2020 Sulphur Cap Seminar - Istanbul - 30 Oct 2019 PDF

2020 SULPHUR CAP
ARE YOUR BUNKER CLAUSES READY AND COMPLIANT?
Supported by:
Istanbul
30 October 2019
2020 Sulphur Cap Seminar
Contents
1. Welcome letter
2. Rules, Enforcement and Standards
3. BIMCO 2020 suite of fuel clauses
4. Bunkers 2020 – readiness status
5. Interactive workshop
6. Appendices
Chapter 1
BIMCO Informatique A/S
Bagsvaerdvej 161
2880 Bagsvaerd
Denmark
Tel: +45 4436 6800
VAT: DK 12 10 26 90
Dear Participant
Welcome to the 2020 Sulphur Cap Seminar.
We hope you will enjoy the course and you will leave feeling equipped to do a demanding job even
better.
The electronic course file contains transcripts of the presentations and supporting documents.
Immediately after the course, we will send you a link to an evaluation form. Your feedback is vital
in our constant efforts to improve our courses further, therefore we would appreciate if you would
take the time to complete it online.
Should you have any questions with respect to the course, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I wish you an enjoyable and educational day.
Kind regards
Peter Grube
Head of Training, Courses
BIMCO Training
www.bimco.org
Chapter 2
Personal notes:
Rules, Enforcement and

Standards
Christian Bækmark Schiolborg, Manager Maritime Technology & Regulation
Sulphur 2020 Seminar, Istanbul
Regulation 14 explained Personal notes:

Sulphur Oxides (SOx) and Particulate Matter
General Requirements
From 1 January 2020:
14.1 The sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed the following limits:
.3 0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2020.
From 1 March 2020:
14.1 The sulphur content of fuel oil used or carried for use on board a ship shall not exceed 0.50% m/m
14.4 While ships are operating within an Emission Control Area, the sulphur content of fuel oil used on
board ships shall not exceed the following limits:
.3 0.10% m/m on and after 1 January 2015.
14.5 The sulphur content of fuel oil referred to in paragraph 1 and paragraph 4 of this regulation shall
be documented by its supplier as required by regulation 18 of this Annex.

• Prohibited to use above 0.50% m/m sulphur fuel after 1 Jan 2020
• Ships may still carry fuel with more than 0.50% m/m after this date
• Requirements for documenting bunkering in the Oil Record Book
• document fuel type and sulphur content in all bunker tanks accordingly
• Get rid of all HSFO onboard before 1 March 2020
• De-bunkering of HSFO after 1 Jan 2020 may not always be allowed
• There is a significant difference between 0.5% and 0.50%
• Precision of limit and where rounding of result takes place
• 0.54 -> 0.5 and 0.55 -> 0.6
• 0.504 -> 0.50 and 0.505 -> 0.51
1
Regulation 18 explained - parties Personal notes:
Fuel oil availability 18.1
Each Party shall take all reasonable steps to promote the
availability of fuel oils that comply with this Annex and inform
the Organization of the availability of compliant fuel oils in its
ports and terminals.
This is not the case - yet
Regulation 18 explained - ships Personal notes:

2.1 If a ship is found by a Party not to be in compliance with the standards for
compliant fuel oils set forth in this Annex, the competent authority of the
Party is entitled to require the ship to:
.1 present a record of the actions taken to attempt to achieve compliance; and
.2 provide evidence that it attempted to purchase compliant fuel oil in
accordance with its voyage plan and, if it was not made available where
planned, that attempts were made to locate alternative sources for such fuel
oil and that despite best efforts to obtain compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil
was made available for purchase.
Regulation 18 explained - ships Personal notes:

2.2 The ship should not be required to deviate from its intended
voyage or to delay unduly the voyage in order to achieve
compliance.
2.4 A ship shall notify its Administration and the competent
authority of the relevant port of destination when it cannot
purchase compliant fuel oil.
2
Fuel oil availability 18.2 continued
2.3 If a ship provides the information set forth in paragraph 2.1 of this
regulation, a Party shall take into account all relevant circumstances
and the evidence presented to determine the appropriate action to
take, including not taking control measures.
2.5 A Party shall notify the Organization when a ship has presented
evidence of the non-availability of compliant fuel oil.
Regulation 18.2 – fuel oil availability

explained Personal notes:
• A FONAR is not a “get out of jail free” card
• Although not required, reasonable deviation could be worth
while to purchase compliant fuel
• We may hope that Port State Authorities will not crack down
heavily on ships where a fuel oil purchased to be compliant,
turns out not to be.
• IMO Guidelines on FONAR and contingency measures for
addressing non-compliant fuel oil
Regulation 18.3 explained Personal notes:

Fuel oil quality
Fuel oil for combustion purposes delivered to and used on board
ships … shall meet the following requirements:
.1.2 the fuel oil shall be free from inorganic acid; and
.1.3 the fuel oil shall not include any added substance or chemical
waste that:
.1.3.1 jeopardizes the safety of ships or adversely affects the
performance of the machinery, or
.1.3.2 is harmful to personnel, or
.1.3.3 contributes overall to additional air pollution;
3
Fuel oil quality
5 For each ship subject to regulations 5 and 6 of this Annex,
details of fuel oil for combustion purposes delivered to and
used on board shall be recorded by means of a bunker
delivery note that shall contain at least the information
specified in appendix V to this Annex.
6 The bunker delivery note shall be kept on board the ship in
such a place as to be readily available for inspection at all
reasonable times. It shall be retained for a period of three
years after the fuel oil has been delivered on board.
10
Appendix 5 - BDN Personal notes:

Information to be included in the bunker delivery note (regulation 18.5)
• Name and IMO Number of receiving ship
• Port
• Date of commencement of delivery
• Name, address, and telephone number of marine fuel oil supplier
• Product name(s)
• Quantity in metric tons
• Density at 15°C (kg/m3)*
• Sulphur content (% m/m)**
11
Information to be included in the bunker delivery note

A declaration signed and certified by the fuel oil supplier's
Personal notes:
representative that the fuel oil supplied is in conformity with regulation
18.3 of this Annex and that the sulphur content of the fuel oil supplied
does not exceed:
□ the limit value given by regulation 14.1 of this Annex;
□ the limit value given by regulation 14.4 of this Annex; or
□ the purchaser's specified limit value of _____ (% m/m), as
completed by the fuel oil supplier's representative and on the
basis of the purchaser's notification that the fuel oil is intended to
be used:
.1 in combination with an equivalent means of compliance in accordance with regulation 4 of
this Annex; or
.2 is subject to a relevant exemption for a ship to conduct trials for sulphur oxides emission
reduction and control technology research in accordance with regulation 3.2 of this Annex.
The declaration shall be completed by the fuel oil supplier's
representative by marking the applicable box(es) with a cross (x).
12
4
Fuel oil quality
8.1 The bunker delivery note shall be accompanied by a representative
sample of the fuel oil delivered taking into account guidelines
developed by the Organization. The sample is to be sealed and signed by
the supplier's representative and the master or officer in charge of the
bunker operation on completion of bunkering operations and retained
under the ship's control until the fuel oil is substantially consumed, but
in any case for a period of not less than 12 months from the time of
delivery.
8.2 If an Administration requires the representative sample to be analysed,
it shall be done in accordance with the verification procedure set forth in
appendix VI to determine whether the fuel oil meets the requirements
of this Annex.
13

7.1 The competent authority of a Party may inspect the bunker
delivery notes on board any ship to which this Annex applies
while the ship is in its port or offshore terminal, may make a
copy of each delivery note, and may require the master or
person in charge of the ship to certify that each copy is a true
copy of such bunker delivery note. The competent authority may
also verify the contents of each note through consultations with
the port where the note was issued.
7.2 The inspection of the bunker delivery notes and the taking of
certified copies by the competent authority under this paragraph
shall be performed as expeditiously as possible without causing
the ship to be unduly delayed.
14

9 Parties undertake to ensure that appropriate authorities designated by them:
.1 maintain a register of local suppliers of fuel oil;
.2 require local suppliers to provide the bunker delivery note and sample as
required by this regulation, certified by the fuel oil supplier that the fuel oil meets
the requirements of regulations 14 and 18 of this Annex;
.3 require local suppliers to retain a copy of the bunker delivery note for at least three years for inspection and verification by the
port State as necessary;
.4 take action as appropriate against fuel oil suppliers that have been found to
deliver fuel oil that does not comply with that stated on the bunker delivery
note;
.5 inform the Administration of any ship receiving fuel oil found to be non-
compliant with the requirements of regulation 14 or 18 of this Annex; and
.6 inform the Organization for transmission to Parties and Member States of the
Organization of all cases where fuel oil suppliers have failed to meet the
requirements specified in regulations 14 or 18 of this Annex.
15
5
10 In connection with port State inspections carried out by
Parties, the Parties further undertake to:
.1 inform the Party or non-Party under whose jurisdiction a bunker
delivery note was issued of cases of delivery of non-compliant fuel
oil, giving all relevant information; and
.2 ensure that remedial action as appropriate is taken to bring non-
compliant fuel oil discovered into compliance.
16
Regulation 18 explained - summary Personal notes:

• A ships is non-compliant if sulphur is more than 0.50%, even if
compliant fuel was not available for bunkering
• There may be a case for deviation to obtain compliant fuel
• Port States have a role to ensure bunker suppliers perform in
accordance with the regulations
• Port States should take action if suppliers deliver non-compliant
fuel
• Ships should ensure they carry and burn compliant fuel
17
Rules enforcement, how can it be done? Personal notes:

• Port States looking at BDN while the ship is in port
• There should never be something wrong with the BDNs
• Request in-use samples of fuel being burned while in the port
• Employ rigorous procedures for this including retain samples for ship,
sealed and signed by ship and PSC
• IMO guideline and soon regulation in Annex VI
• Request tank samples of fuel oil in storage tanks
• Can representative samples be drawn?
• Employ rigorous procedures for this including retain samples for ship,
sealed and signed by ship and PSC
• IMO guideline to be developed and soon regulation in Annex VI
18
6
Rules enforcement, how can it be done? Personal notes:
• PSC may have external evidence
• Sniffers installed permanently on bridges etc
• Drones taking samples of the exhaust plume
19
Rules enforcement, ship is non-compliant? Personal notes:

• PSC should take appropriate actions to bring the ship into
compliance (reg 10.2)
• Stop burning non-compliant fuel
• Get rid of non-compliant fuel before departure (after 1 March 2020)
• IMO Guidelines on contingency measures
• Does this mean tank cleaning?
• If necessary to ensure compliance - possibly
• Does this mean that my “non-available” fuel ROB is lost?
• A ship may not be allowed to depart in non-compliance if there is
compliant fuel available in the port
20
Regulation 18.3 - fuel quality / ISO 8217 Personal notes:

• Clause 5 (ISO 8217:2010)
5.1 fuel shall conform to table 1 or table 2 when tested
5.2 like reg 18.3.1.1 and 18.3.1.2 (mentioning used lub oil)
5.3 free from any material that renders the fuel unacceptable for use in
marine applications
5.4 Free from FAME
5.5 like reg 18.3.1.3
21
7
• Clause 5 (ISO 8217:2010)
• Annex B:
“It is, therefore, not practical to require detailed chemical analysis of
each delivery of fuels beyond the requirements listed in this
International Standard. Instead, it is required that a refinery, fuel
terminal or other supply facility, including supply barges and truck
deliveries, have in place adequate quality assurance and change
management procedures to ensure that the resultant fuel is
compliance with the requirements of Clause 5 … with regard to
exclusion of deleterious materials”
22

• Clause 5 (ISO 8217:2017)
5.1 fuel shall conform to table 1 or table 2 when tested. FAME now
included in tables.
5.2 like reg 18.3.1.1 and 18.3.1.2, but more generally worded to cover
“any material”. It also implies conformity to 18.3.1.3
5.3 small amounts of additives allowed subject to 5.1 and 5.2
23
Regulation 18 versus ISO 8217 Personal notes:

• In case of non-compliant fuel there is likely both a breach of law
and a breach of contract by the fuel supplier
• The port state of the supplier should become involved in a case
of non-compliant fuel delivered to a ship
• Fuel buyers need to be transparent in cases of non-compliance
by suppliers
24
8
ISO 4259 – testing variability Personal notes:
• Reproducibility and Repeatability must
be taken into account
• ISO 4259 should be used on all test
results from single samples
• Defines upper and lower confidence
levels of 5% and 95%
• Introduces a “grey area” where the
result of the test in numerical terms
may be above the legal limit value, but
where the true value of the sample
with 95% confidence is at or below the
limit value.
• Is debated at IMO for use when
determining compliance
25
IMO GISIS database Personal notes:

• Reg 4.2 Ships with scrubbers
• Reg 18.1 Fuel oil availability in ports
• Reg 18.2.5 Ship has presented evidence of non-availability
• Reg 18.9.6 Suppliers having failed to meet requirements of
reg 14 or 18
• Improvements needed in presentation of the information

• Improvements needed by Parties to ensure all cases reported
26
Personal notes:
Thank you!
Contact BIMCO at
www.bimco.org
10 September
Sulphur 2020 Seminar, London
2019
27
9
Chapter 3
Personal notes:
SHIPPING
2020 SULPHUR CAP

BIMCO 2020 SUITE OF FUEL CLAUSES
ISTANBUL OCTOBER 2019
ALESSIO SBRAGA
Partner
HFW
T +44 20 7264 8768
E alessio.sbraga@hfw.com
2020 SULPHUR CAP

SCOPE OF TALK Personal notes:
SO WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?
2020 SULPHUR CAP

IMPORTANT TOPIC
1
2020 SULPHUR CAP
What this talk will cover?
• Issues arising out of Marpol Annex VI
– Where ‘certainty results in an uncertain landscape’
– Compliance with the 2020 Sulphur Cap
– Transition to compliant (very low sulphur) fuel (‘VLSFO’)
– Carriage Ban
• What steps BIMCO have taken to tackle these issues?

