IBIA interview: The inside view on IMO 2020
The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) on Tuesday (1 October) published an interview conducted by the organisation’s Director Unni Einemo with Edmund Hughes of the IMO in regards to IMO 2020:
Edmund Hughes is head of Air pollution and Energy efficiency at the International Maritime Organization and is at the heart of the IMO’s work to reduce air emissions from shipping. He spoke with IBIA’s Director and IMO representative, Unni Einemo about the road to 2020 and beyond in this interview for IBIA’s magazine, World Bunkering, to get his view on the IMO’s preparations for the global low-sulphur regime.
UE: The 0.50% sulphur limit has become widely referred to as “IMO 2020” and it is getting a lot of press attention. When the decision to go to implement it in 2020 was taken at the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 70) in 2016, did you anticipate just how big an impact this regulation would have?
EH: Leading up to 2016 we had already had some discussions about when the review into fuel oil availability should take place because of concerns expressed both by shipping and refining industries, and that gave us a precursor to the attention being paid. First of all everyone wanted to know “will it happen” because some thought there would be a delay. Having got over that, the focus has been on the implementation which we have been working on for the past three years here at the IMO. In terms of impact this is certainly a decision that has raised global interest. IMO, while historically focused on shipping, recognises that environmental protection issues, in particular, have wide impacts on all aspects on member states such as economy, trade and social development. When making regulations this is something we have to get used to very quickly.
UE: Could IMO 2020 also have an impact on states and trade?
EH: Maybe, we will see. An expert group analysed the impacts of the ruling. Yes there will potentially be an increase in the price of fuel oil used by shipping because they will be using better quality fuels, and you pay for quality in the world. But the fact is that status quo is not acceptable politically because of the impact of ship emissions on human health and the environment, and that has its own cost which is borne by society. We have had the principle of ‘polluter pays’ since 1992 and you have to recognise that shipping is a polluter and you need to somehow mitigate that. The cost of reducing pollution is being added to the fuel and that in turn is passed on through the logistics chain. There is a potential win-win here as higher fuel cost can stimulate innovation and efficiency in the system, thereby helping another big agenda at the IMO for the past decade, which is improving the energy efficiency of shipping. Shipping has for the past 40 years had the opportunity to use a very low cost fuel and the focus has been on expansion of shipping and world trade. Having been successful in responding to demands for its services in terms of trade, it also has to recognise that it has an impact on the environment. Scrutiny of the sector is increasing and environmental issues are becoming higher profile and of greater concern to the public. Shipping cannot ignore that and has to respond.
UE: Since the decision was taken in 2016, there has been repeated speculation that it would be delayed and also attempts at slowing it down. Do you think IMO 2020 has been fully accepted now or is there still resistance to it?
EH: I think that particular issue has been well and truly put to bed, in part because of the realisation that the process of changing the regulation is so protracted, taking at least 22 months. The short window of time to table a proposal to delay has passed.
However, it has been recognised that there are issues that needed to be resolved and a huge body of work has been undertaken on the consistent implementation of the rule. One of the key aspects of that was in terms of enforcement, to address concerns from the shipping sector and industry stakeholders to make sure that a level playing field was maintained. Otherwise we would get market distortion and enforcement is a key part of that. The big challenge here was how to enforce the rule on the high seas, outside territorial waters. That’s why we got the carriage ban, which gives port state control (PSC) teeth in enforcing the rule when ships come into ports. They don’t have to prove that ships have been using non-compliant fuel, as now even having it onboard is illegal. This was the simplest and most effective tool.
UE: How do you expect the transition to 0.50%S to go – smooth or chaotic? What do you think will be the most difficult issues will be?
EH: I’m optimistic, but realistic as well. There may be some local shortages of compliant fuel oil, but if a 0.49% sulphur fuel oil is not available, maybe lower sulphur marine gasoil is. It may be more expensive, but the rule is to use a compliant fuel oil. The risk of widespread noncompliance has been reduced, because the awareness is there now and I think people are now just anxious to see the compliant fuel oils come on the market, probably during the third quarter of this year, so they can begin to stem it and gain experience with its use.
UE: Do you still see some pockets of ignorance where more preparation is needed?
EH: We’re trying to talk to as many stakeholders as possible, but you do hear anecdotes of lacking awareness, which is surprising given the level of attention it has been getting both at IMO committees, industry events and in the media – not just in shipping media but also in energy media and the wider press.
UE: IMO has finalised a comprehensive set of guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit. Is it enough and if not, what more should have been covered?
EH: The guidelines are comprehensive, but we are seeing some questions coming up. One of them is who should ships be sending FONARs to, and what PSC officers should do with the FONAR information; who they should disseminate that information to. This is an area where we may need to help with further clarification. There is work going on regarding improving the IMO’s information system, GISIS, to try to clarify who should provide this information and what happens with the information afterwards.
