The Baltic and International Maritime Council, otherwise known as BIMCO, advises marine fuel buyers to perform due diligence and consider a series of recommended questions to ask before entering into bunker fuel contracts.
The eight questions that should be asked about a potential counterparty are as follows:
“A review of the circumstances of the OW Bunker collapse led to the committee to conclude that set-off clauses, pay-to-be-paid clauses, bankruptcy clauses and similar were not commercially or legally workable as they would not work in all cases and in all jurisdictions,” it said in a statement to North P&I Club.
“It also highlighted the importance of risk management and for the buyer of the fuel to carry out sufficient due diligence on the other parties before entering a binding bunker contract.”
The above recommendation follows the launch of the BIMCO Bunker Terms 2018 in May, where the organisation introduced a set of revised terms.
The Committee charged with reviewing BIMCO’s existing bunker terms included Michael Hope from North’s FD&D Department along with cross-industry personnel from maritime law, bunker suppliers, and shipowners.
“The goal of the revised terms was to create a balanced set of terms that could be adopted by both suppliers and buyers of bunkers with minimal changes and to replace or cut down the large number of supplier’s terms and conditions used in the industry,” says BIMCO.
“As such, the new terms provide comprehensive provisions regarding claims management for quantity, quality and delay claims. They also provide a liability cap which sets a default limit of liability for the other party at either the invoice value or US$500,000, whichever is higher. The parties can, however, increase that figure by mutual agreement.
“The new terms includes an innovative “election sheet” which forms part of the contract for the supply of bunkers in which the parties can make certain agreed changes to the terms. These include, amongst other changes, choice of law and forum, liability cap and place of delivery.
“It is hoped that since the new bunker terms have been created by representatives on both sides of the bunker transaction that the document will be widely taken up by the industry.”
Related: BIMCO introduces updated, approved bunker contract
Related: IBIA: BIMCO Bunker Terms 2018 ‘major step in the right direction’
Related: Clyde & Co explains BIMCO’s Bunker Terms 2018 contract
Published: 20 June, 2018
Significant investments needed to decarbonise shipping can only be expected to happen if there is a long term commercially viable business case.
Digitalised process demonstrates, once deployed on a larger scale, customers will be able to obtain financing for trades in less than two hours.
Appointed Liquidator has called for all creditors to send in their names and addresses and particulars of their debts or claims by Monday, 5 April 2021.
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.
Shell Argina and Shell Gadinia extended oil life and improved engine reliability while lowering lube consumption.
Monjasa will offer new refuelling solutions to Greek ship owners – both through Monjasa’s physical supply locations and global trading locations across 11 sister offices.
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.
