IMO 2020

Impending Carriage Ban – “Legitimate” de-bunker/disposal practices

Ince & Co. outline implications of current de-bunkering malpractices that have arisen, and how to safely navigate the upcoming carriage ban.

Published

6 years ago

February 19, 2020

Admin

International law firm Ince & Co. on Monday (17 February) published an article highlighting implications of the IMO Carriage Ban on 1 March for industry malpractices that have emerged since 2020 and solutions to legally navigate de-bunkering issues; it has been written by Wole Olufunwa and shared with Manifold Times:

The International Maritime Organisation’s (“IMO”) “carriage ban” rule makes it an offence, as of 1 March 2020, for ships to carry fuel oils that contain sulphur content higher than 0.5%, unless the vessel has a scrubber or the fuel is carried as cargo.

We have been advised by bunker traders in Singapore of some risky, and perhaps unethical practices that have arisen since the beginning of 2020:

Before the carriage ban takes effect, the last opportunities for disposal or removal (where fuel oil with sulphur content of 3.5% still has a market elsewhere i.e., for power generation) are fast approaching. This could prove highly problematic for those players who have planned inadequately or failed to plan for the proper disposal of non-compliant fuels on board in timely fashion.
We understand some vessels are deliberately moving and anchoring in outer port limit (“OPL”) in order to de-bunker non-compliant fuel to other vessels such as physical suppliers or slop receivers. In reality, the ‘receiving’ vessel will either sell and transfer the fuel, or burn it or carry it elsewhere (which would be a breach of the IMO 2020 Regulation if on board on 1 March 2020 or thereafter, unless it is carried as cargo[1]).
This unregulated practice is riven with risk not only for the receiving vessel but interestingly perhaps to the ‘giving’ vessel. The closer one gets to 1 March, the more difficult it will be, in principle, for the giving vessel to assert it has clean hands for compliance purposes. For example, a Ship Implementation Plan (“SIP”) may more likely be considered deficient as far as the relevant port state authority is concerned and this may attract closer scrutiny for monitoring and enforcement purposes.
It is also anticipated that some rogue receivers/vessel operators (without scrubber-fitted vessels) may well be prepared to risk receiving non-compliant fuel to use or burn as bunkers on board at such a late stage, because demand for this fuel specification is likely to fall which may also trigger a drop in the price.
There is also potential scope for fraud or even the creation of an illicit secondary market, where vessel operators could under-declare received bunker fuel oil cargo volumes with the aim of burning certain non-declared quantities of this fuel oil whilst transiting in the high seas hoping to go undetected. It is acknowledged that this practice may be inevitable as the approach to enforcement evolves and becomes more sophisticated.
As the 1 March 2020 date draws closer, the giving vessel (which will often be the physical supplier or barge operator etc.,) may, in the plainest terms of the Regulation, not be considered to be acting in breach or even irresponsibly if it does not check or inquire for what use the non-compliant fuel is to be put by the receiving vessel.
Several questions arise: would it be incumbent on the giving vessel to ensure that the receiving vessel could lawfully receive or carry or burn (for example, because of the presence of scrubbers) or dispose of the non-compliant fuel? Is the giving vessel’s only responsibility with respect to carriage to ensure that, as of 1 March 2020, it has no non-compliant fuel on board its own vessel (excluding those vessels carrying non-compliant fuel as cargo)? Might the relevant port state authorities hoping to enforce the Regulation target giving vessels in circumstances where they may be viewed as aiding and abetting a breach by the receiving vessel[2]?
Indeed, the purpose of MEPC.1/Circ.881 dated 21 May 2019 was to encourage Member Governments to bring the annexed Guidance to the attention of their administration, the industry and relevant shipping companies and stakeholders. The Guidance provides:

ANNEX

GUIDANCE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL ON CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR

ADDRESSING NON-COMPLIANT FUEL OIL

In the case of non-compliant fuel oil, communication between the ship and the port State should occur. The ship and the port State should consider the following as possible contingency measures:

actions predetermined in the Ship implementation plan, if available, for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI (MEPC.1/Circ.878);
discharging non-compliant fuel oil to another ship to be carried as cargo or to an appropriate shipboard or land-based facility, if practicable and available;
managing the non-compliant fuel oil in accordance with a method acceptable to the port State; and
operational actions, such as modifying sailing or bunkering schedules and/or retention of non-compliant fuel oil on board the ship. The port State and the ship should consider any safety issues and avoid possible undue delays.

Having considered all of the options in paragraph 1 above, the non-compliant fuel oil may be discharged to the port or retained on board, as acceptable to the port State. Port State consideration may include environmental, safety, operational and logistical implications of allowing or disallowing the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil. The carriage of non-compliant fuel oil is subject to any conditions of the port State.

…

The Guidance clearly supports collaboration between port States and giving vessels. It also confers a fairly broad discretion on port States as to how to implement, police and enforce the Regulation. Vessel operators would be well advised therefore to have a sensible and workable SIP in place for the particular port state in question.
Even if, however, the above mentioned considerations do not ultimately fall within the sphere of responsibility of the giving vessel, the Guidance does suggest a potential exposure of the giving vessel to reputational (and unnecessary financial) risk and/or damage. No well-meaning or reputable trader or vessel owner will want their reputation impacted by being publicly associated with the improper carriage and/or disposal of non-compliant fuel or a breach of the Regulation[3].

[1] The ban does not apply to non-compliant fuel carried on board as cargo Paragraph I of Annex VI of MARPOL provides “The Sulphur content of fuel oil used or carried for use on board a ship shall not exceed 0.50% m/m.”

[2] This query is underscored by the IMO Guidance for Port State Control on Contingency Measurers for Addressing Non-Compliant Fuel Oil (MEPC.1/Circ.881) recommends as a contingency measure discharging non-compliant fuel oil to another ship to be carried as cargo.

[3] According to various maritime media sources, it is interesting to note that:

4,000 plus scrubbers were expected to be installed by the end of January 2020, which is approximately 11% of the global fleet by tonnage and 4.5% by vessel count. This unintentionally may provide a significant commercial advantage to scrubber fitted vessels as we are aware of some diligent credit control departments of certain physical suppliers insisting on checking whether the receiving vessel is scrubber fitted – whereby if it is found not to be, the supplier will not agree to supply it with non-compliant fuel.

Source:Ince & Co
Published: 19 February, 2020

Ammonia

AM Green plans to build green ammonia plant at Indian port

Initiative also includes development of green ammonia handling, storage and bunkering infrastructure, pilot bunkering operations, safety procedures and training programmes, says VOC Port Authority.

Published

1 day ago

June 3, 2026

Admin

VO Chidambaranar (VOC) Port Authority on Friday (29 May) said it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with India’s ammonia producer AM Green Ammonia to collaborate in the development of a green ammonia production plant.

The plant will have a capacity of one million tonnes per annum (MTPA) at Tuticorin.

The initiative also includes development of green ammonia handling, storage and bunkering infrastructure, pilot bunkering operations, safety procedures and training programmes.

The project is expected to support the development of green fuel corridors connecting VOC Port with major ports in Europe and Asia, thereby strengthening India’s position in the global green fuels value chain.

VOC Port also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Bureau Veritas (India) Pvt. Ltd., to collaborate on Green Port certification, emissions accounting, ESG reporting, safety validation, development of green bunkering practices, and establishment of a Centre of Excellence for green fuels and sustainability.

The port also plans for an upcoming 750 m³ green methanol bunkering facility.

Photo credit: Naveed Ahmed on Unsplash
Published: 3 June, 2026

Port & Regulatory

Study: Major drop in ship sulphur emissions confirmed following IMO regulations

National Centre for Atmospheric Science study found that the average sulphur content in ship fuel dropped nearly tenfold in open ocean areas following IMO’s 2020 regulation.

Published

6 months ago

December 8, 2025

Admin

Recent global regulations have significantly reduced sulphur emissions from ships, helping to improve air quality in coastal regions – confirmed by a recent international study led by researchers at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science.

The research, published in Environmental Science: Atmospheres, used aircraft and ground-based instruments to measure sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by ships in the North-East Atlantic and European coastal waters between 2019 and 2023.

The team found that the average sulphur content in ship fuel dropped nearly tenfold in open ocean areas following the International Maritime Organization’s 2020 regulation, which capped sulphur content in marine fuel at 0.5%.

Before the change, many ships exceeded the previous 3.5% limit. After 2020, only a small number of ships were found to breach the new standard.

In European sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), such as the English Channel and the Port of Tyne, sulphur levels were even lower – well below the stricter 0.1% limit. Interestingly, ports outside these zones, like Valencia in Spain, also showed low sulphur levels, likely due to EU rules requiring cleaner fuel when ships are docked for extended periods.

This is the first study to use aircraft-based measurements and predictions from the Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model (STEAM3) to assess ship emissions outside of sulphur control zones since the 2020 regulation came into effect. The findings support the widely held view that ships now emit around seven times less sulphur than before the rule change – an important step toward cleaner air and healthier coastal environments.

Note: The research, titled ‘SO2 and NOx emissions from ships in North-East Atlantic waters: in situ measurements and comparison with an emission model’ can be found here.

