Sustainability and quality are two very different sides of the same coin

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and FuelEU Maritime not only make fuel purchasers consider the overall emissions created by vessels but also look to facilitate the wider use of low carbon and sustainable fuels to help reduce GHG emissions. The influence of both instruments extends beyond European waters too, since they also take into consideration a proportion of emissions generated from international voyages that begin or end at an EU port.

Despite some high-profile headwinds, the IMO is also looking to implement a global GHG reduction regime, even if how and when remain uncertain.

In response, most buyers have looked for the easiest (and least cost-intensive) way to reduce emissions and for many the answer has been biofuel. Biofuels can be used with existing engines and fuel systems with little or no modification, they can count toward European and global targets, they demand little additional crew training and are already available in commercial volumes at many principal bunkering hubs. Biofuel is an option that buyers can act on now and many are pursuing it in earnest.

However, nuances in the criteria used in purchasing marine fuels are easy to overlook.

Price has commonly been the primary consideration in conventional fuel oil procurement, with the overall quality of the product a secondary consideration. Conventional fuel oil is a mature product defined by long established ISO 8217 grades, so two offers of the same grade are broadly comparable and price becomes a rational way to separate them.

Such a binary comparison may not work with biofuels. A buyer weighing two biofuel offers may no longer be comparing two versions of the same product. Feedstock, bio-component and blend ratio all vary, and two fuels sold under the same broad label can perform very differently in the same engine. Choosing on price alone assumes an equivalence that really no longer exists.

Biofuel is not a single product

Biofuel is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of different product types, not a single product. Official definitions for biofuel are broad enough to cover a very wide range of options. The reference standard for marine biofuel is ISO 8217:2024, which is specific about what qualifies as a regulated bio component, namely FAME meeting EN 14214 or ASTM D6751 and HVO meeting EN 15940.

The important point here is that ISO 8217 is a commercial specification, not a legal requirement. As such, not all products sold have to satisfy ISO 8217 requirements (with the exception of Sulfur content and Flash Point), and with road transport and aviation competing for the same feedstocks, a growing number of non-regulated products are beginning to enter the marine pool.

Some “alternative products” are developed rigorously through national standards organizations and with the support of industry bodies such as CIMAC (a global non-profit association promoting the development of ship propulsion and power generation), while others are not. Some of the latter are already being offered in some markets. It is therefore up to fuel buyers to decide what sort of product they are willing to accept and subsequently deal with, and what quality assurances they want in relation to the product supplied.

Two different questions

Here is where marine fuel buyers should understand one very important distinction. Certifiable sustainability and quality are frequently considered interchangeable when they shouldn’t be. As Michael Green, Senior Quality Manager at World Fuel remarks,

A sustainability certificate and a CoQ (Certificate of Quality) address two very different considerations. One tells you where the fuel came from and how its carbon is counted. The other provides an overview of quality characteristics that facilitates onboard management of the product. Our job is to make sure customers never have to trade one off against the other.

 

We have heard comments such as ‘the product has been shown to be sustainable based on an established assessment regime, as such the quality must also be good,’ and this is certainly not always the case.

Sustainability assessments concern feedstock origin and carbon accounting. They look at whether the fuel is certified under a recognized certification scheme such as ISCC or RSB, whether the feedstock complies with regional regulations like the Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) in Europe, and whether it is supported by the appropriate documentation, a Proof of Sustainability (PoS) or a Proof of Compliance (PoC).

A CoQ, on the other hand, reports the quality characteristics that inform handling and treatment decisions such as onboard fuel management and, critically, temperature management of the fuel while in use. Therefore, it may well be that a fuel has been certified as being sustainable, but this gives no indication or assurance as to the actual quality of the product, or how the vessel may need to manage it onboard.

To illustrate the point, the table below compares some of the common questions:

Buying on evidence, not assumption

Biofuel is playing an essential role in the energy transition, but balancing quality and
compliance certification is essential for making its use a success. In practice, that means requesting the sustainability documentation and the Certificate of Quality together, establishing exactly what any non-regulated bio content is before it reaches the vessel, drawing on guidance published by bodies like CIMAC and IBIA, and managing onboard stock on a first-in, first-out basis.

This is the work World Fuel undertakes with its customers every day, interpreting a fast-moving market, distinguishing a compliant fuel from a good one, and ensuring all appropriate documentation is present and correct. Addressed early, good practice can reduce risk as the regulations take hold. Buyers looking to review their fuel strategy can speak to the World Fuel marine team.