UE: The guidance documents are aimed at various parties – e.g. ship operators and various authorities such as PSC and others in member states. Based on experience, to what extent do you think it will be followed and by whom?
EH: They are very important and create a “de Minimis” expectation of how the rules will be implemented and enacted. They are there for the legal authorities, whether they be the port state or flag administrations, to understand the expectations of the global community in terms of implementation of these rules. They cannot be ignored and are essentially soft law that give instructions as to how a court of law may interpret the regulation. We try to create a common understanding and interpretation to help give a legal guidance and reduce the grey areas. We have received very positive feedback from shipping companies, for example, that the IMO’s guidance for developing a ship implementation plan for the 0.50% sulphur limit is really helping.
I’d like to add that probably the most important instrument of all is the International Safety Management (ISM) Code; essentially a very good framework tying together all the various instruments that the ship has to comply with. Within the ISM Code, one of the provisions is that ships should take into account the applicable guidelines for IMO instruments.
UE: Are you worried about the level of compliance and the enforcement aspects of IMO 2020?
EH: Let’s be frank: there’s a clear economic incentive for ships not to comply, they could potentially save hundreds of thousands dollars per voyage. But now we have the carriage ban in place and increased awareness compared to when the decision was taken in 2016. An enormous amount of effort has gone into disseminating information and raising awareness and it has made a huge difference. For example, there is greater awareness of how difficult it is to come into compliance in terms of cleaning out tanks and fuel lines, and a realisation that having non-compliant fuel onboard is a logistical challenge which will end up costing the ship, which may have to pay for non-compliant fuel to be debunkered and treated as waste in some ports. Awareness is now much greater both in shipping and on the supply and refining side. Governments are also increasingly aware that penalties need to be dissuasive to be effective deterrents.
UE: There has been a lot of focus on fuel safety aspects in connection with IMO 2020 and it is now a new agenda item on this at the Maritime Safety Committee. What do you think IMO can actually do about fuel safety?
EH: We obviously have key provisions such as the SOLAS requirement on flash point and the safety committee has now asked for enhanced reporting on that when non-compliant fuel is identified. Safety is at the heart of IMO and the change from the current heavy fuel oil to middle distillate types of fuel or blends presents new risks. Those risks are manageable and relevant stakeholders, such as ship engineers and bunker suppliers, are used to managing them. One of the key things we have done is raising awareness and identifying these risks, which allow industry stakeholders themselves to get a broader understanding of the types of risks that they need to mitigate and manage. They can do that through the ISM Code onboard ships and through risk management procedures and processes for those engaging in the industry. I don’t think these risks are unmanageable, and I feel this is part of being a good shipowner; you have to manage the risks that are presented to you.
UE: But now the onus seems to be on the IMO to come up with some kind of framework for fuel safety.
EH: Yes I think you’re right, but sometimes the framework is already there and you have to think carefully before drafting more regulation which leads to a further need for verification, certificates, more paperwork etc. To me the instrument is already there through the ISM Code, in which you are required to manage the risks that are already identified. If we identify new risks, risks that were not there before, then yes you may need to look at amending provisions. One example that is being talked about a lot is incompatible fuels and while this can be difficult to manage on ships with limited capacity for segregated tanks, it is manageable and we are aware of industry now preparing its own guidance for issues like this. I’m confident that the risks that have been identified with new fuels will be manageable by well prepared and trained ships’ crew.
UE: IMO has a reporting database called GISIS and there are calls to report fuel safety issues via GISIS. How will the data be used?
EH: One part [of GISIS] is for people to see that the regulation is being implemented and monitor compliance, but there are questions about what the information should be used for. Collecting data is great but it is ultimately up the member states how it is to be analysed and used and that discussion has yet to be concluded.
UE: There are calls for the IMO to somehow get member states to control and take action against bunker suppliers if they provide fuels that are non-compliant or cause safety issues. Is there some kind of precedent for this in other areas, for example, in IMO putting in place a framework for member states to control and penalise suppliers of equipment and services to ships if those fail to meet safety or other regulatory standards?
EH: I am not aware of a precedent of the IMO to create provisions to regulate what is ultimately under the jurisdiction of national governments. Regarding who should mandate controls for provision of fuel oil to ships, the debate shows a clear division with some governments feeling it is down to individual governments to decide, while others think there should be IMO control over fuel oil standards that are verified in accordance with global procedures. The new guidelines for member states make reference to voluntary licencing schemes for bunker suppliers, but this is still under the control of local governments. The idea that IMO should somehow take over control of a global bunkering system is difficult to envisage. We don’t control individual shipping companies either. If there are real significant problems with 2020 the discussion may come back, but companies with large consumption of fuel oil have the ability to stop using suppliers that don’t meet their standards, which I’m sure we will increasingly see happening. Scrutiny is increasing and so are calls for transparency with owners demanding more information about what the fuels they are receiving.
What’s clear, however, is that it is up to contracting parties to MARPOL Annex VI to take action against those that are in breach of the regulation, whether that is ships or bunker suppliers, but it is not up to the IMO to decide what type of sanctions they impose. This is how it should be: the IMO is a specialist technical UN agency that facilitates dialogue between governments; we are not the government. Ultimately the governments have to decide for themselves what is appropriate and acceptable, and that includes deciding to what extent the regulatory framework for international shipping should step into territory that is governed by inland regulations. Bunker supply is a classic example of where inland regulations and the maritime sector interface and managing that jurisdiction is not easy.
UE: Let’s talk about scrubbers: there has been a lot of debate about the impact of washwater on the marine environment and many saying it is just moving a pollution problem from the air to the water. Could you explain a bit about how the potential impact of washwater was dealt with when the decision was taken to allow scrubbers as an equivalent means?
EH: It was a consideration, which is why there are washwater criteria in the guidelines [IMO’s EGCS Guidelines for approval of scrubbers], and they have evolved over time. Regulation 4, which deals with equivalent means, actually talks about allowing systems but not creating transboundary pollution, which is the idea that states should not just transfer pollution from one form to another or to other states. But when these criteria were agreed, there were very few scrubbers and that is changing now, so you can see why governments have suddenly decided that they want to look at this again from their own perspective.
UE: Do you expect scrubber regulations to be tightened and if so, how? Will the EGCS Guidelines be adjusted? Will the IMO make a decision to restrict discharges in some areas? Will such decisions be based on science or political pressures, or both?
EH: It is hard to tell as of right now, but we have seen some governments decide they want to evaluate these systems and the washwater and we are seeking guidance from our scientific advisors on the matter. If that advice comes back and is ignored it may be difficult, but as we know environmental protection has become more political and governments are more wary of environmental impacts. We have a new agenda item to look at this more closely, including scientific evidence and we’ll have to wait and see what the outcome is.
UE: IMO has come under fire from some quarters for working so closely with industry and perhaps being unduly or disproportionately influenced by it. Could you comment on that, and the role of NGOs at the IMO?
EH: I find this line of discussion extraordinary that the IMO, which is a specialist technical agency for a particular industry, should hold all its discussions and deliberations only with governments with no input from the industry it is meant to regulate. It is not just the industry stakeholders NGOs that have a view on it; it is the NGOs representing environmental protection groups as well. Should they also not then have a place at the table? We may see criticism for listening too intently to some of the views provided by observers but ultimately decisions are made by the member governments and they will listen and take cognisance of positions and views and sometimes they agree, sometimes they don’t agree with what the industry thinks. I think our deliberations would be denuded if we didn’t have input from the sector we are supposed to regulate. I’m sure civil servants could draft regulations but whether they could be enacted and effective is another matter. We need the industry’s input into how the regulations can be implemented effectively by industry. Arguably, you could say we have been incredibly successful because we have reduced the negative impact of the shipping sector in terms of oil spills and reduction of other incidents over the past 40 years while the sector has grown significantly. We may have identified new impacts now, such as air pollution and carbon emissions, that need to be addressed.
UE: Greenhouse gas reduction is the next big challenge that will have an impact on the bunker industry. Following the initial GHG strategy agreed at MEPC 72, which set out the vision and levels of ambition, to what extent do you think the revised strategy in 2023 will help the industry take the necessary steps to achieve the level of ambition and do you think the levels of ambition will change?
EH: The vision talks about decarbonisation in this century so if you look for it there is sufficient ambition built into the IMO’s GHG strategy already. The global community, in line with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, now seems to be focusing on keeping global warming below 1.5C. There is no doubt shipping has to contribute to that and the IMO’s GHG strategy gives a framework to enable us to do that. The real barriers will be achieving widespread adoption of innovative technologies and also alternative zero or low carbon fuels. How we can crack that particular nut could make IMO 2020 look like a minor issue by comparison.
Take for example of LNG, which despite years of trying to introduce it as an alternative fuel for shipping to reduce harmful air pollutants still has only about 1% market penetration.
There are going to be big challenges but one thing I can promise is that this train has left the station: there is no turning back, decarbonisation in the shipping sector will happen and we now have to try and find the tools and incentives to make it happen. It is recognised that ships are a tough nut to crack because they are essentially mobile power stations using large amounts of fuel and they have to carry their own supply of fuel to get from A to B in some of the most daunting and demanding environmental conditions that can be thrown at a machine on this planet. IMO’s role as the global shipping regulator is to help create the right enabling environment.
This interview was first published in the autumn 2019 edition of World Bunkering, IBIA’s official magazine. Edmund Hughes will be speaking at IBIA’s Annual Convention in Istanbul on 23 October.
Source: International Bunker Industry Association
Photo credit: International Maritime Organization
Published: 4 October, 2019
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 18.104.22.168).
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.