Algeciras Fuel Delays: Measure the Programme Effect

Key takeaways

• Compare the same programme endpoint before and after the event.
• Identify which other constraints would apply under either scenario.
• Keep operational effects separate from contractual responsibility.
• Do not add overlapping time intervals as though they occurred consecutively.

Use local planning research within its limits

APBA's 2023 JIT bunkering proof of concept considered service-window planning at Algeciras anchorage D. APBA planning project

That historical work does not establish the cause or duration of a current delay. The actual analysis needs the vessel's confirmed programme and the relevant service events.

For a current transaction, the delay scenario is not provided; obtain current verified information. Record the planned and revised endpoints, other relevant constraints and the assumptions requiring confirmation.

Define the baseline that would otherwise apply

Start with the programme that would have applied without the fuel delay. Identify whether another accepted activity, availability condition or commitment would still prevent onward progress.

The baseline should be supported by the responsible planning team's assessment. It should not be selected retrospectively to maximise or minimise a commercial claim.

Then build the revised scenario with the fuel event included. Compare equivalent endpoints and keep all other assumptions explicit. If another constraint changed independently, show its effect rather than attributing the entire revised programme to bunkering.

Distinguish parallel activities from a sequence

If two independently assessed activities occupy overlapping periods, their durations cannot simply be added. The relevant completion point depends on when the necessary conditions are all satisfied.

By contrast, where one activity can begin only after another, the sequence may create additional time. Establish the actual relationship with the responsible team rather than assuming overlap because the events occurred during the same call.

This is commercial scenario analysis. It does not establish that simultaneous operations are permitted or instruct the vessel how to arrange them.

Illustrative service delay and programme delay

ILLUSTRATIVE — fictional independent activities with all other departure conditions assumed satisfied; not an Algeciras operating plan.

Fuel completion was planned for hour 12 and is revised to hour 20. Another independent activity would keep the vessel occupied until hour 17 under either scenario.

The baseline completion point is max(12, 17) = hour 17. The revised point is max(20, 17) = hour 20.

The fuel service moves by 8 hours, but the programme changes by 3 hours. At a purely illustrative commercial value of $1,000 per hour, that incremental programme effect is $3,000. This is not a calculation of damages, demurrage or an amount owed by any party.

The result depends on the independence and timing assumptions. If the other activity could not proceed as assumed, or a later opportunity were missed, the relevant outcome could change. The comparison should be revised when the supported facts change.

A delay-attribution review table

Fictional case: the report adds overlapping hours

A fictional Algeciras call experiences a later bunker completion while another independently confirmed activity also occupies part of the waiting period. The first internal report adds both durations and describes the total as time lost to fuel supply.

The review reconstructs the programme with the responsible team. It identifies the period that would have occurred anyway and the additional period associated with the delayed fuel completion.

The corrected report preserves the full service delay as an operational event but uses the incremental programme effect for its commercial scenario. It leaves responsibility and any recoverable amount to the applicable contractual assessment.

Keep the commercial estimate distinct from recovery

An hourly value used for comparing decisions is not automatically a payable contract rate. The internal cost model may support a choice between alternatives without establishing an entitlement against a supplier.

Where a claim is contemplated, check the current agreement and obtain appropriate review of causation, evidence and recoverability. The desk should supply an accurate chronology and transparent assumptions rather than announcing that its scenario total must be paid.

Common mistakes

Avoid adding overlapping intervals, choosing inconsistent endpoints and assigning independently caused time to the bunker event. Another error is turning an internal time valuation into an asserted contractual debt. Preserve the difference between service performance, programme impact and legal responsibility.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub supports agentic, AI-assisted operations with a human in control.

Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.

Explore Zeaclub

Visit the Zeaclub website