Event

You're invited to our Introducing our Combined ETS & FuelEU solution: The Compliance Manager (morning session) December 16, 2024

See you there! More events >
X
OceanScore reviews BIMCO FuelEU Clause for Time Charter Parties  - OceanScore
< Back to Insights
BIMCO
Clause
FuelEU
Official Statement
Time Charter Parties

OceanScore reviews BIMCO FuelEU Clause for Time Charter Parties 

OceanScore reviews BIMCO FuelEU Clause for Time Charter Parties 

OceanScore reviews BIMCO FuelEU Clause for Time Charter Parties  

 

Official statement – 27.11.2024

 

On November 25, BIMCO released its much-anticipated clause for Time Charter (T/C) Parties under the FuelEU Maritime Regulation, marking a critical step toward industry alignment with decarbonization goals. As we review the clause and engage in discussions with our customers, it’s clear there are still some gaps to be filled before we reach total cohesion.  

 

Creating Charter Party clauses which satisfy the wide range of needs of owners and charterers in shipping generally is a daunting undertaking. We saw this with the EU ETS clauses, which were only partially adopted by the industry and with hesitation. With its additional layers of complexity, drafting clauses for FuelEU Maritime presents an even greater challenge.   

 

Here are some of OceanScore’s key observations and comments: 

 

Key Observations and Challenges 

 

1. Alignment with Long-Term Charters 

The solutions proposed for long-term Time Charter Parties (those covering entire reporting periods, typically a year) are broadly aligned with market expectations and appear balanced between the needs of owners and charterers.  

 

2. Role of DOC Holders 

Under the regulations, DOC (Document of Compliance) holders are the designated responsible parties for FuelEU compliance. This means that any clauses within the Time Charter Party must also be reflected in the ship management agreement (shipman). Ensuring consistency across these agreements will be critical for seamless compliance, especially in the case of third party managers. 

 

3. Timing Considerations 

  • The clause proposes providing compliance balances for the prior two years, but this won’t be feasible until at least 2027 due to the rollout timeline. 
  • Proofs of Sustainability (POS), which are critical to FuelEU compliance, take 4–6 weeks to become available post-bunkering. The proposed 15-day reporting deadline for “verified” compliance balances can be unrealistic. 
  • The clause proposes for the charterer to notify the owner “x days before April 30” of their intent to pool the compliance deficit. These requests should be made as early as possible., If the charterer decides to not pool but pay the “surcharge”, an earlier notification will help the owner (and DOC holder) to identify the commercially most attractive alternative – especially when it comes to finding an alternative external pool.  

4. Pooling – Incomplete Framework  

Pooling compliance balances is likely the most efficient way to secure compliance. But while the clause mentions this in the context of long-term charters, it does not offer a meaningful framework for short-term or broader application. Charterers and owners might benefit from a clear, common understanding of how pooling will be used to achieve compliance – especially as this might be the commercially most attractive choice. 

 

5. Compliance Surpluses – Practical Solution 

The proposal on how to deal with compliance surpluses is balanced, the timing of the proposed steps practical. It will be critical to define the right applicable price (and not fall for a price at the level of the penalty in the case of compliance deficits). Given that pool prices will not be known until well into 2025 or even only when pooling starts in April 2026, it might make sense to opt for some flexibility mechanism in this proposed price for surpluses.  

 

6. Pricing Compliance Balances – Unrealistic Approach 

The guidance provided that compliance deficits will be compensated for at the level of the penalty (€2.400 / ton VLSFOe) is an attractive, clear solution for the owner. But we do not see this stand the test of intense C/P negotiations, as there will be cheaper ways to comply than to pay the penalty. Realistically, there will be two options: Either an adjusted surcharge below the penalty level or a flexibility mechanism reflecting the pool prices. It should be secured though that the DOC holder receives a fair compensation for his extra effort in securing compliance and for the risk he carries in doing so.  

 

OceanScore’s Perspective 

 

The current BIMCO draft provides a foundation but leaves substantial room for improvement and C/P specific clarifications. Practical solutions must address timing constraints, pooling frameworks, surplus incentives, and pricing disputes. 

 

At OceanScore, we’re already working with our customers to implement forward-thinking FuelEU strategies that fill these gaps, supporting smart decision making and efficient processes between the different stakeholders . Our insights and solutions have demonstrated that multiple pathways l for turning regulatory challenges into opportunities – requiring proper understanding of these rules and quantification of different pathways. 

 

We applaud BIMCO for taking this admittedly difficult first step. The result is balanced, which is appreciated, but quite a few gaps remain that individual C/P clause discussions will have to close. It will be critical to mirror these into the Shipmans with the DOC holders eventually being responsible.  

 

 

 

 

 

Oceanscore in the news

  • November 14, 2024

    OceanScore supports tricky bunker selection process under FuelEU Maritime

    “Fuel selection is the most important lever under FuelEU,” said OceanScore Managing Director, Albrecht Grell. “Your choice of fuel can either create a surplus or a deficit in your compliance balance, directly affecting your costs.” Grell added: “Choosing the right fuel can help avoid penalties and even create revenue by pooling surpluses. But not all alternative fuels are the same, and their viability often depends on future pooling prices, which are hard to predict.” FuelEU charts a course for reducing emissions in shipping, with a target near net-zero by 2050. For now, two main options are available to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) threshold of 89.3g CO2e/MJ until 2029: LNG and LPG: These fuels, when used in dual-fuel engines, will meet the rules and can generate surplus compliance balances. However, their benefits will decline until 2040 as limits tighten. Biofuels: These are a good option for most vessels. They are usually used in blends (eg. B20-B30) with conventional fuels. These blends will be compliant until 2040; higher blends or pure biofuels will be needed thereafter. One issue is that EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime treat biofuels differently. Under EU ETS, biofuels are considered zero-emission, meaning companies do not need to buy carbon credits. But under FuelEU, the rules are stricter. “FuelEU doesn’t count all biofuels equally,” Grell explained. “Fuels made from food or feed crops are treated like conventional fuels in terms of emissions. Only waste-based biofuels are fully compliant, and even then, their specific GHG values are above zero.” This difference matters. Standard biofuels, such as those from rapeseed or sunflower seeds, still benefit from ETS discounts but fall short under FuelEU. For full compliance, waste-based biofuels are needed, such as those from used cooking oil or animal fat. Further complications are added when considering the different rules behind the 50% discounts applied to voyages to and from the EU under the two regulations. OceanScore, which provides advanced solutions to facilitate efficient regulatory compliance, is assessing the impact of alternative fuels based on their relative carbon intensities, calorific values (LCVs), prices, and ETS cost incurred, reflecting these in its FuelEU Planner. The challenge goes beyond selecting fuels with low GHG intensity and factors such as the vessel's ice class or whether voyages are intra-EU or international also influence compliance balance. If companies bunker more expensive alternative fuels like biofuels, there is no guarantee it will always pay off. “FuelEU allows for pooling of compliance surpluses and deficits,” Grell added. “Surpluses generated by using compliant biofuels can be sold in the compliance market to vessels in deficit.” OceanScore’s analysis indicates that the compliance market will be in surplus by 1 January 2025. “This surplus will put downward pressure on pooling prices, meaning it might be cheaper to buy a compliance surplus in the pool rather than generate it through compliant bunkering on your own vessels,” Grell said. “Both approaches would be compliant with FuelEU regulation and need to be considered at least from a commercial angle.” Given this, any sound compliance strategy must look beyond fuel selection alone and consider the broader market dynamics. “Our FuelEU Planner integrates these variables into a comprehensive scenario simulation,” continued Grell. “This is crucial because tackling FuelEU successfully requires charterers, managers, and owners to collaborate using a shared, fact-based approach.” Grell outlines several key steps for shipping companies to optimise their compliance strategies. First, they must gain a thorough commercial understanding of the economics of different fuels, considering their prices, LCVs, EU ETS costs, and the cost of pooling FuelEU compliance balances. At the same time, the technical and operational feasibility of using biofuels across different vessels should be assessed. While tests so far indicate that biofuels can be used without significant issues, lingering concerns over engine compatibility and tank systems remain. “Engine manufacturers need to give the green light, and bunker providers must be identified in key ports,” Grell noted. “For now, many companies focus biofuel usage on a smaller portion of their fleet to simplify operations and reduce risks.” However, one of the biggest hurdles remains contractual. “How do you protect the DOC holder, who is responsible for penalties, from the fuel decisions of the charterer? How do you fairly share the costs of biofuels and the value of surpluses? And how do you manage uncertainties tied to deployment patterns and fuel accountability under FuelEU?” Grell asked. Without clear contractual terms, companies risk major financial and operational pitfalls. “To align incentives across owners, managers, and operators, you need clauses in agreements like Shipman and Charter Parties,” he stated. “The ‘polluter pays’ principle is not embedded in FuelEU, so a robust data-driven understanding of the entire value chain is essential to avoid costly disputes.” OceanScore’s FuelEU Planner provides a clear path through the complexity. By simulating fuel use, compliance costs, and pooling options, the tool enables companies to budget effectively and negotiate data-driven contracts. “We make the complex FuelEU regulations easier to manage,” Grell concluded. “With our solutions, companies can understand the commercial impacts of their fuel choices, gain full transparency and confidently manage their compliance strategy.” You might also like Veolia, Enagás, and Barcelona City Council inaugurate first urban cold recovery network from LNG terminal
    Read article
  • September 12, 2024

    OceanScore calculates €175m potential costs for Greek shipping with FuelEU Maritime

    Greek shipping companies are set to face a total bill of over €175m in penalties incurred under FuelEU Maritime after it takes effect next year but can also capitalise on the use of alternative fuels both to curb their financial exposure and generate compliance surpluses, according to OceanScore.
    Read article
  • September 11, 2024

    OceanScore Pulls Crowd with Launch of FuelEU Planner Amid SMM

    OceanScore has launched a new planning, simulation and budgeting tool for optimising compliance with FuelEU Maritime from a commercial standpoint. Its FuelEU Planner is the first in a suite of solutions geared to supporting complex decision-making processes with the upcoming regulation.
    Read article
  • September 3, 2024

    OceanScore closes €5m funding round to speed up global expansion and product innovation

    OceanScore, global provider of data and compliance management solutions for the maritime industry, has successfully closed an oversubscribed €5 million Series A financing round. The influx of new capital will enable the company to further develop its solutions portfolio and expand its global footprint.
    Read article
  • August 16, 2024

    Shipping Faces €1.345bn In FuelEU Penalties In 2025

    The upcoming implementation of FuelEU Maritime has shipping companies on high alert due to potential penalties for non-compliance with greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity reduction targets, says the Hamburg-based provider of compliance and data solutions, OceanScore.
    Read article
  • August 1, 2024

    OceanScore inaugurates new office in Singapore

    OceanScore has opened a new office in Singapore to serve its regional clients, responding to the growing demand in Asia for its digital solutions designed for efficient regulatory compliance with the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime.
    Read article
  • July 15, 2024

    Shipping faces $1.46bn in penalties from next European carbon emission crackdown

    Shipping could rack up €1.35bn ($1.46bn) in penalties in 2025 under the incoming FuelEU Maritime regulations, with a potential new market emerging for the sale and purchase of surplus energy volumes according to experts.
    Read article
  • July 9, 2024

    Container shipping will be hit hardest by upcoming FuelEU Maritime regulation

    OceanScore has identified the segments set to be hit hardest. OceanScore forecasts that shipping as a whole will rack up total FuelEU penalties of €1.345bn in 2025 through analysis of the 13,000 vessels over 5,000 gt trading within and into the EU/EEA that are subject to the regulation.
    Read article
  • May 29, 2024

    FuelEU for thought: new regulation leaves DoC holder with fuel liabilities risk, says OceanScore

    Implementation of the FuelEU Maritime regulation from 2025 presents an accountability dilemma for shipping as it is currently the Document of Compliance (DoC) holder that will be held responsible for fuel selection and could therefore face penalties – contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle, according to OceanScore.
    Read article
  • May 28, 2024

    Greek shipping getting to grips with EU ETS compliance issues amid mounting emissions costs, says OceanScore

    Validation of voyage emissions data and contractual arrangements for allocation of EU ETS costs remain key challenges for Greek shipowners as they face an estimated total €335m bill this year, potentially rising to €1bn once the regulation is fully implemented, according to OceanScore.
    Read article

    Ensure Your Shipping Operations are Compliant and Sustainable