BUNKER PRICES($) INDICATION TDY 21.12.2018

PORT	IFO 380	IFO 180	MGO
VARNA	432	455	615
ISTANBUL	418	438	620
SUEZ	440	470	744
JEDDAH	399	410	735
CEUTA	393	416	600
SINGAPORE	389	394	532
LAS PALMAS	397	420	597
GIBRALTAR	398	421	596

BUNKER PRICE INDICATION TODAY 19.11.2018

PORT	IFO 380	IFO 180	MGO
VARNA	472	493	661
ISTANBUL	460	480	680
SUEZ	493	547	797
JEDDAH	446	´457	735
YOZHNYY	471	507	-
CONSTANTZA	482	522	750
LAS PALMAS	448	472	679
GIBRALTAR	451	475	677

updated contact points for SOPEP Dated 31.10.2018

MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.16
Annex, page 1
ANNEX
LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING OF
URGENT REPORTS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING HARMFUL SUBSTANCES,
INCLUDING OIL FROM SHIPS TO COASTAL STATES
1 The following information is provided to enable compliance with Regulation 37 of MARPOL Annex I which, inter alia, requires that the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) shall contain a list of authorities or persons to be contacted in the event of a pollution incident involving such substances. Requirements for oil pollution emergency plans and relevant oil pollution reporting procedures are contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the 1990 OPRC Convention.

Escape route signs and equipment location markings

IMO Assembly 30 adopted Resolution A.1116(30) - Escape route signs and equipment location markings, which harmonizes the requirements of SOLAS Regulations II-2/13, III/9, III/11 and III/20.

The IMO Assembly 30 recognizing the need for uniform international symbols to indicate the location of emergency equipment as well as muster stations and to ensure that the symbols used, adopted the Resolution A.1116(30) – “Escape route signs and equipment location markings”. The Assembly noted that, through the Shipboard escape route signs and emergency equipment location markings (MSC.1/Circ.1553), Contracting Governments had been invited to bring standard ISO 24409-2:2014, which generally conforms to the corresponding symbols set out in the annex to resolution A.760(18) on Symbols related to life-saving appliances and arrangements, as amended, and in the annex to resolution A.952(23) on Graphical symbols for fire control plans, to the attention of ship designers, shipbuilders, shipowners, ship operators, ship masters, shore-based firefighting personnel and other parties concerned, so that they might use it, on a voluntary basis, for shipboard signage, in compliance with the relevant requirements of SOLAS chapters II-2 and III. The escape route signs and equipment location markings take effect on all ships constructed on or after 1 January 2019 or ships which undergo repairs, alterations, modifications and outfitting within the scope of SOLAS chapters II-2 and/or III, as applicable, on or after 1 January 2019, and that they should be used, as appropriate, in combination with Resolution A.952(23) for the preparation of the shipboard fire control plans required by SOLAS regulation II-2/15.2.4.

Shipowners / Managers / Operators should take into consideration the adopted Resolution when drawing up fire control plans for their fleet.

Amendments to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual

The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), at its 99th session, adopted the Amendments in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Procedures for amending and updating the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual. The Committee agreed that the amendments should become applicable on July 01, 2019. SOLAS regulation V/21 requires all ships to carry an up-to-date copy of IAMSAR Manual Volume III. A new point 1.8 has been included in the Manual for the search and rescue operations (SAR) by maritime rescue services in time of armed conflict. Recognizing the important role search and rescue operations play in implementing its provisions, GC II extends protection to small coastal rescue craft and fixed coastal rescue installations used by such craft, such as rescue coordination centres, repair boats, sickbays and hangars for their humanitarian mission, including for SAR operations concerning civilians. Such craft and their associated fixed coastal rescue installations, when employed by a State that is party to a conflict (whether by its armed forces or by civilian governmental agencies) or by officially recognized lifeboat institutions (i.e. the institution must have been approved or authorized by a governmental authority or other public body to perform coastal rescue functions, which presupposes the existence of a legal or administrative framework in the State in which the lifeboat institution operates to provide for its prior approval or authorization in peacetime) "shall be respected and protected, that is, may not be attacked, captured or otherwise prevented from performing their humanitarian tasks, so far as operational requirements permit". Act now, you should take into consideration the Amendments to the IAMSAR Manual and ensure the updated version shall exist on board their vessels when published. 

updated contact points for SOPEP Dated 31.07.2018

MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.16
Annex, page 1
ANNEX
LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING OF
URGENT REPORTS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING HARMFUL SUBSTANCES,
INCLUDING OIL FROM SHIPS TO COASTAL STATES
1 The following information is provided to enable compliance with Regulation 37 of
MARPOL Annex I which, inter alia, requires that the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan
(SOPEP) shall contain a list of authorities or persons to be contacted in the event of a
pollution incident involving such substances. Requirements for oil pollution emergency plans
and relevant oil pollution reporting procedures are contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the 1990
OPRC Convention.
2 This information is also provided to enable compliance with Regulation 17 of
MARPOL Annex II which, inter alia, requires that the shipboard marine pollution emergency
plans for oil and/or noxious liquid substances shall contain a list of authorities or persons to
be contacted in the event of a pollution incident involving such substances. In this context,
requirements for emergency plans and reporting for hazardous and noxious substances are
also contained in Article 3 of the 2000 OPRC-HNS Protocol.
3 Resolution MEPC.54(32), as amended by resolution MEPC.86(44), on the SOPEP
Guidelines and resolution MEPC.85(44), as amended by resolution MEPC.137(53), on the
Guidelines for the development of Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans for Oil and/or
Noxious Liquid Substances adopted by the IMO require that these shipboard pollution
emergency plans should include, as an appendix, the list of agencies or officials of
administrations responsible for receiving and processing reports. Such list is developed and
up-dated by the Organization in compliance with Article 8 (Reports on incidents involving
harmful substances) and Protocol I (Provisions concerning Reports on Incidents Involving
Harmful Substances) of the MARPOL Convention. Under Article 8 of the MARPOL
Convention, each Party to the Convention shall notify the Organization with complete details
of authorities responsible for receiving and processing reports on incidents for circulation to
other Parties and Member States of the Organization. Attention is also drawn to both
Guidelines which stipulate that "in the absence of a listed focal point, or should any undue
delay be experienced in contacting the responsible authority by direct means, the master
should be advised to contact the nearest coastal radio station, designated ship movement
reporting station or rescue co-ordination centre (RCC) by the quickest available means".
4 The "List of national operational contact points responsible for the receipt,
transmission and processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances,
including oil from ships to coastal States" contained in the circular is updated at the end of
each calendar year. This list is an update of that contained in MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.16
dated 31 December 2017, as amended.
5 The above mentioned “List” is available on the Internet and can be accessed at
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Circulars/Pages/CP.aspx (or select “National Contacts” link on
the bottom of the IMO homepage). This Internet version is updated on

CIC Results on safety of Navigation in Black Sea MoU

The Black Sea MoU released the report on the CIC on Safety on Navigation, including ECDIS, completed on November 30, 2017

From 01 September 2017 to 30 November 2017, the Black Sea MoU carried out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) onSafety of Navigation throughout the region.

The campaign involved all member States of the Black Sea MoU and was conducted in conjunction with the Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU and other MOUs. The aim of the campaign was to check the conformity of safety regulations for ships, the overall status of the vessel’s navigation safety and the competency of crew involved innavigation operations.

The Report documents the results of the Concentrated InspectionCampaign (CIC) on Safety of Navigation, including ECDIS, which was carried out by six (6) Black Sea MoU Member Authorities.

The results

During the campaign, a total of 983 inspections were carried out with the CIC questionnaire involving 983 individual ships. Of this quantity 59 ships were detained with 21 (35.6%) detentions being within the CIC scope. This means that in 21 cases the navigationsystems are not meeting SOLAS requirements and had deficiencies, which were serious enough to detain the ship, resulting in a CIC-topic related detention rate of 2.14%.

A total of 180 questionnaires had at least a non-compliance to a requirement, resulting 18.3% of CIC inspections. 

The overall average of non-conformities was 2.68%.

The most notable non-conformities

7.6% Lack of exhibition of navigation/signal lights in accordance with the requirements of COLREG72

6.2% Lack of passage plan covering the whole voyage

2.9% Ship’s VDR/SVDR not record data fully

It has been observed that ships younger than 15 years age performing relatively well with 566 (58.58%) inspections with only two (2) CIC topic related detentions.

Older ships, particularly those 30 years and older, show reason for concern with majority of detentions 11 (52.4%) and 98 (40.0%) non-conformities, although subjecting one fourth of inspections 241 (24.5%).

High CIC topic related detention rate, CIC inspections with non-conformities, unfavourable results to the questions mentioned above raise concern on the industry level of compliance to the SOLAS Chapter V and in particular on the overall status of the vessel’snavigation safety.