The Asian Shipowners’ Association (ASA) Wednesday voiced concerns over the current state of planning for the industry to meet the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 0.50% sulphur cap on marine fuel by 1 January 2020.
“A great deal of work has to be done at IMO to determine how the sulphur cap will be regulated and enforced so as to ensure a level playing field,” it says.
“In view of the global sulphur cap, refiners and bunker suppliers must ensure that compliant and suitable fuels are made widely available well in advance of the implementation date, so that ships can bunker the new low sulphur fuel.
“Adequate fuel standards will be instrumental to achieve this. In addition to owners, charterers and fuel purchasers will need to be made aware of the technical and operational issues.”
The Ship Insurance and Liability Committee (SILC) of the organisation is concerned over insufficient planning and lack of understanding of safety and health implications which may hamper a smooth operational transition plan that cover crew training, tank cleaning and, on some ships, equipment and/or tank modifications.
The Safe Navigation and Environmental Committee (SNEC) says it will monitor developments at the IMO “very closely” and urged ASA members to work closely with their respective maritime administrations to ensure that the views of the shipping industry are considered at the IMO, including the upcoming intersessional meeting of the IMO Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention & Response (PPR) this July.
The ASA consists of eight members from the shipowners’ associations of Asia Pacific nations i.e. Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei and Federation of ASEAN Shipowners’ Associations (FASA).
Photo credit: Asian Shipowners’ Association
Published: 17 May, 2018
Chris Hudson of Freight Investor Services outlines the looming regulatory changes, how they will be implemented and the solutions the shipping sector could adopt.
As the value of Euronav’s 0.5% oil stocks fall below cost, the company has been buying 0.5% fuel in the open market to supply its fleet while writing down the value of its stock.
Ince & Co. outline implications of current de-bunkering malpractices that have arisen, and how to safely navigate the upcoming carriage ban.
Port State control authorities need uniform approach to handle ships using non-compliant bunkers.
‘Many will hope that states will be more lenient during the initial period following January 2020,’ it says.
Currently, Zhoushan city has 17 registered bonded bunker fuel supply enterprises and 72 ships that are approved to engage in bunkering bonded marine fuel.
Cash of SGD 4.43 million and USD 243,100, and one piece of 100-gram gold-coloured bar recovered in safe belonging to Abdul Latif Bin Ibrahim kept at Extra Space warehouse storage facility, show court documents.
Program introduces periodic assessments, mass flow metering data analysis, and regular training for relevant key personnel to better handle the MFMS to ensure a high level of continuous operational competency.
U.S. Claims Register Summary recorded a total USD 833 million claim from a total 180 creditors against O.W. Bunker USA, according to the creditor list seen by Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times.
Glencore purchased fuel through Straits Pinnacle which contracted supply from Unicious Energy. Contaminated HSFO was loaded at Khor Fakkan port and shipped to a FSU in Tanjong Pelepas, Malaysia to be further blended.
Individuals were employees of surveying companies engaged by Shell to inspect the volume of oil loaded onto the vessels which Shell supplied oil to; they allegedly accepted bribes totalling at least USD 213,000.
MPA preliminary investigations revealed that the affected marine fuel was supplied by Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd who later sold part of the same cargo to PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
