Tagged: Jul/Sep 2001

NYPE -- VOYAGE -- OFF-HIRE -- SPEED WARRANTY -- BUNKER -- P&I CLUB -- Partial Charterer Award After voyage, the Charterer demanded compensation for: an off-hire period to change Vessel crews, a breach in the minimum speed warranty, and bunker over-consumption. The Owners counterclaim that the Charterers’ fuel and speed analyses do not take into account the ½ knot below and 5% above speed and fuel allowances, respectively, given to the Owners by their P&I club.

ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- BERTH -- LIGHTERING -- LAYTIME -- Charterer Award As arranged in the charter party, the Vessel lightered 2,100 mt of the Charterers’ cargo and waited for a free berth to discharge the rest. But while waiting, the Vessel began lightering a different charterer’s part cargo and missed its chance to berth and unload. The Charterers argue that the resulting excess time at port was the result of the Owners’ decision to fulfill another cargo interest and should not count as laytime.

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- LAYDAY -- BERTH -- CARGO -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Although the Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR after laydays had expired, the Charterer did not protest against the Vessel’s latency. So, the Vessel berthed, loaded the cargo, and sailed with no incident. And afterwards, the Owner began arbitration to recover the demurrage invoice.

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- SHIFTING -- WAITING TIME -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award This arbitration centers upon the appropriation of waiting and shifting time between berths at loadport. In this case, the Vessel shifted from one berth and was forced to wait at another for 30H 16M. The Owners billed the Charterers for this delay under "shifting time"; however, the Charterers argue that the time between a dropped anchor and the commencement of shifting should be considered un-billable “waiting time.”

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- RESIDUE -- BERTH -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- DETENTION -- Charterer Award Upon arriving at loadport, the Vessel’s tanks were rejected due to .01 cm of cargo residue and forced the Vessel off berth to be cleaned. Once cleaned, the Vessel loaded the cargo with no incident, but incurred delays once again because of low water levels in the channel. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim inclusive of both the superfluous cleaning time and the detention trying to leave berth.