Gard: Prepare crews for Port State Control spot sampling of bunkers
The following article and image showing how proper onboard procedures and a well prepared and attentive crew can be crucial in avoiding unwarranted penalties first appeared in the INSIGHT magazine of P&I Club Gard:
“Prepare crews for PSC spot sampling of ships’ fuel”. This may seem like pretty minor advice at a time when shipowners are in the midst of preparing their fleets and crews for compliance with the 2020 global sulphur cap. Onboard spot sampling of ships’ fuel is nothing new. Since the 0.10% sulphur cap entered into force in EU ports and the designated ECAs, spot sampling and analysis of ships’ fuel have been common as a means for port state control (PSC) to verify the actual sulphur content of the fuel in use.
The ECAs are still relatively limited in terms of geographical scope whilst compliance with the global 0.50% sulphur cap involves much larger quantities and different types of fuels. Hence, it is anticipated that the frequency of PSC requests to take spot samples of ships’ fuel oil will increase significantly after 1 January 2020 and shipowners should prepare their ships and crew accordingly. The IMO’s adoption of a prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil from 1 March 2020, the so called ‘carriage ban’, is also expected to drive the requirements for further sampling by PSC.
Even PSC inspectors make mistakes
There is no doubt that PSC will play an important role in the enforcement of the 2020 global 0.50% sulphur cap. However, while many PSC regimes are investing heavily in training and education of their inspectors ahead of the regulatory changes, others may not be equally well prepared for their new inspection tasks come 1 January 2020. The cases reported below demonstrate that even PSC inspectors make mistakes from time to time. And when such mistakes are the reason for ships being penalised – proper onboard procedures and a well prepared and attentive crew can make a big difference in changing the outcome of a case.
Case 1 – read the ‘small print’ before you sign
A ship entered with Gard was recently fined in an EU port for “using marine fuel with a content of sulphur higher than the restriction established by law (0.10%) in port”. A sample had been drawn from the fuel oil system while the ship was at berth and testing established that the sulphur content of the sampled fuel exceeded the 0.10% limit. The test results came as a complete surprise to the ship’s crew. According to the Chief Engineer, the ship’s auxiliary engines had been running on compliant marine gas oil (MGO) at the time of the inspection. This statement was supported by entries in the ship’s log-books, which showed that a successful change-over to MGO had been completed in line with the port’s requirements, as well as the bunker delivery note for the MGO, which showed that its sulphur content was well below the required 0.10% limit.
Further investigations revealed that the ship’s fuel oil supply unit for the main engines had also been running at the time of the PSC inspection, but only in re-circulation mode as part of the procedures for securing the main engines after stopping. The shipowner therefore concluded that it was very likely that the inspector had sampled fuel from the ‘wrong system’ and that the sample did not represent the fuel burned while the ship was at berth. Additional testing of the ship’s duplicate fuel sample supported this conclusion, the fuel in the bottle was HFO, not MGO. It appears in this instance that our Member may have been penalised because of a mistake made by the PSC inspector.
Case 2 – a picture is worth a thousand words
In another case, also in a port in the EU, a routine port state control inspection of a ship included the taking of a fuel sample. And, like the previous case, when the sample was tested, the sulphur content of the sampled oil was above 0.10%, and a fine was levied on the ship. In this case our Member was able to document that the ship had bunkered and burned only compliant ultra-low sulphur fuel oil (ULSFO) for the previous two years. From the shipowner’s perspective, it was therefore quite clear that the ship’s fuel oil could not possibly contain the stated sulphur levels.
Since the crew had taken pictures whilst the PSC inspection was ongoing, the correct seal number on the relevant sample bottle was easily identifiable and the duplicate sample that was kept onboard could quickly be located. It turned out that the duplicate sample bottle contained a thick brownish oil that did not resemble the ship’s ULSFO. When the duplicate sample was tested, and found to contain hydraulic oil, the fine was cancelled. Thanks to attentive crew and good routines on board, the shipowner was in this instance able to prove the PSC inspector had made a mistake.
Sulphur inspections – issues to be aware of
A ship may be targeted for a sulphur inspection for various reasons, e.g. the existence of a previous non-compliance or warning received concerning its fuel, the ship is scheduled to bunker at a specific port, or as part of a maritime safety administration’s enhanced verification programme – or just randomly in order to reach an overall percentage inspection rate set by the PSC.
Methods of verifying compliance
For the vast majority of ships that plan to meet the 2020 requirement by burning low sulphur fuel, PSC has essentially two methods of establishing whether a ship is compliant:
1) Verify the sulphur content of the ship’s fuel, e.g. by reviewing procedures, bunker delivery notes (BDN), log book recordings, analyse the MARPOL delivered sample, and taking additional samples at different locations of the fuel oil system.
2) Measure the sulphur content in the ship’s exhaust gas, e.g. by use of remote sensing equipment such as sulphur-sniffing drones or similar monitoring equipment placed at strategic locations on shore.
Much of the compliance with MARPOL Annex VI is documented by recordkeeping. It will therefore be important to ensure that that all MARPOL Annex VI documentation is complete and up-to-date prior to a port entry. Results from Tokyo MOUs concentrated inspection campaign in 2018 show that missing BDNs was one of the most notable deficiencies found during the campaign. Regulation 18.6 of MARPOL Annex VI requires BDNs to be retained onboard for a period of three years after the fuel has been delivered onboard.
In the shorter term, PSC may also consider ship implementations plans (SIP) when verifying compliance with the 0.50% sulphur limit requirement. A ship with a suitably developed SIP, and a clear record of the actions taken in order to be compliant, should be in a better position to demonstrate to PSC that the ship’s crew and managers have acted in good faith and done everything that could be reasonably expected to achieve full compliance. A SIP is, however, not mandatory and therefore, the absence of such or incorrect entries etc. should not form the basis for a PSC deficiency.
