TTT vs. TTV/TTO vs. CIF: Choosing the Right Fuel Transaction Model

If you’re entering the world of bulk petroleum transactions, you’ll soon encounter three common procedural models: Tank-to-Tank (TTT), Tank to Vessel (TTV)/Tank Take Over (TTO), and Cost, Insurance & Freight (CIF). Each comes with distinct structures, expectations, and risks.

This article will help you understand the differences—and decide which one suits your situation best.

1. Tank-to-Tank (TTT): The Performance-Based Standard

Best for: First-time buyers, high-security deals, and sellers with strict verification policies

In a TTT deal, the seller injects the fuel directly into the buyer’s designated tank farm. The product must perform before the seller is paid, and the buyer must prove they have secure and verifiable storage in place before the seller delivers.

Key Features:

• No payment until fuel is injected and verified

• Buyer provides all terminal access details upfront

• POP is issued only after full storage validation

• Low financial risk for buyer (deposit = storage cost)

Pros:

• High level of buyer protection

• Ideal for building trust with a new seller

Cons:

• Requires buyer to secure and fund terminal storage

• Detailed documentation and TSA validations required

2. Tank To Vessel (TTV)/ Tank Take Over (TTO): Faster, Less “Arms-Length”

Best for: Buyers with prior experience and pre-established relationships with the seller

With a TTO, the seller allows the buyer to take over their tank or product allocation in an existing terminal. The buyer typically pays a fee (often through a fiduciary) to gain access and perform a dip test or title transfer.

Key Features:

• Payment required before test or title handover

• POP is usually issued earlier than in TTT

• Can be faster but involves higher upfront risk

Pros:

• Speeds up transaction timing

• Less need for independent tank arrangements

Cons:

• Greater exposure—buyer pays before fuel verification

• Refund guarantees are often needed but not always secure

3. Cost, Insurance & Freight (CIF): Delivery to Buyer’s Port

Best for: Buyers with secure banking instruments and access to import infrastructure

In a CIF arrangement, the seller delivers the fuel to the buyer’s destination port. The transaction typically involves:

• Pre-agreed shipping schedules

• Shared or reimbursed freight costs on trial lift

• Banking instruments (e.g., SBLC or DLC) to guarantee payment

Key Features:

• POP may require partial financial commitment or deposit

• Buyers must act fast—slow banking leads to added costs

• Some CIF deals allow upfront cost-sharing in lieu of full LC setup

Pros:

• Fuel is delivered to buyer’s location

• Convenient for international and large-scale buyers

Cons:

• Can involve significant shipping delays

• Requires careful coordination of banking timelines

So, Which Procedure Is Right for You?

ModelBuyer RiskSpeedPOP TimingBest ForTTTLowMediumAfter StorageFirst-time buyersTTOMediumFastEarlyExperienced buyersCIFHigh (if slow)VariableConditionalInternational buyers

• Tank To Tank

  • Risk: Low

  • Speed: Medium

  • POP Timing: After Storage Confirmation

  • Best for: Both New & Experienced Buyers

• Tank To Vessel/Tank Take Over

  • Risk: Medium

  • Speed: Fast

  • POP Timing: After Payment fot port registration

  • Best for: Experienced Buyers

• CIF

  • Risk: High (if slow)

  • Speed: Variable

  • POP Timing: SBLC/Conditional

  • Best for: Experienced Buyers

If you're unsure about the seller or just entering the industry, start with TTT. It offers the most buyer protection and aligns incentives for a successful transaction.

Final Thoughts

Fuel producers design these procedures based on risk management, logistics, and past experience. The safest path is to choose the right model for your needs—and follow the seller’s procedure exactly.

No matter the method, the golden rule applies: Trust the process, or risk the deal.