The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) on Tuesday (15 October) revoked the bunker craft operator licence of Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (IPP) with immediate effect.
IPP will not be allowed to operate as a bunker craft operator in the Port of Singapore.
“As part of MPA’s ongoing efforts to ensure the integrity of bunkering in Singapore, checks were conducted on Inter-Pacific earlier this year,” it stated.
“MPA’s checks and subsequent investigations revealed magnetic interferences affecting measurements of bunkers supplied in numerous Mass Flow Meter readings across Inter-Pacific’s fleet of bunker tankers. Inter-Pacific had also failed to ensure that its employees, including its cargo officers, comply with the terms and conditions of its licence.”
“As Inter-Pacific also holds a Bunker Supplier Licence issued by MPA, MPA is currently investigating Inter-Pacific for breaching the terms and conditions of the Bunker Supplier Licence.”
Trials involving the former bunker clerk of a Singapore-registered bunker tanker (IMO 9199701) chartered by IPP are ongoing at the State Courts of Singapore; the ex-assistant boson of the same vessel was found guilty over mass flowmeter tampering in late August.
Manifold Times on Monday reported the Director of IPP facing a legal suit from the Singapore branch of Societe Generale at the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
A timeline organised list of events preceding the current development have been recorded by Manifold Times below:
Related: Magnets on MFMs: Trial starts for former bunker clerk of “Consort Justice
Related: First suspect charged over MFM tampering in landmark case
Related: With nearly $180 million of debt, IPP proposes interim juridical management
Related: Inter-Pacific Group, Inter-Pacific Petroleum under judicial management
Related: Magnets on MFMs: “Consort Justice” crew pleads ‘not guilty’ to tampering charge
Related: IPP responds to temporary suspension of bunker craft operator licence
Related: MPA temporarily suspends IPP bunker craft operator licence
Related: Singapore: Bunker Cargo officer, crew face charges over alleged MFM tampering
Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 16 October, 2019
Police Coast Guard caught bunker tanker’s crew siphoning MGO off the vessel at the sea area off Bedok on 23 May, Fleet Agency Director, Agency Division of Iships Mgmt Pte Ltd, tells Manifold Times.
The 1,700 dwt Togo-flagged bunker tanker Lamar was transporting 950,000 litres of fuel when captured.
Vessel KG 95395 TS was found carrying 30,000 litres of undocumented diesel oil and had transferred about 4,000 litres to KG 95395 TS.
The domestic oil vessel is in process of being transported from Hai Phong port to the May Chai ward, updates.
Complaint relates to decision making process of on-going tender to operate Labuan’s containerised port.
Suggests use of ISO 8217:2017 or MARPOL Annex VI for protection against fuel contamination while insisting on longer claim time bars from contractual suppliers.
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.