Photo credit: shraga kopstein on Unsplash
Published: 8 December, 2025

Interview

IBIA Annual Convention 2025: ‘Exciting times’ for post IMO 2020 bunker suppliers, states Equatorial

Choong Sheen Mao, Chief Operating Officer, Equatorial, describes to Manifold Times the pre/post IMO 2020 challenges and evolution of bunker suppliers.

Published

7 months ago

October 31, 2025

Admin

The International Bunkering Industry Association (IBIA) will be hosting its flagship Annual Convention in Hong Kong at the Hong Kong Convention Exhibition & Convention Centre between 18 to 20 November 2025, as part of Hong Kong Maritime Week.

Choong Sheen Mao, Chief Operating Officer, Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services (Equatorial), speaks to bunkering publication Manifold Times about the challenges of a post IMO 2020 bunker supplier.

MT: How does Equatorial continue to offer customer assurance and maintenance of marine fuel quality to ISO8217 standards despite increasing complexity of bunker fuel blends?

We maintain our focus to provide compliant, quality and competitively priced products to our customers. There is no shortcut. We source our products from a wide range of cargo producers and suppliers. We continue to be strict and vigilant with our testing programme for our products before delivering them to our customers. Equatorial has deepened our engagement with the wider industry to have a better and up-to-date understanding of the existing and new marine fuels.

MT: Can you share the evolution of commercial marine fuel procurement, blending and trading strategies on the back of increasing fuel types (pre/post IMO 2020)?

Pre IMO 2020, the main types of marine fuel procured and consumed by vessels were high-sulphur fuel oil, marine diesel oil and marine gas oil. Trading strategies were therefore closely linked to that within the oil industry.

However, many of the new fuel types are from other industries. For example, biofuels, methanol and ammonia are mainly products from the chemical and agriculture industries. There are marked differences between these industries and the energy industry (in particular, the marine fuels industry). LNG is from the gas industry which is distinct from the oil industry.

Without an existing liquid paper market for many of these commodities (especially as a marine fuel), the price risk management is less straightforward. Furthermore, commodity prices are no longer the sole consideration for price itself. The price of compliance must be considered. This could range from guaranteeing the origin of the marine fuel, its sulphur properties as well as its carbon intensity. The list goes on.

MT: Operational wise, what are the changing role and responsibilities of a bunker supplier to date, compared to before IMO 2020?

The role and responsibility of a bunker supplier have evolved. Fundamentally, it has been about providing quality marine fuels at competitive prices. Quantity assurance has been a critical concern which led to the mandatory implementation of the mass flow meter system for bunkering in the Port of Singapore. Interestingly, due to the nature of credit terms in the bunker industry, bunker suppliers also performed the role of “bankers” by extending favourable credit terms to shipowners and charterers.

These days, post IMO 2020, things have become even more complicated. Today, a bunker supplier retains the abovementioned roles and responsibilities, and much more – it has to ensure compliance with a plethora of rules and regulations. Compliance not only with sulphur cap requirements, but with international and regional sanctions and restrictions unrelated to the quality of the marine fuel itself. In fact, especially with alternative low- and zero-carbon marine fuels, this means compliance with standards, rules and regulations on sustainability such as the European Renewable Energy Directive and/or International Sustainability and Carbon Certification. There is also the need to comply with increasingly stringent safety regulations on both conventional and alternative marine fuels.

In addition to the above, a post IMO 2020 bunker supplier is still expected to supply compliant and quality fuel at competitive prices.

MT: Equatorial is Singapore’s largest local-born supplier; what is the next big thing for the company?

Equatorial continues to adapt and improve with the times, while maintaining its core values – Integrity, Teamwork, Commitment, Proficiency and Quality, and Safety and Environment. The bunker industry is a highly competitive one, and it is our intention to keep our competitive edge and remain relevant. This means that we have had to step out of our comfort zone and embrace the two mega trends of our time – digitalisation and decarbonisation.

We have been early adopters and developers of the electronic bunkering note as part of our own digital bunkering efforts. We have diversified our product offering to include low carbon marine fuels and are proud to be one of the pioneers for bunkering B100 biofuels earlier this year. This was made possible by the arrival of our IMO Type II chemical and oil bunker tankers. These same bunker tankers are also capable for carrying and delivering methanol. Equatorial has invested in an LNG bunkering vessel (LBV) newbuilding that is set to be delivered in Q3 2027. We are also involved in a study to develop low- or zero-carbon ammonia bunkering in Singapore.

These are exciting times.

Note: Choong Sheen Mao is amongst panellists featured in ‘Session Three: Bunker Sellers Panel’ at the IBIA Annual Convention 2025.

Join the Conversation

With over 300 delegates expected, the IBIA Annual Convention 2025 is set to be a defining moment for the marine fuels industry. Registration is now open via the IBIA Annual Convention website.