Argus Media Q&A: IMO 2020 policing unlikely before March
Global energy and commodity price reporting agency Argus Media on Wednesday (2 October) published an interview with legal experts from law firm Norton Rose Fullbright:
Philip Roche and Utsav Mathur with law firm Norton Rose Fulbright advise ship owners and operators, banks, insurers and energy companies on the legal, commercial and environmental risks of owning, and operating ships, including pollution risks, bunker contamination issues and International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 matters. In this Q&A, edited for length and clarity, Roche and Mathur discuss the effects of the IMO 2020 global marine fuel regulation on the shipping market. The two responded jointly to emailed questions.
If a vessel is caught burning high-sulphur marine fuel in international waters in 2020, which international governing body's responsibility is to penalize the shipowner — IMO? Do you know if there are penalties being discussed?
No, the IMO has no enforcement powers. It will fall to the flag state to prosecute owners (so this is unlikely to happen). However this is only a temporary phase. After March 2020, no one should be carrying HS fuel, so no one should be able to burn it. [The IMO adopted a carriage ban which states that no ships should carry fuel that contains over 0.5pc sulphur in their fuel tanks as of 1 March.] Port state control will be able to prosecute owners for having it onboard in the territorial waters. This is the reason for the carriage ban.
In 2020, if a supplier sells high-sulphur marine fuel (non-compliant fuel) to a shipowner who does not have a scrubber on their vessel, could the supplier be held in contempt of the regulation, in addition to holding the shipowner in contempt? In 2020, should a supplier require paperwork from the vessel to prove that there is a scrubber on board the vessel if the owner claims that there is one on aboard and is looking to purchase high-sulphur bunkers?
I am not as aware of any legislation that prevents this — the sanction is against vessels using (and after March 2020 carrying) the fuel. If a bunker supplier fraudulently stated the bunkers were compliant when they were not, then the bunker supplier would be liable for that fraud.
It is not for bunker suppliers to police this regulation but they do have certain obligations. According to the IMO:
"The bunker delivery note shall include a declaration signed and certified by the fuel oil supplier's representative that the fuel oil supplied is in conformity with regulation 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI and that the sulphur content of the fuel oil supplied does not exceed:
· the limit outside ECAS (currently 3.50pc, falling to 0.50pc from 1 January 2020) under regulation 14.1;
· the limit in emission control areas (0.10pc m/m) under regulation 14.4; or
· the purchaser's specified limit value, on the basis of the purchaser's notification that the fuel oil is intended to be used:
1. in combination with an equivalent means of compliance; or
2. is subject to a relevant exemption for a ship to conduct trials for sulphur oxides emission reduction and control technology research."
So a purchaser has to notify the supplier that it has an exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS). The supplier does not need to check this, he can take the notification at face value.
Could a shipowner submit a fuel oil non-availability report (FONAR) and still get fined for non-compliance in 2020? Under what circumstances? Have you encountered cases like this?
FONAR is a new development for the 2020 0.5pc fuel regulation but I understand it has already been used for Emission Control Areas 0.1pc non-availability. The FONAR must reflect and document a genuine attempt to acquire compliant bunkers and demonstrate why such could not be obtained at the port of departure.
The vessel is not required to deviate its route to get compliant bunkers so may proceed with non-compliant bunkers. But there will need for good evidence that bunkers were not available and such a report has to be filed as soon as possible after the vessel sails. This may be difficult for the vessel owner if he is waiting for the vessel charterer to give them the information on availability.
The vessel owner is required to populate the FONAR. If it is found that compliant fuel was available, or there was excessive delay in reporting, or the owner/charterer made no real effort to obtain compliant fuel, the owner may be prosecuted and fined.
Shipowners are concerned that the 0.5pc sulphur fuels that the different suppliers are offering will not be compatible with each other. Mixing different specification fuels from different suppliers could cause vessel engine problems. Could a shipowner use FONAR, even if 0.5pc sulphur fuel is available for purchase, but the shipowner does not want to buy it because they are worried that the new fuel and the fuel that is already in their tank might not be compatible?
The answer is not entirely clear. If the compliant fuel available is truly not able to be mixed with other compliant fuel onboard, then a FONAR should be sent demonstrating why this is the case. But it is not known if the port's inspection agencies, also known as Port State Control (PSC) will accept this defense if complaint fuel was available at the port of departure. The owner will need to demonstrate why they could not arrange bunkering so compliant fuel could be taken onboard. Indeed paragraph 7 from IMO's guidance on ship implementation plan for 2020 compliance suggests that such measures will need to be taken in the management of bunkers to avoid such situations.
"The ship implementation plan could be used as the appropriate tool to identify any specific safety risks related to sulphur compliant fuel oil, as may be relevant to the ship, and to develop an appropriate action plan for the Company to address and mitigate the concerns identified. Examples should include:
1. Procedures to segregate different types of fuel and fuels from different sources;
2. Detailed procedures for compatibility testing and segregating fuels from different sources until compatibility can be confirmed;
3. Procedures to changeover from one type of fuel to another or a fuel oil that is known to be incompatible with another fuel oil;
4. Plans to address any mechanical constraints with respect to handling specific fuels, including ensuring that minimum/maximum characteristics of fuel oil as identified in ISO 8217 can be safely handled on board the ship; and
5. Procedures to verify machinery performance on fuel oil with characteristics with which the ship does not have prior experience."
PSC will look at the individual ship implementation plan (SIP) and the circumstances to determine whether the vessel has made sufficient efforts to deal with this set of circumstances.
In the spring and summer of 2018, the shipping industry was plagued by slew of contaminated marine fuel cases which originated in the US Gulf. The contaminated fuel caused a number of vessels to stall without engine power. The contaminated fuel was also exported and spread to Panama and Singapore. Because the contaminated fuel is mixed with other fuel in the vessel tank, it is very hard to prove how the specification problems originated. Shipowners have about 15 days to present a marine fuel contamination claim against the fuel supplier. Do you have advice for these shipowners?
It is correct that bunker suppliers have very short limitation periods. Owners should ensure that fuel is tested immediately if they have any suspicions about the provenance of the bunkers supplied.
That said, the increase in quality of the bunkers that are supplied to vessels (i.e. no longer residual fuel oil) may make it more difficult for bunker suppliers to adulterate fuel with non-permitted substances without it being obvious quite quickly. Nevertheless, owners have to take samples and get them tested if in doubt and not wait until they use the bunkers.
Singapore and other places are making efforts to close down rogue bunker suppliers. A class action will be tricky for evidential reasons and the likely target of such action (the rogue suppliers) are unlikely to have any assets to satisfy the judgement/award — so it may be a pyrrhic victory.
A scrubber breaks down and the vessel does not have 0.5pc sulphur fuel onboard. Will the shipowner be subject to fines or arrest if they call the next port burning high-sulphur fuel?
No, but the PSC officers will require good evidence that the scrubber is properly maintained and the breakdown was a true fortuity, rather than due to a lack of maintenance, trained personnel, lack of parts etc. If a vessel has a "breakdown" frequently then this may cause PSC officers to become suspicious and less inclined to believe it was unavoidable. That said, EGCS are hard to run and we will probably see a lot of breakdowns.
What are the claims you expect to see from shipowners with regards to IMO 2020?
1) Supply of non-compliant bunkers;
2) Supply of off-spec bunkers leading to engine damage;
3) Claims arising from damage to machinery by bunkers that are on specification.
This will depend on the agreement that the shipowner and the charterer have reached in the time charter party agreement. Ship operators need to specify much more carefully what fuels will be compatible with machinery and what will not. This is part of the considerations that must be included in the Ship Implementation Plan. But with new types of fuel coming on to the market, it is not certain whether an apparently compatible fuel will damage ship's machinery or whether this potential problem will be evident in advance.
4) Claims for non-availability of installed scrubbers – from charterers to owners and from owners to suppliers.
It is becoming apparent that exhaust gas scrubbers can be quite challenging to operate. In the initial introduction of a lot of these units may suffer from unreliability due to unfamiliarity and other issues.
Do you think that the US will ban the use of open loop scrubbers in its territorial waters?
Possibly. A number of ports in Europe and the Far East are banning the use inside port limits already.
What are the most common marine fuel record keeping violations you have seen shipowners commit?
Falsifying oil record books is always a favorite.
Do you know of cases where the US Coast Guard or the EPA has fined shipowners for not burning compliant 0.1pc sulphur marine fuel in the US Emission Control Area (ECA), since the ECA sulphur limit was established at 0.1pc maximum in January 2015? How are the non-compliant vessels typically caught?