– The BIMCO suite of fuel clauses to be used in time Charterparty contracts
• Additional issues / considerations

– Types of contracts
– Other provisions
– Scrubbers?
How long will it

Cost?
Personal notes:
take?
Carriage
Ban
How to
Who will be
Options? achieve
2020 Sulphur responsible?
MARPOL compliance?
Cap
Annex VI
Nature of Contract
Impact on
contractual
arrangements? Existing contracts
Specification & Grade
(UNCERTAIN) New Contracts
Quality LANDSCAPE
Market Forces
Enforcement/fines?
Further Non-compliance
Compatibility Who will be
Fuel? IMO
Price and suitability responsible?
regulations
Insurance/coverage
Liabilities
Impact on vessel Increased fuel
machinery Additional management/safety
Availability Issues certainty
Litigation Other sulphur
(type / quantity / location)
emission uncertainty
regimes
46900994-1
2020 SULPHUR CAP

A HEADACHE?! Personal notes:
2
2020 SULPHUR CAP
THE BIMCO CLAUSES Personal notes:
BIMCO have developed a suite of time charterparty clauses
• Specific market need
- wide range of issues arising out of 2020 Sulphur Cap that will impact on commercial contracts and all stakeholders
- existing charterparties – fail to adequately deal with the evolving global sulphur emission regime
• BIMCO Drafting Sub-Committee

- wide cross-section from the shipping industry: including representatives from owners, charterers, fuel suppliers,
technical experts, P&I clubs, and lawyers
- HFW only law firm involved
• Aim:
(1) Reliable and easy to use clauses designed to work together with existing bunker clauses / existing time c/p scheme
(2) Addressing main issues by allocating risk and responsibility in a fair and proportionate way
(3) Capable of being applied across the board irrespective of vessel type and trade
(4) Not intended to be the solution to all the problems: still requires cooperation / increased transparency
2020 SULPHUR CAP

THE BIMCO CLAUSES Personal notes:
What are the clauses?
• BIMCO 2020 Marine Fuel Sulphur Content Clause for Time Charter Parties
[‘BIMCO Compliance Clause’]
• BIMCO 2020 Fuel Transition Clause for Time Charter Parties

[‘BIMCO Fuel Transition Clause’]
NB - no scrubber clause to be produced by BIMCO – bespoke solutions required
2020 SULPHUR CAP

MARPOL ANNEX VI Personal notes:
3
2020 SULPHUR CAP
Marpol Annex VI – key provisions
• Regulation 14.1: "General Requirement"
"Sulphur content of any fuel oil used on ships shall not exceed 0.50% m/m wef 01.01.20" ("2020 Sulphur Cap")
• What is a "Ship"?
"a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushion
vehicles, submersibles, floating craft and fixed or floating platforms."
(Article 2(4) MARPOL)
• What is "Fuel Oil"?
"Fuel Oil means any fuel delivered to and intended for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a
ship, including gas, distillate and residual fuels."
(Regulation 2.9)
• Compliant Fuel = "alternative fuel oils" provided they are
"....at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions...."
(Regulation 4.1)
10
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Marpol Annex VI – methods of compliance
• Types of (compliant) fuel oils
(a) Distillate fuels
- MGO (DMA)
- MDO (DMB)
(b) Hybrid or blended fuels
- Blends – between light distillate and heavy residual
- New residuals – HFO from sweet crudes or HFO that has undergone desulphurisation
(c) LNG
(d) Methanol, bio fuels, LPG, hydrogen fuel cells
• Alternative abatement technology

- Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (i.e. scrubbers)
- provided "....at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions...." (Regulation 4.1)
- approved by Administration (flag state Government)
11
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Annex VI – Application
• Annex VI has a wide scope of application - applies to:
(a) Any trades which involve ships calling at a MARPOL convention state; and
(b) Any ships which fly the flag of a MARPOL convention state
• Hence, reference to the "global cap“
• However, still some gaps where cabotage / local trades mean that ships may not need to comply, but subject
to:
(a) the ship not being MARPOL flagged and not calling at MARPOL ports;
or
(b) relying on local govs / PSC / inspectors ‘turning a blind eye’ or not seeking to enforce;
12
4
2020 SULPHUR CAP
13
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Annex VI – Responsibility for compliance
• Primary responsibility always rests with shipowners
• Normally reflected in charterparty provisions
• However, possible to allocate the cost and risk of compliance under contract
14
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Annex VI - Additional requirements / considerations
• Fuel Oil Availability (Regulation 18.1-18.2)

• Fuel Oil Quality (Regulation 18.3)
- compliant fuel oil: “shall not include any added substance or chemical waste which……jeopardizes the safety of
ships or adversely affects the performance of the machinery." (Regulation 18.3.1.1.3.1)
• Carriage Ban (MEPC 73)
- Prohibition on carriage of fuel oil of > 0.50 % sulphur content for use in fuel tanks wef 01.03.20
- unless scrubber is installed servicing M/E and A/Es and is (de facto) operational
• Covers more than the 2020 Sulphur Cap

- ECAs i.e. fuel oil of no more than 0.10 % sulphur content (Regulation 14.3-14.6)
• Outside Annex VI - other areas where sulphur content is regulated

- US, EU, China, Hong Kong, Antarctic / Arctic and more
- Also important to be aware of those areas where there are restrictions on scrubbers eg open loop (Singapore,
China, Fujairah and others)
15
5
2020 SULPHUR CAP
Restrictions on use of open loop scrubbers / wash water discharge
Norway
Latvia
Lithuania
Ireland Germany
Belgium
California, Connecticut,
USA China
USA
Hawaii,
USA UAE India Hong Kong
Panama
(Panama Canal)
Singapore
16
16
2020 SULPHUR CAP

COMPLIANCE Personal notes:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SULPHUR CAP?
17
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Compliance with the 2020 Sulphur Cap
• Raises a number of significant issues/challenges likely to impact the entire physical shipping chain.
• Very likely to result in increased risk, responsibility and cost for all parties.
• Existing charterparty provisions do not adequately cover these.
• Most relevance in a time charterparty context
18
6
2020 SULPHUR CAP
Significant issues / challenges arising out of compliance
• Compliance with MARPOL Annex VI – by which method? By whom?
• Which party is responsible for ensuring the Vessel is supplied with fuel of the required sulphur content and who pays the
Extra Cost?
- Time Charters, Voyage Charters/COA?
• Are Owners required to install scrubbers?
• What type of (compliant) fuel should be used?
• Is the Vessel in a position to receive, store and burn compliant fuel?
• Availability of compliant (low sulphur) fuel come 2020?
• Importance of complying with sulphur content requirements of other regimes (which are evolving)
19
2020 SULPHUR CAP

BIMCO COMPLIANCE CLAUSE Personal notes:
20
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Scope
• Replaces BIMCO Fuel Sulphur Content Clause 2005
• Similar provisions, but important amendments
• Adapted to meet requirements of new MARPOL global regime, as well as existing / additional regimes
• General compliance clause – clearly identifying the obligations of each party to meet the "Sulphur Content Requirements"
Application
• Capable of application to time charterparties only
• It is not intended to address:

- the one-off event (transition period) or the Carriage Ban – separate clause
- issues of fuel compatibility – separate issue and already dealt with under existing BIMCO bunker clauses
• Does not apply to:

- voyage charterparties / COAs
- vessels fitted with scrubbers
- time charter trips (where Charterers are not to supply fuel)
21
7
2020 SULPHUR CAP
Sub-clause (a) - Definition
• Definition - "Sulphur Content Requirements"
• Shift of focus
- Away from "zones" / geographical areas to "Sulphur Content Requirements"
• Sulphur Content Requirements
Broad definition to cover two main issues:
(1) actual "sulphur content" limits:
(a) imposed by MARPOL – Regulation 14
(b) required by other lawful authorities
(2) "Related requirements" – includes documentation and additional requirements prescribed by MARPOL (in
Regulations 14 and 18) and applicable regimes to achieve compliance
- Regulation 14.5: "sulphur content of fuel.....shall be documented by its supplier in accordance with Regulation 18"
e.g. covers provision of a bunker delivery note (Regulation 18.5 and Appendix V)
e.g. Charterers to assist in collection of evidence required in event of unavailability of compliant fuel (Regulation18.2)
e.g. minimum fuel oil quality requirements (Regulations 18.3)
22
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Sub-clause (b) – Charterers’ obligations
• Charterers’ obligation to supply compliant (low sulphur) fuel

- Reinforces general charterparty obligation
- Type of fuel – not specified
- All fuels are to "meet the specifications and grades set out in the Charterparty“ (provided correct sulphur content)
- Obligation to supply fuels to enable compliance "at all times"
• Charterers’ warranty that bunker suppliers / bunker barge operators used will comply with "Sulphur
Content Requirements"
• Indemnity for Owners

- Reflects the increased risk of complying with the global 2020 Sulphur Cap
- Expanded wording
- Addition of word "deviation“
- To “remain on hire throughout”
23
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Sub-clause (c) – Owners’ obligations
• Owners’ warranty to comply with Annex VI
- not dependent on Charterers supplying fuel of the required sulphur content
- restatement of regulatory compliance
• Owners remain responsible for fuel management
• No warranty that the “Vessel shall be able to consume fuels of the required sulphur content”
• Exclusion of liability - provided Charterers comply with their obligations under Sub-clause (b), they are
not responsible for Owners’ failure to comply with Annex VI
• No reciprocal indemnity wording for Charterers
24
8
2020 SULPHUR CAP
TRANSITION AND CARRIAGE BAN Personal notes:
TRANSITION TO BURNING VERY LOW SULPHUR FUEL
AND THE CARRIAGE BAN
25
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Compliant (very
High sulphur fuel low sulphur) fuel
26
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Key issues / considerations arising out of transition
Operational / technical
• Preparation of fuel system - tanks and pipeline cleaning
• Fuel management:
- storage / handling
- quantities of HSFO and compliant VLSFO
• Tank capacity restrictions?
• Segregation of new blends of compliant VLSFO – quality of fuel
• Increased crew training (for all the above)
Carriage Ban - Disposal of HSFO by latest 01.03.20
• How / when / where to dispose?
• Limited in a geographical sense? Sufficient facilities ashore?
• Local port regulations?
• Value of HSFO? Secondary market for scrubbers?
• Property / title to fuel if being disposed of?
• Large number of shipowners seeking to dispose of HSFO at the same time in short space of time? Availability?
Commercial
• Price and availability of compliant VLSFO (NB tramp bulk trade)
• Employment/trading of the vessel – potential disruption / limit on trade caused by technical or commercial reasons
27
9
2020 SULPHUR CAP
How can these issues be addressed?
Chosen • Not all issues aligned with each other

Method of
Compliance • Wide variety of scenarios to cater for
• Important to strike the right balance

Vessel type Vessel
and age Trade • As existing charterparty provisions do
not deal with these issues, it is vital to have
a robust contractual framework which:
1) facilitates compliance; and

2) provides flexibility
• Why is cooperation and planning essential?
28
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Cooperation between Owners and Charterers
29
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Cooperation between Owners and Charterers
• Why?
• Competing interests:
- Not simply a question of supplying compliant VLSFO on the deadline
- Require (at least) a minimum amount of compliant VLSFO on board before 01.01.20 deadline
- In existing charters, no express obligation on Charterers to stem compliant VLSFO before deadline
- Expected price differential between fuels – Charterers seek to delay supply until as late as possible?
Result? Knock on effect on planning and preparation (notably, tank cleaning, to the extent required), and a bumpy ride
towards transition
• Role to be played by both parties:
(a) Charterers - responsible for putting fuel on board and employment / trading of the Vessel
(b) Owners - responsible for: (1) fuel management; and (2) ensuring Vessel’s tanks are capable of receiving,
storing and burning compliant fuel
• Cooperation and planning is a core feature of the BIMCO Fuel Transition Clause
30
10
2020 SULPHUR CAP
BIMCO FUEL TRANSITION CLAUSE Personal notes:
31
2020 SULPHUR CAP

32
2020 SULPHUR CAP

BIMCO Fuel Transition Clause
• Application and purpose
- long term time charterparties being entered into now and stretching into 01.01.20
- one-off event (transitional period)
- not drafted for charterparties where vessels are to be redelivered prior to 01.01.20 or vessels with scrubbers fitted
• Key aims
- wide application irrespective of vessel type and trade
- a reasonable and fair allocation of risk and responsibility
- promotes cooperation and planning
- but is not prescriptive
- flexibility to coordinate and decide on timing / operational matters
• Key components
33
11
2020 SULPHUR CAP
Key Components
• Overarching contractual framework:
- Minimum threshold obligations imposed on each party to ensure compliance with mandatory provisions of Annex
VI; and at the same time
- Affording the parties sufficient flexibility to determine / cooperate on essential operational / timing issues
• Annex VI mandatory provisions are clear:
(1) Meet the 2020 Sulphur Cap

- ensure sufficient compliant VLSFO on board come 01.01.20
(2) Meet the Carriage Ban

- ensure all "Non-Compliant Fuel" (i.e. HSFO of more than 0.50% carried for use) is removed from the Vessel by
01.03.20
• Minimum threshold obligations / responsibilities
34
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Minimum threshold obligations / responsibilities
Three main areas:
1) Requirements
2) Charterers’ obligations / responsibilities
3) Owners’ obligations / responsibilities
35
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Requirements
Sub-clause (b) – the "Requirements"
a) Charterers shall supply sufficient compliant (low sulphur) fuel on board to reach nearest bunkering port by 01.01.20
(Sub-clause (b)(i));
b) All residual (high sulphur) fuel to be completely removed from the vessel by 01.03.20 (Sub-clause (b)(ii));
c) Parties to "cooperate and use reasonable endeavours" to have no residual (high sulphur) fuel on board by 01.01.20
36
12
2020 SULPHUR CAP
Charterers’ obligations / responsibilities
Supply of compliant (low sulphur) fuel – when and how
• No obligation to only have compliant VLSFO on board by 01.01.20

• Parties to use "reasonable endeavours" to consume all HSFO by 01.01.20
• Charterers’ obligation to provide sufficient compliant VLSFO as of 01.01.20 (Sub-clause (b)(i))
Residual (high sulphur) fuel – consumption and / or disposal

