Fuel analysis
The VeriFuel Fuel Quality Testing Q2 2026 Report, compiled from samples across Bureau Veritas's global laboratory network and shared with Manifold Times on 28 July, shows global VLSFO quality indicators holding broadly stable through the quarter.
Viscosity, density and catalytic fines all edged up slightly compared with Q1 2026, and the overall VLSFO off-spec rate rose marginally to 1.5 per cent – still within what the firm characterises as historical norms.
HSFO told a different story: its off-spec rate rose more sharply, to 2.4 per cent, alongside a continued decline in sulphur content and a slight fall in density even as catalytic fines increased.
Read alongside Bureau Veritas's own 2025 annual figures – an ISO 8217 off-spec rate of 8.5 per cent for the year, up from 6.8 per cent in 2024 – the Q2 2026 quarterly numbers suggest the underlying rate of non-compliance has not accelerated further this year so much as it has redistributed, with certain grades and certain locations now carrying more of the burden than others.
Geography is where the report is most specific, and most useful for buyers deciding where to add scrutiny.
Elevated aluminium-plus-silicon levels in 0.50 per cent sulphur VLSFO continue to be observed at Port Klang and Singapore, both high-volume bunkering hubs where catalytic fines contamination has been a recurring concern.
Sediment-related issues, by contrast, were identified across several European locations rather than in Asia, and water non-compliance in DMA grades – samples exceeding 300 mg/kg – remained concentrated specifically in European and Mediterranean supply locations, which Bureau Veritas links to storage, transfer and housekeeping practice rather than to the fuel as delivered.
The pour point distribution offers a steadier note: the majority of samples in Q2 2026 continue to fall within low temperature ranges of 21°C or below, with only a limited number of cases sitting at or slightly above the applicable limit – one of the few parameters in the report showing no meaningful quarter-on-quarter change.
Taken together, the report supports a more targeted reading of where testing effort delivers the most value, rather than a case for blanket increases in testing intensity across all routes and grades.
A buyer bunkering VLSFO at Port Klang or Singapore has a documented reason to prioritise catalytic fines and Al+Si screening specifically; a buyer taking on DMA in European or Mediterranean ports has a comparable reason to prioritise water content checks.
Applying either screening universally, irrespective of grade or location, would not reflect where Bureau Veritas's own data shows the risk actually sitting.
That risk-weighted approach is likely to matter more, not less, over the coming quarters.
Off-spec rates for both major grades rose during Q2 2026 relative to Q1, even where the overall figures remain within historical bounds, and the annual trend from 6.8 to 8.5 per cent off-spec year-on-year suggests laboratories and testing houses have a growing rather than shrinking caseload ahead of them.
For analytical instrumentation and testing capacity planning specifically, the report's regional breakdown is arguably more actionable than the topline compliance figures, since it identifies where additional capacity or targeted test packages would address a documented pattern rather than a generic risk.
It is also worth being precise about what the report does not show.
A quarterly off-spec rate is a snapshot of samples submitted for testing, not a full census of everything bunkered in the period, and Bureau Veritas's own laboratory footprint will shape which ports and grades are most heavily represented in the underlying dataset.
The regional patterns are consistent enough, and specific enough, to be a reasonable basis for planning testing priorities – but they describe where problems have been caught, not necessarily the complete distribution of where problems exist.
PIN 27.3 June/July 2026
Product directory
.jpg)
