ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- NAPHTHA -- CARGO -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- INDUSTRY -- Charterer Award The Charterer ordered the Vessel to arrive at loadport ready in all respects and duly cleaned to load a cargo of naphtha. Upon berthing, the inspector rejected the Vessel’s tanks and ordered them to be fresh water rinsed. Afterwards, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that fresh water rinsing was neither required nor industry standard.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- DEADFREIGHT -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- INVOICE -- Partial Owner Award After the Vessel tendered NOR at loadport, the Charterer responded that the cargo was unavailable and agreed to pay the contracted deadfreight. The Charterer tried to make allowances for the deadfreight by negotiating another voyage, however, the new voyage was never carried out and the Owner subsequently began arbitration to recover the outstanding invoice.
ASBATANKVOY -- COASTGUARD -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award Once inspected by the coastguard, the Vessel was required to undergo minor repairs in order to comply with berthing standards at loadport. The Charter Party stipulates that any time loss resulting from non-compliance to safety regulations shall not count as laytime; however, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that the infractions were minor and did not hinder the loading process.
NYPE -- CHARTER -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- CONTRACT -- RE-DELIVERED VESSEL BUNKER COSTS -- Owner Award The governing period charter rate, in this case, is defined by "per Platts Oilgram average on delivery." However, the delivery day price was not available until after voyage, so the prior day’s rate was used and then updated when the delivery day price was published. The Charterer refuted this change arguing that the updated average became available only after delivery and was in breach of the contract.
ARBITRATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- CONTAMINANTS -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- DELAY -- Owner Award This arbitration dispute centers around the fault of cargo contamination and the proper evidence to support the blame. After contaminants were found in the tank samples, the Vessel was forced off berth and the Owner filed demurrage for the cleaning time. The Charterer counterclaimed that the contamination came from the Vessel’s tank, so therefore, any delays came from Owner unreadiness.
SHELLVOY 6, recently introduced and put into use by Shell effective April 2005, provides an update to SHELLVOY 5 in many different ways. As a quick background, SHELLVOY 5 was created in 1987 and last updated in 1999 through the use of Shell’s additional clauses. SHELLVOY 6 incorporates all of the 1999 standard amendments and further attempts to clarify SHELLVOY 5 in other aspects of a voyage charter. The below will provide a quick summary of the demurrage changes between SHELLVOY 5 and SHELLVOY 6. Although a dry (no pun intended) subject, operations personnel, contract administrators and last but not least, demurrage analysts should find this overview germane.