Lessons learned from US maritime casualties in 2017

The NTSB issued its 'Safer Seas' annual report providing an overview of key lessons to be learned from the most major maritime casualties, noting that many of the issues noted in last year's reports were recurring topics, such as fatigue, poor bridge resource management, and distraction. 

The 41 marine accidents included in the report involved allisions, capsizings, collisions, fires, explosions, flooding, groundings, and equipment damage, resulting in loss of life, injuries, and significant property damage.

#1 Watertight Integrity

The failure to maintain watertight integrity was the number one cause of vessel losses during the 2017 reporting year. NTSB advises owners:

• To conduct regular oversight and maintenance of hulls and watertight bulkheads, even during layup periods.
• Oversight should include monitoring the hull thickness, maintaining sufficient marine coatings, and using cathodic protection systems.
• Known issues with watertight integrity and wastage need to be repaired using permanent means.
• Bilge piping and pumps should be in good working order and alarms should be tested regularly.
• Watertight doors should be checked and maintained to ensure they are properly sealed when closed. While under way, all watertight doors should be closed at all times.

#2 Heavy-Weather Operations

• Mariners should always exercise caution when heavy weather is forecast
• Emergency in heavy weather risks endangering the crew and rescue response personnel.
• When dangerous conditions are predicted, mariners should consider delaying getting underway, returning to port early, or altering the vessel’s route.
• If heavy weather cannot be avoided, special care must be taken to ensure cargo remains secured and watertight integrity is maintained.

#3 Fatigue

• Despite increasing awareness, fatigue continues to be a leading cause of accidents in all modes of transportation.
• In marine transportation, this is particularly true in high-tempo sectors such as the fishing industry, but it is not limited to this sector.
• Fatigue impacts responsiveness, decision-making ability, judgment, and productivity.
• Crewmembers should recognize the effects of fatigue and get adequate rest.
• Vessel owners and operators should adopt policies to mitigate the effects of fatigue and provide a sufficient complement of crew to allow for required rest.

#4 Bridge Resource Management

• The collective vigilance of the watchteam mitigates the weaknesses or oversight of any one watchteam member.
• The presence of a pilot onboard does not relieve bridge team members of their responsibilities for the safe navigation of the ship.
• The master and the officer of the watch must collaborate closely with the pilot to maintain an accurate check of the ship’s position and movement.
• In addition, they must not hesitate to challenge or, if necessary, take appropriate action to prevent a collision, a grounding, or an allision.
• Communications should be open and, where circumstances permit, involve discussion of the intended maneuver or any deviations from the plan.

#5 Cell Phones and Distraction

• Using cell phones and other portable electronic devices has been demonstrated to be visually, manually, and cognitively distracting.
• Talking on cell phones can have serious consequences in safety-critical situations, and texting can be even more distracting because it requires visual attention to the display screen of the device.
• Control of the vessel and attention to the safe handling of the ship must be maintained at all times until the ship is safely anchored or moored.

#6 Anchoring in High Water and Strong Currents

• The risk of dragging or losing an anchor is substantially increased in rivers and channels during periods of high water and strong currents.
• Mariners should adhere to Coast Guard advisories and pilot association guidance for the prevailing conditions and be able to respond effectively to an anchor-dragging situation.
• Mariners should consider measures such as increasing the scope of anchor chains, stationing navigation and engineering watches, keeping propulsion and steering systems at the ready, and retaining a pilot onboard.

#7 Preventive Maintenance

• Without necessary preventive maintenance, equipment cannot be relied on to perform as designed and may fail during critical operations.
• Mariners should review the manufacturer’s manuals and guidance on a regular basis to ensure conformance with recommended maintenance plans.
• Maintenance should be carried out in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and with the appropriate tools.
• Additionally, owners and operators should ensure that personnel performing maintenance are adequately trained and qualified for the work.

#8 Safety Management Systems

• An effective SMS has a company safety policy, a risk management program, a safety assurance system, and a safety promotion program.
• The safety policy is management’s commitment to continually improve safety.
• The risk management program determines the need for, and adequacy of, new or revised risk controls based on the assessment of acceptable risk.
• Safety assurance is management’s system of internal evaluation intended to assure the execution of safety-related measures and to make certain that employees understand their roles.
• The safety promotion program advances the principal of safety as an organizational core value using practices that support a sound safety culture.

