NOE P&I: 劣质燃油在美索赔的短时效风险
来源： NOE P&I Club @ 2018.07.02
美湾地区劣质的IFO380燃油导致了大量的船只燃油系统堵塞，甚至主机损坏。
美国墨西哥湾受污染的中级燃油380（IFO 380）导致大量船舶燃料过滤器堵塞，甚至主机损坏。已经识别出主要污染物是酚类化合物4-枯基苯酚（phenolic compound 4-Cumyl-Pheno），这种化合物极具黏性，广泛用于环氧树脂和杀虫剂的生产中。由于其极强的黏附性，可能导致船舶燃油过滤器堵塞，严重时甚至主机也被破坏。该问题不仅仅是由燃料供应商造成的，虽然现阶段很难判断确切的问题来源，但可以确定这种污染与燃油馏分的使用有关。
协会提醒轮机长在使用这些燃料时，应该特别注意燃料系统和发动机，如果注意到诸如燃油泵失灵或过滤堵塞之类的问题，应尽早采取行动。
除了上述的实际问题外，在船用燃料供应合同中，短索赔时效条款是有问题的，尤其是当从开始燃油到发现并停止使用有问题燃油之间存在延误的时候。许多合同要求在交货后30天内通知卖方的燃料质量或数量争议，否则索赔被视为放弃和过了时效。美国海湾地区的船用燃料供应合同往往受到美国法律的管辖，美国法律可能会承认并实施合同时间限制和责任上限。当然，买方可以侵权为诉因，选择绕过相应合同条款。
请阅读原文：
Tight Time Bars in the US for Bad Bunkers
Contaminated IFO 380 bunkers in the US Gulf have resulted in a significant number of vessels experiencing system clogging and, in more extreme cases, engine damage.
The principal contaminant has been identified as the phenolic compound 4-Cumyl-Phenol. This compound has adhesive (sticky) characteristics and is commonly used in the manufacture of epoxy resins and pesticides. This has led to clogging of fuel filters on board vessels and in some cases damage to the engine. The sticking or seizure of fuel pumps has been particularly troublesome.
The problem is not limited to one fuel supplier and it is difficult at this stage to identify the definitive source. However, the contamination has been linked to the use of fuel oil cutter stock, a product added to residual fuels to reduce viscosity.
It is important to note that standard testing of fuel in accordance with ISO 8217 will not identify this contaminant and additional specialist testing is required in order to do so. Vessels bunkering fuel at ports in the US Gulf may wish to consider this additional testing when sending the fuel samples to their chosen laboratory. However, it should be noted that the limited number of laboratories worldwide which are capable of carrying out the additional tests are currently experiencing a significant backlog as a result of the Houston fuel issues.
Engineers should pay particular attention to the fuel system and engines when using these fuels and take early action if problems such as fuel pump seizures or filter clogging are noted.
In addition to the practical issues outlined above, the notoriously short time-bar clauses in bunker supply contracts are problematic, particularly in circumstances where there may be a delay between stemming the bunkers in question and starting to burn them, with problems not becoming apparent until that time. Many contracts require disputes as to the quality or quantity of fuel to be notified to the seller within 30 days of delivery, failing which the claim is deemed waived and time-barred. Liability caps stipulated in the contracts give rise to further issues. Naturally, the bunker supply contracts which concern stems made in the US Gulf tend to be governed by US law, which will likely recognise and give effect to contractual time bars and liability caps. However, there may be an alternative route available to buyers which circumvents problematic contractual clauses where claims are brought in tort.
Should buyers have concerns about the quality of fuel stemmed prior to burning and prior to the expiration of the time-bar, they may wish to consider placing the seller on notice of potential claims arising in relation to the stem. Whilst this may be of assistance in protecting the buyer’s position in relation to the time-bar, so far as we are aware the argument has not yet been tested in the US Courts.
Author: Louise Ferrari
返回
