IMO Archives - Page 16 of 24 - SHIP IP LTD

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Seven months after the United Nations’ shipping agency brought in hotly anticipated new rules to curb emissions, the raft of technical issues and leap in fuel prices that were expected to result have failed to materialise, ING Bank said on Tuesday.

Global shipping and oil firms had flagged major concerns over potential disruptions from International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules implemented at the start of 2020, which capped marine fuels’ sulphur content at 0.5% against 3.5% previously.

However, shipping and marine fuel suppliers say expected technical issues, such as damage to engines from blending different streams of very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), have proved easier to resolve than previously thought.

Meanwhile, as the coronavirus outbreak battered global oil prices and slashed demand, prices of VLSFO slid along with those of other products.

“We are now well into the IMO 2020 shipping regulations, and it is clear that all the hype leading up to implementation was exaggerated,” said researchers at ING Bank in a note on Tuesday.

The impact of the transition to lower sulphur fuels was partly softened by the COVID-19 pandemic, said ING.

“COVID-19 has only added further pressure to 0.5% very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), with road transportation having been hit significantly as a result of country lockdowns,” said the Dutch bank.

Lower refiner output of road transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel during the lockdowns helped “ensure enough VLSFO availability for the shipping industry”, said ING.

However, with gasoline demand on the rise following the reopening of economies, VLSFO supplies could tighten throughout the remainder of the year if a resurgence in cases does not lead to renewed lockdowns.

Industry participants had expected ships to switch to burning gasoil to comply with the rules, but a jump in VLSFO output has seen more ships adopt that fuel instead, as a cheaper and more operationally familiar fuel.

In Singapore, by far the world’s largest bunkering hub, VLSFO sales account for about 70% of the monthly total.

However, with the market weighed down by rising inventories amid increasing output, the shipping industry’s preference for VLSFO has offered little support to prices, said ING, and it has performed more weakly than other marine fuels.

Third-quarter bunker fuel supply is estimated to rise by 620,000 barrels per day (bpd) from the second quarter as China and Brazil lift production, consultancy Energy Aspects said.

Dubai became the latest state to join the ongoing calls for ports around the world to make accommodations to permit crew changes. In other locations, including the Philippines, countries have also amended their processes in response to the calls from the IMO and other shipping organizations.

Dubai and the Philippines were both signatories to the statement issued at the end of the International Maritime Virtual Summit hosted on July 9 by hosted by the United Kingdom that discussed the impact of COVID-19 on crew changes. At the conclusion of the summit, thirteen member states issued a joint statement pledging to address solutions to the problems identified for seafarers, including recognizing the importance of their role in maintaining trade and commerce during the pandemic.

IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim on July 13 sent a letter to  member states urging others to commit to the principles in the joint statement that include designating seafarers as key workers. The member states also committed to explore issues ranging from accepting seafarers’ ID documents as evidence of their key worker status to implementing protocols for crew changes by reviewing national quarantine restrictions and increasing access to commercial flights. In his letter, Lim urges the wide dissemination of the statement and invites member states to contact the U.K. government to join the declaration.

The Dubai Maritime City Authority (DMCA) in its July 15 announcement said that it is now allowing the resumption of crew changing across all ports and anchorage areas in Dubai. Crew changes are being allowed provided they comply with the COVID-19 guidelines and requirements set by the Dubai Health Authority (DHA).

Under Dubai’s new resolution, all agents are required to coordinate with the DMCA and other UAE authorities to ensure the quick processing of crew transfers to and from ships and the airports. All agents are urged to undergo the required medical examinations in compliance with the preventive procedures and guidelines for the COVID 19 virus to preserve the health and safety of both the ship’s crew and relevant personnel.

The DMCA also recently issued a resolution directing the resumption of maritime operations across Dubai’s anchorage areas, which is aimed at enabling ships located in the emirate’s territorial waters to have access to a diverse range of services, including maintenance and repair. They are still required to obtain the proper permits from the DMCA and other relevant authorities and all companies are urged to adhere to the guidelines and health rules to maintain the health and safety of ship crew, visitors and employees.

Earlier in July, the Philippines announced it was opening a “green lane” to allow the free movement of seafarers and personnel across borders. The Philippine government undertook the initiative to ensure that seafarers have access to “speedy and safe travel, subject to health protocols mandated by the government.” This includes safe and swift disembarkation and crew change while also seeking to prevent the spread of COVID-19 for both Filipino and foreign seafarers whether inbound, outbound, or transiting during crew change or repatriation.

“With these guidelines, we are answering the call of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the maritime industries, to put in place a framework for ensuring safe ship crew changes and travel during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin Jr.

The Philippines published a Joint Circular for seafarers, licensed manning agencies, shipping companies, airlines, and other entities involved in facilitating the travel of seafarers for purposes of crew change and repatriation during the COVID-19 pandemic. It sets the minimum standards and process flows that all stakeholders should follow to facilitate the speedy and safe conduct of crew change or repatriation. According to the government, the protocol seeks to complement the existing standard health and safety protocols while creating controlled travel corridors.

The Philippines, which had a large number of overseas foreign workers at the beginning of the pandemic, has been working hard to facilitate the return of its citizens and accommodate crew changes. As of this week, nearly 79,000 Filipinos working overseas have been brought home including over 37,000 seafarers with the most recent repatriates arriving from France, the Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the USA, and Vietnam. The return of stranded seafarers from Europe continued this week as the Department of Foreign Affairs facilitated the repatriation of 1,204 sea-based workers who arrived from Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey.

Source: pmo

With a planned effective date of January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization’s  (IMO) new regulations (IMO 2020) limit the sulfur content in marine fuels that ocean-going vessels use to 0.5% by weight, a reduction from the previous limit of 3.5% established in 2012. The IMO adopted the plan for this policy change in 2008, and in 2016 reaffirmed an implementation date of 2020.

The change in sulfur limits has wide-ranging repercussions for the global refining and shipping industries as well as for petroleum supply, demand, trade flows, and prices. The shipping and refining industries have already begun making preparations and investments to varying degrees to accommodate IMO 2020 regulations.

As the implementation date for the 0.5% sulfur cap approaches, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects that shifts in petroleum product pricing may begin as early as mid-to-late 2019. EIA anticipates that the effects on petroleum prices will be most acute in 2020, and the effects on prices will be moderate after that. However, the regulations will affect petroleum supply, demand, and trade flows on a more long-term basis.

EIA shows the effects of these new regulations in both the Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), published monthly, and the Annual Energy Outlook 2019(AEO2019), released in January 2019. Because IMO 2020 will affect petroleum markets across several years, EIA’s STEO forecast and AEO2019 projections provide complementary insights into the effects of the regulations.

Both STEO and AEO2019 are based on current laws and regulations. AEO2019 centers around a reference case based on relationships and general equilibrium models that satisfy projected energy demand under a set of constraints.

STEO provides forecasted data that are updated every month. EIA uses a combination of econometric models based on historical data to forecast where EIA anticipates energy markets will move in the next two years. The STEO relies on historical data, short-term trends, and analyst judgment in creating this forecast.

Although the STEO forecasts fewer variables than the Annual Energy Outlook, STEO’s publication frequency allows EIA to incorporate developments related to the IMO rule more regularly than AEO2019, which projects variables at an annual frequency through the year 2050. In addition, because the STEO is published monthly, EIA adjust its forecasts continuously to incorporate new information.

Because the current STEO forecasts end in December 2020, the data in AEO2019 provide EIA’s projections with insight into how IMO 2020 will affect petroleum markets beyond 2020. In addition, AEO2019 has more detailed data on refinery operations, marine fuel use, and fuel costs than the STEO. Projections in the Annual Energy Outlook are generated from EIA’s highly detailed, structured equilibrium models in its National Energy Modeling System.

The first section of this report explains the findings related to IMO 2020 from the STEO and AEO2019 analysis. The second section discusses the uncertainties that might affect the way that actual outcomes deviate from EIA’s forecasts and projections.

Globally, marine vessels are a critical part of the global economy, moving more than 80% of global trade by volume and more than 70% by value. They account for about 4% of global oil demand (about 4.3 million barrels per day (b/d) according to the International Energy Agency). In the United States, consumption of bunker fuel (the fuel mix consumed by large ocean-going vessels) is a relatively small share of total energy demand. In 2018, U.S. bunker fuel consumption represented about 3% of total transportation energy use and just 2% of total U.S. petroleum and liquid fuel use. Of the 4.3 million b/d of global marine sector demand, about 10% of those sales originated at U.S. ports. Those sales of marine fuels at U.S. ports represent the AEO2019 international marine demand projections.

Residual oil—the long-chain hydrocarbons remaining after lighter and shorter hydrocarbons such as gasoline and diesel have been separated from crude oil—currently accounts for the largest component of bunker fuel. Although distillate fuels, the other large component in bunker fuel, have alternative uses and markets outside of marine fuels, residual oils have few other alternative markets. About 80% of total U.S. residual fuel demand is for marine bunkering. Therefore, the steps vessel operators take to comply with the new IMO 2020 sulfur limits have major implications for the use of residual fuel oils in marine fuels, for the price of residual fuel oil and its competitors, and for the refineries that produce residual fuel oil.

Operators of marine vessels have several options for complying with IMO 2020 sulfur limits. They can switch their ships to a lower-sulfur fuel that complies with the new IMO rules, which would likely increase demand for distillate and low-sulfur residual oils. Another option is to use scrubbers to remove pollutants from ships’ exhaust, allowing ships to continue to use higher-sulfur fuels. Vessel operators can also switch their ships to non-petroleum-based fuels, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG). In the AEO2019 Reference case projections, the fuel mix of ocean-going marine vessel bunkering in the United States changes significantly because of the new global sulfur fuel limits.

The AEO2019 and STEO projections only consider sales of bunker fuel from ports inside the United States. Because the United States is a member of the IMO and U.S. port and maritime authorities currently enforce all IMO regulations, the implied rate of compliance to the IMO sulfur limits for the United States in the AEO2019 and STEO is 100%. Although the level of compliance with the new IMO sulfur limits may vary globally, the AEO2019 (and the STEO) do not make explicit assumptions about compliance levels beyond the United States.

EIA projects that the share of high-sulfur residual fuel oil consumed by U.S. ocean-going bunker fuel markets drops from 58% in 2019 to 3% in 2020, and then rebounds to 24% in 2022. Despite a recent increase in scrubber installation and orders, the number of vessels installed with scrubbers required to continue using high-sulfur residual fuel oil remains limited. As a result, AEO2019 projects a large but brief increase in the share of distillate fuel oil and low-sulfur residual fuel oil in 2019 and shortly after 2020. A recovery in high-sulfur residual fuel oil consumption driven by scrubber installations does not occur until 2022 but at levels far lower than before the 2020 IMO rule implementation. After 2023, high-sulfur residual fuel oil consumption declines throughout the AEO2019 Reference case projection, down to a 22% share of U.S. ocean-going marine vessel bunker fuel by 2025. In AEO2019, EIA projects that the share of low-sulfur residual fuel oil consumed in U.S. ocean-going marine vessel bunkering will increase from 38% in 2020 to 43% in 2025.

Similarly, EIA projects that the need to use distillate in lower-sulfur bunker fuels will increase distillate’s share of U.S. bunker demand from 36% in 2019 to 57% in 2020, although this share declines to 29% by 2025.

Outside of residual fuel oils and distillate, STEO forecasts that the use of LNG in marine bunkering will be limited through 2020. Similarly, the AEO2019 Reference case projects limited use of LNG in the next five years, reflecting the high initial infrastructure development cost and the limited current infrastructure to accommodate LNG bunkering at U.S. ports. In the medium and long term, this infrastructure barrier decreases, and LNG’s share of U.S. bunkering grows to 7% in 2030 and to 10% by 2050.

Despite bunker fuel’s relatively small share of both the global and U.S. liquid fuels markets, EIA expects a shift in demand in the global bunker fuel market from high-sulfur fuel oil to low-sulfur distillate fuel and low-sulfur fuel oil. This shift will result in a change in the relative prices of those fuels. EIA expects the demand shift to increase global prices for light- and low-sulfur refined petroleum products such as diesel fuel, gasoline, jet fuel, and low-sulfur fuel oil. This shift, in turn, will lead to a decrease in the prices of high-sulfur refined petroleum products, such as high-sulfur fuel oil. This price premium for lower-sulfur refined products will be most evident at the wholesale (refinery and bulk terminal) level in the form of higher refining margins for low-sulfur products such as diesel fuel.

Source: fuelsandlubes

Maritime law is a body of laws, conventions and treaties that governs international private business or other matters involving ships, shipping or crimes occurring on open water. Laws between nations governing such things as national versus international waters are considered public international law and are known as the Law of the Seas. 

In most developed nations, maritime law is governed by a separate code and is a separate jurisdiction from national laws. The United Nations, through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), has issued numerous conventions that can be enforced by the navies and coast guards of countries that have signed the treaty outlining these rules. Maritime law governs many of the insurance claims relating to ships and cargo, civil matters between shipowners, seamen and passengers, and piracy.

IMO Conventions

-The IMO was created in 1958 and is responsible for ensuring that existing international maritime conventions are kept up to date as well as develop new conventions as and when the need arises. Today, there are dozens of conventions regulating all aspects of maritime commerce and transport.

The IMO identifies three of these as its key conventions. They are:

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping for Seafarers

Enforcement

The governments of the of IMO’s 171 member States are responsible for the enforcement of IMO conventions for ships of their nationality. Local governments enforce the provisions of IMO conventions as far as their own ships are concerned and set the penalties for infringements. In some cases, ships must carry certificates on board the ship to show that they have been inspected and have met the required standards.

Nationality of ships

A ship’s nationality is determined by the country where it is registered. Most ships are registered in the national registry of the country where their owners reside or operate their business. However, often for reasons of tax planning or to take advantage of more lenient local rules, some owners will register ships in countries that allow foreign ships to be registered. These registries are called “flags of convenience.” Two common examples of flags of convenience are Panama and Bermuda.

UNCLOS 

UNCLOS is United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea. The convention is also sometimes referred to as the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty. UNCLOS, as a law of the sea came into operation and became effective from 16th November 1982.

However, the first time such a proposal was announced before the United Nations was in the year 1973. 

Over the course of nine years, with representations from over 160 countries coming forward, UNCLOS came into existence. The background of UNCLOS covers can be explained in detail as follows:

Starting with United States in the 1945, many countries across the world brought under their jurisdiction, the natural resources found in their oceans’ continental shelf. Some of the countries that exercised this power were Argentina, Canada, Indonesia, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and even countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia and Venezuela.

Source: telanganatoday

Fuel oil blends produced to meet the IMO 2020 sulphur limit, referred to as very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), have had a lot of bad press. Most of it has been based on alarmist predictions about the quality and other characteristics of these fuels, which have later proven to be unjustified or only partially accurate.

Earlier this year, IBIA addressed claims that the shift from high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) with up to 3.50% sulphur to VLSO blends meeting the new 0.50% sulphur limit for marine fuels would increase black carbon (BC) emissions. The claims, which proliferated in the press and on social media, were based on a study submitted to the IMO indicating that the new VLSFO blends could potentially be highly aromatic, and therefore increase black carbon (BC) emissions.

IBIA and others explained to an IMO meeting (PPR 7) in February 2020 that the fuel specimens used in the BC measurement study were not representative of most VLSFOs that were actually in the market. IBIA made a statement at PPR 7, and interventions by ISO and IMarEST are on record in an annex to the IMO’s report from PPR 7. VLSFOs delivered to ships have so far generally been more paraffinic and less aromatic than the HSFOs they have replaced.

Now, a new theory has been circulated in the press based on an article published on LinkedIn by Francisco Malta of VM Industrials, a distributor for additive maker Aderco. The article, originally* published with the headline “Why new VLSFO 0.5% Sulphur fuels emit higher Black Carbon Emissions” claimed that it isn’t a high aromatics content, but rather paraffinic hydrocarbons in VLSFO that are to blame for BC emissions.

IBIA finds claims made in the article questionable. Without getting into too much detail, let’s explain some of the issues.

First of all, the article gave the impression that the introduction of VLSFO has led to an increase in black carbon (BC) emissions.* However, the article did not present or reference any independently validated data from actual measurements of actual VLSFOs in use so far to support this observation.

It is important to note that the discussion at IMO in February was about a theoretical increase in BC emissions based on the BC measurement study, not an actual observed increase since ships began to use VLSFOs. The BC measurement study, which had been submitted to the IMO in November 2019, showed that an increase in aromatic content was associated with increased BC emissions. This was well understood by industry, which welcomed the study as an important contribution to build better knowledge about factors contributing to BC emissions. It was the assumption that VLSFOs would be more aromatic than the HSFOs they were replacing that was disputed.

Understanding all the factors behind black carbon emissions is a complex science and many people struggle to get a good understanding of it, including experts on chemistry and combustion processes. Formation of BC depends on multiple and variable factors and how they interact, including the engine type, engine load, engine condition, the makeup of the fuel and the pre-conditioning of the fuel prior to injection.

While the article claimed that an it was an increased level of paraffinic hydrocarbons in VLSFO that were causing an increase in BC emissions, we should not forget that a large portion of marine distillates are mainly paraffinic in nature. Yet there have not been any reports of an increase in BC emissions in emission control areas (ECAs), where most ships have been using marine gasoil to meet the 0.10% sulphur limit since 2015. We do note, however, that even clear and bright distillates can cause very visible black smoke when the engine is not in an optimum condition/and or setting.

The article stated that the asphaltenes in HFO 3.5% S “drop from suspension and end up as sludge in tanks” hence “they rarely ever make their way to combustion” whereas in the new VLSFO scenario, they “do make their way to the combustion chamber.” This isn’t what we have seen in practice. Conventional high sulphur fuel oils (HSFOs) are typically less prone to forming asphaltenic sludge prior to combustion than we have seen with VLSFOs so far. HSFO is typically more aromatic than VLSFO, and this helps keep the asphaltenes in suspension and stable. Hence, there would be more asphaltenes reaching the combustion chamber when using HSFO than VLSFOs. Also, VLSFOs typically contain less asphaltenes than HSFOs so it seems counterintuitive to suggest that more asphaltenes reach the combustion chamber when using VLSFO compared to HSFO.

Simply put, black carbon, or soot, is a result of incomplete combustion. From what we have heard, fuels with higher paraffinic content are associated with improved combustion compared to highly aromatic fuels. So far, we have not heard about VLSFOs being particularly prone to poor and/or incomplete combustion compared to HSFOs (which are typically more aromatic). Hence the claims in the article appear to run counter to real world experience.

We learnt from the discussions about VLSFO and BC emissions prior to the IMO meeting in February that misunderstandings can take hold when theories are taken as evidence of fact, when the reality may be quite different.

IBIA believes it is important to have proper data and empirical evidence to back up theories. When pointing to a certain fuel characteristic as the cause of an increase in BC emissions, it needs to be backed by independently validated data and specifics on the measurement methodology used to define black carbon.

VLSFO is currently the most widely adopted solution to meeting the 0.50% sulphur limit and for the most part it has performed better than predicted in the run-up to IMO 2020. As such, VLSFO blends have confounded much of the bad press. As VLSFOs are still quite new, we are still learning. We should, however, ensure that any conclusions drawn about the performance and environmental impact of VLSFOs are based on solid evidence.

Source: ibia

The international shipping industry will fail to tackle its global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions unless it puts in place rules that truly reflect the climate impact of shipping fuels, a new report finds.

The report, entitled “Exploring the relevance of ICAO’s Sustainable Aviation Fuels framework for the IMO”, has been released by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS).

As explained, the report is the first of its kind to explore whether the processes for delivering rules for sustainable marine fuels can be sped up using lessons learnt from aviation, a sector which is a natural comparison for the maritime industry and which is facing similar challenges in transitioning to sustainable alternative fuels.

Shipping is the lifeblood of the global economy. The international maritime sector transports roughly 90% of world trade and emits more CO2 than all but five countries. Without urgent climate action, these emissions are set to at least double by 2050. The world’s countries have committed within UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reducing GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and acknowledge that to meet this target the sector must make the switch from fossil fuels to alternative fuels to deliver on this ambition. Previous studies have shown that zero-emission vessels need to enter the fleet at scale from as early as 2030.

Specifically, the report considers how sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) or eligible fuels elements of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) market-based climate program, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), could be adopted in the context of shipping. The analysis shows that ICAO’s SAF framework offers “a solid blueprint” for the shipping sector.

What is more, the report identifies areas where the IMO should be more ambitious than ICAO to ensure that shipping transitions away from fossil fuels. The study warns the IMO not to create “perverse incentives” which could promote fuels that could worsen the climate crisis.

“Using the most appropriate science is key to making the right decisions for our environment. Shipping, as aviation, should ensure that all the emissions from a fuel – from the production to the distribution to the combustion itself – are accounted for if we are to understand the real climate impact,” Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, Senior Researcher, UCL and Principal Consultant, UMAS, commented.

“A meaningful policy must incentivise a fair, sustainable and non-perverse shift away from fossil and avoid the risk that emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. Getting this right is mission critical to the shipping industry’s decarbonisation pathway” Rehmatulla added.

“The International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry need to put in place the right rules for alternative fuels to truly drive the decarbonisation of the sector and it does not need to start from scratch. The rules recently adopted by ICAO offer valuable lessons and a good starting place for the IMO to chart its course toward a genuinely sustainable shipping sector” Aoife O’Leary, Director, Environmental Defense Fund, said.

In the absence of robust accounting rules, the climate benefit of alternative fuels can be completely undermined, UMAS and EDF said. Shipping must adopt a full lifecycle perspective, accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and ensure accurate calculations of both the direct and indirect impacts of emissions associated with the whole supply chain — extraction/production, transport/distribution and combustion — of the fuel.

It is a complex task, but ICAO has successfully done it for aviation and the IMO can use this work to jump-start its own progress, according to the report.

EDF and UMAS suggest that careful rules must be applied to ensure that the use of biofuels has a real climate benefit.

“Shipping must ensure that biofuels are not automatically granted a zero-emission status. The CORSIA framework sets out explicit rules for calculating emissions reductions for each biofuel pathway. It does not automatically allow all biofuels to claim zero carbon combustion emissions (as some other emissions accounting systems have done), as their lifecycle emissions can in some cases approach or even exceed those of petroleum fuels,” the duo pointed out in the report.

Authors from EDF and UMAS are also calling on the IMO to adopt strict rules on transparency to ensure that shipping companies accurately report their emissions, and don’t double count emission reductions.

They also want IMO to allocate adequate resources and draw on the experience and lessons learned from ICAO, where appropriate, to get these rules right.

Source: offshore-energy

MOST of the international fleet appears to have complied with regulations regarding fuel consumption data collection, according to the first effort to compile a global database.

The International Maritime Organization has seen more than 100 flag states submit the relevant data for 26,000 vessels, representing about 80% of ships that should have done so based on the Data Collection System regulation, a spokesperson told Lloyd’s List.

IMO member states or the relevant recognised organisations working on their behalf were required to submit verified fuel consumption data for 2019 by June 30.

Shipping companies are meant to have submitted their data to flag states or the recognised organisations for verification by March 31. Ships were obliged to have verified statements of compliance with the Data Collection System onboard by May 31.

This is the first time the IMO is collecting the fuel consumption data.

The Data Collection System covers ships that are 5,000 gross tonnes and above. The database is meant to help inform future decisions on fuel and emissions regulations by the IMO, which will publish the database.

The identities of vessels on the system will be kept confidential. The IMO secretariat plans to publish initial statistics from the system, the spokesperson said.

Panama, the world’s largest flag state, told IMO secretary general Kitack Lim in May that it was allowing a three-month extension to the deadline.

Lloyd’s List understands that other flag states have not issued extensions of the deadlines.

The IMO said it is not common practice to respond to circular letters like the one Panama’s delegation sent to Mr Lim.

“The secretariat cannot provide legally binding interpretations or grant extensions with regard to the provisions (regulations) in any of its conventions, including Marpol Annex VI, as this is the prerogative of the parties to the conventions and/or its annexes,” the spokesperson said.

Panama has uploaded fuel consumption data of several ships on its register and continues to do so, the spokesperson added.

Source: https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/