Category: Archive

Archive / Maritime Articles

Shell’s New Release: SHELLVOY 6 – A Demurrage Analyst’s Perspective

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

A/S D/S Torm v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Olga”) – SMA No. 3818, 22 Dec 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- GANGWAY -- Partial Owner Award The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR, but was forced to wait for the berth to be free. The Owners filed demurrage for this lost time, however, the Charterers wanted to offset this claim with the delays resulting from Vessel unreadiness when berth became free (lack of proper gangway rigging).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 27/04

SHELLVOY 5 -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- EARLY LOADING CLAUSE -- Owner Award This arbitration settles a dispute pertaining to the Shellvoy 5 charter party clause that defines the savings earned by the Charterers if loading ends before laycan begins. The Charterers interpret the clause as crediting their savings from when laytime begins to the beginning of laycan, while the Owners argue that the savings period begins only after the end of the early laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3803, 7 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- Owner Award Before leaving berth at loadport, the voyage’s laytime had already expired and the Vessel was now on 5H demurrage. This claim continued to accumulate during the voyage, however after tendering NOR at disport, the Owner granted the Charterer 6H "free time".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3804, 8 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- LAYTIME TERMINAL -- DISCHARGE RATE -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award In this case, the Vessel arrived at disport with 6H 48M of laytime left. But in addition to the little remaining laytime, the terminal’s restrictive discharge rate further increased the eventual demurrage claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Sea Goddess Shipholding, Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bahamas, Ltd. (The “Strimon”) – SMA No. 3807, 15 Oct 2003

EXXONVOY 90 -- ACT OF GOD -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEMURRAGE RATE -- Charterer Award Because of high winds pushing water out of the Houston Channel, the Vessel was unable to arrive at disport with its ordered draft. The Owners demanded that this extensive delay be paid in full by the Charterers, however, the Charterers cite the contract which stipulates that any delay due to adverse weather is paid at half the Demurrage Rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Seachem ASA v. Vinmar International, Ltd. (The “Bow Lady”) – SMA No. 3810, 30 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- LOADPORT -- SHIP-TO-SHIP -- COASTER -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- DOCK -- Owner Award While loading other charterers’ cargo at the loadport, the Vessel tendered NOR for the Charterer’s ship-to-ship transfer. The Charterer’s coaster, however, waited until all other Vessel loading ceased before coming alongside the Vessel, causing an additional day of laytime. But at arbitration, the Charterer argued that the Vessel’s NOR was invalid because He/She claims that STS transfer could not begin while dock loading.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Terminal Breakdown: Is Fault Or Pre-Existing Condition An Exception?

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) UK to overturn the High Court’s prior ruling in the case of Portolana Compania Naviera v. Vitol SA – “The Afrapearl” is sure to have a profound affect on how the maritime industry views a one-half demurrage provision such as the “breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the plant of the charterer, supplier, shipper or consignee of the cargo…” as per Asbatankvoy’s Clause 8. In short, per the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Owners will need to further amend Asbatankvoy’s Clause 8 and other like clauses as contained in similar charter parties if they wish to protect themselves from delays resulting from ill-maintained terminals or terminal breakdowns due to the fault of the charterer. As we shall see, the wording provided in BPVOY 4’s exceptions clause may be one way Owners can protect themselves from ill-maintained terminals.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Bayoil Supply and Trading Ltd. v. Lamar Navigation, Ltd.Sea Giant, SMA No. 3790

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award In this time charter voyage, the Charterers had credit owed to them by the Owner. But because a company tied to the Charterer is in debt to the Owner, the Owner refused to pay the Charterer and used the other claim as credit to offset the debt.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Addison Shipping & Trading SA v. Bayoil Supply and Trading Ltd. (The “Sea World”) – SMA No. 3791, 10 Jun 2003

SHELLTIME -- ARBITRATION -- MARKET RATE -- CHARTER PARTY -- VOYAGE -- CHARTER -- Owner Award Although the Vessel was twenty days late for delivery, the disagreement at arbitration was the correct rate for the Vessel after this delay. The Charterers refused to grant the Owners the new market rate and cite the Charter Party clause which states that the final voyage must be completed "at the same rate and conditions" as in the Charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.