Yes. Typically US Coast Guard only detains vessels for ECA violations, but, recently the US Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuted a MARPOL case arising from an ECA violation. The case arose from a July 2018 Coast Guard examination on board a tanker. US Coast Guard observed discrepancies in the vessel's bunker delivery notes. A more detailed investigation revealed false entries in the vessel's oil record book and that some of the bunker delivery notes had been falsified. The investigation also found that an officer of the vessel had directed crew members to lie to the Coast Guard. The US government brought charges against the operator, owner, commercial manager, master, and chief engineer. This appears to be the first MARPOL enforcement case in which prosecutors have gone after a vessel's commercial manager for directing a vessel to use non-compliant fuel. All defendants pled guilty.
In the matter identified above, the vessel's owner and its operator were sentenced, under a plea agreement, to fines of $1.50mn, four-year term of probation, and implementation of an environmental compliance plan. The master and chief engineer were sentenced to three years of probation, during which time they cannot enter the US on any vessel. The officer who allegedly directed the crew to lie also received a three-year probation and an additional $3,000 fine. The vessel's manager entered a plea agreement for a $500,000 fine.
Non-compliant vessels are identified through discrepancies in bunker delivery notes or the oil record book. Discrepancies are discovered during crew interviews. Whistleblower crew members can all trigger more detailed inspections or investigations. A more detailed inspection can include sampling of a vessel's fuel.
Source: Argus Media
Published: 4 October, 2019
Taiwan applies for tougher restrictions on bunker, aviation, and land-based fuels
0.5% sulphur cap will apply for Taiwanese international and domestic vessels by 1 July 2020, even though it is not a member of the IMO, states government.
MSC issues statement on “MSC Joanna” violating fuel oil carriage ban in UAE
MSC Joanna scrubber installation was delayed following the COVID-19 pandemic which forced Chinese shipyards to close for an extended period of time, it explains.
BIMCO: Roundtable meeting expects 77% drop in SOx emissions from ships
Months into sulphur cap implementation, all four shipping associations remain cautiously optimistic and urge all stakeholders to uphold their responsibilities.
The Shipowners’ Club: Legal costs cover and IMO 2020
Maritime insurer discusses potential commercial disputes it foresees post IMO 2020, and outlines response parameters for legal costs covers.
FOBAS Alerts: Large Bunker Quantity Shortages Encountered With VLSFO
Shortages due to VLSFO not stabilising in vessel pipes, resulting in inaccurate readings - shipowners are advised to appoint a Bunker Quantity Surveyor.
Gazprom Neft IMO 2020 compliant bunker sales up by 47% in 2019
‘In 2020, we plan to increase the share of ultra- and low-sulphur marine fuels in total sales up to 50%,’ says CEO.
IMO reiterates start of non-compliant fuel oil carriage ban
Reminds shipping industry that carriage ban is meant to support consistent implementation of the sulphur cap.
Gard: China updates regulations on marine pollution from ships
P&I club outlines clarifications on SPRO Agreement and oil booming requirements through China MSA document.
Argus Media: Panama MGO sales up but VLSFO demand dominates
‘High-sulphur resid was replaced by VLSFO sales in Panama, because VLSFO sells at a discount to MGO,’ reports Argus Media.
Sinopec Maoming Company announces first LSFO bunker cargo
Production and export of LSFO aimed at reducing inventory of HFO and increasing profits, reports Sinopec News Network.
Argus Media: LSFO bunker spreads at record lows
Lower demand and improved supply logistics for LSFO main factors behind the narrowing of price premium over HSFO.
Sinopec Qilu Company announces first delivery of LSFO marine fuel product
LSFO production meant to gain greater market share in the international marine fuel market, says the company.
BIMCO, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO launch IMO 2020 fuels survey
Survey aims to further understand the quality of new compliant fuel oils and possible safety implications of IMO 2020 fuels.
SAL Heavy Lift adopts ‘Smart Trader’ to weather IMO 2020 uncertainties
Inatech’s ‘Smart Trader’ is a complete end-to-end system for optimising fleet mapping and fuel procurement efficiently.
