Firefighting at Sea & the “Port of Refuge” Dilemma: Lessons from Marie Maersk to Wan Hai 503

When Fire Breaks Out at Sea: Two Typical Incidents

On August 10, 2025, the container ship Marie Maersk, en route from Rotterdam to Tanjung Pelepas, unexpectedly detected smoke and fire from a container on deck near the West African coast. The operator immediately activated emergency response procedures: isolating the fire area, cooling it down, reporting the situation to coastal authorities, and dispatching a dedicated firefighting tug. All crew members were safe, the vessel’s condition remained stable, but the pressure to find a suitable port of refuge was immense.

In contrast, the Wan Hai 503 case revealed a different challenge. After an explosion and cargo fire in June 2025, the vessel was refused entry by multiple ports over concerns of reignition, environmental pollution risk, and high handling costs. The ship was forced to remain anchored offshore for many days, with losses mounting by the hour and severe disruptions to its shipping schedule.

The Authority to “Open the Port” – A Maze of Interests and Responsibilities

The decision to accept or refuse a distressed vessel into a port of refuge rests with the coastal state, based on the legal framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and guidelines from the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Each case is weighed carefully, factoring in safety levels, environmental risks, response capacity, and legal liabilities.

Ports must assess their ability to handle dangerous goods listed under the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, while also considering the strength of their firefighting systems, hazardous material response teams, containment capabilities, and protection of nearby communities. Legal responsibility is also a major factor: if the incident causes serious pollution, the costs of mitigation and compensation could exceed the capacity of the shipowner or insurers. In many situations, the imbalance between risks and response capacity makes ports hesitant to “open the door” to a distressed vessel.

Chain Reactions in the Maritime Supply Chain

A container ship fire followed by port refusal is not only the vessel’s problem – it can set off wide-ranging impacts across an entire trade lane. Schedules are disrupted, forcing multiple vessels on the same route to adjust and creating a domino effect at transshipment hubs. Costs surge sharply, from offshore anchorage fees and extended storage charges to additional insurance premiums and transshipment expenses when cargo cannot be discharged at the intended port.

Vietnam’s Challenge in Reception and Response Capacity

Situated on one of the busiest international shipping lanes, Vietnam boasts modern deep-water ports such as Cai Mep–Thi Vai and Lach Huyen. However, the capacity to receive vessels in serious distress – especially those carrying dangerous goods on fire – still has significant gaps.

Offshore firefighting equipment remains limited, with few large firefighting tugs meeting international standards, and not always available at critical points. Specialized hazardous material and fire incident response systems are not yet fully developed, lacking dedicated supply stations for dry powder, foam, or high-pressure water mist systems. In terms of organization, coordination procedures between port authorities, Border Guard, Fire and Rescue Police, and the Vietnam Maritime Search and Rescue Coordination Center have not been regularly drilled for complex “port of refuge” scenarios.

This is both a challenge and an opportunity for Vietnam to upgrade its maritime safety capacity. A targeted investment plan in specialized firefighting equipment, combined with a clear and transparent legal mechanism for accepting distressed vessels, would help Vietnam both safeguard national interests and affirm its responsible role within the international maritime community.

International Lessons – Balancing Safety and the Duty to Receive

Countries with strong track records, such as the Netherlands, Japan, and Denmark, maintain lists of designated “safe ports” alongside rapid risk assessment procedures. When a vessel requests entry, dedicated teams quickly analyze the type and level of cargo hazard, the status of fire control, the ability to isolate the ship and minimize environmental impact, and the financial commitments from the shipowner and insurers.

The Golden 60 Minutes in Requesting a Port of Refuge

Information to be provided immediately to port authorities and search and rescue coordination centers:

- Safety status of all crew members

- Details of the fire, location and type of cargo involved, measures already taken, and current level of control

- List of dangerous goods (IMDG) with complete Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

- Proposed plan upon entry: anchoring location, containment method, firefighting support measures

- Financial commitment and letter of guarantee from the P&I Club or a bank

- Emergency contact channels for continuous coordination

The Marie Maersk and Wan Hai 503 cases show that the risk of container fires is real and will likely recur as global shipping volumes grow, cargo becomes more diverse, and hazards multiply. Refusing a port of refuge may reduce immediate risk for a port, but if every port closes its doors, the consequences for the vessel, crew, and environment could be far worse. To respond proactively, Vietnam must develop safe reception capacity, engage more deeply in regional and international rescue networks, and improve its legal and infrastructure frameworks. Only then will a “port of refuge” truly be a lifeline, rather than a “closed gate” to ships in urgent need of aid.

-----------------------

This article draws on sources from: The Loadstar, Reuters, Maritime Executive, and IMO Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance.

By Phong Le