• Any HSFO ROB in bunker tanks wef 01.01.20 shall be removed by Charterers (Sub-clauses (c)(i) and (d))
a) by latest 01.03.20, or
b) by the redelivery date whichever occurs first (Sub-clause (c)(i))
• The words "whichever occurs first"
• Scope of Charterers’ obligation - bunker tankers to be "free from liquid and pumpable fuel"
• Emphasises importance of Charterers planning the bunkering route and identifying ports in advance that can:
a) supply compliant VLSFO; and
b) receive residual HSFO.
37
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Owners’ obligations / responsibilities
Bunker tank cleaning (if required) (Sub-clause (c)(ii))
• Bunker tank cleaning:
a) Operational activity best carried out by Owners
b) Trade off with Charterers’ obligations
• Not prescriptive
- does not dictate how, where, when to achieve this / parties to decide what suits the vessel and her trade
• "Fit………taking into account the type of Compliant Fuel that will be loaded into such bunker tanks"
- determined on a case by case basis (i.e. vessel type, age, tank system, type of Compliant Fuel to be used)
• Unpumpable materials
• Once tank is “fit” (in most cases, cleaned), residual HSFO cannot be re-stemmed in that tank
• Highlights the importance of early planning and being clear on appropriate method of cleaning
i.e. how, where, when and extent of cleaning required
38
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Owners’ obligations / responsibilities
Compliant (low sulphur) fuel to be bunkered into empty tanks within the Vessel’s natural segregation
(Sub-clause (e))
• To avoid contamination / minimise risk of incompatibility between stems: bunkering into empty tanks within Vessel’s
natural segregation
- Concern over compatibility issues with new type of fuel (hybrids / blends)
- Oil companies have been reluctant to assure compatibility between stems they produce, let alone with other competitors’ products
• "Unless otherwise agreed"

- Envisages that it may not be necessary to have empty tanks at some point in the future
- Depending on the type of compliant VLSFO – operational / fuel management
- Still not enough compliant fuels on the market at this point in time to say any more
• Unknowns: Element of co-mingling inevitable – fuel management is Owners’ responsibility, but they still have little
experience of dealing with new fuels?
- ISO8217:2017 enough? Unlikely
- ISO Publicly Available Specification (‘PAS’) – now available (end Sep 2019), but position still not clear
- CIMAC guidance on fuel stability and compatibility and the test methods that can be applied (and limitations thereto)
39
13
2020 SULPHUR CAP
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Personal notes:
BIMCO clauses
• Provided both clauses are used, they represent robust contractual building blocks to achieve MARPOL
compliance by key dates in a time charterparty context
• BIMCO Compliance Clause can be applied as from now
• BIMCO Fuel Transition Clause represents a reasonable and fair allocation of risk and responsibility between
the parties and promotes cooperation and planning to achieve a smooth transition to compliant (low sulphur)
fuel
• However, simply inserting the clauses into charterparties will not deal with all the issues and care should still
be taken in the lead up to 2020
• Why?
40
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Additional considerations / issues (1)
• Further work to be done by the parties - potential ‘detailed transition plan’
- the BIMCO Fuel Transition Clause does not detail how the transition is to be effected, and this is intentional
- what is right for the parties will differ from case to case
- instead it specifically envisages that further agreement(s) / decisions on operational matters / timing of transition to compliant
fuel before 01.01.20 (ideally during Q4/2019)
- detailed written plan may still be prudent to seek to avoid conflict and to aim towards a smooth transition
- Possible further issues to tackle / agree on
41
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Additional considerations / issues (2)
• Different commercial terms?
- a reasonable and fair allocation of risk and responsibility may not reflect the commercial aim / bargaining power of parties
- we have seen clauses where:

- Charterers shifting at least part of cost of supplying VLSFO before 01.01.20 onto Owners or achieving 50/50 cost split
- Charterers agreeing to pay for the time and cost of tank cleaning
- not one approach fits all!
• The BIMCO clauses do not apply to all types of contracts / scenarios
- scenarios: the BIMCO Fuel Transition Clause does not apply to time charterparties where a vessel is to be redelivered before
January 2020, but there are solutions / BIMCO Compliance clause is not a general air pollution clause - HFW can assist with this
- contracts: voyage charterparties / COAs / vessels fitted with scrubbers
42
14
2020 SULPHUR CAP
Additional provisions
• Delivery / Redelivery: fuel quantity and prices
• Fuel warranties
• Modifications to the vessel / performance warranties
• Fuel quality, stability and compatibility – protective provisions for Owners?
• Bunker supply contracts
Bottom line is that parties are still recommended to review more than just their bunker clauses in good time before
01.01.20 to ensure that they are up to date and to ensure consistency so as to avoid gaps and to mitigate against future
claims
43
2020 SULPHUR CAP

SCRUBBERS Personal notes:
Scrubbers - different considerations
‒ Scrubber Types and restrictions
– Scrubber debate: the economic case and issues / concerns
– Existing charterparties: not been drafted with scrubbers in mind / relevant issues:
- Ability to take out of service v employment
- Downtime required for fitting / installation
- Operation and maintenance
- Restriction on use and disposal of waste residues
- Breakdown / deficiency
- Impact on speed and performance
- Grade and specification of fuel to be required could depend on individual scrubber characteristics
- Reserve (compliant) fuel – what type(s) of fuel
- Payment and financing
– Nature of agreements to fit scrubbers: who pays? How? Finance?
– High value transaction: bespoke solution / specific clause required
– Check Manufacturer’s warranties for scrubber systems as well as financial standing of manufacturer / supplier
– See also https://www.bimco.org/BIMCO-INTERTANKO-Scrubber-QA
44
2020 SULPHUR CAP

HFW INVOLVEMENT Personal notes:
What has HFW done so far on 2020 Sulphur Cap?
• Advising on the implications of the Sulphur Emission Regulations and MARPOL Annex VI on an ongoing basis
• BIMCO 2020 clauses
• Produced a wide variety of Owner and Charterer focussed clauses for time charters, voyage charters and COA contracts
(e.g. compliance, transition, clauses for different EGCS / scrubber systems)
• Advising Owners, Charterers and ship managers on methods of compliance together with technical partners
• Advising on bunker supply contracts and sale and purchase agreements
• Advising Owners and Charterers on scrubber purchase contracts, addendums to shipbuilding contracts and discussing
scrubber systems with technical partners
• Advising on several projects to retrofit scrubbers to existing and new time charter tonnage, with scrubbers being paid for by
Owners and/or Charterers
• Advising on financing scrubber purchases
• But going forward: likely to be varied litigation in Q4/2019-Q2/2020

2
45
15
2020 SULPHUR CAP
CONCLUSIONS Personal notes:
The clock is already
ticking!
46
2020 SULPHUR CAP

And time is running
out....
47
2020 SULPHUR CAP

Very important:
(a) Early decision on method of

compliance
(a) Review of Charterparty

clauses
(a) Early and constructive

dialogue initiated between
the parties
48
16
2020 SULPHUR CAP
HERE’S HOPING FOR A...........
49
2020 SULPHUR CAP

QUESTIONS Personal notes:
THANK YOU
ANY QUESTIONS?
50
ALESSIO SBRAGA, HFW

Personal notes:
Alessio is a Partner at the London office of International law firm, HFW. He specialises in
international commercial dispute resolution in the marine and offshore sectors, and has over
13 years experience of advising in respect of charterparties, bills of lading, sale contracts,
shipbuilding, MOA, grounding, unsafe port, off-shore (FSO, FPSO, rig, floating
accommodation units), bunker and cargo disputes. He also advises regularly on
international maritime regulatory issues, including those relating to MARPOL.
Alessio has an international practice, which involves him advising and representing the main
stakeholders in the physical shipping and off-shore chains across the globe. This includes
shipowners, charterers, freight forwarders, shippers, bunker suppliers, P&I clubs and
underwriters, as well as cargo owners, banks and traders. He handles large, complex and
T: +44 (0)20 7264 8768 multi-jurisdictional disputes, and litigation in both the English High Court and in arbitration.
M: +44 (0)7917 192598
Alessio.sbraga@hfw.com More recently, Alessio was a member of the BIMCO sub-committee responsible for drafting
the organisation's standard time charterparty clauses in response to the 2020 sulphur cap
and related sulphur emission regulations, and is currently advising extensively on the legal
and commercial implications arising out of these new regulations to shipowners, charterers,
ship managers, P&I clubs and hull underwriters. He also presents regularly on behalf of
BIMCO on this topic.
Alessio is qualified in England and Wales, and speaks fluent Italian.
S/RES/2383 (2017)
51
17
Chapter 4
Personal notes:
Bunkers 2020 –
Readiness Status and
What to Watch
Disclaimer Personal notes:

This presentation subject to modifications, is given for purely informative purposes and does not constitute a contract. This document is
confidential, intended exclusively to the person to whom it is given or to the particular event that is deemed suitable for use, and may not be
communicated nor notified to any third party and may not be copied in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of BMS United, if the
contents of this document are not intended to provide investment advice nor any other investment service, and the document does not
constitute and under no circumstances should it be considered in whole or in part as an offer, a solicitation, advice, a personal
recommendation to purchase or subscribe for an investment service and/or product, nor an invitation to invest in the class of assets
mentioned herein.
The information indicated in this document shall not be considered as legal or tax or accounting advice. Furthermore, accessing some of
these products, services and solutions might be subject to conditions, amongst which eligibility. Our Oil Risk Managers via global risk
management (GRM) are available to discuss with you on these products, services and solutions to check if they can respond to your needs
and are suitable to your investor profile.
The full understanding and agreement to the related contractual and informative documentation including the documentation relating to the
relevant risks is required from the potential investor prior to any subscription of products/investment services. The potential investor has to
remember that he should not base any investment decision and/or instructions solely on the basis of this document. This document is not
intended to be distributed to a person or in a jurisdiction where such distribution would be restricted or illegal. It is the responsibility of any
person in possession of this document to inform himself of and to observe all applicable laws and regulations of relevant jurisdictions.
The historical data and information herein, including any quoted expression of opinion, have been obtained from, or are based upon, external
sources that our company believes to be reliable but have not been independently verified and are not guaranteed as to their accuracy or
completeness. Our company shall not be liable for the accuracy, relevance or exhaustiveness of this information. Past performance is not a
guide to future performance and may not be repeated. Investment value is not guaranteed, and the value of investments may fluctuate.
Estimates of future performance are based on assumptions that may not be realised, and should not be deemed an assurance or guarantee
as to the expected results of investment in such asset class(es). This document is confidential, intended exclusively to the person to whom it
is given, and may not be communicated nor notified to any third party and may not be copied in whole or in part, without the prior written
consent of BMS group.
Agenda for the Meeting

Personal notes:
1 High level view - What is Marpol 2020
2 What’s known up to now (Demand & Supply)
3 Projected product balances post 2020 and current view on availability
4 Price sets – potential spread scenarios / ACTUAL PRICES
5 SAMPLING – WHY MORE IMPORTANT AFTER 2020?
6 Credit, payment terms & financing
1
Personal notes:
Is There Enough Fuel Oil <0.5% Personal notes:
YES & NO
… a short presentation to prepare you for the future of Bunkering in 2020:

• Higher prices
• Fewer bunkering locations
• Possible quality issues
Demand for Fuel Oil - Consumers

Personal notes:
Supplies:
• Total volume approx 5,0 MMT/d = 1.825MMT/A
Demand:
• Shipping - 0,6 MMT/d = 222 MMT/A 0,6/5 x 100 = 12%
• Power generation plants - 0,5 MMT/d = 166 MMT/A
• Industy - 0,3 MMT/d = 113 MMT/A
• Refinery feed stock - 3,6 MMT/d = 1.327 MMT/A
2
Primary Concerns – What we Know
Personal notes:
Implementation Date Consistent Messages Current State What’s Coming
• This is not to change • This will be the most disruptive • Starting to see actions from ship • Multiple views/speculations around
• IMO is focusing on finalizing event in the industry owners and suppliers price spreads
details of implementation • Not a “silver bullet” to solve the • Most ship owners assume that they • Ship owners and suppliers working
• “Experience building phase” challenge can always choose MGO closer to develop solutions
rejected by member states • Three primary fuel options HSFO + • IMO 2020 working group has • Strategic alliances being explored
Scrubbers, VLSFO & MGO taken steps to address non- and formalised
compliance
• Concerns about blended 0.5% • More focus on how to enforce
compatibility and stability • Official ban to carry HSFO “non- compliance
• Concerns about non-compliance Marpol” compliant fuels if the
vessel is not equipped with a
• Higher bunker prices scrubber
• Insurance implications related to
non-compliance will likely result
in claims for unseaworthiness
Quickie Personal notes:
• Worldwide Sulphur cap 0.50% - starting 1. January • Increase in bunker cost by 35-40% expected
2020 – note: 0.50%, not 0.5%
• Fuel compliance/stability is in question
• 0.5 = up to 0.549 / 0.50 = up to 0.504
• Resistance against open-loop scrubbers
• Bunkers above 0.50% to be offloaded before 1.
• Overflow of “views” on what will happen.
March 2020
• Credit may become a challenge
• Carriage ban of non-compliant fuel, without
scrubbers installed (1. March 2020)
• ECA zones of max 0.10% sulphur, independent of

the 0.50% Global cap
Supply & Demand

Personal notes:
Supply side
• No major upgrades to be done on time for 2020
• Alignment that 2020 would require multiple fuel options to cover the
demand.
Demand side • Flow/Hub bunkering ports highly likely to offer HSFO, MGO and
VLSFO
 Lots of activity around this topic now
• Oil Majors starting to reveal VLSFO supply locations
 Owners starting to reveal compliance strategies
• Many refiners hold on to HSFO production in 2020
 Interest for scrubbers picked up in 2018 – abt. 3,000 ships by
H1/2020 • Overall supply availability concerns starting to ease up; however,
supply for three products at smaller niche ports might be challenged
 Scrubbers mainly on new builds, retrofit orders picked up in 2h
• Trading houses are likely to play a big role on the VLSFO blended
2018
fuel
 Concerns about the VLSFO blends in the future
• Some are exploring/considering shorter payment terms
 Major concerns about not-compliance and ways to enforce and
• Infrastructure and right logistics set up will be key to enable smooth
monitor it
transition
 LNG not a short-term or alternative solution
• Refining margins are likely to experience a high level of volatility not
 Desires clarity on price spreads just on distillates and FO
3
Forecasted Product Portfolio post 2020
Personal notes:
10
Personal notes:
Examples of flow port supply
availability projection
Flow Ports HSFO MGO VLSFO LNG ALT.

