Fueling Smart: What Every Ship Operator Must Know About Charterers’ Bunkering Rights at Gwangyang

 ⚓ “Fueling Smart: What Every Ship Operator Must Know About Charterers’ Bunkering Rights at Gwangyang” 🚢⛽

❓ Ask Yourself These 3 Questions:

1️⃣ Are you clear on who bears responsibility if bunkers don't meet the latest ISO specs?

2️⃣ Can a vessel safely proceed if supplied bunkers meet only ISO 8217:2010 and not newer versions?

3️⃣ Do your bunker sampling and documentation protocols protect your company in case of a fuel dispute?

 

📄 Clause Context: Charterers to Bunker at Gwangyang Under ISO 8217:2010 – What Does This Mean?

Clause Insight:

“Charterers are planning to bunker at Gwangyang to meet BOR (Bunkers on Redelivery) as per Charter Party. Kindly be advised that Charterers will order bunker with ISO 8217:2010 edition, which is guaranteed at Korean ports.”

 

🔍 Breakdown of the Clause:

• Charterers’ Right to Bunker at Gwangyang:
  Under most time charter parties, Charterers have the right to supply fuel at their discretion, provided it meets agreed specifications.
• Bunker Specification Reference – ISO 8217:2010:
  This is the 4th edition of the international standard governing marine fuel quality. While newer versions (e.g., 2017, 2024) exist, 2010 remains widely accepted in some ports, including in Korea.
• Key Implication:
  Owners must be cautious—if machinery damage occurs and fuel complies with ISO 8217:2010 but not newer standards, liability could become contentious.

 

⚠️ Common Pitfalls:

1. Assuming Newer Spec Compliance by Default:
   If your Charter Party is silent on which ISO version applies, courts may uphold the latest version mutually agreed upon—not the most current globally.
2. No Clear Sampling Protocols:
   Failure to collect MARPOL samples properly could weaken your defense in contamination claims.
3. BOR Disputes:
   If the bunkered fuel at redelivery doesn’t match in quality/quantity with delivery, disputes may arise—especially if port guarantees conflict with vessel engine needs.

 

📚 Example & Commentary:

BIMCO recommends specifying the exact ISO edition in charter agreements. In several past disputes (e.g., The “Athena” case, LMAA), owners failed to claim bunker damages when fuel met the agreed ISO standard, even if it harmed engines—because the version wasn’t updated.

 

✅ Actionable Steps by Role:

🔧 For Operators:

• ✅ Confirm with Technical Team if ISO 8217:2010 compliant fuel is safe for vessel machinery.
• 📩 Align sampling procedures with lab testing standards and retain documentation.

👨‍✈️ For Owners:

• 📑 Ensure CP states acceptable ISO version explicitly.
• 📊 Monitor bunker quality upon delivery and redelivery—compare calorific values and water content.

📦 For Charterers:

• ✅ Confirm port guarantees and align bunker specs with CP clause.
• 📂 Share COQ (Certificate of Quality) and ensure traceability of supplier.

📋 For Managers:

• 🛠️ Align SOPs for fuel testing with recent dispute cases.
• 🧾 Maintain logs on every bunkering operation including photos and time stamps.

 

📢 Conclusion: Stay Ahead by Getting the Specs Right!

Bunkering disputes are avoidable with clear clauses, proactive sampling, and shared documentation. Don't let an outdated fuel spec or unclear CP language put your ship—or your company—at risk.

💬 Was this helpful?
👍 Like the post
💬 Comment your experience on bunkering disputes
🔁 Share with your ops or tech teams
📬 Subscribe to #ShipOpsInsight for more deep-dives into charter clauses and risk strategies!

 

⚠️ Disclaimer:

This blog post is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or contractual advice. For specific cases, please consult with your legal or P&I representatives.