Singapore-registered Sea Tanker II (IMO 9664483), a bunkering tanker which used to be operating in the republic, was added to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list on Thursday (21 March), learns Manifold Times.
The 3,592 dwt Sea Tanker II was added to the list: ‘Vessels That Are Believed To Have Engaged In Ship-To-Ship Transfers with North Korean Tankers’.
The tanker is believed to be commercially managed by Singapore-based Sea Hub Energy Pte Ltd and owned by Sea Hub Tankers Pte Ltd, both sharing a similar office.
A check by Manifold Times on Wednesday (27 March) did not find Sea Tanker II to be within the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) list of SB Licenced bunker tankers.
Sea Hub Energy is currently a licenced bunker craft operator at Singapore, according to MPA data.
Attempts to reach the company was unsuccessful and it did not respond to request for comments when approached by Manifold Times.
Photo credit: MarineTraffic / mgklingsick_aol_com
Published: 28 March, 2019
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.