The use of remote sensing equipment and portable handheld fuel analysers is likely to become increasingly common during initial inspections by PSC. As an example, the Danish Maritime Authorities recently announced that a sulphur-sniffing drone is already in use to check emissions from ships in Danish waters. When the drone enters a ship’s exhaust gas plume, it can register the amount of sulphur in the fuel and make the data immediately available to Danish authorities, who can follow up if a ship does not comply with the applicable requirements. Results from a campaign carried out in the Danish Port of Aarhus in 2018 is available HERE.
The ship’s crew should, however, be aware that the results from such equipment may be of an indicative nature only and should not necessarily be accepted as the sole evidence of non-compliance. PSC inspectors are, however, likely to consider such results to be ‘clear grounds’ for further inspection.
More detailed inspection
Given ‘clear grounds’ to conduct a more detailed inspection, PSC may require samples of fuel oils to be analysed at a fuel testing laboratory. This could be either the representative samples provided with the BDN, or spot samples of fuel oil drawn from a ship’s fuel oil lines and/or tanks.
Where the MARPOL delivered sample required under Regulation 18.8.1 is taken from the ship, a receipt should be provided to the ship. Where spot samples are drawn from the ship’s fuel oil lines or tanks during the inspection, the Chief Engineer should be present at all times to verify that samples are drawn at the right location and in the correct way. The Chief Engineer should also inspect the immediate quality of the sample, verify that each sampling bottle is properly labelled and make sure the ship’s own samples are retained onboard. It is important that the PSC inspector reports information such as the sampling point location where the sample was drawn, date and port of sampling, name and IMO number of the ship, and details of seal identification.
Designated sampling points become mandatory under MARPOL Annex VI
A new retroactive requirement in MARPOL Annex VI to designate, or if necessary fit, sampling points to facilitate the taking of spot samples onboard ships was agreed during the sixth session of the IMO sub-committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR 6) in February 2019. Subject to approval by the MEPC 74 in May 2019, ships will be required to designate, and clearly mark, sampling points no later than the first IAPP renewal survey that occurs 12 months or more after the entry into force of the amended regulation.
When designating the sampling points shipowners should consider the “2019 Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships”, also agreed at PPR 6. Although the guidelines are a recommendation only, they set out an acceptable sampling method for inspectors to determine the sulphur content of fuel oils, both with respect to location of sampling points and handling of the samples.
In order to distinguish between onboard spot samples and samples taken when fuel oil is delivered onboard, currently known as the ‘MARPOL sample’, the PPR 6 agreed to introduce two new terms in MARRPOL Annex VI: the ‘in-use sample’ to describe a sample drawn from a ship’s fuel oil system and the ‘onboard sample’ to describe a sample drawn from a ship’s bunker tank. The latter was introduced as a means of verifying compliance with the new ‘carriage ban’ and the PPR 6 further agreed that additional new guidelines are needed to support the safe taking of samples from ships’ bunker tanks.
Summary and recommendations
Despite ongoing preparatory work within the IMO and the publication of numerous guidances by classification societies and other industry stakeholders, shipowners still face a range of uncertainties and potential operational risks post-2020. Fuel prices in 2020 are a big unknown. Understandably, most shipowners worry about an increase in costs in an already difficult economic environment. Equally high on shipowners’ agenda are issues related to the availability of low sulphur fuels and the quality of new fuel blends. Compatibility between fuel batches is a serious safety concern, and so is the long-term stability of some of these new fuels. For those that have invested in exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers), it will be particularly important to keep a close eye on the local regulation of wash water discharges from open-loop scrubbers.
Shipowners can, however, be fairly certain of one thing: PSC will start enforcing the cap from 1 January 2020, whether the industry is ready or not! Hence, when preparing fleets and crews for compliance with the 2020 global sulphur cap:
- Do not forget to revisit ships’ procedures for fuel sampling.
- Make sure the procedures describe acceptable and safe sampling methods for a ship’s fuel oil system, both with respect to location of sampling points, handling of the samples, and record keeping.
- Train the relevant members of the engine crew and emphasise the importance of escorting the attending sulphur inspector at all times while onboard.
- Consider if the recommendations contained in existing, as well as coming IMO sampling guidelines should be implemented in a ship’s procedures. The European Maritime Safety Agency’s (EMSA) “Sulphur Inspection Guidance” provides useful advice and information on the PSC’s approach to the inspection of ships and how they ascertain a vessel’s compliance with applicable sulphur in fuel requirements. Section 2.7 of the EMSA guidance addresses sample collection and analysis
Remember, without proper evidence, the chances of the shipowner losing the claim in a disputed case are high.
Published: 6 May, 2019
Argus Media: Euronav writes down IMO fuel value after price drops
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.
CMA CGM temporarily suspends surcharge on low sulphur bunker fuel
Low Sulphur Surcharge no longer relevant with effect from 1 May, 2020 due to current price of VLSFO, states CMA CGM; however charges may still revert at a later date.
China: Sinopec Guangzhou announces first export of LSFO bunker fuel cargo
713 mt of LSFO produced by Sinopec Guangzhou cleared the export division of Huangpu Customs, and was supplied to international vessels docked at Port of Guangzhou.
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 126.96.36.199).
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.
BP Singapore bunker trial nears end as legal reps present summary submissions
Lawyers of the ex-Regional Marine Manager of BP Singapore, the Executive Director of Pacific Prime Trading, and Deputy Public Prosecutors were present at the State Courts on Wednesday.
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.