Newsletter & Whitepapers

• Understand How It Works
• Register to receive the Maritec-Naias PSC CIC Readiness Checklist

INTRODUCTION

The 2025 Port State Control Concentrated Inspection Campaign (PSC CIC) focuses on Ballast Water Management (BWM) from 1 September to 30 November 2025.

This initiative, led by the Paris and Tokyo MoUs, aims to ensure vessels comply with the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention, which helps prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species. It is expected that the majority of PSC MoUs will participate in this year’s CIC. Concentrated Inspection Campaigns focus on specific areas where a higher risk of non-compliance could exist. This could be evidenced by the number of deficiencies encountered, accidents or where new convention requirements have recently entered into force.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Key Details:

• Timeframe: 1 September to 30 November 2025
• Scope: All ships subject to PSC in participating regions (Paris MoU, Tokyo MoU, and others)
• Focus: Operational and documentation compliance with BWM standards
• CIC Questionnaire:
  • A standardized questionnaire will be used during inspections
  • Click here to view a Sample Questionnaire seen on page 4 of the Tokyo MoU Press Release
  • Helps ensure uniformity across PSC regimes

HOW CAN YOU PREPARE?

Click Here to Register for the Maritec-Naias PSC CIC Readiness Checklist*

• Share the Readiness Checklist with vessel crew to ensure crucial areas are compliant
• As longstanding experts in BWM Compliance Surveys & Reporting, Maritec-Naias can provide consultancy services to help ensure your vessels are CIC ready

*Upon receiving your registration our team will be intouch to assess your requirements & share the checklist

SINCE THE START OF THE PSC CIC, APPROXIMATEY 30 VESSELS ARE DETAINED DUE TO PSC INSPECTIONS WITH 12 VESSELS FOUND TO HAVE BALLAST WATER RELATED DEFICIENCIES*  

Below please find a summary of key observations & findings from the list of detained vessels:

• A total of 22 ballast water management related deficiencies are recorded for the 12 detained vessels.
• Among the 12 vessels that were detained, 5 vessels have recorded ballast water detainable deficiencies.
• The 6 detainable deficiencies recorded for these 5 vessels include:

• 14811 – POLLUTION PREVENTION – BALLAST WATER – Ballast Water Management System
• 14813 – POLLUTION PREVENTION – BALLAST WATER – Ballast Water Management Plan – Implementation
• 14806 – POLLUTION PREVENTION – BALLAST WATER – Crew Training and Familiarization
• The other 7 vessels recorded 16 general ballast water deficiencies with the following as the most common:
• 14802 POLLUTION PREVENTION – BALLAST WATER (Ballast Water Record Book)

*Number of detained vessels are as per 09 September 2025 and subject to change as per ongoing updates on the Tokyo MoU website

A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT THE MARITEC NAIAS CHECKLIST PLACES THOROUGH EMPHASIS ON (CLOSELY BASED ON WHAT IS EXPECTED FOR INSPECTORS TO CHECK FOR)

• Ballast Water Record Book (BWRB)
  • Accurate and complete entries for all ballast operations (intake, transfer, discharge) with date, time, location, and volume
  • Use of electronic BWRBs must be backed by flag state approval letters kept onboard
  • Consistency between BWRB, BWMS logs, and actual operations
• Ballast Water Management System (BWMS)
  • Functionality and maintenance records
  • Reporting of malfunctions and use of contingency measures
  • Crew familiarity with system operation
• Ballast Water Management Plan (BWMP)
  • Up-to-date and integrated into the Safety Management System
  • Clear procedures for normal and emergency operations
  • Designated responsible personnel and port-specific details
• Crew Familiarization
  • Inspectors will assess whether crew members understand:
  • How to operate the BWMS
  • What to do in case of system failure
  • How to properly record ballast operations

Note: As always, the CIC is part of regular PSC inspections. Inspections are therefore not limited to BWM; however, during the first PSC inspection in a participating MoU, the CIC topic will be addressed.

For more information on Maritec Naias Ballast Water Testing services and other Discharge Water Compliance services please visit Maritec Services and Naias Services .

Sources:

• PSC CIC 2025 on ballast water management and DNV’s PSC Top 18
• Paris MoU 58th Committee meets in Malmö, Sweden | Paris MoU
• Press release
• Press-release-on-2025-CIC-BWM-final.pdf
• https://apcis.tmou.org/isss/public_apcis.php?Mode=DetList

Table of Contents

• 1. INTRODUCTION
• 2. CTI-MARITEC DATA EVIDENCE ON MAIN CHALLENGES OBSERVED WITH VLSFO
  • 2.1 Comparison of off-spec parameters (Chart-1) and machinery & operational issues for HSFO vs VLSFO (Chart-2) from 2022 till date
  • 2.2 Cold Flow Properties Issues, Testing Recommendations & Pour Point vs WAT & WDT
• 3. KEY INSIGHTS ON HANDLING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ONBOARD SYSTEM TEMPERATURE AND STABILITY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPTIMAL MANAGEMENT
  • 3.1 Onboard System Temperature
  • 3.2 Stability
  • 3.3 Stability Reserve & P-value testing by SMS 1600 to measure Long Term Stability
• 4. CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION ISSUES & CTI-MARITEC INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS
• 5. CTI-MARITEC ‘FUEL OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT PACKAGE’ (FOMP)
• 6. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

Introduction

Since 01 January 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) enforced a 0.50% global sulphur cap in marine fuels for the shipping industry to reduce sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions, which is a significant reduction from the previous limit of sulphur at 3.5%. Therefore, greater use of Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) came into play post 2020. However, a comparison between fuel properties of High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO) and VLSFO reveals that VLSFO exhibits greater instability, waxiness, lower density, and viscosity, lower calculated Carbon Aromaticity Index (CCAI), lower vanadium content, higher net specific energy, higher pour point, and higher acid number.

The decreased stability reserve (detected by higher paraffinic and lower aromatic content) of VLSFO also raises concerns about compatibility issues when different fuels are mixed. Even after four years of using VLSFO, the long-term storage of VLSFO still remains a challenge and pain-point for the marine industry.

All present-day complexities of VLSFO arise due to its formulation and the processes used to achieve 0.50% sulphur content. The composition of VLSFO varies widely because it is a blend of several types of refined petroleum products, including distillate oil, residual fuels and additives, among others. VLSFOs are more paraffinic than HSFOs owing to its composition, which consists predominantly of small and medium chain hydrocarbons, including alkanes (paraffins) and cycloalkanes (naphthene), among others.

Furthermore, due to the widely varied compositions of VLSFOs sold in the bunker fuel oil market, the physical and chemical properties and qualities vary greatly, thus exhibiting significantly different chemical behaviours, which can only be accurately determined through focused monitoring/testing. This variability can affect engine performance. The characteristics of VLSFO also demands more attention towards storage and handling practices to prevent issues like stratification or sludge formation, especially during the fuel change over process. VLSFO reduces SOx emissions, however, the emission of other pollutants, such as black carbon remain a concern. Therefore, a careful fuel management process is required to optimally manage VLSFO.

Additionally, the issue of chemical contamination has plagued the bunkering industry for years, and the risk of receiving contaminated bunker fuels is likely to persist due to the complexity of the fuel supply chain.

Download the full Whitepaper here

Table of Contents

• 1. INTRODUCTION
• 2. CHLORINATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (COCS)
• 2.1       Effects of COCs in Marine Fuels & Regulatory Requirements
• 2.2       CTI-Maritec Insights & Recommendations on Testing Approach
• 2.3       CTI-Maritec Case Study A: COCs Contamination
• 3. STRONG ACIDS
• 3.1       Effects of Strong Acids in Marine Fuels & Regulatory Requirements
• 3.2       CTI-Maritec Insights & Recommendations on Testing Approach
• 3.3       CTI-Maritec Case Study B: TAN Levels
• 4. POLYMERS
• 4.1       Effects of Polymers in Marine Fuels & Regulatory Requirements
• 4.2       CTI-Maritec Insights & Recommendations on Testing Approach (recommended in cases of reported problems)
• 4.3       CTI-Maritec Case Histories A – D of identifying Polymers using In-house FT-IR Spectroscopy Method
• 5. CTI-MARITEC EXTENDED ANALYSIS TESTING
• 6. CONCLUSION
• 7. REFERENCES

Introduction

In the year 2022, in what can be described as one of the most significant fuel supply scandals in recent history, approximately 200 vessels were supplied with contaminated bunker fuel in the Port of Singapore. Arising from this bunker contamination incident in Singapore, an Industry Expert Group (IEG) co-chaired by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and Singapore Shipping Association (SSA) conducted thorough investigations, which revealed that the affected fuel was a blended product of High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO) that contained high concentration levels of Chlorinated Organic Compounds (COC), mainly constituting 1,2-Dichloroethane, Tetrachloroethylene and other chlorinated organic compounds.

Ships that received this HSFO reported various ruinous damage, such as failure of main engines, auxiliary engines, fuel pumps, plunger barrel and injection equipment.

To help mitigate future incidents, on 8 February 2024 the MPA issued a Port Marine Circular No 3 of 2024 regarding the implementation of enhanced testing parameters for marine fuel batches intended to be delivered as bunkers in the Port of Singapore in addition to the existing quality assurance measures.

In accordance with the MPA’s Port Marine Circular No 3 of 2024, from 1 June 2024, bunker suppliers in the Port of Singapore must ensure that:

• Residual & bio-residual bunker fuel do not contain Chlorinated Organic Compounds (COC) above 50mg/kg and are free from inorganic acids.
• COC must be tested using the EN 14077 accredited test method and shall be reported in the “Certificate of Quality” (COQ) provided to receiving vessels.
• Inorganic acids must use the ASTM D664 accredited test method as prescribed in ISO 8217 and the Strong Acid Number (SAN) (in addition to the Total Acid Number (TAN) shall be reported in the COQ (i.e. SAN = 0) provided to receiving vessels. For distillate / bio-distillate bunker marine fuel batches, SAN must be tested as per ASTM D664 test method and reported in the COQ.
• Residual marine fuels are free from polystyrene, polypropylene & polymethacrylate. These can be tested by filtration, microscopic examination, & Fourier-Transform Infrared spectroscopy analysis.