Fuels
Singapore
Rotterdam
Fujairah
Busan
Hong Kong
Antwerp
Houston
Panama
New Orleans
Gibraltar
Algeciras
New York
Assessed chance
>75% >50% >25% <25%
of availability:
11
Personal notes:
Examples of secondary port
supply availability projection
Secondary Ports HSFO MGO VLSFO LNG ALT.

Fuels
Piraeus
Istanbul
Hamburg
Malta
Suez
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Vancouver
Port Kelang
Colombo
WAF
(West Africa)
Assessed chance
>75% >50% >25% <25%
of availability:
12
4
Niche Ports
Examples of niche port supply
availability projection
Personal notes:
HSFO MGO VLSFO LNG ALT.
Fuels
Mauritius
Salalah
Djibouti
Brisbane
THE Assessed chance

of availability:
>75% >50% >25% <25%
REMAINING
2000+
PORTS Niche ports
 Probably only a single or 2 products available

 Typically distillates
 VLSFO only if port is close to a VLSFO supply centre
 Small drops of distillates to be supplied in order to reach next
port (top up)
 Logistics and Working Capital costs will increase significantly
 LNG will be in focus for short sea and inland waterways
13
Remaining 2000+ Ports Personal notes:
NICHE, SMALLER PORTS
Primary grade MGO

Secondary VLSFO (If close to
flow/secondary port)
• High priced
• Small parcels (top up)
• Supply cost per mt will increase
14
Price Differential
Personal notes:
From Q4 2019, we expect increased pressure PRI CE SPREADS [$] 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
on MGO prices, as supply is not yet level with MGO -> VLSFO 40-70 35-65 30-60 20-35 20-35
the demand for VLSFO.
MGO -> HSFO 250-350 220-320 180-280 150-250 <230
HSFO is expected to start at discounted HSFO -> VLSFO 150-250 125-225 125-225 150-250 150-250
levels, but as more scrubbers are installed
and demand for HSFO increased, price
expected to find a level around 60-70% of
VLSFO price. SINGAPORE ROTTERD AM FUJAIRAH NEW YORK SHANGHAI
IFO 380CST 389 378 389 396 405
LSMGO 0.10% 557 545 680 627 666
VLSFO BLEND 0.50% 523 512 622 581 614
MGO -> VLSFO 34 33 58 46 52
MGO -> HSFO 168 167 291 231 261
VLSFO -> HSFO 134 134 233 185 209
MGO -> VLSFO 94% 94% 91% 93% 92%
MGO -> HSFO 70% 69% 57% 63% 61%
HSFO -> VLSFO 74% 74% 63% 68% 66%
*Based on market indications start June 2019, delivery cost and extras excluded
15
5
2020’s Impact on Pricing – Pure MTS to Personal notes:
MTS Price Comparison
Historical and assumed prices of 4 key
products Spread based on HSFO
1200 400
1000 350
800 300
USD/MTS
USD/MTS
600 250
400 200
200 150
0 100
01/2010
08/2010
03/2011
10/2011
05/2012
12/2012
07/2013
02/2014
09/2014
04/2015
11/2015
06/2016
01/2017
08/2017
03/2018
10/2018
05/2019
12/2019
07/2020
02/2021
09/2021
04/2022
11/2022
06/2023
01/2024
01/2010
08/2010
03/2011
10/2011
05/2012
12/2012
07/2013
02/2014
09/2014
04/2015
11/2015
06/2016
01/2017
08/2017
03/2018
10/2018
05/2019
12/2019
07/2020
02/2021
09/2021
04/2022
11/2022
06/2023
01/2024
HSFO price HSFO forward
Date curve MGO HSFO-MGO spread Date HSFO-MGO spread
MGO forward curve LNG LNG forward curve
ULSFO forward curve HSFO-LNG spread HSFO-ULSFO spread
16
Price – The Key Question Personal notes:

1 How spreads looked after 2020 ratification
NWE MGO vs. HS IFO380 spread 3 Spreads show sustained spread levels
3.5% Fob Rotterdam Barges vs. 0.1% FOB Rotterdam Barges
IFO380 HS MGO 1% / 0.5%
900 380
800 360
700 340
600 320
$ / MTS
$/MTS
500 300
400 280
300 260
200 240
100 220
0 200
2015: Base 2015: Base 2020: Base 2020: Low 2020:Mid 2020: High 2020: Low 2020: Mid 2020: High
Nov/18
Dec/18
Feb/19
Mar/19
May/19
Jun/19
Aug/19
Dec/19
Jul/19
Sep/19
Oct/19
Nov/19
Feb/20
Mar/20
May/20
Jun/20
Aug/20
Nov/20
Dec/20
Jul/20
Sep/20
Oct/20
Jan/19
Apr/19
Jan/20
Apr/20
Case Case No 0.5% Fuel Switch High Switch High Switch High Switch Low Switch Low Switch Low
Calibration Adjusted MDO MDO MDO MDO MDO MDO
EnSys Energy, 2016
2 Spread started widening significantly in Q1-Q2, 2018

Diesel – HSFO forward curves
$60
4 Projections based on internal analysis
(May ’18) 1 week before 1 month before 1 year before 2 years before
$50
Price differentials/Spreads 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
$40
($USD) 6-12
$ / BBL
$30
months
$20
$10
MGO to VLSFO 45 - 80 40 - 70 30 - 60 20 - 30 20 - 30
$0
MGO to HSFO 275 - 380 250 - 350 200 - 300 180 - 280 <250
VLSFO to HSFO 200 - 240 170 - 185 170 - 185 180 - 200 180 - 200
Goldman Sachs, 2018
17
Real Deals Personal notes:

Actual prices, for physical bunker orders placed: Actual prices, for physical bunker orders placed:
Singapore Rotterdam
Week 19th to 23rd August Week 19th to 23rd August

• HSFO – 372 PMTD • HSFO – 290 PMTD
• LSFO – 510-515 PMTD • LSFO – 510-515 PMTD
26th to 31st August 26th to 31st August

• HSFO – 445 PMTD • HSFO – 305 PMTD
• LSFO – 530 PMTD • LSFO – 520 PMTD
• ULSFO – 540 PMTD
18
6
Personal notes:
19
Quality & Claims Personal notes:

• OVERALL: we expect better quality on most parameters, to reach sulphur cap
• FEWER CLAIMS – BUT higher costs and bigger problems for the ones we see
• Vessel comingling ROB with new VSLFO batch – creating unstable product
• Contractual samples not drawn properly and representatively
• Blends pushed to “the limit” and increased risk of bad blends
• Expect an incremental increase in quality related problems, but many may NOT be
caused by off spec….but simply that the fuel is different or unstable when comingled
20
‘’The Fuel Challenges’’

Personal notes:
STABILITY COMPATIBILITY CAT FINES

The potential for a fuel to Defined as the tendency of The level of cat fines in the
change condition when fuels to produce deposits fuels supplied is possible to
stored, under certain when mixed. increase due to the blending
circumstances. Mixing of fuels from of fuels.
Will we see an “best before different sources can lead to
date” on new hybrid fuels? incompatibility problems
and loss of stability.
21
7
Personal notes:
22
Shale oils Straight run diesel

Personal notes:
Straight run sweet residue
Treated light distillate
Straight run sour residue Treated atmospheric gas oil
Blend Hydrotreated kerosene Slurry oil
M 100
components Vacuum
All gas oil
with individual
H-oil bottoms
characteristics asVisbreaker
density, sulfur
tar content,
viscosity, etc. Depends of crude feeds and refinery configuration
Treated atmospheric residue Vacuum residue
Desulfurized jet blend

FCC Light-cycle oil
No 6 fuel oil
And the list goes on…
23
Sampling
Personal notes:
Following the correct sampling procedure has never been more important!
Check exact delivered QUALITY
How to treat fuel before injecting/burning
Legally evidence whether product is on/off specification and build a claim

towards supplier
24
8
Sampling Procedure
Personal notes:
Marpol sampling guideline is commonly accepted by all parties – suppliers and owners.
1. Approved, certified drip sampling device
2. Set to sample the fuel throughout the supply, into 1 container
3. Contents to be distributed into the agreed number of samples bottles (minimum 6:

vessel (2), supplier (2), MARPOL and surveyor 1 each)
4. Sample bottles, seals, labels to be of approved standard and tamper proof. Bottles to
be sealed and preferably counter-sealed
25
Never Ending Personal notes:

Discussion
 MARPOL Guidelines suggests sampling at

Receiving vessel’s inbound manifold
 Most Bunker contracts and supplier’s terms

state sampling point to be at Barge
Outbound Manifold.
 Vessel crew doesn’t witness supplier’s sampling

(contractually binding)
 Owners may try to reject samples
26
Personal notes:
Sampling, MARPOL & BIMCO
• BIMCO TERMS recognizes difficulty in legal and practically of Vessel’s manifold
• NEW:
IMO/MARPOL regulations state:

Clear requirements to supplier’s BDN, as a legal document and the MARPOL
delivered sample stated in the BDN is primary evidence of the quality supplied
27
9
Activities Supporting Transition to 2020
Personal notes:
• Physical Expansion
• Bunker One Physical Operations
• Solutions Available
• Blend Testing
• Logistics Readiness
• Secure Compliant Fuels
• Strategic Supplier Network
• Client Engagement
28
Summary Personal notes:
MINIMISE
VARIABLES DISRUPTION CREDIT
There are many
variables on how to
INDUSTRY Working with
suppliers that
MARKET We at BMS are
working to establish
solve the 2020 REPRESENTATION understand the COVERAGE the proper credit lines
challenge and no challenge will be key to continue to support
doubt there will be We are actively to minimize We at BMS are in a very your business, and we
things or elements of participating in disruptions during the unique position as we are preparing for that
surprise that may industry forums and transition and the first have great market challenge in order to
come out of no where conferences to 12-24 months post coverage, a very strong minimize disruptions
provide advocacy and implementation. physical portfolio to your operations.
represent views of supported by strategic
customers and and well positioned
suppliers in support sourcing centers
of a smooth around the world.
implementation.
29
Personal notes:
CREDIT
MOVIE
30
10
Credit
Personal notes:
A perfect storm
What is a credit manager’s job
What do I think about how 2020 effects our clients?
2020 Impact
Financing and Payment Terms
31
Personal notes:
32
What is a Credit Manager’s Work?

Personal notes:
Collect all the information about the client, namely;
‘Solid’ info: Financials, credit reports, mortgage info, Inside info, assets
‘Soft’ info: references, own experience, reputation, hear say…..
Market conditions & predictions, outlook, how is the shipping market and the client influenced and
affected by what is going on in the world
AND – very important: OUR experiences with payment performance and trust
Based on this, we assess a credit line
33
11
How 2020 Impacts the Credit Personal notes:
Evaluation?
Quality, Technical & Operational concerns
Higher prices – basis credit line of XXX$, you can buy 3,000 mts today but only 2,000 tomorrow
What grades will be available in which ports?
When a ship deviates to take bunkers, the bunker cost go up: Cost for time loss, bunker use, port
cost + IF a vessel uses 2 days to take bunkers, it has 2 days less earning money
If a ship has invested 3-4-5 million in Scrubbers… can they find the cheaper HSFO so they will
generate RIOC, or is it dead money?
can extra costs be passed to charterer?? Or is full costs absorbed by the client??
We consider all of this to answer the question:
How do shipping companies deal with this? Can they cope? Are they financially equipped to handle
this situation?
34
Homework Personal notes:
 Build your credit with supplier/trader
How do you prepare, to ensure you  Be open – share information and “open books”
will have enough credit facilities, to  Be selective on who you deal with!
support your business?
 “Build” a payment history
 Think commercially and long term
35
Food for Thought

Personal notes:
Will the extra cost and complications for 2020 for bunkering <combined with the credit/financing crunch>
create the PERFECT STORM for shipping??
Let’s hope not... Let’s work together on being prepared!
36
12
A Perfect Storm
Personal notes:
HIGHER BUNKER COST
HIGHER OPERATIONAL COSTS
37
Personal notes:
2020 BIG
SOx TIME!
38
13
Chapter 5
Interactive workshop discussion topics
Group 1
If owners have fitted the scrubber and shared the costs with time charterers, should
charterers have any liability if the scrubber breaks down?
Group 2
Should time charterers be obliged to provide the ship with a stock of compliant fuel in case
the scrubber breaks down and, if so, how much is enough?
Group 3
Does MARPOL Annex VI permit the ship to continue trading if the scrubber breaks down?
Group 4
What should happen if the “break down” of the scrubber is confined to the emissions
monitoring equipment but not the actual scrubber?
Group 5
If time charterers contributed to the installation costs but the charter is terminated early,
how should charterers’ “investment” be dealt with?
Group 6
If the scrubber breaks down mid-voyage but there is insufficient 0.5% sulphur content fuel
on board to reach the next bunkering port, should the ship be allowed to continue burning
non-compliant fuel but be placed off-hire?
60 minutes in total covering: group discussion, aligning of findings and conclusion in the
group and presentation of findings by each group.
© BIMCO Training 2019

Chapter 6
Appendices
1. Regulation 14
2. Regulation 18
3. BDN after 1 Jan 2019
4. IMO Guidance on the Development of a Ship Implementation Plan
5. Resolution MEPC.320(74)
Appendix 1
RESOLUTION MEPC.176(58) Adopted on 10 October 2008
AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1997 TO AMEND THE
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM
SHIPS, 1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO
(Revised MARPOL Annex VI)
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
RESOLUTION MEPC.286(71) (adopted on 7 July 2017)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS,
1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO
.3 the Baltic Sea Emission Control Area as defined in regulation 1.11.2

of Annex I of the present Convention; and
.4 the North Sea Emission Control Area as defined in regulation 1.14.6

of Annex V of the present Convention."
Appendix V
Information to be included in the bunker delivery note (regulation 18.5)
8 The items listed in the Appendix are numbered from 1 to 9.
9 In item 7, the comma after "15°C" is deleted and the expression "kg/m3" is
replaced by "(kg/m3)".
10 Item 9 is replaced with the following:
"A declaration signed and certified by the fuel oil supplier's representative that the fuel
oil supplied is in conformity with regulation 18.3 of this Annex and that the sulphur
content of the fuel oil supplied does not exceed:
the limit value given by regulation 14.1 of this Annex;
the limit value given by regulation 14.4 of this Annex; or
the purchaser's specified limit value of _____ (% m/m), as completed by the

fuel oil supplier's representative and on the basis of the purchaser's
notification that the fuel oil is intended to be used:
.1 in combination with an equivalent means of compliance in

accordance with regulation 4 of this Annex; or
.2 is subject to a relevant exemption for a ship to conduct trials for

sulphur oxides emission reduction and control technology research
in accordance with regulation 3.2 of this Annex.
The declaration shall be completed by the fuel oil supplier's representative by marking
the applicable box(es) with a cross (x)."
Appendix 4
E
4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT
LONDON SE1 7SR
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7735 7611 Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3210
MEPC.1/Circ.878
9 November 2018
GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE

CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT
UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI
1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its seventy-third session

(22 to 26 October 2018), approved the Guidance on the development of a ship implementation
plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, as
set out in the annex.
2 Member Governments are invited to bring the annexed Guidance to the attention of
their Administration, industry, relevant shipping organizations, shipping companies and other
stakeholders concerned.
***
I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\MEPC.1-CIRC.878.docx
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 1
ANNEX
GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

FOR THE CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI
Introduction
1 MEPC 70 agreed to "1 January 2020" as the effective date of implementation for ships
to comply with global 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil requirement and adopted
resolution MEPC.280(70) on the Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in
regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI1.
2 In this context, MEPC 73 agreed that Administrations should encourage ships flying
their flag to develop implementation plans, outlining how the ship may prepare in order to
comply with the required sulphur content limit of 0.50% by 1 January 2020. The plan could be
complemented with a record of actions taken by the ship in order to be compliant by the
applicable date.
3 Regulation 18.2.3 of MARPOL Annex VI requires a Party to take into account all
relevant circumstances and the evidence presented to determine the action to take, including
not taking control measures. Administrations and port State control authorities may take into
account the implementation plan when verifying compliance with the 0.50% sulphur limit
requirement.
4 A ship implementation plan is not a mandatory requirement. A lack of a ship

implementation plan or an incomplete ship implementation plan should not be considered as
"clear grounds" for a more detailed inspection.
Ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of 0.50% sulphur limit
under MARPOL Annex VI
5 The ship implementation plan for 2020 could cover various items relevant for the
specific ship, including, as appropriate, but not limited to:
.1 risk assessment and mitigation plan (impact of new fuels);
.2 fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed);
.3 fuel oil capacity and segregation capability;
.4 procurement of compliant fuel;
.5 fuel oil changeover plan (conventional residual fuel oils to 0.50% sulphur
compliant fuel oil); and
.6 documentation and reporting.
1 Amendments to regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI were adopted by MEPC 73 (October 2018).
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 2
Issues relating to use of sulphur compliant fuel oil
6 All fuel oil supplied to a ship shall comply with regulation 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI
and chapter II/2 of SOLAS. Furthermore, ship operators could consider ordering fuel oil
specified in accordance with the ISO 8217 marine fuel standard. The following potential
fuel-related issues may need to be assessed and addressed by ships in preparation for and
implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit requirement:
.1 technical capability of ships to handle different types of fuel (e.g. suitability of

fuel pumps to handle both higher and lower viscosity fuels, restrictions on
fuels suitable for use in a ship's boilers, particularly the use of distillate fuels
in large marine boilers);
.2 compatibility of different types of fuels e.g. when paraffinic and aromatic fuels
containing asphaltenes are commingled in bunkering or fuel oil changeover;
.3 handling sulphur non-compliant fuels in the event of non-availability of

sulphur compliant fuels; and
.4 crew preparedness including possible training with changeover procedures

during fuel switching from residual fuel oil to 0.50% compliant fuel oils.
7 The ship implementation plan could be used as the appropriate tool to identify any
specific safety risks related to sulphur compliant fuel oil, as may be relevant to the ship, and to
develop an appropriate action plan for the Company to address and mitigate the concerns
identified. Examples should include:
.1 procedures to segregate different types of fuel and fuels from different

sources;
.2 detailed procedures for compatibility testing and segregating fuels from

different sources until compatibility can be confirmed;
.3 procedures to changeover from one type of fuel to another or a fuel oil that
is known to be incompatible with another fuel oil;
.4 plans to address any mechanical constraints with respect to handling specific

fuels, including ensuring that minimum/maximum characteristics of fuel oil as
identified in ISO 8217 can be safely handled on board the ship; and
.5 procedures to verify machinery performance on fuel oil with characteristics

with which the ship does not have prior experience.
8 A ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit
under MARPOL Annex VI is recommended to be developed based on the indicative example
as set out in appendix 1.
9 The plan could take into account the issues identified in:
.1 appendix 2: additional guidance on development of ship implementation plan

(impact on machinery systems); and
.2 appendix 3: additional guidance on development of ship implementation plan

(tank cleaning).
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 3
APPENDIX 1
INDICATIVE EXAMPLE FOR SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR ACHIEVING

COMPLIANCE WITH THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT ENTERING INTO FORCE ON
1 JANUARY 2020 USING COMPLIANT FUEL OIL ONLY
Particulars of ship
1. Name of ship:
2. Distinctive number or letters:
3. IMO Number:
Planning and preparation (before 1 January 2020)
1 Risk assessment and mitigation plan
1.1 Risk assessment (impact of new fuels): YES/NO

1.2 Linked to onboard SMS YES/NO
2 Fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed)
2.1 Schedule for meeting with manufacturers and/or classification societies:
2.2 Structural Modifications (installation of fuel oil systems/tankage) required:

YES/NO/NOT APPLICABLE
If YES, then:
2.2.1 Fuel oil storage system:
Description of modification:
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 4
Details of yard booking (as applicable), time schedules etc.:
Estimated date of completion of modification:
2.2.2 Fuel transfer, filtration and delivery systems:
2.2.3 Combustion equipment:
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 5
2.3 Tank cleaning required: YES/NO/NOT APPLICABLE
If YES, then:
Details of cleaning schedule (including, yard booking, time schedules etc., if

applicable):
Estimated date of completion of cleaning:
3 Fuel oil capacity and segregation capability:
Following any required modifications as per Section 2:
3.1 Expected number of bunker tanks designated to store 0.50% sulphur

compliant fuel oil:
3.2 Expected total storage capacity (m3) for 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel oil:
3.3 Expected number of bunker tanks designated to store 0.10% sulphur

compliant fuel oil:
3.4 Expected total storage capacity (m3) for 0.10% sulphur compliant fuel oil:
3.5 Approximate total fuel oil content (m3) in the fuel oil transfer, purification and
delivery systems:
4 Procurement of compliant fuel oil
4.1 Details of fuel purchasing procedure to source compliant fuels, including

procedures in cases where compliant fuel oil is not readily available:
4.2 Estimated date for bunkering compliant fuel oil, not later than 24:00hrs
31 December 2019:
4.3 If fuel arranged by charterer, is there an intention to accept charter party

contracts that do not have a specified obligation to provide compliant fuel oil
after 1 June 2019 or other date to be identified: YES/NO
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 6
If YES, then:
Details of alternate steps taken to ensure that the charter party provides timely
delivery of compliant fuel:
4.4 Is there confirmation from bunker supplier(s) to provide compliant fuel oil on
the specified date: YES/NO
If NO, then:
Details of alternate steps taken to ensure timely availability of compliant fuel oil:
4.5 Details of arrangements (if any planned) to dispose of any remaining

non-compliant fuel oil:
5 Fuel oil changeover plan
5.1 Consider whether a ship-specific fuel changeover plan is to be made

available. The plan should include measures to offload or consume any
remaining non-compliant fuel oil. The plan should also demonstrate how the
ship intends to ensure that all its combustion units will be using compliant
fuel oil no later than 1 January 2020.
5.2 As per the ship-specific fuel changeover plan, the maximum time period
required to changeover the ship's fuel oil system to use compliant fuel oil at
all combustion units:
5.3 Expected date and approximate time of completion of the above-mentioned

changeover procedure:
5.4 Consider availability of adequately trained officers and crew familiar with the
ship's fuel system and fuel changeover procedures to carry out the fuel oil
changeover procedure. If this cannot be confirmed, then consider whether
there is a sufficient amount of time dedicated for ship-specific familiarization
and training of new officers and crew.
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 7
6 Documentation and reporting
6.1 If there are modifications planned as per section 2, related documents

including the shipboard fuel oil tank management plans and stability and trim
booklets should be consequently updated.
6.2 The implementation plan could be kept on board and updated as applicable.
6.3 If when following the implementation plan the ship has to bunker and use
non-compliant fuel oil due to unavailability of compliant fuel oil safe for use
on board the ship, steps to limit the impact of using non-compliant fuel oil
could be:
6.4 The ship should have a procedure for Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reporting
(FONAR). The master and chief engineer should be conversant about when
and how FONAR should be used and who it should be reported to.
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 8
APPENDIX 2
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

(IMPACT ON MACHINERY SYSTEMS)
1 Ships are advised to assess potential impact on machinery systems with the use of
distillates and fuel oil blends and prepare ships in consultation with chief engineers, equipment
manufacturers and suppliers.
2 The ship tank configuration and fuel system may require adjustments. A fully
segregated fuel system for distillate fuels and blended fuels is recommended because they
may require special attention. Ship tank configuration and segregated fuel system will also
allow for better management of potentially incompatible fuels.
Distillates
3 If distillates have been chosen as the option for compliance the following may be
considered:
.1 a decrease in fuel oil viscosity may cause an increase in fuel oil leakage
between the fuel pump plunger and barrel of diesel engines. Internal
leakages in the fuel injection system may result in reduced fuel pressure to
the engine, which may have consequences for the engine performance
(e.g. starting of the engine). Equipment makers' recommendations should be
consulted, and adequate testing, maintenance and possible installation of
coolers etc. may be performed;
.2 shipowners may also consider installing fuel pumps and injection nozzles,
suitable to fuel oil with low viscosity. Fuel oil with too low viscosity may lead
to increased wear or seizure of fuel oil pumps. Engine and boilermakers
should be consulted to ensure its safe and efficient operation. Implications
for validity of NOX certification (EIAPP Certificate) should be considered;
.3 while some compliant fuels may not require heating, others, including some
distillates, will require heating. It would therefore be prudent to review heating
arrangements for distillate fuels on board and, where appropriate, maintain
the existing heating arrangements; and
.4 in some locations, bunker suppliers may only be able to offer automotive

diesel fuel containing biodiesel (FAME) in accordance with the
ISO 8217-2017 Standard which provides a marine biodiesel specification
(DFA/DFB) with up to 7.0% by volume of FAME. CIMAC has provided a
"Guideline for Ship Owners and Operators on Managing Distillate Fuels up
to 7.0 % v/v Fame (Biodiesel)".2
4 In view of paragraph 3.3 manufacturers of engines and equipment such as oily water
separators, overboard discharge monitors, filters and coalescers, etc. need to be consulted to
confirm ability to handle biodiesel blends up to 7% v/v.
5 Also, some parts of the fuel oil supply system, i.e. fuel pumps, pipefittings and gaskets
may need to be overhauled to ensure integrity.
2
https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_Guideline_for_Ship_Owners_and_Oper
ators_on_Managing_Distillate_Fuels_May_2013.pdf
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 9
Blended residual fuels
6 New blended 0.50% sulphur fuel oil as and when offered could provide an alternative
to conventional distillate fuel such as Marine Distillate Fuel.
7 When using such new blended sulphur fuel oils, the technical specification of such
fuels are (a) either within the limits specified by ISO 8217 or are (b) issued with formal
documentation indicating no objection to its use by the engine/boiler makers.
8 Before purchasing a new fuel oil product, operators should carefully consider the
specific technical and operational challenges that this type of fuel oil may have and, where
necessary, contact the fuel oil supplier or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for the
considerations to be made to ensure safe operation.
9 Densities of these fuel oils are in general lower than conventional residual fuel oils.
This may require adjustment of centrifuges to ensure adequate cleaning of the fuel oil.
Cold flow
10 Since most distillate fuels do not require heating (in fact, typically, heating is not
recommended due to the low viscosity of these products), the fuel's cold flow properties
become a potential handling/storage challenge, especially when operating in colder regions.
11 It is however possible to successfully manage cold flow properties through good fuel
management, from procurement to technical operation, by considering the following:
.1 where the ship will be operating;
.2 where the risk is higher of getting fuels with poor cold flow properties;
.3 can the required cold flow properties be specified in the fuel contract;
.4 what is the actual low-temperature flow properties of the bunkered fuel; and
.5 which actions have to be taken in order to safely consume the bunkered fuel
(e.g. tank and filter heating).
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 10
APPENDIX 3
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

(TANK CLEANING)
Introduction
1 Most ships will have been using high viscosity high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) based
primarily on residual fuel oils. Such fuels tend to adhere to the inside of fuel tanks forming
layers of semi-solid substances containing sediments and asphaltenic sludge; such residues
will also typically have solidified and settled in various parts of the fuel oil service system
including pipelines, settling and service tanks.
2 The ship operator may choose to clean the fuel oil tanks of these residues before
loading compliant fuel prior to 1 January 2020 based on the following considerations.
3 Some of the fuels complying with the 0.50% sulphur limit are expected to be very
paraffinic due to crude sources of blending components and also a high content of distillate
components. If such fuels are loaded into HSFO fuel tanks that have not been cleaned, there
is a possibility that they could dissolve and dislodge sediments and asphaltenic sludge in
storage tanks, settling tanks and pipelines, potentially leading to purifier and filter operational
issues and in extreme cases fuel starvation resulting in loss of power.
4 Alternatively, ships have been using ship specific changeover procedures to

effectively and safely load on top of existing fuel oil and gradually flushing through the fuel
system until the sulphur content in the fuel oil is at a compliant level.
5 Should the ship operator determine it is appropriate to clean the ship's fuel oil tanks
and system, the following considerations may need to be taken into account when making
arrangements for tank cleaning.
Options for tank cleaning, approximate timelines and considerations
6 Fuel oil tanks are normally cleaned on a regular basis on ships to remove built-up
sediments and sludge, usually during dry docking and whenever inspections of the fuel tanks
are due. However, leading up to 1 January 2020, it would not be practicable for the majority of
the global fleet that has been running on HSFO and decided to opt for tank cleaning to undergo
dry docking during a very short period. Hence, other options for cleaning tanks and fuel oil
systems during service may need to be considered.
7 The time and work involved in cleaning HSFO tanks cannot be defined precisely, as
it will vary depending on how long it has been since the last time the tanks were cleaned, the
condition of the tank coating and the effectiveness of the cleaning process itself. The estimates
in this document may err on the side of caution as it is almost impossible to pinpoint at what
stage the ship's fuel oil system is sufficiently clean to guarantee compliance.
Manual cleaning during dry docking
8 Time required varies; it can be done in 2 to 4 days per tank. In addition to cleaning
tanks, all of the pipework in the fuel oil service system needs to be flushed through. Overall, it
may take 1 to 2 weeks.
9 A ship that has had all its fuel oil tanks and fuel system cleaned can start loading
compliant fuels and expect to be fully compliant right away.
MEPC.1/Circ.878
Annex, page 11
10 However, if only the tanks have been cleaned in dry dock, it could take 2 to 5 days to
flush through the pipework in the fuel oil service system to ensure full compliance with
the 0.50% sulphur limit.
Manual cleaning during service
11 If tanks are to be cleaned manually during service, risk assessment and safety
measures are paramount; refer to IMO resolution A.1050(27) on Revised recommendations
for entering enclosed spaces aboard ships.
12 Time required will vary depending on tank size and the number of tanks, how long it
has been since the last tank cleaning and the number of crew available to perform safe and
complete tank cleaning operations. Tank cleaning can be performed by the ship's crew and/or
by employing a riding crew for this purpose. It is always good practice to inspect the tank once
cleaned to check its condition and to inspect heating coils, conduct pressure tests and
undertake repairs as necessary.
13 If the cleaning is done by the ship's existing crew, it would likely take a minimum
of 4 days per tank. For an average tank, a week should be allowed. If employing a riding crew
to clean the tanks, if working in shifts, it would likely take a minimum of 2 days to clean a tank,
but 4 days per tank should be allowed.
14 Tanks need to be empty before they can be cleaned, hence the time needed to drain
tanks needs to be taken into account when estimating the overall time required.
15 In addition to cleaning tanks, all of the pipework in the fuel oil service system needs
to be flushed. Flushing the remaining pipework and fuel oil service system after all tanks have
been cleaned could take another 1 to 2 days.
16 The residues from tank cleaning should be retained on board until they can be
disposed of correctly or disposed to shore reception facilities.
Cleaning tanks in service with specialized additives
17 As an alternative to manual cleaning, consideration can be given to gradually cleaning

the sediments and asphaltenic sludge from HSFO tanks and fuel systems by dosing additives.
There are successful examples of this approach for ships that needed to reallocate HSFO
tanks to fuels complying with the 0.10% sulphur limit that took effect in ECAs in 2015.
___________
Appendix 5
RESOLUTION MEPC.320(74)
2019 GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization

concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee)
conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution
from ships,
RECALLING ALSO that, at its fifty-eighth session, the Committee adopted, by

resolution MEPC.176(58), a revised MARPOL Annex VI which significantly strengthens the
emission limits for sulphur oxides (SOX),
RECALLING FURTHER that, at its seventieth session, the Committee adopted,

resolution MEPC.280(70), Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in
regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, confirming "1 January 2020" as the effective date of
implementation for ships to comply with global 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil
requirement,
NOTING ALSO that, at its seventy-third session, the Committee approved circular
MEPC.1/Circ.878 on the Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the
consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI,
HAVING CONSIDERED, at its seventy-fourth session, draft 2019 Guidelines for consistent
implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, prepared by the
Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response, at its sixth session,
1 ADOPTS the 2019 Guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit
under MARPOL Annex VI, as set out in the annex to the present resolution;
2 REQUESTS Parties to MARPOL Annex VI and other Member Governments to bring

these Guidelines to the attention of shipowners, ship operators, fuel oil suppliers and any other
interested groups;
3 AGREES to keep these Guidelines under review in the light of experience gained with
their application.
-2-
ANNEX
2019 GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI
1 Introduction
1.1 Objective
1.1.1 The purpose of these Guidelines is to ensure consistent implementation of the 0.50%
sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI. These Guidelines are intended for use by
Administrations, port States, shipowners, shipbuilders and fuel oil suppliers, as appropriate.
1.2 Definitions
1.2.1 For the purpose of these Guidelines, the definitions in MARPOL Annex VI apply.
1.2.2 The following definitions of fuel oils are used, as applicable:
.1 Distillate marine fuels (DM) are as specified in ISO 8217:20171 (e.g. DMA,
DMB, DMX, DMZ);
.2 Residual marine fuels (RM) are as specified in ISO 8217:20171

(e.g. RMD 80, RMG 380);
.3 Ultra-low sulphur fuel oil (ULSFO) are as specified in ISO 8217:20171

(e.g. maximum 0.10% S ULSFO-DM, maximum 0.10% S ULSFO-RM);
.4 Very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) (e.g. maximum 0.50% S VLSFO-DM,
maximum 0.50% S VLSFO-RM); and
.5 High sulphur heavy fuel oil (HSHFO) exceeding 0.50% S.
2 Ship implementation planning for 2020
2.1 MEPC 70 agreed to "1 January 2020" as the effective date of implementation for ships
to comply with the 0.50% m/m fuel oil sulphur content limit requirement and adopted
resolution MEPC.280(70) on the Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in
regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI2.
2.2 In this context, MEPC 73 agreed that Administrations should encourage ships flying
their flag to develop implementation plans, outlining how the ship may prepare in order to
comply with the required sulphur content limit of 0.50% by 1 January 2020. The plan should
be complemented with a record of actions taken by the ships in order to be compliant by the
applicable date.
2.3 MEPC 73, recognizing the need for guidance to support the consistent
implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, approved
MEPC.1/Circ.878 on the Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the
consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI.
1
The latest edition of the ISO standard is recommended.
2
Regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, was amended by resolution MEPC.305(73).
-3-
3 Impact on fuel and machinery systems
3.0.1 The experiences and lessons learned from the transition to the 0.10% m/m SOX-ECA
limit indicated that current ship machinery operations should be sufficiently capable of
addressing the concerns regarding combustion of the new 0.50% m/m limit fuel oils.
3.0.2 Currently most of the marine diesel engines and boilers on ships operating outside
Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are optimized to operate on heavy fuel oil. From 2020 ships
are required to use fuel oils with a sulphur content of 0.50% m/m or lower, unless fitted with an
approved equivalent means of compliance.
3.1 Distillate fuels
3.1.1 A major challenge with distillate fuels is low viscosity. Low viscosity may cause
internal leakages in diesel engines, boilers and pumps. Internal leakages in fuel injection
system may result in reduced fuel pressure to the engine, which may have consequences for
the engine performance (e.g. starting of the engine). Equipment makers recommendations
should be taken into account, and adequate testing, maintenance and possible installation of
coolers, etc., may be performed.
3.1.2 Cold Filter Plugging Points (CFPP) and Cloud Points (CP) as well as the Pour Point
(PP) for distillate fuels need to be considered in light of the ship's intended operating area and
ambient temperatures.
3.1.3 These issues are critical concerns as they can result in the formation and
accumulation of wax sediment, which can cause costly and avoidable maintenance. In the
worst-case scenario, sediment can cause engine fuel starvation and power loss.
3.1.4 ISO 8217:20173 limits the cold flow properties of a fuel through setting a limit on the
PP. However, given that wax crystals form at temperatures above the PP, fuels that meet the
specification in terms of PP can still be challenging to operations in colder operating regions,
as the wax particles can rapidly block filters, potentially plugging them completely. For cold
weather, additional cold flow properties, CFPP and CP, should be reported by the supplier
when the receiving ship has ordered distillate fuel for cold weather operations, a requirement
that is specified in ISO 8217:20173.
3.1.5 Since the residual fuels are usually heated and distillate fuels are not heated,
particular attention needs to be given to the cold flow properties of distillates. Cold flow property
challenges can be managed by heating the fuel. CIMAC has issued "01 2015 CIMAC Guideline
Cold flow properties of marine fuel oils"4.
3.1.6 Fuel temperature should be kept approximately 10°C above the PP in order to avoid
any risk of solidification, however this may not reduce the risk of filter blocking in case of high
CFPP and CP.
3.1.7 It is good practice to review the possibilities of heating arrangements for distillate fuels
on board. This is usually very limited, as it is not standard practice to have heating
arrangements in distillate storage, settling or service tanks. Transfer arrangements may be
adapted to pass through a residual fuel oil heat exchanger should the need arise.
3
4
https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_2015_01_Guideline_Cold
__Flow_Properties_Marine_Fuel_Oils_final.pdf
-4-
3.1.8 Knowing the fuel properties before bunkering will assist in taking the necessary
precautions where and when necessary. If the ship is heading towards colder climates and the
cold flow properties are inferior, the fuel may be:
.1 either used before entering cold regions, or
.2 used with suitable heating arrangement, as mentioned above.
3.1.9 If the approach of applying heat is being followed it should be ensured that the fuel is
not overheated resulting in the viscosity dropping below the minimum recommendation of 2 cSt
at any point in the fuel system, including the engine inlet. In order to reduce this risk, heating
should be limited to max 40°C.
3.2 Distillate fuel with FAME content
3.2.1 Increased demand for Distillate fuels may result in more land based products making
their way into the marine supply pool, some of these fuels (e.g. biodiesel) may contain Fatty
Acid Methyl Ester (FAME).
3.2.2 There are various technical challenges associated with use of fuel having FAME
content, e.g. potential oxidation of biodiesel, its biodegradable nature etc. with adverse
implications, limitations in storage life etc. It also needs to be tested for stability.
3.2.3 The ISO 8217:20173 standard includes a maximum FAME content of 7.0% by volume
for DFA/DFZ/DFB fuel oil grades since some ports may offer automotive diesel fuel as the only
fuel available, which contains FAME and could violate the fuel flashpoint requirements
addressed in SOLAS chapter II-2. The maximum 7.0% (v/v) has been chosen as this aligns
with the concentrations allowed in some of the countries applying environmental regulations.
3.2.4 Manufacturers of engines and equipment like oily water separators, overboard
discharge monitors, filters, coalescers etc. need to be consulted to confirm the ability of
engines and equipment to handle biodiesel blends of up to B7 (i.e. 7.0% v/v).
3.2.5 It is recommended to avoid using such biodiesel blend fuels for lifeboat engines,
emergency generators, fire pumps, etc. where it is stored in isolated individual unit fuel tanks
and subjected to conditions for accelerated degradation.
3.2.6 CIMAC has provided a Guideline for Shipowners and Operators on Managing
Distillate Fuels up to 7.0% v/v Fame (Biodiesel).5
3.3 Residual fuels
3.3.1 Stability and compatibility
3.3.1.1 It is essential to distinguish between "Fuel stability" within a single batch of fuel and
"Fuel compatibility" between different fuel batches.
3.3.1.2 Regarding stability: the fuel shall be stable and homogeneous at delivery and it is the
responsibility of the fuel oil blenders and suppliers to ensure this.
3.3.1.3 A wide range of blends of refined products will be used to make the new 0.50%
sulphur fuels, and the stability and compatibility of the blends will be an important concern for
shipowners/operators. Unstable fuels can separate on their own and incompatible ones can
do so when mixed in a single bunker tank, forming sludge that can block filters and ultimately
cause engine failures.
5
https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_Guideline_for_Ship_Owners_and_
Operators_on_Managing_Distillate_Fuels_May_2013.pdf
-5-
3.3.1.4 It is recommended that ships have a commingling procedure. The procedure should
primarily aim to ensure new bunkers are loaded into empty tanks to the extent possible. In the
event that a ship finds itself possibly having to commingle a new bunker with bunkers already
on board, then it is important that the ship determines the compatibility between the two said
bunkers before comingling.
3.3.1.5 The reference test method shall be the total potential sediment test in accordance
with ISO 10307-2:2009.
3.3.2 Catalytic fines (cat fines)
3.3.2.1 Cat fines are a by-product of refining and consist of small particles of metal that are
deliberately introduced as catalysts to "crack" the fuel oil. Unless reduced by purification, cat
fines will become embedded in engine parts and cause serious and rapid engine damage.
Reference should be made to engine manufacturer's guidance with respect to managing cat
fines.
3.4 Key technical considerations for shipowners and operators
3.4.1 Ship tank configuration and fuel system – the viscosity of most of these blended
residual fuels is such that they cannot be used in distillate fuel-only systems and machinery,
as they require heating for cleaning and combustion. A fully segregated fuel system for both
distillate fuels and these new fuels is recommended.
3.4.2 Tank cleaning is recommended when using a residual fuel tank for storing these new
fuels. This is to prevent sludge that has built up in these tanks from entering the fuel system.
Further information on tank cleaning is set out in appendix 3 of MEPC.1/Circ.878 on Guidance
on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of
the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI.
3.4.3 Heating requirements – due to the cold flow properties of most of these new fuels,
permanent heating of the fuel may be necessary to minimize the risk of wax formation, also in
storage. This is especially important in colder regions.
3.4.4 Fuel treatment system – Some of these new fuels may contain cat fines and/or
sediments and therefore need on board cleaning. Separator temperature and settings should
be adjusted to the fuels' viscosity and density. Please refer to recommendations from OEM
and fuel supplier.
3.4.5 Considering that many of these new fuels have lower viscosities compared to
conventional residual fuels, care should be taken to ensure no overheating occurs.
3.5 ISO Standard for residual fuels
3.5.1 The bunker market uses ISO 8217:20176 specifications to ensure that the properties
of the fuels it delivers conform to a standard that mean they comply with MARPOL Annex VI.
3.5.2 The existing ISO 8217:20176 specification for marine fuels takes into consideration
the diverse nature of marine fuels and incorporates a number of categories of distillate or
residual fuels, even though not all categories may be available in every supply location it covers
all marine petroleum fuel oils used today as well as the 0.50% Sulphur fuels of 2020. The
General requirements, in the ISO 8217:20176 specification for marine fuels and characteristics,
included in table 1 and 2 of ISO 8217:20176 identified safety, performance and environmental
concerns and further takes into consideration the on board handling requirements, including
6
-6-
storage, cleaning and combustion aspects of all fuel oils used today and the anticipated fuel
blends of 2020, irrespective of the sulphur content of the fuel oils.
3.5.3 It is important that any new standards address and do not preclude the use of
renewable and alternative non-fossil crude derived products, so long as they comply with the
chemical properties specified for these fuel oils.
3.6 Cylinder lubrication
3.6.1 The choice of cylinder lubricating oils will often follow the fuel type in use. So, when
changing to VLSFO operation from RM operation the choice of appropriate cylinder lubricating
oil should be considered in accordance with the recommendations of the engine manufacturer.
4 Verification issues and control mechanism and actions
4.1 Survey and certification by Administrations
4.1.1 When undertaking a survey in accordance with regulation 5 of MARPOL Annex VI,
the Administration should conduct a survey of a ship to verify that the ship complies with the
provisions to implement the 0.50% sulphur limit. In particular, the Administration should check
whether the ship carries compliant fuel oils for use, based on the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN)
on board, any other document or fuel oil samples as appropriate consistent with the provisions
of regulation 18 of MARPOL Annex VI. If carriage of HSHFO for use is identified, the
Administration should check whether regulation 3.2, regulation 4 of MARPOL Annex VI are
applied to the ship, or if the ship encountered a fuel availability problem and is operating
pursuant to regulation 18.2 of MARPOL Annex VI.
4.1.2 When an Administration decides to analyse a fuel oil sample to determine compliance
with the sulphur limits in regulation 14.1 or 14.4, the final analysis should be carried out in
accordance with ISO 8754:2003 by a laboratory that is accredited for the purpose of conducting
the test in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 or an equivalent standard. The test results should
be in accordance with ISO 8754 reporting protocol, meaning a tested value at or above 0.10%
sulphur should be reported with no more than two decimal places.
4.1.3 According to regulation 11.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, the Administration shall
investigate any report of an alleged violation and thereafter promptly inform the Party which
made the report, as well as the Organization, of the action taken. When informing the
Organization, the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module should be used.
4.2 Control measures by port States
4.2.1 Port States should take appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the 0.50%
of sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, in line with the regulation 10 of MARPOL Annex VI
and the 2019 Guidelines for port State control under MARPOL Annex VI
(resolution MEPC.321(74)) (2019 PSC Guidelines). Specifically, the port State should conduct
initial inspections based on documents and other possible materials, including remote sensing
and portable devices. Given "clear grounds" to conduct a more detailed inspection, the port
State may conduct sample analysis and other detailed inspections to verify compliance to the
regulation, as appropriate.
4.2.2 Regulation 18.2.3 of MARPOL Annex VI requires a Party to take into account all
relevant circumstances and the evidence presented to determine the action to take, including
not taking control measures. Administrations and port State control authorities may take into
account the implementation plan when verifying compliance with the 0.50% sulphur limit
requirement.
-7-
4.2.3 Inspections based on documents and other possible targeting measurements
4.2.3.1 During the port State control and other enforcement activities, the port State should
investigate whether a ship carries either compliant fuel oils or HSHFOs for use, based on the
documents listed in paragraph 2.1.2 of the 2019 PSC Guidelines additionally records required
to demonstrate compliance should also then be viewed. Results from remote sensing could be
used to trigger inspections and portable devices could be used during the initial inspections,
as appropriate. Remote sensing and portable devices are, however, of indicative nature and
should not be regarded as the evidence of non-compliance, but may be considered clear
grounds for expanding the inspection.
4.2.3.2 Port state should determine if regulations 3.2, 4 or 18.2.3 apply together with retained
bunker delivery notes and IAPP Certificate when considering the status of any HSHFO being
carried for use on board.
4.2.4 Fuel oil sample analysis
4.2.4.1 When the port State identifies clear grounds of suspected non-compliance of a ship
based on initial inspections, the port State may require samples of fuel oils to be analysed. The
samples to be analysed may be either the representative samples provided with BDN in
accordance with regulation 18.8.2, MARPOL delivered samples or samples from designated
sampling points in accordance with the 2019 Guidelines for on board sampling for the
verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864/Rev.1)
(in-use fuel oil samples) or other samples obtained by the port State.
4.2.4.2 Where the MARPOL delivered sample is taken from the ship a receipt should be
provided to the ship. The outcome of the analysis undertaken with appendix VI of MARPOL
Annex VI should be advised to the ship for its records.
4.2.4.3 In detecting suspected non-compliance, the sample analysis should be conducted in