Stillwater Associates: IMO 2020 - No Large Speed Bump Thus Far
Consulting firm discusses strategies refiners are executing after IMO 2020 implementation, and changes to be expected ahead.
Demand for IMO compliant fuel spikes in Rotterdam
Reports note a remarkable increase in LNG sales that more than tripled alongside the expected surge in VLSFO sales post IMO 2020.
Argus Media: U.S. bunker demand moves towards VLSFO
Reporting agency assesses split in U.S. demand for VSLFO, MGO and HSFO grades since the introduction of IMO 2020.
ECSA publishes position paper in response to EU Green Deal
Welcomes EU climate change ambition by outlining eight points where it can work with the shipping industry.
Think-ING: The surprising move in marine fuel spreads
ING economist outlines factors and implications behind unexpected outcomes in the marine fuel product markets post IMO 2020.
Clean Arctic Alliance welcomes Canada’s backing of heavy fuel oil ban
IMO must ‘not entertain any arguments calling for a delay or exemptions’ in implementation of Arctic HFO ban, says Dr Sian Prior.
The Royal Society policy paper discusses ammonia as marine fuel
Policy briefing Ammonia: zero-carbon fertiliser, fuel and energy store focuses on future use of zero-carbon ammonia and its opportunities.
Stand.earth highlights debate on ship scrubbers in this week’s ‘IMO Arctic Summit’
Papers submitted to PPR7 questioning use of scrubbers as alternative compliance mechanisms for IMO 2020 regulations.
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.
Argus Media: U.S. refiners turn to marine fuel cast-offs with IMO 2020
Refiners running more intermediate feedstocks as IMO 2020 fuel specs leave ready supply of alternatives to tight sour crude supplies.
Gazprom Neft commences commercial production of VLSFO
Preparations since 2008 pay off and supply of VLSFO to Russian domestic market alone expected to exceed 1.5 million tons.
Integr8 Fuels on VLSFO: Better quality but mind critical parameters
While VLSFO seems to be stabilising, report cautions industry as consequences from off-spec VLSFOs are much more serious than HSFO.
Gard: Beware local restrictions before discharging washwater from scrubbers
Although gas scrubbers are considered acceptable to meet IMO2020’s SOx emission rules, it is not globally accepted in all states.
DNV GL on HSFO carriage ban: Compliance is the only option
HSFO carriage ban effective from 1 March is an attempt to ensure transparency and that ships are not unjustly penalised.
Pacific Green Technologies highlights LSFO as ‘GHG timebomb’
Points to several studies showing producing and burning LSFO increases carbon emissions, whereas gas scrubbers save money and the environment.
Star International releases on-board IMO 2020 fuel testing and treatment products
Range is directed at providing the industry with tools to obtain additional assurance that suppliers are providing compliant, stable fuel.
CRU viewpoint: IMO 2020 regulation likely to raise freight rates by around 10-20%
10%-15% of total ocean-going freight capacity will employ scrubbers in 2020; difference in freight rates will be main variable to determine optimal investment pay-off period.
Planning and preparations to be ‘IMO 2020 ready’ pays off, says IBIA
Several large globally operating shipping and bunkering companies reporting a surprisingly smooth transition to the 0.5%sulphur limit for marine fuels.
BIMCO: Low-sulphur fuel oil prices drop USD 99 per MT in Singapore
Price level of VLSFO declines from the all-time high of USD 740 per mt on 7 January to USD 641 per mt on 22 January, the largest drop seen in Singapore.
Argus Media: Sediment rates high in Americas bunkers, says Lloyd's Register
9% of low sulphur fuel samples in the Americas analysed between 1 December to 13 January found to be off spec for issues, including engine-damaging sediment, says FOBAS.
Clean Arctic Alliance urges IMO to prohibit ‘super pollutant’ VLSFO and LSHFO
VLSFO and LSHFO usage will contribute to a massive increase of Black Carbon emissions which represent 7% to 21% of shipping’s overall GHG equivalent impact on the climate.
IMO 2020 regulation could have negative health and climate impacts, says research author
Dr Daniel Lack says cost-cutting group of oil refiners using residual fuel blends could send ship-source black carbon emissions soaring overnight.
Argus Media: China to apply bunker fuel tax rebates from 1 February 2020
Development is intended to boost country's ambitions to create a bunkering hub to rival Singapore marine refuelling market, says analyst.
The Standard Club: UAE instructions to vessels entering UAE waters to comply with IMO 2020
From 1 January 2020, all UAE flagged and foreign flagged vessels entering UAE waters are to use 0.5% sulphur limit fuel oil; with exemptions for scrubbers and other fuels.
Middle East Bunkering Convention: What are the questions we should be asking post IMO 2020?
MEBC to be held on 5-6 February in Dubai will offer expert assessment on the impact of IMO 2020 sulphur regulation on both Middle East and global markets.
HFW: Briefing of AMSA documents on IMO 2020 compliance and enforcement in Australia
Australia issues regulations for implementation of IMO 2020 premised on a policy of strict compliance.
Pakistan prohibits discharge of wash-water from open-loop scrubbers at Port of Karachi
The Standard Club advises members with ships fitted with scrubbers and calling at the Port of Karachi to take note of the attached circular and comply with local regulations.
IMO Secretary-General evaluates shipping industry’s transition to IMO 2020
Prices for compliant fuels such as very-low sulphur fuel oil and marine gas oil rose quickly initially but now appear to be stabilising.
Malaysia Northport receives first LSFO shipment at Southpoint Terminal
6,190 dwt bunker vessel Straits Energy delivers LSFO shipment to dedicated storage tanks at Southpoint Terminal.
Tokyo and Paris MoUs: Prohibition on the carriage of non compliant fuel
Emphasis placed on requirements entering into force on 1 March 2020, prohibiting the carriage of non-compliant fuel for use on ships not equipped with EGCSs.
China MSA publishes Guidance for Supervision and Management of Air Emissions from Ships
The Standard Club provides a summary of key points for IMO 2020 enforcement in Chinese waters by local port state authorities.
Global Maritime Forum: Approximately USD 1-1.4 trillion needed to achieve IMO 2050
Significant investments needed to decarbonise shipping can only be expected to happen if there is a long term commercially viable business case.
Wanmar to upgrade cargo vessel “mv Donau” with Value Maritime scrubber
8,267 t dwt mv Donau will be equipped with a small prefabricated, pre-installed, ‘plug and play’ EGCS housed in a 20 ft road transportable casing.
Port of Rotterdam: LNG bunkering ops up in 2019, to introduce bunker permit by 2021
Three permanent LNG bunker vessels operating in port to date, with further four LNG bunkering specialists owning LNG bunkering licence.
Argus Media: Singapore 0.5% fuel oil stocks between 7 to 8 million mt, says IEA
Singapore’s swelling inventory has not prevent shortages, but constraints in bunker delivery infrastructure during the transition to low-sulphur fuels remain a concern.
BIMCO: Low-sulphur fuel sale jumps as 2020 sulphur cap kicks in
Sales of low-sulphur fuels, including LSFO and MGO LS, rose by 51% month-on-month in December to 3,127 kilo mt, compared to the 1,271 kilo mt of HSFO sold in the same month.
Iran Ship Owners Union says enough low-sulphur fuel has been supplied for IRISL fleet
The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line and National Iranian Tanker Company are both cooperating to secure avails of low sulphur fuel, says IRSOU spokesman Yahya Ziaei.
DNV GL grants statement of compliance to Rivertrace SMART ESM washwater monitor for scrubbers
SMART ESM monitors regulated water quality parameters PAH, Turbidity, Temperature and pH, on open-loop, closed-loop and hybrid scrubber systems.
Standard Club: Regulation of IMO 2020 compliant fuel availability issue
In the event of unavailability of compliant fuel, members are required to document and evidence all steps taken to achieve compliance (Regulation 22.214.171.124).
Argus Media: More IMO violations emerge in China’s coastal waters
Chinese maritime authorities have caught at least three vessels using marine fuel that exceeds International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards.
Safe Bulkers extends scrubber partnership with Alfa Laval through service agreement
‘The Alfa Laval Service Agreement will help us safeguard long-term performance, for example by using data analysis to keep systems performing at their peak,’ says Dr. Loukas Barmparis.
Vertex and Bunker One enter into 10-year Marine Fuel agreement
Bunker One will have the exclusive rights to purchase 100% of Vertex's Marrero, Louisiana refinery's marine fuel production until December 2029.