In view of the above, CTI-Maritec shares the following insights and recommendations related to the testing of COCs, TAN and SAN for all bunker supply in Singapore, and our recommendations for testing Polymers for reported problem cases.

Download the full Whitepaper here

Table of Contents

• 1.     Introduction
• 2.     Blending Residual Marine Fuel: Ensuring Quality, Stability, and Combustion Properties
• 3.     Blending of Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO, IMO 2020 Compliant Fuel)
• 4.     Fuel characteristics evolution and potential quality issues due to 0.5%S Limit
• 5.     Composition of residual marine fuels leading to sludging issues
• 6.     Common Terminology for describing the risk of asphaltene precipitation
• 6.1.      Stability
• 6.2.      Compatibility
• 6.3.      Stability Reserve
• 7.     Evaluating the stability reserve by chemical ageing
• 7.1.      Total Sediment Accelerated (TSA)
• 7.2.      P-value by SMS 1600 for Measuring Stability Reserve
• 8.     Findings
• 8.1.      Low Stability Reserve Fuels and Unstable Fuels Which Contain Alkylresorcinols & Phenolic Compounds- Summary Data
• 8.2.      Low Stability Reserve Fuels and Unstable Fuels Which Contain Phenolic Compounds – Summary Data
• 8.3.      Low Stability Reserve Fuels and Unstable Fuels Which Contain Chlorinated Organic Compounds – Summary Data
• 8.4.      Low Stability Reserve Fuels and Unstable Fuels Detected to Contain Slightly Reactive Hydrocarbons with Double Bond – Summary Data
• 8.5.      Low Stability Reserve Fuels and Unstable Fuel Due to Insufficient of Aromaticity – No Deleterious Materials are Detected by GC/MS Analysis
• 9.     Recommended counteractions by operators when onboard fuel is unstable
• 10.   Maritec Fuel Cleanliness, Stability, Stability Reserve, Asphaltene Content and Fuels Compatibility Analysis Techniques
• 11.   Conclusion
• 12.   Moving Forward
• 13.   Reference

Since 1 January 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has enforced a 0.50% global sulphur cap for the shipping industry to reduce sulphur oxide emissions. A comparison of pre-IMO 2020 fuels and post-IMO 2020 fuels reveals that the latter exhibit greater instability, waxiness, lower density & viscosity, lower micro carbon residue (MCR), lower calculated carbon aromaticity index (CCAI), lower vanadium content, higher net specific energy, higher pour point, and higher acid number. The decreased stability reserve (higher paraffinic and lower aromatic content) of post-IMO 2020 fuels also raises concerns about compatibility issues when different fuels are mixed.

To address these challenges, Maritec lab is equipped with the necessary equipment and testing methods to assess the cleanliness, stability, stability reserve, compatibility, and cold flow properties of post-IMO fuels. Given that fuel stability is the primary concern with Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oils (VLSFOs), this article focuses on reviewing fuel stability, fuel stability reserve, and the corresponding analysis techniques.

……………………………..

Download the full article of Whitepaper

Table of Contents

• Table of Contents
• INTRODUCTION
• THE SUPPLY CHAIN
• THE SPECIFICATION
• GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY–MASS SPECTROMETRY (GCMS) ANALYSIS
• GCMS AND PRE-TREATMENT
• GCMS BY ASTM D7845
• GCMS BY SPE (SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION)
• FINDINGS
• CHLORINATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
• BY-PRODUCT OR PROCESSED PRODUCT DERIVED FROM BIO-BASED OR PLANT-BASED SOURCES AND BY-PRODUCT FROM CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
• CASHEW NUTSHELL LIQUID
• ESTONIAN SHALE OIL
• GCMS ANALYSIS AS A COMPLEMENTARY TEST SOLUTION
• ACCREDITED GC/MS TEST PACKAGE AND ASSOCIATED DETECTIONS
• MOVING FORWARD

Introduction

Issue of chemical contamination had plagued the bunkering industry for years, and the risk of receiving contaminated bunker fuels is likely to persist. The importance of buying from reputable suppliers with robust quality control procedures cannot be over empathised. However, the complexity of the bunker supplier chain as well as unregulated use of cutter stocks would mean that any quality control process, no matter how robust, is likely to only minimise and not fully eliminate risk of such contaminations. It is therefore important for bunker buyers and operators have their own control measures in place.

The test scope stated in table 1 & 2 of ISO 8217 is limited and insufficient to cover the requirement for detection of deleterious materials in marine bunker fuels. Marine fuel testing laboratories had successfully addressed the limitation of ASTM D7845, the only standard GCMS test method, and is able to apply it as an effective chemical screening tool to complement the table 1 & 2 test scope. As demonstrated in the case of Chlorinated Organic Compound (COC) contamination in 2022, most fuel laboratories had successfully identified COC, using ASTM D7845 test method, as the main contaminants causing the damages. Findings had been proven to be consistent across laboratories using the same method and was well accepted by the industry and port authorities.