Connect with us

Business

North P&I: Call for clarity on the enforcement of IMO’s sulphur cap

North has dealt with numerous bunker fuel claims and disputes – but nothing has kept the Club busier than reports of potential marginal non-compliance.
Admin

Published

5 years ago

on

Alvin Forster 9 2000px x 1350px

While the IMO 0.50% sulphur cap on marine fuels has been successful from a safety perspective, complying with the regulation has proved a headache for many shipowners. North P&I Club Loss Prevention Executive Alvin Forster calls for clarity and consistency on how the cap is enforced.

The International Maritime Organization’s cap on fuel sulphur content was met with some predictions of vessels suffering loss of electrical power or losing propulsion in busy shipping lanes. Thankfully, widespread problems never materialised, and the industry came through the transition period largely unscathed.

However, concerns over the poor stability characteristics of some of the new very-low-sulphur fuel oils and the incompatibility between stems were realised, while operational issues that were perhaps not as well foreseen, such as engine liner wear, also arose.

North has dealt with numerous claims and disputes related to these issues – but nothing has kept the Club busier than reports of potential marginal non-compliance.

The problem scenario

Imagine the following scenario: the vessel requests the delivery of compliant bunkers, and the party ordering the bunkers – the owner or time charterer – specifies compliant fuel to be supplied to the vessel.

Upon completion of bunkering, the supplier issues a bunker delivery note (BDN) declaring the fuel to be compliant (0.50% sulphur or less). The receiving vessel then sends a sample drawn during bunkering to an independent laboratory where it is tested against ISO 8217-listed parameters for commercial purposes.

Days later, the test result returns a sulphur content between 0.51% and 0.53%, indicating non-compliance with the limit specified in MARPOL Annex VI.

What happens next? Are the bunkers off-specification, non-compliant or both? Can the fuel be used? Who should be notified? Will the vessel be targeted by the authorities and what action will they take? Should it be de-bunkered?

This is where confusion reigns, leading to commercial disputes and, in some cases, de-bunkering.

Are the bunkers off-spec?

According to existing industry guidance issued by organisations such as IBIA and CIMAC, if the receiving vessel’s own sample returns a result of 0.53% or less, a claim cannot be brought against the supplier. The rationale behind this cut-off point is ‘single-test reproducibility’, which describes the allowance applied to a lab test result that recognises the limitations in accuracy of a single test.

If the vessel’s sample test result is over 0.53%, a claim against the supplier may be initiated. The supplier’s retained sample is usually contractually binding and therefore tested. If this test returns a result of 0.51% or more (single-test reproducibility is not applied at this stage), it is deemed off-spec for commercial purposes.

However, these are only guidelines, and a supplier may have different terms in their bunker contract.

Are the bunkers non-compliant?

If the receiving vessel’s own sample returns a result above 0.50%, it does not automatically mean that the bunkers are non-compliant with MARPOL. Non-compliance can only be confirmed by testing the MARPOL-delivered sample, the MARPOL in-use sample or the MARPOL onboard sample.

Commercial samples – such as the vessel’s own sample – should not be considered definitive evidence of non-compliance. However, few administrations have confirmed this explicitly, and experience suggests that some port state control functions are taking a contrary view.

Port state control officers in some countries are not applying the single-test reproducibility tolerance to in-use samples during their inspections, as it is not mandatory for them to do so, but the IMO is promoting its early adoption. Again, the lack of a consistent approach by port states around the world causes confusion for calling vessels.

Who should be notified?

In general, shipowners have been advised to follow the notification process in MEPC.321(74) 2019 GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI:

“…  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 have documented that through a Notification to 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.”

However, as the document’s title suggests, this is the IMO guidance for port state control. There is no published guidance to shipowners, and the statement “the master may…” implies that the notification process is voluntary and there is no obligation to notify the referenced parties.

There is also uncertainty as to what is meant by “indicates non-compliance”. Is the IMO’s intention that the notification process applies when the ship’s sample test result exceeds 0.50%, or is it 0.53% to allow for single-test reproducibility?

Further clarification on the notification process is needed.

Will the vessel be targeted by PSC?

It is important not to disincentivise the reporting of potentially non-compliant fuel, as the IMO GISIS module – which allows flag states to report on behalf of shipowners – relies on these reports to identify suppliers that provide non-compliant fuel.

It stands to reason that if PSC targets a vessel for inspection following the submission of a voluntary notification, it is likely to disincentivise reporting.

How port state authorities around the world are acting upon these notifications is not yet known; and as Covid-19 influences their current inspection protocols, we may not be seeing an accurate picture of how this will be dealt with in a post-pandemic world.

However, the European Maritime Safety Agency Inspection Guidance states clearly that EU ports will target a vessel for inspection if the owner submits a voluntary notification of potential non-compliance.

A call for clarity and consistency

Marginally off-spec bunkers are causing lengthy disputes and, in some cases, de-bunkering. Considering the carbon footprint of the de-bunkering process, these developments could be considered as contradicting established industry environmental goals.

Shipowners need to feel sure they understand the rules and confident of their consistent enforcement worldwide.

We have a wealth of information on the IMO 2020 sulphur cap including articles, news and resources, available at: https://www.nepia.com/topics/2020-vision/

North PI Tanker Management shutterstock 697847302

 

Photo credit: North P&I
Published: 22 June, 2021

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: High Court to hear Norvic Shipping Asia winding up application on 31 July

Application for the winding up of Norvic Shipping Asia Pte Ltd was filed by Netherlands-registered Mur Shipping BV on 8 April, according to Government Gazette notice.
Admin

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 22, 2026

By

RESIZED singapore high court

An application for the winding up of Norvic Shipping Asia Pte Ltd was filed by Netherlands-registered Mur Shipping BV on 8 April, according to a Tuesday (21 July) notice on the Government Gazette.

It noted the winding up application is directed to be heard before the Judge sitting in the General Division of the High Court at 10am on 31 July.

Any creditor or contributory of the company desiring to support or oppose the making of an order on the winding up application may appear at the time of hearing by himself or his counsel for that purpose.

A copy of the winding up application will be furnished to any creditor or contributory of the company requiring the copy of the winding up application by the solicitors of the applicant’s, Oon & Bazul LLC, on payment of the regulated charge for the same.

The Applicant’s address is Hiridostraat 5, Gebouw Prismatrium, 1101CW Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

The Applicant’s solicitors are Oon & Bazul LLC of 103 Penang Rd, #04-04/05/06 Singapore 238467. 

Queries on the winding up application may be directed to the following email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected].

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 22 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Methanol

World Fuel and partners complete first green methanol bunkering of car carrier in Shanghai

Operation involved the delivery of approximately 2,800 MT of green methanol to “Arctic Tern” via a ship-to-ship transfer using SIPG Energy’s dedicated methanol bunkering vessel “M/V Hai Gang Zhi Yuan”.
Admin

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 22, 2026

By

World Fuel and partners complete first green methanol bunkering of car carrier in Shanghai

Marine fuel provider World Fuel on Tuesday (21 July) said it successfully completed the first green methanol bunkering of M/V Arctic Tern, with EUKOR Car Carriers and SIPG Energy at the Port of Shanghai. 

Arctic Tern is the first vessel in the new Shaper Class series of car carriers. 

The operation involved the delivery of approximately 2,800 MT of green methanol to Arctic Tern via a ship-to-ship transfer using SIPG Energy’s dedicated methanol bunkering vessel M/V Hai Gang Zhi Yuan, the largest vessel of its kind in operation. 

The bunkering operation was carried out at Haitong Terminal, Waigaoqiao Port Area, Shanghai Port, with cargo handling operations conducted simultaneously during bunkering.

This marks EUKOR Car Carriers’ first green methanol operation and the first time Arctic Tern has bunkered methanol since its delivery on 9 July. The operation marked the first bunkering at Shanghai Port of green methanol produced locally in Shanghai for an international PCTC operator. 

It also demonstrated the city’s integrated green methanol value chain, spanning local production, storage and bunkering, and established a replicable “Shanghai Model” for green methanol supply.

World Fuel arranged the supply and delivery of the fuel on behalf of EUKOR Car Carriers, working with SIPG Energy as the physical supplier at the Port of Shanghai.

The green methanol supplied was produced from municipal solid waste, ISCC-EU certified, and had a carbon intensity value below 25 gCO₂e/MJ.

Arctic Tern is the first of fourteen Shaper Class vessels ordered by Wallenius Wilhelmsen. With a capacity of 9,300 car equivalent units and methanol dual-fuel capability, the vessel will be operated by EUKOR Car Carriers, jointly owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Hyundai Motor Group. Following her first green methanol bunkering, Arctic Tern will continue her maiden voyage from Asia to Europe.

Xavier Leroi, COO Shipping Services at Wallenius Wilhelmsen and CEO of EUKOR Car Carriers, said: “Completing Arctic Tern’s first green methanol bunkering shortly after delivery is a significant milestone towards our decarbonisation ambition for both EUKOR Car Carriers and Wallenius Wilhelmsen. It demonstrates how investments in next-generation vessel technology and fuel flexibility are being translated into real-world operations. 

“This achievement reflects the strong collaboration between all parties involved. Together, we have shown how partnerships across the maritime value chain can help make lower-emission fuels available and operationally viable at scale.”

Mark Tamsitt, SVP Global Marine Sales at World Fuel, said, “The first bunkering event with a new fuel is a significant moment for any shipowner, and our role is to make it as seamless as possible. By connecting EUKOR Car Carriers with SIPG Energy’s proven green methanol capability at the Port of Shanghai, we were able to deliver on reliable supply, fuel quality, and safe processes. As more of our customers bring methanol dual-fuel tonnage into service, we are committed to being the partner that makes these kinds of operations routine.”

Mr. Zhang Da, General Manager of SIPG Energy, said, “Welcoming Arctic Tern to the Port of Shanghai for her first green methanol bunkering demonstrates the strength and maturity of our supply capability. Building on our well-established methanol ship-to-ship bunkering services for container vessels, we have already extended such services to pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs). This bunkering sets a new record for the largest single SIMOPs green methanol bunkering for PCTCs in China, marking another step in building Shanghai’s position as a global green energy hub for international shipping.”

This operation follows Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s announcement on 9 July that Arctic Tern would complete her first methanol bunkering shortly after delivery. The vessel entered service on routes between Asia and Europe immediately following handover from China Merchants Jinling Shipyard in Nanjing.

 

Photo credit: World Fuel
Published: 22 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Ammonia

HPA and MB Energy develop safety concept for STS ammonia bunkering

HPA says the Port of Hamburg will become “bunker ready” for ammonia, laying the groundwork for safe and reliable ammonia bunkering in the future.
Admin

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 22, 2026

By

HPA and MB Energy develop safety concept for STS ammonia bunkering

The Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) and integrated energy company MB Energy on Tuesday (21 July) said they have completed a comprehensive risk analysis and developed a dedicated safety concept for ship-to-ship ammonia bunkering.

MB Energy said the analysis lays the groundwork for the safe introduction of ammonia as a future marine fuel.

“With our planned ammonia import terminal in Hamburg-Blumensand, MB Energy intends to provide the reliable land side supply infrastructure needed to support this transition across northern German ports,” it said in a social media post. 

Mabanaft Group was renamed to MB Energy last year and merged over 50 existing brands under one identity. 

Separately, HPA said the Port of Hamburg will become “bunker ready” for ammonia, laying the groundwork for safe and reliable ammonia bunkering in the future.

“The focus is in particular on container ships, cruise ships as well as RoRo and ConRo (Container/RoRo) ships,” it said. 

“We expect ammonia to establish itself as an alternative marine marine fuel in the coming years. With our preparatory work, we are already creating the conditions to welcome the first ammonia-powered ships in Hamburg and to bunker them safely.:

HPA added that the import terminal for ammonia planned by MB Energy from 2029 will make a decisive contribution to ensuring the reliable availability of ammonia as a bunker fuel in northern German ports in the long term. 

“The use of an ammonia bunker barge is considered a possible addition to the landside infrastructure to enable ship bunkering in the port and beyond in the future,” it said.

Related: Mabanaft Group renames as MB Energy, merging over 50 brands under one identity

 

Photo credit: Hamburg Port Authority
Published: 22 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending