Connect with us

Environment

IBIA urges IMO Members to apply amendments to MARPOL bunker sulphur test policy

Currently, having different verification measures for MARPOL delivered samples versus in-use, on board samples might cause unintended confusion and conflict, said IBIA.

Admin

Published

on

IBIA

The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) on Friday (20 November) said it welcomed the adoption of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI at the 75th session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 75), which met virtually from Monday 16 to Friday 20 November 2020.

On the first day of MEPC 75, IBIA noted its Director and IMO Representative, Unni Einemo, urged Member Governments to apply the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to the verification procedure for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample prior to their entry into force to ensure a consistent approach to verifying sulphur limit compliance without delay, in line with Circular MEPC.1/Circ.882 issued by MEPC 74 in 2019.

Einemo’s address included a reminder about Circular MEPC.1/Circ.882 and invites the Parties to consider the early application of all the amendments made to MARPOL Annex VI, which includes changes to Regulation 1,2,14,18,20 and 21 plus appendix I, Form of International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate and appendix VI, Fuel verification procedure for MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil samples.

The amendments are expected to enter into force 1 April 2022, however, IBIA hopes the reminder in the preamble regarding MEPC.1/Circ.882 may improve the chances of Member Governments applying them without delay, which would alleviate problems that the industry is experiencing today.

IBIA statement to MEPC 75

IBIA has some observations and experiences to share with regards to the draft amendments to Appendix VI on Verification procedures for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample which the committee is invited to consider and adopt this week.

The concept of test precision can be hard to grasp. Many find it hard to understand that a test result of 0.53% sulphur does not conclusively prove that the fuel fails to meet the 0.50% sulphur limit. However, all test methods have limitations with regards to their accuracy, with specific reproducibility and Repeatability values calculated in accordance with ISO 4259. For sulphur, the accuracy of the test method, known as 95% confidence, means that fuel oil with a true value of 0.50% sulphur may give a test result of up to 0.53% in a laboratory.

These statistically sound test precision principles have been taken into account for verifying if samples of fuel oil in use, and samples of fuel oil carried for use on board a ship, meet the relevant sulphur limits of regulation 14. This is reflected in the amendment to appendix VI under the Verification Procedure Part 2 for in-use and onboard samples. We support this wholeheartedly. We remain concerned, however, that the same principles are not recognised for the MARPOL delivered sample, which will significantly increase the risk that a fuel oil that is actually compliant with MARPOL sulphur limits can, on the basis of testing by one laboratory, be deemed as having failed to meet the requirement. These concerns were laid out in detail in MEPC 74/10/11 by IPIECA and IBIA.

We have always feared that the complexity in having different approaches to sulphur verification for MARPOL delivered samples versus in-use and on-board samples would cause unintended confusion and conflict. Experience so far suggests that this is indeed the case.

Since the 0.50% sulphur limit took effect, there have been cases of ships that have received a test result on their own bunker manifold inlet sample indicating a sulphur content above 0.50%, but not above 0.53%. Ships may have documented such test results as indicative of a potential non-compliance through a notification to its flag administration. Copies of the notification may also be sent to authorities at its next port of call, and the Administration under whose jurisdiction the bunker supplier is located, and to the bunker supplier.

We have heard from our members that some flag states have been advising ships to not use the fuel if the ship has a test result from its own sample indicating potential non-compliance, e.g. 0.51% to 0.53% sulphur. There are also fears that port State authorities will not take 95% confidence into account for in-use and on-board samples. This has created a lot of problems and uncertainty for the shipping and fuel oil supply industries, including demands to debunker fuels which have not been proven as non-compliant by the appropriate verification procedures stipulated under MARPOL Annex VI. Debunkering is not a trivial matter. Apart from substantial financial costs, it also carries an environmental cost through extra CO2 emissions, and represents safety and environmental risks.

IMO guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit, and the revision of appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI, make it absolutely clear that the 95% confidence principle for test precision should be applied to in-use and on-board samples. This principle was sufficiently important to prompt this committee to agree, at MEPC 74, to issue a circular, MEPC.1/Circ.882, inviting Member Governments to apply approved amendments to MARPOL Annex VI related to the verification procedure for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample in advance of their entry into force, in order to “ensure a consistent approach to verifying the sulphur limit of the fuel oil delivered to, in-use or carried for use on board a ship until the entry into force of the approved amendments.”

A consistent approach does not appear to be happening. It really, really needs to happen.

Let me be very clear about the expectations on suppliers: no fuel should be put on the market if it has tested above the limit even by a fraction prior to delivery, and the blend target to meet the 0.50% sulphur limit during production should be no more than 0.47%, in line with best practice guidance.

However, when it comes to sulphur verification under appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI, having two different procedures will inevitably cause confusion in how the regulation is understood and applied. The signals are confusing. We all know the meaning of green and red traffic lights, but yellow seems to mean ‘keep going’ for one type of samples and ‘stop’ for another.

We need to make sure everybody understands that as far as the ship is concerned, a yellow signal means “keep going”. We believe this is enshrined in the amendments to appendix VI that are up for adoption and as such urge Member States to apply these amendments prior to entry into force.

Furthermore, we would recommend making the following principles clear: If an authority decides to test the MARPOL delivered sample, it will determine whether the fuel as delivered meets the relevant requirement. If the fuel tests above 0.50% sulphur and as such has not met the requirement as delivered, it should nevertheless be considered as having met the requirement for the ship to use, or carry for use, unless the test result exceeds 0.53% sulphur. This would be in line with the MARPOL Annex VI sulphur verification procedure for in-use and onboard samples.

We believe these issues needed to be brought to the Committee’s attention, and that they demonstrate the need for further IMO guidance to bring clarity on how to determine compliance for all parties concerned.


Photo credit and source:
IBIA
Published: 23 November, 2020

Continue Reading

Biofuel

China conducts first dedicated marine biofuel spill response drill in Tangshan

Exercise simulated a leak of 10 metric tonnes of biodiesel from a vessel experiencing a spill during cargo operations at a terminal.

Admin

Published

on

By

China conducts first dedicated marine biofuel spill response drill in Tangshan

China’s Tangshan Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) on Thursday (10 September) conducted the country’s first dedicated emergency response exercise for a marine biofuel spill at Jingtang Port in Tangshan, Bohai Sea.

The “2026 Green Power Mission” exercise simulated a leak of 10 metric tonnes of biodiesel from a vessel experiencing a spill during cargo operations at a terminal. 

Following the incident report, the Tangshan MSA’s vessel traffic management centre activated its emergency response procedures, issued a navigation warning and established a traffic control area.

The maritime patrol vessel Haixun 04501 arrived at the scene to coordinate the response, involving a drone unit, an oil spill response vessel and terminal emergency personnel.

A drone equipped with fluorescence detection equipment was deployed to identify the contaminated area. Terminal personnel used oil recovery equipment, while response vessels deployed containment booms to limit the spread of the spill and spraying equipment to remove the surface oil film.

The exercise also trialled the use of 355-nanometre ultraviolet light combined with drone-mounted fluorescence detection equipment to locate biodiesel contamination.

The Tangshan MSA said unlike conventional fuel oil, biodiesel spill traces can be difficult to identify by eye under natural light. The fluorescence detection system can identify biodiesel’s characteristic fluorescence signal, enabling responders to determine the spill boundary and support subsequent containment and recovery operations.

While biodiesel is biodegradable and has a lower sulphur content than conventional fuel oil, its behaviour following a spill and the methods required to detect it differ from those used for conventional oil spills, the MSA said.

The exercise tested response procedures covering incident reporting, aerial monitoring, surface containment, spill recovery and residual pollution removal.

The Tangshan MSA said it will use the exercise to improve biofuel spill emergency response plans, specialist training and equipment development as part of its “Green Bohai Sea” initiative.

The authority will also strengthen pollution risk prevention and accident response capabilities for vessels using new and clean energy fuels, it said.

 

Photo credit: Tangshan Maritime Safety Administration
Published: 16 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

APPEC 2026: Panellists navigate maritime decarbonisation and alternative marine fuel strategies

Experts discuss maritime decarbonisation, emphasising global regulatory clarity, crew training, and collaborative strategies for adopting sustainable alternative marine fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

IMG 9319 MT

Panel members consisting of Singapore’s maritime and port regulator Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), legal firm Rajah & Tann, bunker trading firm Sing Fuels, and the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) discussed the complexities of maritime decarbonisation at APPEC 2026 on Thursday (10 September).

The panel Balancing the Bunker Fuel Mix on the Path to Decarbonization moderated by John Morley, Global Director, Crude and Fuel Oil Markets, S&P Global Energy explored the complex landscape of maritime decarbonisation, sanctions fragmentation, and the transition to alternative marine fuels in Singapore.

Panellists broadly agree regulatory clarity – particularly from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – is the single most critical enabler for large-scale investment, whilst highlighting regional fragmentation, crew competency gaps, and trade finance constraints pose significant near-term challenges.

Biofuels were seen as the most immediately scalable alternative marine fuel, with methanol and ammonia as longer-term prospects.

The following points were raised by panel members during discussion:

New Wei Siang, Director, Maritime Decarbonisation & Net-Zero Pathways, MPA, advocated for a global, IMO-led regulatory framework to guide shipping’s decarbonisation.

He believed regional patchwork regulations create unhelpful uncertainty, whereas a unified approach would be more helpful for long-term investment.

While acknowledging progress at recent IMO inter-sessional meetings held in September has been “slow but deliberate,” he remains focused on the upcoming MEPC 85 scheduled from November 30 to December 3, 2026.

To address the technical and safety challenges of new bunker fuels, he pointed out the MPA has established the Maritime Energy Training Facility (METF) to upskill crews on handling future marine fuels including methanol.

Furthermore, the MPA has launched ten green and digital shipping corridor partnerships to trial alternative fuels, exchange knowledge, and raise safety standards.

Mr New emphasised Singapore’s goal is to serve as a comprehensive maritime hub, balancing global regulatory engagement with practical, collaborative efforts to build competency for the future.

Nathanael Lin, Partner, Shipping & International Trade, Rajah & Tann Singapore, highlighted the significant legal and commercial challenges posed by regulatory fragmentation.

He argued regional environmental rules, such as those in the EU, force shipowners to make high-stakes gambles on trade routes and infrastructure until the IMO codifies standards into MARPOL Annex VI.

He also noted sanctions compliance has become dramatically more complex, with competing unilateral regimes replacing the previous era of UN consensus, creating immense operational risk for industry participants.

Furthermore, Mr Lin warned trade finance frameworks are currently ill-equipped to handle the complexities of blended alternative bunker fuels; he recommended banks to actively upskill their compliance functions to support the maritime energy transition.

Finally, he observed while claims regarding alternative marine fuels remained low due to the sophistication of early adopters, they will likely rise as adoption broadens. He also flagged the future migration of residual fuel demand as a critical, under-examined industry issue.

Juwita Setiawan, Trading Manager & New Fuels Lead, Sing Fuels, emphasised the energy transition has been making bunkering increasingly complex due to overlapping regulations.

She advocated for holistic voyage planning, where shipowners consider total emissions, costs, and marine fuel flexibility rather than evaluating port calls in isolation. She highlighted the critical role of high-quality data, fuel flexibility, including dual-fuel capabilities and fuel optimisation as essential tools for navigating the increasingly complex energy transition and supporting a practical pathway towards decarbonisation.

Regarding market structure, Ms Setiawan believed a symbiotic partnership between large integrated energy companies – which provide necessary capital and infrastructure – and agile, specialist suppliers is vital for success.

She identified biofuels and LNG as the most viable near-term maritime decarbonisation solutions, with methanol emerging as a mid-term option.

Ultimately, even though government incentives remain essential to help shipowners manage the high costs associated with adopting greener bunker fuels, regulatory clarity is the single most important factor to simplify market trading.

Looking ahead, she believes three things need to happen over the next three years:

  1. Clear and stable regulation – Shipowners and fuel suppliers need regulatory certainty and confidence to make long-term investments.
  2. Scale in supply and infrastructure – The industry needs to move beyond pilot projects towards reliable volumes, competitive pricing and stronger infrastructure across major bunkering hubs.
  3. Greater confidence in the fuels themselves – Common standards, proven technologies and reliable fuel performance will be essential to building trust and accelerating adoption.

“At Sing Fuels, we believe the transition is not about choosing one fuel for every vessel. It is about optimising the right fuel, at the right place, at the right cost, with the right emissions outcome – while keeping operational realities at the centre of the decision.

Siti Noraini Zaini, Regional Manager, Asia, IBIA, identified energy security and decarbonisation as objectives that need not be competing, noting that when energy security is under pressure, the immediate focus naturally shifts towards availability, reliability and affordability.

Over the longer term, however, a diversified marine fuel mix ultimately enhances industry resilience.

She stressed low carbon fuels alone is insufficient; shipowners need confidence that fuels will be available to meet the demand, where they are needed and at commercially manageable prices.

A critical focus for Ms Siti is the parallel development of standards. She warned the industry could not wait for the market to mature before establishing protocols. Standards for fuel quality measurement, green bunkering procedures, safety, and crew competency must be developed alongside the fuels themselves.

Looking ahead, she identified the upcoming MEPC 85 meeting as the industry’s primary regulatory watchpoint. Achieving clarity at the meeting is essential to enable the safe, financed, and commercially viable bunkering of new marine fuels, ensuring shipping’s decarbonisation transition remains both practical and sustainable.

 

Photo credit: S&P Global
Published: 14 September 2026

Continue Reading

Methanol

GENA Solutions: Total renewable and low-carbon methanol project pipeline increases from 61.8 to 62.2 Mt by 2032

Information shared by MI – the Global Methanol Alliance meant to assist the maritime industry in the adoption of methanol as a mainstream marine fuel heading into IMO 2030/2050.

Admin

Published

on

By

28 1

MI – the Global Methanol Alliance recently shared with Manifold Times the renewable and low-carbon methanol project pipeline August 2026 release produced by GENA Solutions Oy.

Information from the release is meant to provide the bunkering publication’s readers with insight on renewable methanol availability, and to assist the maritime industry in the adoption of methanol as a mainstream marine fuel heading into IMO 2030/2050.

Key takeaways from GENA’s August 2026 Methanol release are as follows:

  • As of the end of August 2026, GENA tracks 286 renewable and low carbon methanol projects, representing 62.2 Mt of capacity by 2032. This includes 25.1 Mt of e-methanol, 25.9 Mt of biomethanol, and 11.2 Mt of low carbon methanol capacity.
  • Two new projects were added to Project Navigator last month, while one frozen project was excluded. The project pipeline increased by 0.4 Mt month on month.
  • Four new offtake agreements were registered during August, including two biomethanol and two e-methanol agreements.
  • About 8% of the cumulative renewable methanol project pipeline capacity has reached FID so far, with another 11% at the FEED stage.
  • Considering the current uncertainty around regulatory developments and demand growth, GENA projects that renewable methanol capacity could reach 6 Mt to 12 Mt by 2031.

Note: The full article can be viewed here.

Renewable methanol project pipeline 4 Renewable methanol by feedstock 8 Renewable methanol by region 7 Project pipeline by status Methanol capacity scenarios

 

Photo credit: GENA Solutions
Published: 4 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending