Bunkers, Sulphur & the Law: Are You Fueling Trouble Without Knowing It?

 ⚓️ "Bunkers, Sulphur & the Law: Are You Fueling Trouble Without Knowing It?" 🌍

 

❓ 3 Burning Questions for Shipping Professionals:

1. ✅ Are you 100% confident your bunker fuel always meets sulphur regulations in ECAs?
2. ❌ Would your company be liable if your fuel supplier violates MARPOL Annex VI?
3. ✅ Do you know who’s legally responsible if the vessel fails compliance despite compliant bunkers?

 

🔍 Clause 35 Explained – Bunker Fuel Sulphur Content

Clause 35 in your Charter Party may look like another legal paragraph—but it holds serious implications for both Charterers and Owners, especially in today's tight regulatory climate under MARPOL Annex VI and ECA (Emission Control Area) zones.

 

🧾 What the Clause Says – In Simple Terms:

(a) Charterers’ Duties:

• Charterers must supply fuel that meets the sulphur limits for the zone the ship is ordered into.
• They must also ensure that their fuel suppliers, barge operators, and surveyors comply with MARPOL Annex VI, specifically Regulations 14 (Sulphur limits) and 18 (fuel quality, sampling, and BDNs).
• If they fail, Charterers are fully liable—they must indemnify (compensate) the Owners for losses, fines, or delays.

(b) Owners’ Duties (Provided Fuel is Compliant):

• Owners warrant that the vessel can use the fuel and that the ship meets MARPOL Annex VI and ECA requirements.
• If compliant fuel is supplied but the ship still fails to meet the rules, Owners are responsible—not the Charterers.

(c) Definition of Emission Control Zones (ECAs):

• Not just IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI ECAs like North America and the Baltic—also includes regional zones like EU, California, and China's DCS.

 

⚠️ Real-World Implications & Common Pitfalls:

• Wrong Fuel = Big Trouble: If Charterers supply HFO instead of 0.1% LSFO in ECAs, ships may get detained, and fines can run into millions.
• Blame Game: If bunker delivery notes are forged or sampling not done properly, Owners may face consequences unless Charterers are proven at fault.
• The Can Test Dilemma: Improper testing at loading ports can lead to blacklisting or disputes, even when bunkers are compliant.
• US EPA Crackdowns: Charterers must ensure barge suppliers in the US use EPA-registered fuels and follow correct documentation, or they risk federal penalties.

 

🛠️ Actionable Steps by Stakeholders

 

🔹 For Charterers:

• 🔍 Vet bunker suppliers thoroughly—check MARPOL and regional compliance records.
• 🧾 Ensure accurate BDNs and proper fuel sampling procedures.
• 🛡️ Include indemnity clauses and insurance in case of supply chain issues.

 

🔹 For Owners:

• 🛠️ Regularly maintain scrubbers (if installed) and fuel systems to ensure compatibility with compliant fuels.
• 📋 Train crew on how to verify BDNs, take proper samples, and maintain logbooks.
• 📝 Document evidence if fuel causes problems despite being "compliant"—to protect against liability.

 

🔹 For Managers/Operators:

• ⚖️ Stay updated on ECA regulations globally—not just IMO rules but also regional directives.
• 📚 Conduct regular internal audits on MARPOL compliance.
• 🔄 Communicate proactively between Charterers, Masters, and bunker suppliers before bunkering.

 

💡 Conclusion: Bunker Down… But Smartly!

Clause 35 isn’t just legal filler—it’s a roadmap for shared responsibility and risk between Charterers and Owners under sulphur emission rules. In today’s era of environmental accountability, a single lapse in compliance can spiral into financial loss, detention, or reputation damage.

 

📣 Don’t let a fuel issue sink your voyage.
👉 Like, 💬 Comment, and 🔁 Share this blog if you found it useful.
📬 Subscribe to ShipOpsInsight for more real-world breakdowns of complex maritime clauses, rules, and risks.