a uniform and reliable manner as described in paragraph 4.1.2. The verification procedure for
MARPOL delivered samples should be in accordance with appendix VI7 of MARPOL Annex VI.
For other samples taken on board the ship, the in-use and onboard sample, the sample should
be deemed to meet the requirements provided the test result from the laboratory does not
exceed the specification limit +0.59R (where R is the reproducibility of the test method) and no
further testing is necessary.
4.2.4.4 Notwithstanding the above process, all possible efforts should be made to avoid a
ship being unduly detained or delayed. In particular, sample analysis of fuel oils should not
unduly delay the operation, movement or departure of the ship.
4.2.4.5 If a non-compliance is established, consistent with regulation 18.2.3 the port State
may prevent the ship from sailing until the ship takes any suitable measures to achieve
compliance which may include de-bunkering all non-compliant fuel oil. In addition, the port
State should report the information of the ship using or carrying for use non-compliant fuel oil
to the Administration of the ship and inform the Party or non-Party under whose jurisdiction a
bunker delivery note was issued of cases of delivery of non-compliant fuel oil, giving all relevant
information. Upon receiving the information, the Party detecting the deficiency should report
the information to the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of
these Guidelines.
4.2.4.6 The Parties (the port and flag States), however, may permit, with the agreement of
the destination port authority, a single voyage for bunkering of compliant fuel oil for the ship,
in accordance with regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. The single voyage should be one
7
Amendments to MARPOL VI, Appendix VI, Verification procedures for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample
(regulation 18.8.2 or regulation 14.8), expected to be adopted in Spring 2020 and set out in annex 11 to
document MEPC 74/18.
-8-
way and minimum for bunkering, and the ship proceeds directly to the nearest bunkering facility
appropriate to the ship. In the case that the parties permit a single voyage of a ship, the port
State should confirm that the Administration of the ship has advised the authority at the
destination port of the approval for a single voyage including information on the ship granted
with the approval and the certified record of analysis of the sample as the evidence. Once
confirmation has been provided the port State should permit the ship to sail as agreed.
4.2.4.7 If the port State is made aware that a ship is carrying non-compliant fuel oil, which is
not for use through an equivalent method under regulation 4 or a permit under regulation 3.2
of MARPOL Annex VI, the port State should take action to confirm the fuel is not being used.
Action to confirm should include, but is not limited to the examination of the oil record book
and the record of tank soundings. Where necessary the port State may require tank soundings
to be undertaken during the inspection. Where it is determined that the fuel has been used the
control action in paragraph 4.2.4.5 should be applied.
4.2.5 Other open-sea compliance monitoring tools:
.1 fuel oil changeover calculator;
.2 data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships

(resolution MEPC.278(70)); and
.3 continuous SOX monitoring.
4.3 Control on fuel oil suppliers
4.3.1 Designated authorities should, if deemed necessary, take a sample and test fuel oils
from bunker barges or shore bunker terminals. Sampling of fuel oils in bunker barges or shore
bunker terminals can be taken and tested in the same manner that the MARPOL delivered fuel
oils are tested by the PSC. All possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly
detained or delayed. If a sample is analysed, sample analysis of fuel oils should not unduly
delay the operation, movement or departure of the ship.
4.3.2 If non-compliance, such as issuance of an incorrect BDN or a BDN without

measurement of sulphur content, was found, the designated authorities should take
appropriate corrective measures against the non-compliant supplier. In such case, the
designated authorities should inform the Organization for transmission to the Member States
of the non-compliant supplier, in accordance with the regulation 18.9.6 of MARPOL Annex VI
and paragraph 4.4 of these Guidelines.
4.4 Information sharing related to non-compliances under MARPOL Annex VI
4.4.1 When a Party finds a non-compliance of a ship or a fuel oil supplier, the information
of the non-compliance should be reported to the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module
(regulation 11.4).
4.4.2 Publication of information on non-compliant ships/fuel oil suppliers or a reporting

scheme to IMO to be registered on centralized information platforms are proposed as elements
of an effective enforcement strategy. Various PSC regimes have successfully used the
publishing of information related to substandard ships/fuel suppliers as a deterrent to
non-compliance. Port States also need to report detentions of ships to IMO which may affect
the future PSC targeting of the ship. The IMO GISIS database already makes available certain
information related to non-compliances with the MARPOL Annex VI regulations.
-9-
5 Fuel oil non-availability
5.1 Guidance and information sharing on fuel oil non-availability
5.1.1 Regulation 18.2.1 of MARPOL Annex VI provides that in the event compliant fuel oil
cannot be obtained, a Party to MARPOL Annex VI can request evidence outlining the attempts
made to obtain the compliant fuel oil, including attempts made to local alternative sources.
Regulations 18.2.4 and 18.2.5 then require that the ship notifies its Administration and the
competent authority of the port of destination on the inability to obtain compliant fuel oil, with
the Party to notify IMO of the non-availability. This notification is commonly referred to as a
Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR).
5.1.2 Guidance on consistent evidence
5.1.3 Regulation 18.2.1.2 of MARPOL Annex VI requires that evidence be provided to

support a claim that all efforts were made to obtain compliant fuel oil. In this regard, a Party
may develop more detailed guidance for the consistent use and acceptance of these reports,
including what evidence is needed to accompany a report to ensure that port States are
applying the provisions under regulation 18.2.3, consistently.
5.1.4 Should a ship, despite its best effort to obtain compliant fuel oil, be unable to do so,
the master/company must:
.1 present a record of actions taken to attempt to bunker correct fuel oil and
provide evidence of an attempt to purchase compliant fuel oil in accordance
with its voyage plan and, if it was not made available where planned, that
attempts were made to locate alternative sources for such fuel oil and that
despite best efforts to obtain compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil was made
available for purchase; and
.2 best efforts to procure compliant fuel oil include, but are not limited to,
investigating alternate sources of fuel oil prior to commencing the voyage.
If, despite best efforts, it was not possible to procure compliant fuel oil, the
master/Company must immediately notify the port State Administration in the
port of arrival and the flag Administration (regulation 18.2.4 of
MARPOL Annex VI).
5.1.5 In order to minimize disruption to commerce and avoid delays, the master/company
should submit a FONAR as soon as it is determined or becomes aware that it will not be able
to procure and use compliant fuel oil.
5.1.6 Investigating non-availability
5.1.7 A Party should investigate the reports of non-availability. This process is important to
ensure a consistent supply of compliant fuel to industry, as well as prevent incentives for ships
to use ports where it is known that compliant fuel is not available on an ongoing basis. Critical
to this process will be the sharing of information between Member States on reported compliant
fuel oil supply issues.
- 10 -
5.1.8 Regulation 18.2.5 of MARPOL Annex VI provides that a Party to MARPOL Annex VI
notify the Organization when a ship has presented evidence of the non-availability of compliant
fuel oil in a port or at their terminal. For this purpose, MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module
provides the platform for Parties to upload such notifications.
5.1.9 Regulation 18.1 of MARPOL Annex VI provides that each Party take all reasonable
steps to promote the availability of above compliant fuel oil and inform the Organization through
MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module of the availability of compliant fuel oils in its ports and
terminals.
5.1.10 Port State control authority may contact the submitter (and/or shipowner or operator),
including in the event of an incomplete submission, and request additional information, or to
pursue an enforcement action such as a Notice of Violation.
5.2 Standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability
5.2.1 For ships which are unable to purchase fuel oil meeting the requirements of
regulations 14.1 or 14.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, the standard format for reporting fuel oil
non-availability is set out in appendix 1 to this document, pursuant to regulation 18.2.4 of
MARPOL Annex VI.
6 Possible safety implications relating to fuel oils meeting the 0.50% m/m sulphur
limit
6.1 MEPC 73 (October 2018) approved MEPC.1/Circ.878 on Guidance on the

development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50%
sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI (hereafter the "Ship Implementation Plan Guidance")
addresses some safety issues identified with regard to 0.50% maximum sulphur fuel oil, in
particular through the section on risk assessment (section 1 of the Ship Implementation Plan
Guidance) and additional guidance provided on impact on machinery systems and tank
cleaning (appendix 2 and appendix 3 of the Ship Implementation Plan Guidance, respectively).
6.2 Identified potential safety implications include, but are not limited to, the following:
.1 stability of blended fuel oil;
.2 compatibility, including new tests and metrics appropriate for future fuels;
.3 cold flow properties;
.4 acid number;
.5 flash point;
.6 ignition and combustion quality;
.7 cat fines;
.8 low viscosity; and
.9 unusual components.
6.3 Additional technical information and a review, displayed in tabular format, of the
possible potential safety implications is set out in appendix 2.
- 11 -
6.4 Reference should also be made to general industry guidance on potential safety and
operational issues related to the supply and use of 0.50% maximum sulphur fuels8.
8
ICS, ASA and ECSA Guidance to shipping companies and crews on preparing for compliance with
the 2020 global sulphur limit can be accessed at the following link: http://www.ics-shipping.org/free-
resources/2020-sulphur-compliance
- 12 -
APPENDIX 1
FUEL OIL NON-AVAILABILITY REPORT (FONAR)
Note:
1 This report is to be sent to the flag Administration and to the competent authorities in
the relevant port(s) of destination in accordance with regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI.
The report shall be sent as soon as it is determined that the ship/operator will be unable to
procure compliant fuel oil and preferably before the ship leaves the port/terminal where
compliant fuel cannot be obtained. A copy of the FONAR should be kept on board for
inspection for at least 36 months.
2 This report should be used to provide evidence if a ship is unable to obtain fuel oil
compliant with the provisions stipulated in regulations 14.1 or 14.4 of MARPOL Annex VI.
3 Before filing a FONAR, the following should be observed by the ship/operator:
3.1 A fuel oil non-availability report is not an exemption. According to regulation 18.2 of
MARPOL Annex VI, it is the responsibility of the Party of the destination port, through its
competent authority, to scrutinize the information provided and take action, as appropriate.
3.2 In the case of insufficiently supported and/or repeated claims of non-availability, the
Party may require additional documentation and substantiation of fuel oil non-availability
claims. The ship/operator may also be subject to more extensive inspections or examinations
while in port.
3.3 Ships/operators are expected to take into account logistical conditions and/or
terminal/port policies when planning bunkering, including but not limited to having to change
berth or anchor within a port or terminal in order to obtain compliant fuel.
3.4 Ships/operators are expected to prepare as far as reasonably practicable to be able

to operate on compliant fuel oils. This could include, but is not limited to, fuel oils with different
viscosity and different sulphur content not exceeding regulatory requirements (requiring
different lube oils) as well as requiring heating and/or other treatment on board.
1 Particulars of ship
1.1 Name of ship: _______________________________________________________

