Short Receipt of Sunflower Oil
Challenges
An edible oil tanker loaded 3 parcels of Crude Sunflower Oil at two Ukrainian Load Ports.
Parcel No. 1 was for one berth and one terminal at New Mangalore.
Parcel No. 2 was for Sudan.
Parcel No. 3 was for another berth and terminal at New Mangalore.
There were 3 separate consignees for 3 parcels.
The cargo for different Consignees were loaded separately suitably isolated. Vessel called Sudanese Disport first and discharged 2nd parcel without issues.
Subsequently, Vessel called New Mangalore for discharging 1st parcel.
During discharge of 1st parcel, approximately mid-way, shore received about 250 MT short as per ship-shore monitoring.
Discharge stopped, ship and shore checked thoroughly, no abnormality found.
Discharge continued, upon completion, a shortage of approximately 500 Metric Tons emerged.
There were surveyors representing all cargo interests.
Although, ship was not responsible, rather not liable for loss beyond rails on manifold, from moral/ ethical and goodwill angles, investigation measures initiated. Vessel was held up by receivers refusing to take part in documentation. Further, there was a deadline lay can for next employment in the background. Eventually a Club Letter of Undertaking (LoU) was given and Vessel sailed to next port.
Parcel No. 1 was for one berth and one terminal at New Mangalore.
Parcel No. 2 was for Sudan.
Parcel No. 3 was for another berth and terminal at New Mangalore.
There were 3 separate consignees for 3 parcels.
The cargo for different Consignees were loaded separately suitably isolated. Vessel called Sudanese Disport first and discharged 2nd parcel without issues.
Subsequently, Vessel called New Mangalore for discharging 1st parcel.
During discharge of 1st parcel, approximately mid-way, shore received about 250 MT short as per ship-shore monitoring.
Discharge stopped, ship and shore checked thoroughly, no abnormality found.
Discharge continued, upon completion, a shortage of approximately 500 Metric Tons emerged.
There were surveyors representing all cargo interests.
Although, ship was not responsible, rather not liable for loss beyond rails on manifold, from moral/ ethical and goodwill angles, investigation measures initiated. Vessel was held up by receivers refusing to take part in documentation. Further, there was a deadline lay can for next employment in the background. Eventually a Club Letter of Undertaking (LoU) was given and Vessel sailed to next port.
Action Taken
The receiver terminal was inspected for migration, leaks or physical loss thoroughly.
No abnormality.
The dock line is basically above ground except for two road crossings underground.
There was no evidence of leaks in above ground part dock line.
The other prospects were leakage in underground part, tankage floor leaks and inter tank migration.
From records made available, no evidence of tankage floor leakage or inter tank migration.
To eliminate, leakage in road crossing underground part, the pipe line was pressure tested, found satisfactory. To confirm it was notional only, 3rd parcel discharge was attended operations monitored. 3rd parcel, ship-shore difference was normal and with satisfactory limits on experience factor.
No abnormality.
The dock line is basically above ground except for two road crossings underground.
There was no evidence of leaks in above ground part dock line.
The other prospects were leakage in underground part, tankage floor leaks and inter tank migration.
From records made available, no evidence of tankage floor leakage or inter tank migration.
To eliminate, leakage in road crossing underground part, the pipe line was pressure tested, found satisfactory. To confirm it was notional only, 3rd parcel discharge was attended operations monitored. 3rd parcel, ship-shore difference was normal and with satisfactory limits on experience factor.
Laterally, monitored shore delivery of 1st parcel also. Slowly, loss was being recovered in the course of delivery of cargo.
As a measure of abundant caution, upon completion of 3rd parcel discharge, a draft survey was carried out to ascertain presence of any ‘on carried’ cargo. The Deadweight calculations matched in every respect. Thus, coming to cause, it was evidently converged on poor design of shore tank sounding pipes and abnormal stubborn sludge in the cargo of sunflower oil.
Lesson Learnt
Problem was due to poor design of shore tank sounding pipe.
Sounding pipes to be suitable designed with a view towards compatibility of cargo.
Importance of filters stressed upon. In this case, the crude sunflower cargo had a lot of stubborn sediments which blocked the pipe holes of the sounding pipe giving false readings.
Upon full delivery of cargo was completed the same tank was inspected to find the sounding pipe choked with sludge material of Crude Sunflower Oil Cargo.
There being no delivery shortage of cargo, LOU was rendered defunct and returned by the receivers.
Sounding pipes to be suitable designed with a view towards compatibility of cargo.
Importance of filters stressed upon. In this case, the crude sunflower cargo had a lot of stubborn sediments which blocked the pipe holes of the sounding pipe giving false readings.
Upon full delivery of cargo was completed the same tank was inspected to find the sounding pipe choked with sludge material of Crude Sunflower Oil Cargo.
There being no delivery shortage of cargo, LOU was rendered defunct and returned by the receivers.