirements translated into fuel properties language and expressed in terms of analysis results obtained by standard testing procedures. Bunker fuel oil represents only a small percentage (＜ 5%,) of a petroleum products consumed and basically this minority position does not permit or warrant restrictive specifications, nor would it be in the best interest of the marine industry to do so. Ideally the specification should be technically useful, and economically reasonable.
It must be acknowledged however that even such widely accepted standards may have of necessity, broad limiting values in some of the more critical control parameters such that a fuel produced to meet all the requirements of the nominated fuel purchase category may indeed subsequently give rise to operational difficulties in some equipment types. Bunker fuel standards and recommendations are therefore reviewed regularly so as to address the changing requirements of the market, both from supply and end user perspectives.
The net effect of oil demand predictions, and consequential refinery developments, suggest that bunker fuel Intentional Specification limits already established and in use will not be under any significant pressure to be relaxed. A shift in typical parameter values within these existing limits will occur however. As the growth in secondary conversion capacity continues, residual fuel oils will increasingly be produced from deeper conversion components. There will continue to be a movement in the viscosity grade profile towards the use of more viscous fuels, which will also be higher in density and carbon residue in particular.
The envisaged effect on principal properties is as follows.