#9 Monitoring Rudder Order Response

• Bridge team members should always monitor the helmsman’s response to rudder orders for correct angle and direction of movement.
• If an error is detected or if there is confusion about the order given, a correction or clarification should follow.
• The presence of a pilot on the bridge does not relieve the other bridge team members of their duty to actively monitor the vessel’s position.

#10 Vessel Abandonment

• In the event that personnel must abandon a vessel in an emergency, both passengers and crew must have sufficient information, training, and equipment so that they can survive until rescue.
• Lifeboat and liferaft assignments must be updated after crew changes.
• Crewmembers must be trained on the proper use of all lifesaving and survival gear on board.
• Non-crewmembers should be given a complete safety briefing prior to departure that includes actions to be taken during emergencies.
• Where applicable, personnel should have access to properly sized immersion or exposure suits.
• During training or safety briefings, immersion suits should be donned to ensure proper fit and familiarity with instructions.

#11 VHF Reception

• Mariners that operate offshore or in remote waters should be aware of ship-to-shore VHF coverage limitations and have an alternate means to contact search and rescue centers, such as satellite communication.
• Crewmembers should be familiar with and able to use all of the vessels installed marine distress and alerting systems.

The full report may be downloaded at,

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/SPC1701.pdf

Court rules in Silver Moon time charter party case - January 24 2018

Facts

In the recent case of SK B&T Pte Ltd v Owners of Silver Moon of Port Klang ([2017] 8 MLJ 455), the plaintiff was a company registered in Singapore and the defendant was the registered owner of the vessel Silver Moon. On January 8 2016 the plaintiff and defendant entered into a time charter party, whereby the defendant agreed to time charter the vessel to the plaintiff for three months, with a view to a further six months in charters as an option. The plaintiff had purchased 4,000 kL of marine gas oil (the cargo) from Chemoil International Pte Ltd on January 12 2016, with the intention of shipping onboard the vessel. On loading the cargo onboard in the Port of Banyan, Singapore, the terminal issued an electronic bill of lading to Chemoil International. The plaintiff paid for the cargo in full and the bill of lading was endorsed to the plaintiff, meaning that the plaintiff was the owner of the cargo onboard the vessel.

The plaintiff had instructed the defendant to head to the South Indian Ocean for cargo operations near Male, Maldives. Despite having received the instructions, on January 8 2016 the vessel deviated towards Tanjung Pinang, Indonesia, as a port of refuge, and eventually berthed at Johor Port to deal with multiple repair works, including:

·         an oil leak from the cargo tanks;

·         seawater ingress into the cargo tanks;

·         failure of the vessel's generator;

·         flooded cabin rooms; and

·         damage to the vessel's hull owing to the port side lifeboat being in contact with the boat davit.

In view of the vessel being unseaworthy, and as a result of being off-hire for more than seven days, the plaintiff contended that the defendant was in repudiatory breach of the time charter party and therefore terminated it on February 15 2016. The plaintiff demanded security of $2 million in the form of a bank guarantee.

Due to the defendant's failure to provide security, the plaintiff invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of the high court pursuant to Section 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Sections 20(2)(h) and 21(4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and had the vessel arrested.

As the defendant failed to agree or cooperate with the ship-to-ship transfer of the cargo, the plaintiff applied for an ex parte order to transfer the cargo to another vessel, MT Wooshin Ace. The plaintiff's grounds for the application were that if the cargo continued to remain onboard the vessel in its present unsafe and unseaworthy condition, the cargo was likely to be damaged and deteriorate in quality, materially reducing its value and incurring further losses to the plaintiff. There was also the potential risk of oil pollution from the onboard cargo, making it an urgent necessity to move the cargo to another ship. The plaintiff had incurred and continued to incur substantial losses caused by the delay and non-delivery of the cargo. It would have been just and expedient to allow the application for transshipment to resolve the situation. On February 23 2016 the plaintiff's application was allowed.

The defendant made an application under Order 32, Rule 6 and Order 92, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 for:

·         the order granted ex parte to be set aside;

·         the plaintiff to transfer the cargo from MT Wooshin Ace back to the Silver Moon; and

·         the plaintiff to pay damages to the defendant for wrongfully inducing the court to grant the ex parte order.

It was not disputed that the plaintiff had the legal right to ask for the discharge of the cargo, which was not under arrest. Nevertheless, the defendant contended that the application should not be made and granted ex parte, but should have been served on the defendant. The defendant also contended that the application under Order 70, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court 2012 and under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 would not allow the plaintiff to apply for an ex parte order, as the property referred to the writ of summons, the warrant of arrest and the plaintiff's supporting affidavits referring to the Silver Moon, not the cargo. Because the plaintiff knew that the defendant had refused the transhipment of the cargo, the plaintiff obtained the ex parte order.

