The Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) Monday listed and traded its newly launched bonded 380 fuel oil futures contracts on Monday.
SHFE in late June amended its fuel oil futures contracts to promote greater trade; key changes were the adoption of RMG 380 product (from 180 cSt) and the new contract size of 10 metric tonnes per lot (from 50 mt per lot).
As such, it has amended a series of documents concerning the futures contracts below:
??1. Fuel Oil Futures Contract of the Shanghai Futures Exchange, as amended
??2. Clearing Rules of the Shanghai Futures Exchange, as amended
??3. Delivery Rules for Fuel Oil Futures of the Shanghai Futures Exchange, as amended
??4. Designated Delivery Storage Facilities Rules of the Shanghai Futures Exchange, as amended
??5. Designated Delivery Oil Depots Rules of the Shanghai Futures Exchange, as amended
??6. Risk Management Rules of the Shanghai Futures Exchange, as amended
The trading volume of the RMG 380 futures by market close reached 59,658 lots, at 1.8 billion yuan ($269.80 million), according to the exchange, as noted by Reuters.
Sinopec and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) among other oil and chemical majors participated in the trading.
Published: 17 July, 2018
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.