Low supply of LSFO for bunkering to halt shipping operations on east coast of India
Monthly estimated demand of 30,000 mt of LSFO for coastal ships plying on India’s eastern coastal route are not met, say local bunker suppliers.
Rosneft begins supplying 0.1% sulphur fuel oil for bunkering at Russian river ports
Company begins refuelling ships with TMS type A eco-friendly fuel (low-viscosity marine fuel) produced by the Novokuybyshevsky Oil Refinery.
GARD: Target for 0.47% in VLSFO test sample to ensure IMO compliance
For bunker producer/supplier to meet 95% confidence limit, blend target should be the limit minus 0.59R.
The IMO 2020 fuel oil spread: China to the rescue?
China’s fuel oil tax rebate may lower bunker prices, especially in Asian shipping hubs, says FIS’ Chris Hudson.
China govt approves national tax rebate for VLSFO production
Initial exports of bunker fuel may be limited due to focus on developing domestic coastal bunker fuel market.
Argus Media Viewpoint: Sulphur cap to support 0.5% fuel oil
Delayed exhaust gas scrubber installations will further boost demand for IMO-compliant products.
North P&I Club shares IMO 2020 impact encountered by members
Sulphur content issues, redelivery, and charterparty disputes among the most common problems encountered.
MOL CEO highlights initial difficulties of IMO 2020 in New Year message
‘We need to pay close attention and maintain our focus on compliance as we move toward a stable path.’
“K” Line CEO says LNG fuel ‘cannot reach IMO’s 2030 targets’
CEO Yukikazu Myochin addresses the need for the company to continue studies on new technologies such as Kite energy.
LSFO prices rise USD 165 pmt through December in Singapore
The price levels for VLSFO and LS MGO have risen respectively by 30% and 24% from start of December.
GSF encourages shippers to challenge the basis of any VLSFO surcharge
Shippers need to make sure they understand exactly what they are being asked to pay extra for by carriers.
News: High sediment reported in test samples of IMO 2020-fuel blends
Test samples of 0.5% sulphur fuel produced from blending process found to have 0.16 to 0.21% m/m.
Argus Media viewpoint: IMO 2020 to have delayed price effect
Full impact of IMO 2020 is likely to be felt in March, once the current global stockpile of LSFO has dwindled.
HPCL launches IMO 2020 compliant 0.5% sulphur marine fuel, says refiner
HPCL has produced the first batch of VLSFO from its Visakh Refinery ahead from IMO 2020 January 1 deadline.
Clyde & Co lawyers discuss legal issues on bunker quality claims in 2020
Enforcement against vessels that narrowly exceed 0.5% VLSFO in test results may lead to legal claims.
IRISL fleet will have IMO 2020 compliant bunkers, says NIOPDC MD
NIOPDC to supply and distribute 0.5% low sulphur fuel oil needed for the country’s maritime IRISL fleet.
Vitol Group acquires Sinanju Tankers Holdings; gains foothold in Singapore bunker ops
The Singapore Bunkering license holding entity has been renamed Vitol Bunkers (S) Pte Ltd and from 1 April 2020 all bunker deliveries will be carried out by Vitol Bunkers (S) Pte Ltd.
PMI Trading responds to Nustar Energy over alleged off-spec bunker fuel supply at Houston
Seeks to enforce either arbitration clause under contract or to dismiss NuStar and TPP respective liability claims, according to documents obtained by Manifold Times.
‘Minimal disruption’ to Singapore bunkering operations despite COVID-19, confirms MPA
‘We are closely monitoring the rapidly developing COVID-2019 situation while remaining committed to working with the bunkering industry to ensure minimal disruption to bunkering operations and services.’
Photo Essay: “Marine Vicky” in multi-agency emergency preparedness exercise at Singapore port
The emergency preparedness exercise involving SCDF, PCG, MPA, and Sinanju was carried out on the LNG dual-fuel bunker tanker at Raffles Anchorage on 17 March, learned Manifold Times.
Singapore bunker players continue Business Continuity Plans in response to COVID-19
Manifold Times checks along the bunker supply chain on how various companies are managing operations after the republic entered DORSCON Orange in response to COVID-19.
Survey: Singapore physical bunker players not as widely hit, despite fall in crude oil prices
Manifold Times checks with industry players on how the recent sharp fall in crude oil prices have affected each node along the marine fuels supply chain in Singapore.