The defendant proposed that the plaintiff was liable to pay the remaining two months' hire in view of the termination of the time charter party. Pending termination, the defendant claimed a possessory lien over the cargo pursuant to Clause 26 of the time charter party.

Decision

The court held that the plaintiff, as owner of the cargo, had the legal right to ask for the discharge of the cargo, which was not under arrest, as provided by the Admiralty Practice Direction 1/2012. The direction reads as follows:

"F. Discharge of Cargo

23. Upon arrest of a ship, the ship shall not be allowed to work without the Sheriff's express permission. If the ship has commenced loading before arrest takes place, then immediately after execution of the arrest warrant, the Sheriff or Assistant Sheriff shall direct the master to cease all cargo loading operations.

However, if at the time of the arrest, the cargo which is not under arrest is being unloaded by the cargo owners and the Sheriff or Assistant Sheriff allows the unloading to continue, he shall require the cargo owners or demise charterers of the ship or their agents to furnish a letter of indemnity with regard to the Sheriff's liability if there is an accident whilst unloading cargo. However, if unloading is not permitted or ceased at the Sheriff's direction, a person who is entitled to immediate possession of the cargo may have the cargo discharged from the ship without intervening in the action by requesting the Sheriff or Assistant Sheriff or the arresting party to take appropriate steps to enable the cargo to be discharged. If the Sheriff or Assistant Sheriff or the arresting party considers the request to be reasonable and the cargo owners give an undertaking to pay the Sheriff's costs and expenses, the Sheriff or Assistant Sheriff or the arresting party shall apply to Court for appropriate orders. Alternatively, the cargo owners can intervene in the action and apply to the Court to discharge the cargo from the ship. The costs of discharging the cargo shall be the responsibility of the cargo owners."

The defendant contended that pursuant to Order 70, Rule 11, the plaintiff's application should not have been made and granted ex parte, but should have been served on the defendant. Order 70, Rule 11, reads as follows;

"(O 70, r 11) Applications with respect to property under arrest

11(1) The Sheriff may at any time apply to the Court for directions with respect to property under arrest in an action and may, or, if the Court so directs, shall give notice of the application to all of the parties to every action against the property and all persons who have entered a caveat which is still in force.

(2) The Sheriff shall send a copy of any order made under paragraph (1) to all the parties to every action against the property to which the order relates and to all persons who have entered a caveat, which is still in force.

(3) A person other than the Sheriff may make an application under this rule by notice of application in the action in which the property is under arrest and the notice of application together with copies of any affidavits in support shall be served upon the Sheriff and all parties to every action against the property and all persons who have entered a caveat which is still in force unless the Court otherwise orders on an application made ex parte.

The defendant stated that Order 70, Rule 11(1) referred to directions regarding 'property under arrest' (ie, the Silver Moon, not the cargo). There was therefore no provision to allow the plaintiff to file an application for the discharge of the cargo.

The court was of the view that Order 70, Rule 11 and Paragraph 23 of the Admiralty and Maritime Claims Practice Direction 1/2012, provided that the owners of the cargo (which was not under arrest) could apply to the court for a discharge of the cargo by way of a notice of application. The court held that Order 70, Rule 11(3) allowed a person other than the sheriff to make an application by notice of application for release of the cargo, allowing the court to grant an application made ex parte.

The court held that as the cargo was not under arrest, the plaintiff's application was allowed because:

·         it was undisputed that the cargo belonged to the plaintiff;

·         the cargo was in a distressed situation and urgent circumstances compelled the prompt discharge of the cargo; and

·         the defendant was notified of this but refused to cooperate.

The court maintained that it was right that, under such urgent and special circumstances, the court issued the order based on an application made ex parte.

The court next considered whether the defendant had a possessory lien over the cargo pursuant to Clause 26 of the time charter party, whereby "owners shall have a lien upon all cargoes and all freights, sub-freights and demurrage for any amounts due under this charter".

The defendant believed that the plaintiff was liable to pay the remaining two months' hire in view of the termination of the time charter party. Pending the settlement of the remaining two months under Clause 26, the defendant claimed a possessory lien over the cargo.

The court held that the defendant's notice of lien was issued on March 7 2016, whereas the cargo was transshipped onto MT Woshin Ace eight days earlier on February 27 2016, when the defendant's notice of lien was issued and the defendant was no longer in possession of the cargo. As such, there was no longer any issue regarding the possessory lien. The court referred to TR Hamzah & Yeang Sdn Bhd v Lazar Sdn Bhd ([1985] 2 MLJ 45), in which Caldwell v Sumpters ([1972] Ch 478) had been quoted, regarding the fact that the court had held that possessory liens depend on the claimant retaining possession of the property in question. A possessory lien is lost if the claimant parts with possession of the property without making any reservation regarding its entitlement of a lien over the property.

However, in this case, the defendant maintained that the notice issued by its former solicitors demanding counter security following an arrest could be considered a notice of lien. The court disagreed and held that the notice made no reference to Clause 26 of the time charter party and did not reserve the defendant's rights to exercise a lien over the cargo.

The court stated that there was no merit in the defendant's application and dismissed it with costs.

2010 Fuel Compliance Clause - Contractual & Charterparty Issues - New fuels and rules changing bunkering procedures

The challenges introduced by the global sulphur cap are not exclusively technical. The new limits are likely to impact contracts and charterparties. Although the new global sulphur cap will not arrive until 2020, forward planning now could help to avoid painful charterparty disputes in the future. Time charterparties will require particularly close attention, with more challenges anticipated for vessels already in long-term charterparties that span the enforcement date of 1 January 2020.

Unfortunately, there is no single “magic” charterparty clause to deal with all of the issues that might arise. All bunker clauses will almost certainly need to be reviewed but other clauses might also need to be considered, depending upon the chosen method of compliance.

Where vessels are delivered into charterparties before 01/01/2020 and will be redelivered after, issues to consider will include:

Ø What will be done, and at whose cost, with any non-compliant fuel on board that can no longer be used or is not allowed to remain on board?

Ø It is likely that a prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuels will come into force on 1 March 2020 for vessels not fitted with scrubbers. Non-compliant fuels will have to be removed to avoid fines or the vessel being detained. If non-compliant fuel is not consumed before that time, who will be obliged to arrange or pay for the removal of such fuel will depend upon the wording of the charterparty. The parties may wish to agree in the charterparty that non-compliant fuel will be used before 01/01/2020 to avoid extensive discharge costs and to maximise bunker tank capacity for compliant fuels.

Ø What is the definition of 'high sulphur' and low sulphur'?

Ø At the moment, vessels burn either ‘low sulphur’ (0.1%S max) fuel in ECAs or ‘high sulphur’ (3.5%S max) fuel outside ECAs. In 2020, there will be three sulphur types (<0.1%S, <0.5%S and >0.5%S). This raises the question: what will ‘low sulphur’ and ‘high sulphur’ mean in 2020? The meaning of such terms could have a significant impact on bunkers on redelivery (“BOR”) calculations.

Ø If exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) are being considered as a solution, who will pay for the installation and any associated delay or deviation? Will the vessel need to go to dry dock to fit scrubbers and will this be allowed under the charter party?

Ø It is unlikely that existing charter parties will expressly say who is to pay for a vessel to have an EGCS installed. If the charterer is likely to benefit in fuel cost savings then there may be scope for a commercial agreement as to who will pay.

Ø Can Owners be compelled to fit scrubbers?

The Court of Appeal considered this type of issue in the Elli and the Frixos [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 where the Court found that the owners were in breach of certain clauses in the particular charter parties for not having carried out the necessary modifications to comply with changes to MARPOL Annex I. But, the absence of scrubber on a vessel will not necessarily put the vessel or its owner in breach of MARPOL Annex VI or impact on the vessel’s documentation, hence it seems likely that the Elli and the Frixos will not apply but it will depend on the facts of the individual case.

Where long term charter parties are already being performed, there is less scope for planning ahead. However, it might be possible to agree amendments to the charter party following commercial discussions about how some or all of the issues will be dealt with. Without such agreement, there will be a risk of disputes arising, which could be expensive and time consuming.

Where charter parties are entered into after 01/01/20, the issues to consider will depend upon the chosen solution for compliance:

Exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers)

Ø Vessel fitted with closed loop or hybrid scrubbers - who will be responsible for waste effluent removal?

Ø Open loop scrubbers discharge waste into the sea, whereas closed loop scrubbers retain the waste on board, which then has to be disposed of into shore facilities. Hybrid systems give the option of switching between open and closed loop. Who will be responsible for scrubber waste disposal will depend upon the wording of the charter party.

Ø Will a higher daily hire rate be justified?

Ø Some market analysts have forecasted the price of HSFO (suitable for use with scrubbers) will be around US$300 to US$400 cheaper than distillates and hybrid fuels. Therefore, it is arguable that Charterers will benefit financially from the installation of scrubbers and some industry observers are predicting that this will result in higher c/p rates for vessels fitted with scrubbers.

Ø Will performance warranties be affected by the power demands of scrubbers?

If so, then performance warranties may need to be reviewed.

Distillates, Hybrids and Blends

Ø Will the fuel prices agreed in the charter party need to be changed? 

Ø Who will be responsible for the cost and time of any bunker tank cleaning required due to switching between certain fuels? Will the bunker quality clause need to be amended, particularly given that some hybrid fuels do not fit comfortably into ISO8217?

Ø Will the performance warranties be affected? 

Ø Will suitable and compliant fuel be available during the vessel’s chosen trade? If not, who will be responsible for any additional expenses, fines etc.?

Ø Will the trading clauses need to be varied in view of any known fuel availability issues on the vessel’s chosen trade?

LNG

Ø Will availability limit the vessel’s trading options?

Ø Will bunkering operations interfere with cargo operations? If so, at whose cost?

Ø All clauses relating to fuel will need to be carefully considered in view of the special characteristics of this fuel and the lack of standard specifications.

Ø Will performance warranties need to be reviewed?

Ø Will indemnities be required to cover onerous Conditions of Use terms for bunkering operations?

Ø Some of the above issues will also apply if emerging fuels are to be used, and may also apply to existing long-term charterparties.

Almost all ships afloat today have a diesel engine of some sort on board. Even the LNG carriers that use boil off gas from the cargo to run steam turbines will have auxiliary engines or emergency generators and it is only a handful of small battery powered vessels that do not have to take on fuel at some time.

Diesel engines are very versatile machines and from the very early days have been capable of running on many different types of fuel from mineral oils, biofuels, alcohols and even elemental hydrogen. That said, all fuel types have particular characteristics that must be coped with in terms of delivery to the ship, storage on board and treatment prior to combustion.

Over the years, mineral oil fuels have become categorised and in 1987 were listed under an ISO standard – ISO 8217 – which has been updated from time to time with the latest version dated 2017.

Historically motorships have run on either residual fuel oil or distillate fuels such as marine diesel oil (MDO) or marine gas oil (MGO). The fuels are listed in ascending order of price, so it should be no surprise that owners of the vessels consuming the most fuel generally opted for fuel oil with diesel oil and gas oil being reserved for smaller vessels and the auxiliary engines of larger ships. It should be noted that even ships which ran most of the time on fuel would often switch to using MDO when entering or manoeuvring in port because the fuel system could better respond to sudden changes in engine direction or power output when using a lighter fuel.

MARPOL Annex VI – the start of emission controls

Until 1995, there were no controls on the exhaust emissions from ships but that changed with the advent of MARPOL Annex VI and its timetable of emission reduction rules. Even then the controls were not particularly stringent, and it was only with the revised Annex VI coming into force in 2010 that SOx reduction took on the importance it has.

SOx is associated with the sulphur content of fuels which is typically highest in residual fuels unless the fuel has undergone expensive desulphurisation treatment at the refinery. With the advent of sulphur emission control areas (SECAs) it seemed that distillates would be the way to go but considering the premiums such fuels attract, it is little wonder that exhaust gas cleaning technology – more commonly known as scrubbers – seems to be gaining devotees.

A scrubber may allow a ship to continue to operate on HFO with a sulphur content well above what would otherwise be allowed under MARPOL or local regulations but the ship will also need other compliant fuel on board for auxiliary engines that do not run well on heavy fuels or for when the scrubber is undergoing maintenance of inoperative.

There has also been a concerted effort to promote LNG as the fuel of the future and there are increasing numbers of other alternatives; LPG, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen as well as animal and vegetable biofuels also being suggested. On the lube front too, development is bringing about synthetic and bio-degradable products aimed at reducing reliance on mineral oils and protecting the environment.

In 2016 the IMO set the date for the last of the current deadlines in fuel regulation for 2020. The reduction to an equivalent 0.5% sulphur content in fuels globally combined with the 0.1% in ECAs and, under local regulations, some ports outside of ECAs will cause a very expensive time for owners with some suggesting an extra $60Bn bill for the industry.

