The Global Shippers’ Forum (GSF) says it unwelcomes the introduction of “emergency” bunker surcharges in response to rising fuel costs.
Chris Welsh, Secretary General of the Global Shippers’ Forum (GSF) believes the container industry is still using “conference-style pricing methods” to impose surcharges on its customers.
In most cases, the emergency surcharges are imposed on top of existing bunker surcharges, he notes.
“Container ship operators need to ‘fess-up’ by taking responsibility and greater control of their costs,” he says, “rather than announcing vaguely explained short-notice unrecoverable surcharge costs on customers.
“It is incumbent on container carriers to provide their customers with full transparency regarding bunker surcharge costs, and to explain why an emergency surcharge is warranted on top of existing bunker surcharge mechanisms.
“Shippers will also want to know what steps have been taken to mitigate the impacts of rising fuel prices, including the impacts of fuel hedging arrangements which are designed to manage the risks associated with the single largest cost component of operating container ships.
“The imposition of emergency surcharges has no place in a modern liner shipping market where costs and prices should be mutually agreed between customers and suppliers, preferably in mutually agreed service contracts,” he continues. “Such arrangements enable the parties to build long term business partnerships, as well as providing clarity on the terms and conditions for the services provided and for appropriate remuneration.
“The use of emergency surcharges is a none too subtle attempt to impose non-negotiable charges on customers. The liner industry needs to employ more appropriate pricing arrangements, in conjunction with its customers, if it is serious about developing partnership approaches and improving individual customer-supplier relationships.”
Published: 5 June, 2018
Maritime ‘recognises its responsibility in helping tackle this global health issue whilst ensuring that the wheels of global trade continue to turn,’ says Secretary General.
Petral imports crude oil for domestic needs, while PIMD is a trading arm for sales to international market.
GCMD set up by MPA, BHP, BW Group, Eastern Pacific Shipping, Foundation Det Norske Veritas, Ocean Network Express and Sembcorp Marine,
Grey ammonia is already being traded as a cargo and using it as a bunker fuel is only a question of certification, says Director at Yara Clean Ammonia.
Decarbonisation move supports both companies’ ambitions to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of European transportation and reduce the environmental impact of shipping.
Corsica Linea, Gothia Tanker Alliance, MISC Berhad, Sinanju Tankers Holdings Pte Ltd, and Wessels Marine GmbH joins over a hundred other SGMF members.
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.