1.2 IMO number: ________________________________________________________
1.3 Flag: ______________________________________________________________
1.4 (if other relevant registration number is available, enter here): __________________
2 Description of ship's voyage plan
2.1 Provide a description of the ship's voyage plan in place at the time of entry into
"country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable) (Attach copy of plan if available):
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
- 13 -
2.2 Details of voyage:
1 – Last port of departure

___________________________________________________________________
2 – First port of arrival in "country X":

___________________________________________________________________
3 – Date of departure from last port (dd-mm-yyyy):

___________________________________________________________________
4 – Date of arrival at first "country X" (dd-mm-yyyy):

___________________________________________________________________
5 – Date ship first received notice that it would be transiting in "country X" waters
(and ECA, if applicable) (dd-mm-yyyy):
___________________________________________________________________
6 – Ship's location at the time of notice:

___________________________________________________________________
7 – Date ship operator expects to enter "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)
(dd-mm-yyyy):
__________________________________________________________________
8 – Time ship operator expects to enter "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)
(hh:mm UTC):
__________________________________________________________________
9 – Date ship operator expects to exit "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)
(dd-mm-yyyy):
__________________________________________________________________
10 – Time ship operator expects to exit "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable)
(hh:mm UTC):
__________________________________________________________________
11 – Projected days ship's main propulsion engines will be in operation within

"country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable):
___________________________________________________________________
12 – Sulphur content of fuel oil in use when entering and operating in "country X"
waters (and ECA, if applicable):
__________________________________________________________________
- 14 -
3 Evidence of attempts to purchase compliant fuel oil
3.1 Provide a description of actions taken to attempt to achieve compliance prior to

entering "country X" waters (and ECA, if applicable), including a description of all attempts that
were made to locate alternative sources of compliant fuel oil, and a description of the reason
why compliant fuel oil was not available:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
3.2 Name and email address of suppliers contacted, address and phone number and date
of contact (dd-mm-yyyy):
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Please attach copies of communication with suppliers (e.g. emails to and from suppliers)
4 In case of fuel oil supply disruption only
4.1 Name of port at which ship was scheduled to receive compliant fuel oil:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
4.2 Name, email address, and phone number of the fuel oil supplier that was scheduled
to deliver (and now reporting the non-availability): ___________________________
5 Operation constraints, if applicable
5.1 If non-compliant fuel has been bunkered due to concerns that the quality of the
compliant fuel available would cause operational or safety problems on board the ships, the
concerns should be thoroughly documented.
5.2 Describe any operational constraints that prevented use of compliant fuel oil available
at port:
__________________________________________________________________________
5.3 Specify steps taken, or to be taken, to resolve these operational constraints that will
enable compliant fuel use:
__________________________________________________________________________
6 Plans to obtain compliant fuel oil
6.1 Describe availability of compliant fuel oil at the first port-of-call in "country X", and
plans to obtain it:
__________________________________________________________________________
6.2 If compliant fuel oil is not available at the first port-of-call in "country X", list the
lowest sulphur content of available fuel oil(s) or the lowest sulphur content of available fuel oil
at the next port-of-call:
__________________________________________________________________________
- 15 -
7 Previous Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports
7.1 If shipowner/operator has submitted a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report to "country X"
in the previous 12 months, list the number of Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports previously
submitted and provide details on the dates and ports visited while using non-compliant fuel oil,
as set out below:
Report: ___________________________________________________________________
Date (dd-mm-yyyy): _________________________________________________________
Port: _____________________________________________________________________
Type of fuel: _______________________________________________________________
Comments: ________________________________________________________________
8 Master/Company information
Master name: ______________________________________________________________

Local agent in "country X": ____________________________________________________
Ship operator name: _________________________________________________________
Shipowner name: ___________________________________________________________
Name and position of official: __________________ ________________________________
Email address: _____________________________________________________________
Address (street, city, country, postal/zip code): ____________________________________
Telephone number: _________________________________________________________
Signature of Master: _________________________________________________________
Print name: ________________________________________________________________

Date (DD/MM/YYYY): ________________________________________________________
- 16 -
APPENDIX 2
TECHNICAL REVIEW OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF 2020 COMPLIANT FUELS
Fuel Property Potential Challenges Remarks

Stability The consequences of a ship The challenge for the fuel producer is to
receiving an unstable fuel, or one blend a fuel which is not only stable but
that becomes unstable during also has a degree of reserve stability
storage or handling, can be such that it will remain stable during
serious. Sludge may build up in periods of storage and treatment at
the storage tanks, piping elevated temperatures.
systems or centrifuges and filters
can become totally blocked by More paraffinic blend components are
voluminous amounts of sludge. expected for Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil
(VLSFO) compared to existing fuels.
Whereas aromatic components have a
stabilizing effect on asphaltenes,
paraffins do not. Fuel suppliers are
responsible for ensuring that the supplied
fuel is stable.
Compatibility Challenges are the same as with An incompatible mix may be harmful to
issues stability (above). ship's operation.
VLSFOs are expected to be paraffinic

based in some regions and aromatic
based in other regions. There is a risk of
experiencing incompatibility when mixing
an aromatic fuel with a paraffinic fuel.
The same risk exists today, but with the
wide range of products which may exist
post 2020, it is important to segregate
fuels as far as possible and to be
cautious of how to manage/handle
incompatible fuels on board.
Cold flow ISO 8217:2017 limits the cold VLSFO products are expected to be
properties flow properties of a fuel through more paraffinic compared to existing
and Pour setting a limit on the pour point fuels. As such, it is important to know the
Point (PP). However, given that wax cold flow properties of the bunkered fuel
crystals form at temperatures in order to ensure proper temperature
above the PP, fuels that meet the management on board.
specification in terms of PP can
still be challenging when It is important to note that for additives to
operating in colder regions. Wax be effective, they have to be applied
particles can rapidly block filters, before crystallization has occurred in the
potentially plugging them fuel.
completely. The paraffin's may
crystallize and/or deposit in the Reference 1.
storage tanks leading to
blockages at the filters and
reduced fuel flow to the
machinery plants. If fuels are
held at temperatures below the
pour point, wax will begin to
precipitate. This wax may cause
blocking of filters and can deposit
on heat exchangers. In severe
- 17 -

cases the wax will build up in
storage tank bottoms and on
heating coils, which can restrict
the coils from heating the fuel
(fuel will become unpumpable
from the bunker tanks).
Acid number The fuel shall be free from There is currently no recognized
strong, inorganic acids. correlation between an acid number test
result and the corrosive activity of the
Fuels with high acid number test fuel.
results arising from acidic
compounds cause accelerated ISO 8217:2017, appendix E covers the
damage to marine diesel topic.
engines. Such damage is found
primarily within the fuel injection
equipment.
Flashpoint Flashpoint is considered to be a SOLAS requirement.
useful indicator of the fire hazard
associated with the storage of
marine fuels. Even if fuels are
stored at temperatures below the
determined flash point,
flammable vapours may still
develop in the tank headspace.
Ignition and Fuels with poor ignition & High and medium-speed engines are
combustion combustion properties can, in more prone to experience operational
quality extreme cases, result in serious difficulties due to poor ignition and
operational problems, engine combustion properties than low speed
damage and even total two stroke types. With four stroke
breakdown. Poor combustion engines, poor ignition can result in
performance is normally excessive exhaust gas system deposits,
characterized by an extended black smoke, engine knocking and
combustion period and/or poor difficulties operating at low load.
rates of pressure increase and
low "p max" resulting in If the ignition process is delayed for too
incomplete combustion of the long a period by virtue of some chemical
fuel. The resulting effects are quality of the fuel, too large a quantity of
increased levels of unburned fuel fuel will be injected into the engine
and soot that may be deposited cylinders and will ignite at once,
in the combustion chamber, on producing a rapid pressure and heat rise
the exhaust valves and in the and causing associated damage to the
turbocharger system, exhaust piston rings and cylinder liners of the
after treatment devices, waste engine.
heat recovery units and other
exhaust system components. Reference 2.
Extended combustion periods
may also result in exposure of
the cylinder liner to high
temperatures which may disrupt
the lubricating oil film, leading to
increased wear rates and
scuffing. Unburnt fuel droplets
may also carry over impinging on
the liner surfaces causing further
risk of damage to the liner.
- 18 -

Cat fines Cat fines will cause abrasive Major engine manufacturers recommend
wear of cylinder liners, piston that the fuel's cat fines content does not
rings and fuel injection exceed 10 mg/kg (ppm) at engine inlet.
equipment if not reduced
sufficiently by the fuel treatment
system. High wear in the
combustion chamber can result.
Low viscosity Low-viscosity fuels (less than Low fuel viscosity does not only affect the
2 cSt at engine inlet) challenge engine fuel pumps. Most pumps in the
the function of the fuel pump in external fuel oil system (supply pumps,
the following ways: circulating pumps, transfer pumps and
feed pumps for the centrifuge) also need
.1 breakdown of the oil film, viscosities above 2 cSt to function
which could result in properly.
seizures;
Viscosity is highly temperature
.2 insufficient injection dependent and the crew must take
pressure, which results in proper care of fuel oil temperature
difficulties during start-up management to avoid viscosity related
and low-load operation; issues.
and
Reference 3.
.3 insufficient fuel index
margin, which limits
acceleration.
Unusual The below components and Only for few components, there
components group of components can be exists a clear cause and effect
linked to the risk of encountering between component and
the following problems: associated operational problems.
Polymers (e.g. polystyrene, There is no statistical study

polyethylene, polypropylene) performed of which components are
Associated with filter blocking typically found in marine fuels and in
which concentration.
Polymethacrylates
Associated with fuel pump As per ISO 8217:2017, annex B:
sticking The marine industry continues to
build on its understanding of the
Phenols impact of specific chemical species
Occasionally Associated with and the respective critical
filter blocking/fuel oil pump concentrations at which detrimental
sticking effects are observed on the
operational characteristics of
Tall oils marine fuels in use.
Associated with filter blocking
Chlorinated hydrocarbons Only in some of the past cases the
Associated with fuel pump origin of the unusual components
seizures found in bunkers were revealed and
were due to various reasons such
Estonian shale oil as:
Associated in the past with
excessive separator sludging .1 Russia/Baltic states 1997, cross
contamination in storage/piping
Organic acids (polypropylene);
Associated with corrosion as well
.2 Singapore 2001, 4 bunker barges
as fuel pump sticking
received material from road
- 19 -

tankers which, in addition
to transporting fuel, also
collected/transported waste oil
from shipyards and motor shops
(esters);
.3 Ventspils 2007, Estonian shale
oil to convert HSHFOs to LSFOS;
and
.4 Houston 2010/11, bunker barges
that were not cleaned between
cargoes (polyacrylates)
Reference 4.
References
1 CIMAC WG7 Fuels Guideline 01/2015: "Cold flow properties of marine fuel oils"
2 CIMAC WG7 Fuels 2011: "Fuel Quality Guide: Ignition and Combustion"
3 MAN Service Letter SL2014-593/DOJA
4 Bureau Veritas Verifuel, Investigative analysis of marine fuel oils: Pros & Cons
___________

2020 Sulphur Cap Seminar - Istanbul - 30 Oct 2019 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2020 Sulphur Cap Seminar - Istanbul - 30 Oct 2019 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2020 SULPHUR CAP

ARE YOUR BUNKER CLAUSES READY AND COMPLIANT?

Welcome to the 2020 Sulphur Cap Seminar.

I wish you an enjoyable and educational day.

Rules, Enforcement and

Sulphur 2020 Seminar, Istanbul

Regulation 14 explained Personal notes:

Regulation 14 explained Personal notes:

This is not the case - yet

Regulation 18 explained - ships Personal notes:

Regulation 18 explained - ships Personal notes:

Regulation 18.2 – fuel oil availability

Regulation 18.3 explained Personal notes:

Appendix 5 - BDN Personal notes:

Information to be included in the bunker delivery note

Regulation 18 explained - parties Personal notes:

Regulation 18 explained - parties Personal notes:

Regulation 18 explained - summary Personal notes:

Rules enforcement, how can it be done? Personal notes:

Rules enforcement, ship is non-compliant? Personal notes:

Regulation 18.3 - fuel quality / ISO 8217 Personal notes:

Regulation 18.3 - fuel quality / ISO 8217 Personal notes:

Regulation 18 versus ISO 8217 Personal notes:

IMO GISIS database Personal notes:

• Improvements needed in presentation of the information

2020 SULPHUR CAP

2020 SULPHUR CAP

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• What steps BIMCO have taken to tackle these issues?

• Additional issues / considerations

How long will it

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• BIMCO Drafting Sub-Committee

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• BIMCO 2020 Fuel Transition Clause for Time Charter Parties

NB - no scrubber clause to be produced by BIMCO – bespoke solutions required

2020 SULPHUR CAP

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• Alternative abatement technology

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• Annex VI has a wide scope of application - applies to:

• Hence, reference to the "global cap“

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• Primary responsibility always rests with shipowners

• Normally reflected in charterparty provisions

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• Fuel Oil Availability (Regulation 18.1-18.2)

• Covers more than the 2020 Sulphur Cap

• Outside Annex VI - other areas where sulphur content is regulated

2020 SULPHUR CAP

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• Existing charterparty provisions do not adequately cover these.

• Most relevance in a time charterparty context

- Time Charters, Voyage Charters/COA?

• Are Owners required to install scrubbers?

• What type of (compliant) fuel should be used?

• Is the Vessel in a position to receive, store and burn compliant fuel?

• Availability of compliant (low sulphur) fuel come 2020?

2020 SULPHUR CAP

2020 SULPHUR CAP

• It is not intended to address:

• Does not apply to:

2020 SULPHUR CAP