The changes in the regulations for sulphur content have not yet been reflected in the ISO 8217 standard which still list the sulphur content for distillates as ranging from 1.0% to 1.5% which is of course far in excess of the 0.1% that applies in ECAs. However, for residual fuels, the standard says the sulphur content must comply with statutory requirements as defined by purchaser. The International Standards Organization is addressing the issue which is expected to become even more pressing with the 0.50% sulphur limit in 2020.

Some care needs to be taken when referencing ISO 8217 since some owners prefer to specify a particular version of the standard rather than the latest when ordering fuels. Although the basic parameters remain very similar between the different versions there are subtle differences.

Not all ships burn HFO, but it is true to say that the vast majority of modern deepsea bulkers, tankers and container ships are equipped with engines that can make use of fuels with viscosities up to 700cSt. Even so, most will not regularly use the heaviest fuels but will opt for something in the 380cSt or 500cSt range. This is certainly a lighter fuel, but it is still much heavier than the 180cst that used to be the standard marine HFO.

Demand for distillate fuels by users from all industries is now so great that the residual fuel from many refineries is heavier than it used to be. The 2020 sulphur rules will further increase demand for distillates as the only option for ships that are not equipped with scrubbers or dual fuel engines.

To make the heaviest residuals usable it is sometimes necessary to blend them with lighter oils. Blended fuel may have the superficial characteristics of an oil lighter than the heaviest residual fuel used in its production, but it does not necessarily behave in the same way under operational conditions. The main problem is that the lightest part of the fuel will combust in the engine much earlier than the heavy parts, which, under some conditions, may not combust at all. This will result in power loss and engine fouling. Fortunately, there are technologies that can help overcome this.

Multiple Choices need new skills

The need to carry different fuel types for operation inside and outside ECAs as well as for main and auxiliary engines has meant that ships now need more bunker tanks than used to be the case. The question of tank space is something that needs to be addressed at the newbuilding stage or for existing vessels by modification of existing tanks. In addition, fuels such as LNG and ethane which must be stored under cryogenic or high-pressure conditions need very different handling and treatment procedures which must be learned by those among the crew and bunkering personnel responsible for such matters.

Poor quality bunker fuels have always been a problem but in recent years the number and types of problems seem to have multiplied. Some of this is due to the refining processes necessary to meet demand for distillates, some is due to incompatibility of blended fuels – especially if biofuels are involved and some is because of deliberate acts of bad practice. The latter involves cases of contamination by chemicals or used lubricating oils.

Given the cost of bunkers and the extensive damage that can be caused by contaminated products, it is not surprising that fuel testing has become an essential tool for prudent ship operators and this too is an area where great technological strides are taking place. Fuel testing can be done by shore laboratories but more and more ships are testing onboard. It is good practice not to use any fuel until it has been tested and also important not to load the fuel into tanks that already contain fuel.

When introducing SECAs and as a consequence of the initial belief that no SOx reduction technology would be available and therefore no emission measurement necessary, the control system decided upon by the IMO to prove compliance revolved around the declared sulphur content being shown on bunker delivery notes. The notes are backed up by samples to be used only for official investigations into alleged breaches of the SOx regulations. The IMO has published guidelines for the sampling procedure which would be familiar to most ships where there is a practice of fuel sampling laid down for quality purposes.

The format of bunkering delivery notes is laid down in Annex VI and most official bodies will want to see the documents in the accepted format. Bunker suppliers in states that are party to Annex VI are required to provide the documents in the accepted format but in states that are not there is no such requirement.

It is usual for ship owners, when ordering bunkers, to at least insert clauses to the effect that the fuel oil supply process is to be in accordance with the requirements of Annex VI and with specified maximum sulphur content appropriate to the particular intended future area of operation.

Annex VI is not the only aspect of MARPOL applying to bunkering procedures. Bunkering connections for oil fuels must be fitted with save-alls to retain any spills during bunker loadings and it is good practice to take further precautions as well. Most safe management systems required to comply with the ISM Code would recognise bunkering as a key shipboard operation, a potential emergency situation and a potential threat to the environment. It would therefore be expected that a written procedure is in place and pollution control materials ready to hand and scuppers plugged. Crew engaged in bunkering operations should also be on the lookout for fraudulent activity such as barge crews introducing air into the bunkers being pumped to fool flow meters.