Connect with us
DNV Decarbonization Insight Series August 2026 - What maritime professionals should know about AI Training

Business

Brightoil justifies why it claims to be subject to procedural unfairness by HKSE

Brightoil explains the various steps it has undertaken to comply with trade resumption requirements and the unexpected extenuating circumstances along the way.

Admin

Published

on

Brightoil exit

Hong Kong-based oil and bunkering firm Brightoil Petroleum Holdings on Friday (31 July) published a quarterly update announcement on its position regarding the Listing Department’s recommendations to delist the company altogether. 

When the trading of Brightoil on HKSE was suspended in 2017, the company said it “started preparation of the resumption without delay” based on the given conditions from HKSE.

Brightoil explained that due to certain unexpected events including:

  1. extensive time required to determine the scope and complete of forensic investigation which was just concluded
  2. postponement of audit work pending for the result of the forensic investigation
  3. The resignation of PricewaterhouseCoopers as auditors of the Company; 
  4. substantial time spent in negotiation with creditors in debt restructuring;
  5. longer than expected lead time in going through the High Court of Singapore auction process for disposal of the Group’s vessels and purchaser seeking approval for acquisition of the Zhoushan Oil Storage and Terminal Facilities
  6. Covid-19 and its various travel restrictions hindering audit procedures

The resumption was expected to take longer than originally contemplated, and it submitted a resumption plan in January 2020, which included an application to seek an extension of the resumption deadline to 29 May 2020. 

On 24 February 2020, the Listing Department informed Brightoil that it had failed to fulfil all the resumption conditions and the department would proceed to recommend the Listing Committee to delist Brightoil on 27 February 2020.

On 25 February 2020, Brightoil said it wrote to the Stock Exchange and requested to read the reasons of the Listing Department’s recommendation, to be present in the Listing Committee and make written or oral submission to the Listing Committee. 

Brightoil also requested the Listing Department not to present the case to the Listing Committee unless its requests are met. 

However on 28 February 2020, the Stock Exchange notified Brightoil that the Listing Committee had decided to:

  1. reject the company’s various requests
  2. cancel the company’s listing 

The committee reasoned that listing rules do not enforce the right of companies to receive written explanations nor grant them any form of oral hearing before the committee for the department’s recommendations. 

If any company is dissatisfied with the committee’s decision and would like to be granted the above, an appeal may be made to the Listing Review Committee on a de novo review basis of the company’s merits. 

As to the Listing Committee’s decision to delist Brightoil, it explained that it did not consider the ‘unexpected events’ presented by the company to qualify as extenuating circumstances and Brightoil had failed to fulfill the given conditions to resume its trading.

In the published update, Brightoil claims that the Listing Department and the Listing Committee was “grossly unfair” towards the company.

Brightoil added that its applications for judicial review against the delisting decision made by the Listing Committee on the ground of procedural unfairness were dismissed by the High Court of Hong Kong after being heard. 

With regards to being delisted, Brightoil noted that listing rules state that the Listing Committee may extend the remedial period in exceptional circumstances or there are factors outside the company’s control.  

Alongside the circumstances above, Brightoil states that it has taken various remedial actions to comply with the Resumption Conditions including:

  1. Forensic Investigation – RSM Corporate Advisory (Hong Kong) Limited has issued the investigation report, detailing the findings of their investigation on the events which have led to suspension in trading. 
  2. Outstanding Financials Results – Brightoil has published the management account for the financial years ended 30 June 2017, 2018 and 2019, and for the six months ended 31December 2017 and 2018 on 31 January 2020. The Company expects all the outstanding audited annual results and unaudited interim results to be published in due course; and
  3. Debt Restructuring and Discharge of Winding-up Petitions – Upon completion of the debt restructuring, the total debt amount would be substantially reduced with various loans extended from 1 to 12 years and the winding-up petitions are expected to be discharged.

Brightoil said it has since made a formal request to the Stock Exchange for a review of the Listing Committee’s decision by the Listing Review Committee and a hearing date has been set for Monday, 31 August, 2020. 

Trading in the company’s shares will remain suspended until further notice and Brightoil said it will make further announcements as and when appropriate.

Earlier developments of Brightoil (since late 2017 to date) can be found in the search results here


Photo credit:
Manifold Times
Published: 4 August, 2020

Continue Reading

Legal

Singapore police arrest eight over alleged illegal MGO transaction off Tuas

SPF says preliminary investigations found that crew members of a Singapore-registered tugboat misappropriated MGO worth about SGD 10,570 without their company’s knowledge and sold it illegally.

Admin

Published

on

By

Singapore police arrest eight over alleged illegal MGO transaction off Tuas

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) on Thursday (13 August) said it has arrested eight men, aged between 25 and 54, for their suspected involvement in an illegal transaction of Marine Gas Oil (MGO).

On 13 August 2026 at about 1.05am, officers from the Police Coast Guard (PCG) conducted a check on a Singapore-registered tugboat in the waters off Tuas and discovered that eight crew members were possibly involved in the illegal transaction of MGO. 

“Preliminary investigations revealed that the crew members of the tugboats misappropriated MGO valued at about SGD 10,570 (USD 8,258), without their company’s knowledge,” SPF said in a statement.

“The MGO was sold illegally for their personal financial gain.”

The eight crew members will be charged in court on 14 August 2026 with the offence of theft by servant of property in possession of master under Section 381 of the Penal Code 1871 If convicted, they shall be punished with an imprisonment term that may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

“The Police take a serious view of illegal transaction of MGO in Singapore Territorial Waters and will continue to conduct enforcement and security checks to prevent, deter and detect such illicit activities in Singapore waters,” SPF added. 

 

Photo credit: Singapore Police Force
Published: 14 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Port & Regulatory

Gard: Sulphur-related bunker claims rise amid tighter China MSA enforcement

Claims involving excessive sulphur content in marine fuels have been rising, while stricter inspections by the China MSA have heightened the focus on sulphur compliance, particularly in the Bohai Sea.

Admin

Published

on

By

shraga kopstein on Unsplash

Maritime protection and indemnity (P&I) club Gard on Wednesday (12 August) highlighted that claims involving excessive sulphur content in marine fuels have been rising, while stricter inspections by the China MSA have heightened the focus on sulphur compliance, particularly in the Bohai Sea:

Rise in off-spec sulphur claims

Recent claims experience indicates that bunker quality continues to pose a significant operational risk for shipowners. In our earlier review of bunker-related claims during the first five months of 2026, we highlighted a rise in off-specification bunker incidents amid increased pressure on global fuel supply chains following the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. 

Specifically for Sulphur compliance, between January and June 2026, the number of sulphur-related cases increased by more than threefold compared with the same period in 2025. Notably, the number of cases recorded in the first six months of this year has already exceeded the total number reported during the whole of last year by approximately 40%. 

While each case is fact-specific, the increase is notable because excessive sulphur content constitutes a MARPOL compliance issue. Unlike many other bunker quality problems, sulphur non-compliance identified through port state inspections can result in vessel delays, enforcement action, and substantial costs associated with debunkering and fuel disposal. 

The map below illustrates the geographical distribution of sulphur-related claims recorded during the first six months of 2026, based on the location where the bunkers were stemmed.

Distribution of sulphur related claims

China MSA steps up sulphur compliance enforcement

According to our correspondent, Huatai, on 5 June 2026, the maritime authorities of Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning and Shandong jointly launched a special campaign on ship pollution prevention and control in the Bohai Sea region. The campaign involves coordinated supervision by local MSA branches across the region and is expected to last nearly five months. It covers major ports and surrounding port areas in the Bohai Sea region, including Tianjin, Tangshan, Qinhuangdao, Huanghua, Jinzhou, Yingkou and Longkou. 

While the initiative is broader than bunker sulphur compliance alone, its scope includes inspections relating to air pollution prevention, SOx emissions, fuel compliance and other high-pollution-risk operations. Enforcement measures are expected to comprise onboard inspections, cross-regional enforcement activities, unannounced spot checks and remote monitoring. These efforts will be supported by a combination of UAV patrols, maritime patrol vessels, shore-based monitoring systems and rapid on-site fuel testing. 

As a result, vessels trading in the Bohai Sea region may experience increased scrutiny of fuel compliance documentation, fuel sampling records, onboard fuel management procedures, and the handling or disposal of suspected non-compliant fuel.

Documents typically requested by China MSA

Based on our recent experience, including the case discussed above, and subject to the specific requirements of the local MSA office, owners and operators may be requested to provide supporting documentation such as: 

  • Bunker documentation – Bunker Delivery Notes (BDNs), MARPOL fuel sample records, fuel test reports, and relevant fuel quality certificates. 
  • Statutory certificates – including the International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate and International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) Certificate. 
  • Operational records – engine logbooks, deck and navigation logbooks, Oil Record Book entries, and records relating to fuel transfers, storage and consumption. 
  • Sampling documentation – the Master’s statement and any records demonstrating how fuel samples were drawn, sealed, labelled, handled and retained. 
  • Correspondence records – communications with the authorities, bunker suppliers, charterers and other relevant stakeholders. 
  • Fuel disposal records – approved disposal plans, debunkering documentation, receipts and evidence of final disposal, where applicable. 

The exact documentation required will depend on the nature of the investigation, the findings of the inspection, and the requirements of the local enforcement authority. 

Possible regulatory consequences in China

Under the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People’s Republic of China, ocean-going vessels are required to use fuel oil meeting atmospheric pollutant control requirements after berthing. Vessels operating within designated emission control areas must also comply with applicable emission standards. Article 106 provides that where vessel fuel oil fails to meet applicable standards or requirements, the competent maritime authorities may impose fines ranging from RMB 10,000 to RMB 100,000. Liability may extend to shipowners, ship operators and ship managers depending upon the circumstances of the case. 

Recommendation

Sulphur compliance should be treated as both a fuel quality and regulatory risk. Owners and operators are encouraged to take preventive steps before bunkering, act promptly if non-compliant fuel is suspected, and preserve evidence carefully if an inspection or claim arises. Under amended 

Resolution A.1206(34), Appendix 18, 2.1.5, if the BDN shows compliant fuel, but the master has independent test results of the fuel oil sample taken by the ship during the bunkering which indicates non-compliance, the master may document this by notifying the ship’s flag Administration, with copies to: 

  • the competent authority of the relevant port of destination, 
  • the Administration under whose jurisdiction the bunker deliverer is located, 
  • and to the bunker deliverer.

 

Photo credit: shraga kopstein on Unsplash / Gard
Published: 14 August, 2026

Continue Reading

LNG Bunkering

Shell expands LNG bunkering footprint in Spain with Valencia

As one of the region’s key maritime hubs, the company said Valencia expands the options available to shipowners seeking LNG supply along major shipping routes.

Admin

Published

on

By

Shell expands LNG bunkering footprint in Spain with Valencia

British oil giant Shell on Thursday (13 August) said Valencia has joined its growing network of bunkering locations, making LNG available as a marine fuel.

The successful completion of the first LNG bunkering operation in Valencia marked an important milestone for Spain and further strengthened Shell’s LNG supply capabilities across the Mediterranean. 

In a video shared by the company, bunkering vessel Alice Consulich was shown supplying an undisclosed volume of LNG to the container ship MSC Sabrina.

“As one of the region’s key maritime hubs, Valencia expands the options available to shipowners seeking LNG supply along major shipping routes,” Shell said in a social media post. 

Shell said the achievement reflected the strong collaboration across the maritime value chain, including MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, the Port of Valencia and Fratelli Cosulich Group.

“We look forward to making more LNG bunker deliveries in Valencia and across the Mediterranean as LNG infrastructure and capabilities continue to expand,” the company said. 

 

Photo credit: Shell
Published: 14 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending