Proposal for IMO-controlled shipping decarbonisation fund gains traction
Some 47 governments and industry groups are lobbying the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to implement ...
MAERSK: OPPORTUNISTIC UPGRADETSLA: GETTING OUTDSV: DOWN BELOW KEY LEVELLINE: DOWN TO ALL-TIME LOWS AMZN: DEI HURDLESAAPL: DEI RECOMMENDATIONAAPL: INNOVATIONF: MAKING MONEY IN CHINAMAERSK: THE DAY AFTERDHL: NEW DEALGXO: NEW PARTNERSHIPKNIN: MATCHING PREVIOUS LOWSEXPD: VALUE AND LEGAL RISKMAERSK: DOWN SHE GOES
MAERSK: OPPORTUNISTIC UPGRADETSLA: GETTING OUTDSV: DOWN BELOW KEY LEVELLINE: DOWN TO ALL-TIME LOWS AMZN: DEI HURDLESAAPL: DEI RECOMMENDATIONAAPL: INNOVATIONF: MAKING MONEY IN CHINAMAERSK: THE DAY AFTERDHL: NEW DEALGXO: NEW PARTNERSHIPKNIN: MATCHING PREVIOUS LOWSEXPD: VALUE AND LEGAL RISKMAERSK: DOWN SHE GOES
Hitherto, most of the debate surrounding the IMO’s tough 0.5% sulphur cap, coming into force on 1 January 2020, has focused on ships being fitted with scrubbers in order to continue to burn heavy fuel oil (HFO), or the option of bunkering with the more expensive low-sulphur compliant fuels.
However, in this excellent article, carried by our friends at Ship & Bunker, the author reminds ship operators that failing to clean fuel tanks completely before bunkering with low-sulphur fuel could result in contamination, push the sulphur content over 0.5% and thus risk heavy fines.
Maersk and MSC fire first shots in new freight rate war on Asia-Europe trades
US port strike called off as ILA and USMX reach 'tentative' agreement
Cosco share price falls after US lists carrier as a Chinese 'military asset'
$7bn infrastructure project heads list of expansion plans for India's busy ports
Alliance reshuffle will increase box ship shortage as carriers hunt 'buffers'
Evergreen staff bonuses soar again, as carrier profits triple
Shipping Australia calls for end to 'disruptive' port strikes
East coast port talks resume, with automation and jobs still the sticking points
Comment on this article