COALspot.com keeps you connected across the coal world
  • JUNE 2020 INDONESIAN COAL PRICE REFERENCE FOR EXPORTS AND DOMESTIC BUYERS INCLUDING POWER PRODUCERS FIXED AT US$ 52.98 A TON

Submit Your Articles
We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining, shipping, etc.

To Submit your article please click here.

International Energy Events


WTI Crude Oil

BRENT Crude Oil

Search News
Latest CoalNews Headlines
Sunday, 05 January 20
BUNKER QUALITY CLAIMS IN 2020 - ISSUES TO CONSIDER - CLYDE&CO
Clyde&CoKNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
 
In recent years the shipping industry has faced a significant number of bunker quality claims, most notably arising out of the so-called "Houston problem", where there were numerous complaints that contaminated fuel had caused engine problems, including sludge blocking fuel filters and the sticking and seizure of fuel injection components. In the most serious cases, there were reports of vessel blackouts and groundings. The global impact of shipping problems was also evident; whilst complaints regarding the "Houston problem" were originally concentrated around the US Gulf region, complaints regarding off-specification fuel quickly spread across the globe, including to Panama and Singapore. 
 
With the IMO 2020 sulphur cap now in force as of 1 January 2020, the shipping industry faces a new set of potential issues regarding bunker quality. Given that a significant number of vessels have not been fitted with exhaust gas cleaning systems or “scrubbers” (enabling the vessels to consume high sulphur fuels in compliance with the new limits in MARPOL Annex VI), there is increased demand for low sulphur fuel, and prices have risen accordingly.
 
However, concerns have been raised about the quality of some blends of low sulphur fuels, and in particular, the potential impact on vessels which may not have implemented comprehensive fuel management procedures to store and consume low sulphur fuel.
 
Owing to different fuel blends, the compositions and properties of low sulphur fuel on the market can vary widely. Experts have raised concerns about the level of catalytic fines (catfines) which can often be at relatively high levels in non-distillate low sulphur fuels, owing to the refining processes and blends with cutter stock to reduce sulphur content. If catfines levels are high and/or vessels do not have adequate purifiers in operation, then these small, hard particles can embed in soft metal surfaces in fuel pumps, injectors and cylinder lines in engines, and act as an abrasive, dramatically increasing the rate of wear of engine components, with the risk of wear beyond maximum limits occurring in weeks.  
 
Concerns have also been raised about the stability levels of blended low sulphur fuel, and the risk that asphaltene content may precipitate out of solution, causing the formation of sludge which can block engine filters and pipes, leading to the potential loss of power and propulsion.
 
There are also numerous potential issues which could arise with the enforcement of the lower sulphur limits in MARPOL Annex VI, which could result in legal claims. Potential claims could arise where the MARPOL bunker sample tests on specification, but other samples when tested, generate results which narrowly exceed the prescribed 0.50% m/m limit. From 1 March 2020, vessels without scrubbers will not be permitted to carry fuel over the 0.50% m/m limit, leading to potential enforcement action against such vessels and disputes between Owners and Charterers regarding any losses arising out of such enforcement action. Disputes may also arise where Port State Control obtain their own bunker samples from bunker tanks but these test off-specification due to high sulphur content. In such cases, a vessel may be detained and/or forced to debunker by the authorities.
 
Where there are complaints about bunker quality, a number of potential legal claims could arise between different parties concerned with the bunker supply. Disputes between Owners and Time Charterers concerning bunker quality regularly occur, and we expect that the impact of IMO 2020 will lead to an overall increase in the number of these disputes. There may also be an increase in the number of claims by bunker purchasers against bunker traders and suppliers, as well as claims by vessel Owners under H&M policies, if there is an increase in the number of reports of engine damage.
 
This article (the first in a two-part series) focuses on some the key legal issues that can arise under charterparties in relation to bunker quality claims.
 
Charterparty claims between Owners and Time Charterers concerning bunker quality
 
A. Charterers' obligations in respect of bunker quality
 
It is widely accepted that, in the absence of any special conditions, Time Charterers will be under an "absolute" obligation to provide bunkers that are of reasonable general quality and suitable for the type of engines on the vessel. In practice, most charterparties also include express requirements stipulating the grade and type of fuel to be supplied, referable to one of the recent ISO 8217 standards. Given the "absolute" obligation, Charterers will not be able to avoid liability for the supply of bad quality fuel to a vessel by contending they have used reputable suppliers; Charterers are under an obligation to ensure that all fuel bunkered is suitable for consumption by a reasonably well maintained vessel.
 
In any event, in the absence of express provisions, a vessel Owner could argue that Charterers are under an implied obligation to source bunkers which are "fit for the purpose intended". This is likely to have a degree of overlap with the requirement under clause 5.3 of ISO 8217 that fuel should be "free of any material that renders a fuel unacceptable for use in marine applications".
 
However, Charterers will not be obliged to meet any unusual requirements of the vessel's engines, unless those requirements have been brought to Charterers’ attention (generally through specifying in the charterparty any requirements that need to be met in terms of fuel).
 
One of the key issues that may arise concern with bunker fuel in 2020 is whether any engine damage suffered is primarily caused by poor quality fuel supplied by Charterers in breach of charterparty requirements, or primarily caused by factors that are Owners' responsibility; such as maintenance of the engines, or fuel management practices.
 
B. Bunker quality claims by Owners against Charterers
 
Claims for engine damage
 
In order to successfully advance a claim against Charterers for engine damage, Owners will need to overcome two key hurdles. Firstly, Owners will need to prove that Charterers supplied bunkers to the vessel which were in breach of their obligations in respect of bunker quality. Secondly, Owners will need to prove that the fuel supplied by Charterers caused the engine damage alleged.
 
Owners often experience difficulties discharging the burden of proof in relation to this second hurdle. Following notification of engine damage, Charterers may allege that the fuel supplied did not cause the engine problems alleged, or alternatively, Owners' management of the vessel (at least in part) contributed to the engine damage. Charterers, may for example, assert that bunkers supplied under a previous charterparty may have caused the damage alleged, Owners had not maintained the engine properly, incompatible fuels had been mixed (causing the bunkers to become unstable) or that Owners otherwise had improper fuel management procedures which caused, or contributed to, the engine damage.
 
When such disputes arise, the outcome will largely depend on the quality of the evidence, and in particular, whether a party is able to rely on evidence which supports their account of the damage. For this reason, it is important that if engine damage is alleged to have been the result of bad quality bunkers, that the evidence is gathered at an early stage – with surveyors inspecting the engine, samples of the fuel being taken, any damaged components being preserved for analysis, and all relevant documentary records (including but not limited to log books, alarm records, oil record books and maintenance records) concerning the vessel being retained. This evidence will need to be considered, together with the results of sample analysis.
 
If, following tests on samples, Owners are unable to identify a contaminant in the fuel supplied by Charterers, it will likely be difficult for Owners to discharge the burden of (i) showing that the fuel supplied was off-specification and (ii) that the fuel was the cause of the alleged engine damage.
 
A further defence that Charterers may seek to rely on in cases where it is determined that off-specification bunkers were supplied to a vessel is to assert that Owners are under a duty to mitigate their losses, and not to exacerbate any damage by continuing to burn bunkers. If the vessel continues to consume bunkers which Owners suspect to be contaminated, notwithstanding concerns about engine damage, then Charterers may be able to argue that any further damage suffered as a result of fuel consumption after initial concerns of damage became apparent are Owners' responsibility.
 
Claims where the fuel has not yet been consumed
 
If Owners have received test results indicating that the fuel supplied by Charterers is off-specification, and there are risks to the vessel in consuming such fuel, then Owners will be placed in a difficult position. As mentioned above, the burden will be on Owners to mitigate their losses. Whilst Owners can demand Charterers debunker off-specification fuel supplied to the vessel, and supply replacement bunkers, there is no guarantee that Charterers will comply with such a demand, particularly if the bunker supplier refuses to re-supply the vessel. Given the burden on Owners to mitigate their losses, it would also be worthwhile Owners establishing whether any options are available that would enable the fuel to be consumed safely (such as blending or incorporating additives to fuel). However, depending on the circumstances, if it is not possible for the vessel to safely consume the fuel, and Charterers have refused to debunker, it may prudent for Owners to carry out debunkering at first instance, and subsequently advance a claim against Charterers for any losses they incur.
 
Sampling and testing issues
 
The samples taken at the time of the bunker supply are of critical importance, given that testing of these samples can indicate whether the fuel supplied is off-specification or not (although some contaminants are only identifiable with advanced GC/MS testing). Moreover, the samples taken are key to the outcome of any subsequent bunker quality dispute. It is therefore important that Owners ensure that the samples taken are representative of the product supplied, with it being desirable for Owners to ensure that samples are taken at the vessel’s manifold by drip sample, rather than on the bunker barge. 
 
Results of different samples tested can vary, and this can give rise to the scope for dispute. In particular, in addition to the natural variation in test results, regrettably, the shipping industry has faced problems where unscrupulous bunker suppliers knowingly supply off-specification fuel to vessels, and attempt to mask this through providing false samples of the fuel supplied. The best way for Owners and operators to avoid the risk of this is to insist on fully witnessed sampling at the vessel manifold. This will greatly assist Owners in identifying and dealing with any bunker quality issues that could arise, and protect their position against Time Charterers (if Charterers supplied the fuel) or against bunker traders or suppliers (if Owners contracted with the bunker traders or suppliers directly).
 
IMO 2020 raises further issues regarding the fuel carried on vessels. With the 1 January 2020 implementation deadline having passed, the consumption of high sulphur fuel without a scrubber is prohibited. On 1 March 2020, vessels without scrubbers will no longer be able to carry non-compliant fuel. If a vessel does not have a scrubber, Owners will wish to ensure that any fuel supplied does not risk the vessel facing potential enforcement action, and that any residual high sulphur fuel in the vessel’s tanks does not push any fuel supplied above the 0.50% m/m limit.
 
Conclusions - considering possible future impacts
 
Whilst the key deadline of 1 January 2020 has passed, the full ramifications of the IMO 2020 sulphur cap have yet to be fully felt. In the coming weeks and months, the enforcement steps taken by States against non-compliant vessels will be witnessed. In addition, the shipping industry will be able to see whether the concerns regarding an increase in the consumption of low sulphur fuel will lead to an increase in reports of engine problems.
 
The key steps that vessel Owners and operators can take to protect their position regarding the supply of bunkers are to ensure that full and proper sampling takes place at the time of supply, and if any issues are later found to arise, to gather all evidence regarding the supply so as to assist in defending any enforcement action from States and to preserve any rights of recourse that may exist against the Time Charterers or bunker suppliers.
Written by Paul Collier


Part 2 of this series will consider the legal issues arising out of bunker supply contracts. 

 
Authors
Ik Wei Chong, Partner / Managing Director, Asia
Leon Alexander, Partner
Paul Collier, Senior Associate
 
About Clyde & Co
Clyde & Co is a dynamic, rapidly expanding global law firm focused on providing a complete legal service to clients in our core sectors. Clyde & Co advises businesses that are at the heart of worldwide commerce and trade. Clyde & Co combinations of sector expertise, commercial attitude and in-depth regional understanding provides a unique perspective.


If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.

Recent News

Monday, 29 June 20
INDIA COAL IMPORT OUTLOOK: WEAK DEMAND, IMPORT SUBSTITUTION, EXPECT 20% YOY DECLINE - GHEE PEH | IEEFA
For India, the coal demand indicators have clearly turned negative.    According to Argus Media, since the government declared a ...


Monday, 29 June 20
CHINA COAL IMPORT OUTLOOK: MANY MOVING PARTS, FORECAST TO FALL 10% YOY - GHEE PEH | IEEFA
China’s coal demand declined in the first quarter of 2020. According to the China National Coal Association, the country consumed 870mt in th ...


Monday, 29 June 20
ULTRAMAX: A 58,000 FIXING DELIVERY SINGAPORE TRIP, VIA EAST COAST INDIA, REDELIVERY CHINA IN THE LOW $12,000S - BALTIC BRIEFING
Capesize As the halfway mark of 2020 arrives, the capesize market is making new highs for the year. From persistent lows earlier caused by a ba ...


Saturday, 27 June 20
CHINA'S BENCHMARK POWER COAL PRICE REMAINS FLAT - XINHUA
China’s benchmark power coal price remained flat during the past week.   The Bohai-Rim Steam-Coal Price Index (BSPI), a gauge of ...


Friday, 26 June 20
WHAT TODAY'S BAILOUTS CAN DO FOR TOMORROW'S ECONOMIES - WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
The COVID-19 crisis provides an opportunity for governments to build fairer, more sustainable and more resilient economies. Governments a ...


   2 3 4 5 6   
Showing 16 to 20 news of total 5995
News by Category
Popular News
 
Total Members : 26,981
Member
Panelist
User ID
Password
Remember Me
By logging on you accept our TERMS OF USE.
Free
Register
Forgot Password
 
Our Members Are From ...

  • Malabar Cements Ltd - India
  • Runge Indonesia
  • Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
  • Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
  • Berau Coal - Indonesia
  • Mitsui
  • Minerals Council of Australia
  • Shenhua Group - China
  • EIA - United States
  • Asian Development Bank
  • Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
  • Sucofindo - Indonesia
  • PetroVietnam
  • Vale Mozambique
  • Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
  • Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
  • JPower - Japan
  • Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
  • Panama Canal Authority
  • Commonwealth Bank - Australia
  • Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
  • Arutmin Indonesia
  • Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
  • Freeport Indonesia
  • Planning Commission, India
  • Indonesia Power. PT
  • Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
  • Humpuss - Indonesia
  • Lafarge - France
  • Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
  • Moodys - Singapore
  • Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
  • WorleyParsons
  • Economic Council, Georgia
  • Inco-Indonesia
  • Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
  • Cardiff University - UK
  • The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
  • Noble Europe Ltd - UK
  • Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
  • Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
  • TNPL - India
  • Cosco
  • Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
  • Mechel - Russia
  • Samsung - South Korea
  • Georgia Ports Authority, United States
  • Gresik Semen - Indonesia
  • Indogreen Group - Indonesia
  • Platou - Singapore
  • Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
  • Bangkok Bank PCL
  • GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
  • Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
  • Dalmia Cement Bharat India
  • Xstrata Coal
  • Reliance Power - India
  • Maybank - Singapore
  • OCBC - Singapore
  • GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
  • Petron Corporation, Philippines
  • Deutsche Bank - India
  • Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
  • Ince & co LLP
  • Shree Cement - India
  • Ministry of Transport, Egypt
  • Xindia Steels Limited - India
  • Indorama - Singapore
  • Merrill Lynch Bank
  • Adaro Indonesia
  • International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
  • Eastern Coal Council - USA
  • Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
  • IBC Asia (S) Pte Ltd
  • Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
  • DBS Bank - Singapore
  • Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
  • Idemitsu - Japan
  • New Zealand Coal & Carbon
  • BNP Paribas - Singapore
  • Clarksons - UK
  • Parry Sugars Refinery, India
  • Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
  • J M Baxi & Co - India
  • PLN - Indonesia
  • EMO - The Netherlands
  • Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
  • Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
  • Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
  • Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
  • Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
  • PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
  • Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
  • UOB Asia (HK) Ltd
  • Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
  • Infraline Energy - India
  • Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
  • KOWEPO - South Korea
  • Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
  • SMC Global Power, Philippines
  • Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
  • IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
  • Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
  • Glencore India Pvt. Ltd
  • OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
  • Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
  • Medco Energi Mining Internasional
  • Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
  • Vedanta Resources Plc - India
  • Videocon Industries ltd - India
  • Carbofer General Trading SA - India
  • Heidelberg Cement - Germany
  • Bank of America
  • Permata Bank - Indonesia
  • Inspectorate - India
  • Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
  • Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
  • Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd.
  • RBS Sempra - UK
  • NALCO India
  • MS Steel International - UAE
  • CCIC - Indonesia
  • SASOL - South Africa
  • Ministry of Mines - Canada
  • Romanian Commodities Exchange
  • Star Paper Mills Limited - India
  • Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
  • Bank of China, Malaysia
  • The Treasury - Australian Government
  • Indian School of Mines
  • Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
  • IMC Shipping - Singapore
  • Cement Manufacturers Association - India
  • PLN Batubara - Indonesia
  • Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
  • JPMorgan - India
  • Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
  • Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
  • Thriveni
  • Kobe Steel Ltd - Japan
  • Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
  • Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
  • GMR Energy Limited - India
  • Asia Cement - Taiwan
  • Siam City Cement - Thailand
  • Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
  • HSBC - Hong Kong
  • CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
  • Total Coal South Africa
  • Australian Coal Association
  • TGV SRAAC LIMITED, India
  • BRS Brokers - Singapore
  • Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
  • Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
  • Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
  • Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
  • Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
  • Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
  • Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
  • Sical Logistics Limited - India
  • Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
  • Mercator Lines Limited - India
  • Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
  • Marubeni Corporation - India
  • Eastern Energy - Thailand
  • San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
  • Enel Italy
  • Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
  • Parliament of New Zealand
  • Mjunction Services Limited - India
  • Maruti Cements - India
  • Cemex - Philippines
  • Mitra SK Pvt Ltd - India
  • CESC Limited - India
  • Anglo American - United Kingdom
  • Thai Mozambique Logistica
  • IOL Indonesia
  • Thailand Anthracite
  • India Bulls Power Limited - India
  • Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
  • Coaltrans Conferences
  • Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
  • Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
  • ACC Limited - India
  • Bangladesh Power Developement Board
  • Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
  • Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
  • White Energy Company Limited
  • Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
  • Posco Energy - South Korea
  • Britmindo - Indonesia
  • Central Electricity Authority - India
  • KPMG - USA
  • Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
  • Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
  • Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
  • Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
  • Deloitte Consulting - India
  • Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
  • Thomson Reuters GRC
  • SUEK AG - Indonesia
  • McKinsey & Co - India
  • Malco - India
  • Aditya Birla Group - India
  • Credit Suisse - India
  • SRK Consulting
  • Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
  • Peabody Energy - USA
  • VISA Power Limited - India
  • Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
  • Chamber of Mines of South Africa
  • Sojitz Corporation - Japan
  • Gupta Coal India Ltd
  • GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
  • CoalTek, United States
  • World Bank
  • Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
  • Coal Orbis AG
  • globalCOAL - UK
  • Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
  • GNFC Limited - India
  • Agrawal Coal Company - India
  • PTC India Limited - India
  • Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
  • Arch Coal - USA
  • World Coal - UK
  • South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
  • ASAPP Information Group - India
  • Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
  • Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
  • Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
  • Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
  • Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
  • KEPCO - South Korea
  • bp singapore
  • KPCL - India
  • Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
  • U S Energy Resources
  • Japan Coal Energy Center
  • Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
  • Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
  • Wilmar Investment Holdings
  • Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
  • Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
  • London Commodity Brokers - England
  • AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
  • Tanito Harum - Indonesia
  • LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
  • Russian Coal LLC
  • Surastha Cement
  • ING Bank NV - Singapore
  • ANZ Bank - Australia
  • Mitsubishi Corporation
  • Coal India Limited
  • SMG Consultants - Indonesia
  • Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
  • TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
  • ETA - Dubai
  • Tamil Nadu electricity Board
  • Bhatia International Limited - India
  • Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
  • Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
  • Indika Energy - Indonesia
  • Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
  • Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
  • Edison Trading Spa - Italy
  • Platts
  • Geoservices-GeoAssay Lab
  • Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
  • PowerSource Philippines DevCo
  • Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
  • Cebu Energy, Philippines
  • ICICI Bank Limited - India
  • Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
  • Vitol - Bahrain
  • Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
  • Central Java Power - Indonesia
  • Fearnleys - India
  • Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
  • Indian Oil Corporation Limited
  • Barclays Capital - USA
  • Adani Power Ltd - India
  • Maersk Broker
  • Tata Power - India
  • Coeclerici Indonesia
  • Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
  • Argus Media - Singapore
  • IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
  • Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
  • Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
  • Petrosea - Indonesia
  • GB Group - China
  • Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
  • Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
  • Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
  • Thiess Contractors Indonesia
  • SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
  • SGS (Thailand) Limited
  • Baramulti Group, Indonesia
  • Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
  • Pinang Coal Indonesia
  • Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
  • Singapore Mercantile Exchange
  • Independent Power Producers Association of India
  • UBS Singapore
  • Core Mineral Indonesia
  • Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
  • Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
  • Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
  • Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
  • Cargill India Pvt Ltd
  • Latin American Coal - Colombia
  • Indonesian Coal Mining Association
  • Trasteel International SA, Italy
  • Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
  • Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
  • Jatenergy - Australia
  • Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
  • McConnell Dowell - Australia
  • Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
  • Coal and Oil Company - UAE
  • Bhushan Steel Limited - India
  • Interocean Group of Companies - India
  • Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
  • TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
  • NTPC Limited - India
  • European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
  • Thermax Limited - India
  • Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
  • CNBM International Corporation - China
  • APGENCO India
  • PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
  • Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
  • Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
  • Goldman Sachs - Singapore
  • Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
  • Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
  • Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
  • Rudhra Energy - India
  • The India Cements Ltd
  • Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
  • TRAFIGURA, South Korea
  • Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
  • Renaissance Capital - South Africa
  • Qatrana Cement - Jordan
  • GHCL Limited - India
  • Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
  • Energy Development Corp, Philippines
  • TANGEDCO India
  • Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
  • Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
  • MEC Coal - Indonesia
  • The University of Queensland