Today, pooling is widely recognised as a reliable compliance mechanism under FuelEU Maritime. In most commercial discussions, the underlying assumption is that once a pool is agreed, it will be executed. This assumption deserves closer investigation.

In practice, pooling is not a single step but a multi-stage process with dependencies and hard deadlines. The successful execution of a pool requires that each of these steps is completed correctly and in sequence by all pool participants. Failure at any point, even by only a single participant, can prevent the pool from successful execution.

The consequence is straightforward: if the FuelEU pool fails, the compliance position reverts to the individual vessel level, with all associated penalties and constraints.

FuelEU reporting depends on everyone
The actual regulatory execution of a pool requires alignment across all participating companies, their verifiers, and the responsible entities (if different) accessing the FuelEU Database.

Each vessel must first have its data verified on time (March 31). While this may appear to be a straightforward and easily achieveable requirement, delays at the verification stage are already emerging. Where a single pool participant does not have verified data available, the pool cannot progress as initially intended.

Even when verification is completed, the process’ next step depends on timely agreement of surplus allocation. If one party delays in confirming its position, the entire pool cannot be initiated, which directly impacts the ability to meet reporting deadlines.

Not only the pool participants but also the pool starter company introduces an additional dependency. If the pool is not initiated and submitted for approval in time, the window for coordination across all parties narrows. Given the number of entities typically involved, even small delays at this stage can become critical.

Once submitted, each participating company must approve the pool. Here again, the process is only as strong as its weakest link. A single delayed or withheld approval prevents the pool from moving forward.

Finally, the pool must be verified. Even where all prior steps have been completed, delays at the verifier level can still prevent timely completion. Verification capacity constraints or requests for clarification may extend timelines beyond what was initially assumed.

Intermediaries amplify execution risk

These dependencies become materially more complex in the presence of intermediaries.

In some pooling structures, surplus is not directly exchanged between the parties that ultimately participate in the pool. Instead, it is traded through chains involving traders, or other intermediaries. These structures introduce additional layers between the surplus-generating vessel and the party responsible for reporting.

Each additional layer increases the distance between commercial agreement and operational execution. Information must be passed along the chain, reporting instructions must be translated into actionable steps, and responsibilities must be aligned across parties that may not have direct contractual relationships with each other. This creates multiple potential points of failure. Critically, the party that trades the surplus often has no direct control over whether the necessary actions are ultimately taken.

As a result, intermediaries do not merely add complexity. They amplify execution risk, as the successful completion of the pool becomes dependent on a longer and less controllable chain of actions.

The compounding effect of deadlines

What makes these risks particularly tricky is the interaction between multiple deadlines. It is not sufficient for the pool itself to be drafted, approved, submitted, and verified. Any banking required after pooling must also be verified and finalised within the regulatory timeframe (30 April). Since most surplus trades include a risk margin, banking is almost always required and further reduces the time available for pooling. What may appear to be a manageable delay early in the process can become critical once all dependencies are considered. The risk compounds due to a sequence of interdependent deadlines, each of which must be met.

In pooling structures involving intermediaries, this effect is even more pronounced. Each additional step in the communication and execution chain consumes time and introduces uncertainty. The margin for error narrows accordingly.

When the FuelEU pool fails

If the pool cannot be completed in time, the consequences are immediate and difficult to mitigate. Any assumed deficit reduction through pooling does not materialise. At that stage, alternative mechanisms are limited. Borrowing may not be available due to its quantitative constraints and regulatory restrictions (see our previous newsletter). The result is that penalties, which were assumed to be avoided, will crystallise.

Equally importantly, the failure of a pool does not occur in isolation. It triggers commercial and legal consequences across all participating parties. Agreements that assumed successful pooling may no longer reflect the actual compliance outcome, leading to disputes over responsibility, liability, and performance. A single participant can therefore cause contractual defaults for all other surplus trades in the same pool. A well-structured pooling agreement is of utmost importance.

Emerging FuelEU pooling market behaviour

The above already influences market behaviour. Pool starter companies are beginning to limit or stop selling surplus in order to ensure that existing pool commitments can be executed within the required timeframe. This reflects a shift in priorities from commercial opportunity to operational deliverability. This comes at a time, when demand-side activity is at a peak due to data verification and pressing deadline.

At the same time, contractual structures are evolving. There is increasing focus on provisions that allow for removal of participants who delay or fail to perform, in order to preserve the integrity of the pool for the remaining parties. While such mechanisms introduce their own complexities, they reflect a recognition that pooling agreements require mechanisms for reporting enforcement.

Conclusion

The key risk in pooling is not only whether surplus exists, but also whether the process required to allocate it can be completed in time. This requires more than a commercial agreement. It requires verified data, timely coordination, responsive counterparties, and sufficient capacity across all involved parties, including verifiers and responsible entities.

In structures involving intermediaries, this challenge becomes more pronounced, as control over execution is distributed and indirect.

In this context, FuelEU pooling should not be assessed solely on its theoretical efficiency, but on its ability to withstand delays, dependencies, and execution risk. Only where those factors are properly managed does pooling function as a reliable compliance mechanism.

Looking for well-structured, transparent, and low risk pools with shipping companies that directly control and generated the surplus? BetterSea’s FuelEU Maritime Platform transparently connects you to surplus generating shipping companies. Master FuelEU pooling with reduced risks and the transparency you need both commercially as well as regulatory.
Source: BetterSea