Connect with us

Legal

CIMAC: Legal system to decide where fault lies for contaminated bunkers

Concludes ‘no explanation’ as to the root cause of contaminated marine fuel, despite issues with vessels.
Admin

Published

8 years ago

on

5beb8adbcdeba 1542163163

The International Council on Combustion Engines, also known as CIMAC, believes it will be up to the legal system to find the party responsible for supply contaminated marine fuel to vessels.

“Ultimately it will be up to the arbitrators or courts to decide where the fault lies and whether the claims from the initial findings of the investigation – stating that the fuel in use at the time the operational issues were experienced failed ISO 8217 – can be upheld,” it states in a recent report.

“The experts of CIMAC Fuels will continue the investigation in support of the ISO 8217 committee to better understand these cases.”

Summary of marine fuel incidents

CIMAC, meanwhile, states the issue of contaminated bunkers began in March 2018 when a number of ships experienced operational problems using residual fuels bunkered in Houston. The analysed fuels met the ISO 8217, Table 2 requirements.

The main issue was sticking engine fuel pumps although some vessels also reported separator sludging and filter blocking.

Since then, it is estimated that close to 100 ships, estimated as 2-3% of the bunker deliveries in the Houston area alone, reported problems consuming the fuel received during a nine-week period starting in March.

In a few cases, the vessels were reported to have been left without propulsion and electrical power which is a serious situation with regards to safety of the ship and the crew on board. This was followed by scattered reports of fuel sludging and owners seeking to debunker products they had lifted in Panama and Singapore for fear the Houston problem had spread there.

“Further it was found that, in Houston, the problematic fuels were supplied by around 10 different suppliers and from a range of barges,” it states.

“Review of the reported cases have shown that the incidences were not isolated to any specific machinery, component make or brand of affected separators, filters, two-stroke engines and four-stroke engines.

“Unfortunately, full details of the affected vessel’s operating conditions during the period in which the problems occurred were not made readily available although we would expect these to be assessed by the investigative bodies.

“To complicate matters further, the analytical investigations revealed that not all of these fuels had the same fingerprint parameters and further to this, a vast majority of the ships bunkering in the affected ports during this period did not report any issues despite having received fuels which seem to have originated from the same source.”

Based on the results of the extensive fuel analyses performed by the various fuel testing labs represented in CIMAC Fuels, no final and concrete conclusion can be made as to what specifically in the fuel formulation may have caused these incidents.

Investigative testing has shown a range of chemical species in the fuel oils used at the time of the issues. Most were present at very low levels although some were present in more significant concentrations in some samples. It is unclear if and to which extent these chemical species are also present in other currently used and historically used fuel oils without issue.

Conclusion

There are no consistent findings across the number of fuels tested (neither on components nor concentrations) that can be used to clearly distinguish problematic fuels from non-problematic fuels. In other words, so far, it has not been possible to confidently conclude if the blending process had gone wrong in some way or how any of the unexpected chemical species had made its way (deliberately or accidentally) into the fuel oil.

It should remain clear that fuel oil suppliers have an obligation to comply with the ISO 8217 specification which, in addition to Table 1 and 2, includes Clause 5 to ensure that no unacceptable material which might cause an adverse reaction to the ship’s machinery enters the fuel. If proven that the fuel, as supplied, is responsible for experienced operational problems, it would point to the bunkers not having met the ISO 8217 standard.

Based on the available information, CIMAC Fuels have concluded that so far there is no explanation as to the root cause of the occurred incidents other than the fact that based on the number of suppliers that have been affected, it can be deduced that some incident has likely occurred further upstream. The fact remains, however, that numerous vessels experienced similar operational problems (a few of which requiring towage) when using these fuels.

Moving forward, CIMAC Fuels advises that it is important that;

Ship operator
Fuel oils should be consumed with extra care, i.e. closely monitor the machinery in those locations where problematic fuels have recently been supplied.

An operator experiencing fuel related issues should make certain to duly log the case in detail, documenting the evidence leading up to, during and after the operational problems were experienced, along with any mitigating actions taken. This should include the current status of Remaining On Board (ROB) management, engine machinery maintenance, fuel handling and treatment practices routinely applied. Thus by keeping a log of the encountered issues and ensuring system samples are taken at the time of the incident in the event they are needed for later analysis, the case can be more effectively pursued.

Fuel supplier
Whilst Clause 5 of ISO 8217 does not prescribe specific test methods, it is an all-encompassing requirement specifying that it is unacceptable to supply, blend or allow even an accidental ingress of any product(s) that would render the fuel unacceptable for its intended use.

This is more definitively explained in the informative Annex B of ISO 8217, which states the impracticability of carrying out chemical analysis and so expresses its expectation on the supply chain to have in place adequate quality assurance and management procedures to ensure that the resultant fuel is compliant with the requirements of Clause 5.2: “The fuel shall be free from any material at a concentration that causes the fuel to be unacceptable for use in accordance with clause 1 (i.e. material not at a concentration that is harmful to personnel, jeopardises the safety of the ship, or adversely affects the performance of the machinery”.

Photo credit: CIMAC
Published: 14 November, 2018
 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Vessel Arrest

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

Other than the vessels, MMEA also seized a cargo of oil, bringing the total value of the seizure to MYR 260 million (USD 61.9 million).
Admin

Published

4 days ago

on

September 3, 2026

By

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) detained tugboat and dredger suspected of conducting an unauthorised ship-to-ship (STS) transfer in Malaysian waters.

The two Malaysian-registered vessels were detained at around 3.20am on Wednesday by an MMEA patrol boat after the agency received public information about two suspicious vessels seen operating alongside each other about 1.4 nautical miles northwest of Tanjung Buai.

MMEA Tanjung Sedili Zone Acting Director Maritime Commander Mohd Najib Sam said further inspection found that the tugboat was operated by five crew members, including its skipper, comprising Malaysian and Indonesian nationals aged between 26 and 58.

The dredger was operated by 13 crew members, including its skipper, all Malaysian nationals aged between 22 and 51.

“Further inspection also found a quantity of oil cargo believed to be without any documents relating to ownership and delivery,” Najib said.

Both vessels and the oil cargo have been seized for further investigation. The total value of the seizure, including the two vessels and the oil cargo, is estimated at MYR 260 million (USD 64 million).

The case is being investigated under Section 491B(1)(K) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO) 1952 for allegedly conducting ship-to-ship activities without authorisation from the Malaysian Director of Marine.

The vessels are also being investigated under Section 491B(1)(L) of the MSO 1952 for allegedly anchoring without permission, as well as under the Customs Act 1967 in connection with the oil cargo suspected of lacking the required documentation.

 

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 3 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Claim

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

Partner V Bala says bunker disputes depend heavily on evidence gathered in the first 48 hours, making disciplined preservation, accurate reporting and early expert involvement critical to protecting a claim or defence.
Admin

Published

5 days ago

on

September 2, 2026

By

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

V Bala, a partner in Rajah & Tann Singapore’s Shipping & International Trade practice group, has highlighted the critical importance of preserving evidence in the first 48 hours of a bunker incident, outlining best practices for ship managers to protect potential claims and defences:

A vessel somewhere in the Indian Ocean reports abnormal fuel behaviour. Sludge is forming. Filters are clogging. Consumption looks wrong. Within hours, owners, charterers, managers, suppliers and insurers are exchanging messages. Everyone asks the same question: is there a claim? It is reasonable. It is also often premature. The better question is: what evidence will still exist in 48 hours to explain what happened?

For all the technical sophistication around modern bunker disputes, many are decided less by expert reports than by the first two days after trouble appears. The tribunal may sit years later. The factual foundation is usually laid before the vessel reaches its next port.

Bunker claims are commonly treated as technical contests about fuel specifications, ISO standards and competing laboratory results. They are that. But experienced litigators quickly notice a simpler pattern: the strongest cases are rarely built by the cleverest lawyers. They are built by the best recordkeepers.

The Vanishing Evidence Problem 

Unlike a collision, fire or grounding, bad bunkers leave few obvious visual traces. The evidence is scattered across tanks, samples, engine records, maintenance logs, performance data and electronic communications. Much of it can deteriorate, disappear or become contaminated with surprising speed.

A discarded sample cannot be recreated. A cleaned filter may tell a different story from one preserved immediately after failure. Electronic records overwritten in routine operations may never be recovered usefully. Crew change. Memories fade. The difficulty is that bunker incidents rarely feel like casualties when they first arise. They look like operational nuisances.

The Pressure to Move On 

A ship manager’s first duty is to keep the vessel trading. Engineers solve the immediate problem. Technical managers assess options. Owners watch delay. Charterers want assurance. The commercial pressure to restore normality is intense. It is also the moment when evidential mistakes are most easily made.

Fuel is blended before investigations are complete. Samples are mishandled. Machinery is repaired before it is properly photographed. Internal messages fill with theories. By the time experts arrive, the most useful evidence may already have changed.

The Danger of Instant Certainty 

Modern communication has made this harder. A concern raised in the engine room can reach executives across continents within minutes. The advantages are obvious. So are the risks.

The earliest explanations are often the least reliable. When machinery problems arise shortly after bunkering, the fuel is naturally blamed because it is the most visible recent change. Sometimes that is right. Sometimes it is not.

Yet once a theory enters circulation, it acquires momentum. Months later, early WhatsApp messages or emails written under pressure may be attached to witness statements, analysed by experts and scrutinised by lawyers. A passing operational remark can begin to look like a settled conclusion.

The Documentary Ship 

Shipping remains a documentary business. Despite digitalisation, disputes still turn on engine logs, maintenance reports, fuel transfer records, sounding measurements and superintendent correspondence.

What matters is not merely whether those records exist, but what story they tell together. Tribunals value contemporaneous documents because they were created before positions hardened. They are the closest thing to a real-time account.

Ship Managers at the Centre 

Ship managers sit at the centre of the network: owners, financiers, charterers, bunker suppliers, insurers and regulators. In bunker matters, their role now goes beyond technical operation. It includes preserving enough information to understand what happened if the matter becomes a claim.

What the Best Operators Do Differently 

If bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours, what do the best operators do differently? They treat fuel incidents as evidential events as well as operational ones. While engineers restore function, someone asks: if this becomes a dispute, what will we wish we had preserved today?

They resist instant certainty. Communications distinguish facts from theories. There is a difference between recording that power loss followed consumption from a particular tank and declaring that the supplier delivered bad fuel.

They know samples are useful only if identity, seals, labels and custody can be proved. They keep samples alongside the full operational record: delivery documents, tank soundings, transfer history, engine logs, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and ship-to-shore messages.

They preserve physical evidence before routine work alters it. Filters, residues and affected components may contain information that disappears once cleaned or discarded. Photographs should capture the condition found, not just the condition after repair.

Finally, they bring the right expertise to the problem early. They also involve the right people early: surveyors, laboratories, technical experts, insurers and lawyers. A surveyor or technical expert can help identify what should be sampled, photographed, retained and recorded before the evidence changes. Lawyers and insurers can help ensure that notifications are made, communications remain measured and contractual deadlines are not overlooked. The point is not to turn every operational problem into litigation. It is to avoid discovering, months later, that the ingredients of a sound claim or defence were lost during the first voyage after the incident.

The first 48-hour discipline 

PRESERVE Segregate the suspect fuel where practicable. Secure representative samples, seals, labels and a documented chain of custody. Retain affected filters, residues and components before cleaning or disposal.
RECORD Capture tank soundings, transfer history, consumption sequence, engine parameters, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and photographs. Preserve original electronic records and contemporaneous logs.
COMMUNICATE Report observed facts, not untested conclusions. Keep a disciplined chronology of what happened, when it happened, who was informed and what action was taken.
NOTIFY Check contractual notice provisions and inform the relevant owner, charterer, supplier, manager, insurer or P&I club promptly. Delay can damage both evidence and rights.
DEPLOY Involve the appropriate surveyor, laboratory, technical expert and legal team before the condition of the evidence changes, not after positions have hardened.

The lesson is simple. In bunker disputes, the law often comes late. The evidence comes early. The party that preserves it calmly, completely and without premature blame gives itself the best chance of winning the argument when the dispute finally arrives.

 

Photo credit: Rajah & Tann Singapore
Published: 2 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Hua An Shipping and related firms

Creditors will need to produce proofs of debt to liquidators of Hua An Shipping, Hua Guang Shipping, Nan Hai Maritime, Nan Sia Maritime and Nan Zhou Maritime by 11 September.
Admin

Published

7 days ago

on

August 31, 2026

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Notices of intended dividend for Hua An Shipping Pte Ltd, Hua Guang Shipping Pte Ltd, Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd, Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd and Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd were published on the Government Gazette on Friday (28 August). 

The following are the details of the notice of Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd:

Name of Company : Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 200610919Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / : 200610922R Registration No.
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Hai Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. /Registration No. : 200814299M
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private, Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Sia Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No.  / Registration No.  : 200814320Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Zhou Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No.: 200814295H
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer

Published: 31 August, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending