If you own or operate ships, you already measure your fuel. The difficulty is not measurement. It is that four separate parties now want the same figures, in different formats, on different deadlines, and none of them will accept another party’s copy without checking it again.
You already produce this data, four times over
| Who asks | Under what | What they want |
|---|---|---|
| Your flag state and the IMO | MARPOL Annex VI regulation 27 | Annual fuel oil consumption, above 5,000 GT |
| The same, again | MARPOL Annex VI regulation 28 | The CII rating, calculated from that consumption |
| The European Commission | FuelEU Maritime | Well to wake greenhouse gas intensity, approved by an accredited verifier |
| The European Commission, again | EU ETS | Verified emissions, matched by surrendered allowances |
| Charterers and corridor partners | Commercial agreement | Evidence they can rely on without taking your word for it |
Every one of those figures traces back to the same source: the Bunker Delivery Note signed at the moment of bunkering. One event, one document, and then five reconstructions of it, each assembled separately and each capable of disagreeing with the others.
What it costs when you cannot prove it
The exposure is no longer reputational. It is priced.
- FuelEU Maritime penalises a greenhouse gas intensity deficit at €2,400 per tonne of VLSFO equivalent, which you can estimate for your own ship here
- EU ETS requires allowances against reported emissions, rising to 100% from 2026
- A CII rating of D for three consecutive years, or E once, obliges a corrective action plan in your SEEMP
None of these are penalties for emitting. They are penalties for the number you report. A defensible figure and an indefensible one carry the same fuel bill and very different consequences.
The objection worth taking seriously
Shared records make shipowners uneasy, and the reason is legitimate. In most corridor arrangements the shared system belongs to somebody: a port authority, a fuel supplier, a consortium lead, occasionally a competitor. Uploading your operational data into a counterparty’s database is a commercial decision, not a technical one.
That is a large part of why so few corridors get past announcement. The Global Maritime Forum counted 84 initiatives announced in its 2025 annual progress report, of which four had reached the realisation stage. That gap is the real story.
Control does not mean deciding who sees the record. It means the record not living inside a system owned by someone with an interest in what it says.
VesselChain is built so that no participant owns the register, including us. Once an entry is signed it cannot be altered by any party, and that constraint applies to VesselChain exactly as it applies to a port or a charterer. Neutrality here is not a policy we promise to follow. It is a property of where the record sits.
What changes for you
- You record the delivery once. At the point of bunkering, from the document you already sign
- An accredited verifier signs it. Not a VesselChain service: the independent third party that FuelEU Maritime already requires for your monitoring plan and compliance balance
- Every party reads the same entry. Your flag state, your EU verifier, your charterer and your corridor partners work from one record instead of four reconstructions
- You export audit ready evidence rather than assembling it when an auditor asks
The mechanics, including what each partner sees and what the platform deliberately does not do, are set out in full on the platform page.
Where this actually stands
Being straight about this matters more to a compliance professional than a feature list.
- The MVP is live and running on the Ignis blockchain. It handles vessel management, delivery upload, verifier signature and export. A demo is available on request in a call
- We have not yet run a paid pilot in an operational corridor. That is precisely what we are looking for
- The verifier role is regulated and mandatory, and our verification partnerships are not yet signed. The architecture is built for an accredited verifier to sign each entry, and we are actively looking for those partners
If you want a system with a customer list, this is early for you. If you want to shape how corridor fuel evidence works before it is decided, this is the right moment.
Talk to us
Tell us the route, the counterparties and what you are being asked to prove. We will scope it with you in one call, and show you the platform if it is useful.
Frequently asked questions
Does VesselChain verify my fuel data?
No. Verification is performed by the accredited third party that the regulation already requires. VesselChain is where that verification is recorded so it cannot be altered afterwards, including by us.
Do my competitors see my fuel consumption?
The register is shared among the partners of a corridor arrangement, and what each role does with it is set out on the platform page. The design point is that no single participant owns the system, so the record does not sit inside a counterparty’s database.
Does this replace my reporting obligations?
No. Your obligations under MARPOL Annex VI, FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS are unchanged. What changes is that the evidence behind your reports is recorded once, signed, and readable by everyone who asks for it.
Do I need to change how I bunker?
No. The record is built from the Bunker Delivery Note you already receive and sign at delivery. The operation itself does not change.
Is there a pilot running today?
The MVP is live on Ignis and a demo is available on request. We have not yet run a paid pilot inside an operational corridor, and we are looking for the first one.
