In the past week there have been a number of misleading headlines and articles incorrectly attributing certain views, statements and advice to the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA).
With regards to compliance with the 2020 global sulphur cap, IBIA urges its membership and all industry stakeholders to comply to safeguard the regulation’s intended benefits to human health and a level playing field.
The likely rate of compliance by ship operators is a controversial topic. A number of industry professionals, including IBIA members, have presented their views regarding the level of compliance they expect in 2020 in public fora. These are individual or company views and should not be confused with an official “IBIA view”.
IBIA’s view on 2020 compliance, reflecting the diversity of our membership, is that we should be careful about being both too pessimistic and too optimistic. There are legitimate concerns about compliance and effective enforcement, but there are also equally legitimate reasons to expect a high level of compliance. The only real indication we have at the moment is statistics from the emission control areas (ECAs) in Northern Europe, which has put non-compliance with the ECA limit at around 5%.
IBIA, along with other stakeholders, will be discussing ways to put global shipping on track to comply with the 0.50% sulphur limit at the International Maritime Organization when the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) meets in February next year.
As reported by IBIA last month, among the issues to be discussed at PPR is a proposed ban on the carriage of bunker fuel exceeding the global limit on ships without approved abatement technology.
In a poll at IBIA’s Annual Convention in Singapore last month, 38% of those who voted said they think we need such a carriage ban as soon as possible, while 55% thought there should be a ban but not until good availability of compliant fuels is evident. Only 7% voted against high sulphur bunker fuel carriage ban.
When it comes to abatement technology, specifically exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS) or scrubbers, IBIA cannot offer investment advice and does not offer a specific opinion as to which options any particular shipowner or shipowners in general should follow.
IBIA is not in the business of providing forecasts or giving investment advice, but there is a wealth of knowledge and varying opinions within our membership on many subjects. IBIA provides a platform for these various views to be heard and discussed, at IBIA events and in material published by IBIA.
IBIA does, however, urge its members to abide by regulations, follow best practices and pursue a high level of professionalism and ethical standards.
The article above was an IBIA written press release contributed to Manifold Times.
Additional topics of bunker contamination and OCM services discussed at VPS’ Fuel Management Challenges – The Year of 2021 & Beyond webinar on 23 September; Manifold Times summarises the session.
‘The JMs have failed to discharge their duties by blindly helping the Banks mount a false case against the Defendant,’ wrote defence lawyers representing former IPP Director Dr Goh Jian Hian in court statement.
Lead prosecutor Andreas Myllerup Laursen aims for a fine and a prison sentence in the so-called Syria case scheduled to commence in Odense, Denmark on 26 October, writes the Danish publication.
In a modern re-telling of the story of David versus Goliath, local bunker barge owners/charterers successfully resisted claims brought in the Singapore courts by Phillips 66 for misdelivery of bunkers.
Bunker barge owners and operators; traders and suppliers; banks, including players in other countries, will have to re-examine respective operations, advises Helmsman Associate Director Jonathan Tan.
Vopak BL was a non-essential document with no contractual force and had no effect as a contract of carriage or as a document of title, states written Judgement issued by Singapore Court of Appeal.