10 articles on this topic
New ISO 8217:2024 limits caught these operators off guard. Are you compliant with the catalytic fines and sodium restrictions that just cost them millions?
He signed the BDN without verifying. The meter readings didn't match. Three months later, he learned why documentation matters.
The sample was collected correctly. But the chain of custody had one gap. That gap cost them the dispute—and $120,000 in engine repairs.
One overlooked sentence in the Bunker Delivery Note. A charter dispute. $200,000 in legal fees and lost time. All from missing one clause verification.
The Certificate of Quality showed 45 mg/kg. The actual fuel had 85 mg/kg. When clarifier was bypassed to speed delivery, nobody noticed until catastrophic failure.
They calculated 90 minutes for fuel system changeover. At 60 minutes, Port State Control boarded. Sulphur content still showed 0.35%. The fine: $100,000.
The fuel looked clear. The engine ran fine. But microscopic water droplets were destroying injectors. By the time they found it, the damage was done.
The alarm was disabled to 'prevent false alerts'. The sounding tape wasn't checked. When the tank overflowed, 50,000 liters ended up on deck and in the water.
The BDN showed 500 MT at 35°C. The vessel calculated 488 MT. But nobody accounted for temperature correction. The dispute: 12 MT, $7,200, and months of legal wrangling.
The chief engineer added a combustion improver to reduce exhaust smoke. But the additive wasn't compatible with their fuel purifier system. The result: injector fouling and $30K in repairs.