Asian Vetting

12 January 2002

ASIAN VETTING ROADSHOW 2002 ************************************** HONG KONG 29TH JANUARY 2002 ************************************** TOKYO 31ST JANUARY 2002 ****************************** Start Times and Venue will be Advised under Separate Cover

******

HS07/VETTI/001.DOC Asian Vetting Road Show - AGENDA Approved by Howard Snaith – Marine Manager

Page 1 of 13

ASIAN VETTING ROADSHOW 2002 AGENDA ITEMS 1.

OCIMF/ SIRE – Update of SIRE Issues

1.1

Presentation of SIRE data

2.

The Oil Majors

2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3

Update on Oil Majors Vetting Requirements Exxon/Mobil - Revised Vetting concept NAVION - Revised Mooring rope policy AGIP-Reports to Sire

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2

Structural Vetting Shell B.P.- CAP II & Fatigue Analysis

2.3

The Elements of Vetting Acceptability

2.4

New Vessel Inspections

3.

Revised Vetting Inspection Feedback Forms & Vetting Clauses.

3.1 3.2 3.3

Update of Inspection feedback forms Vetting Statement & C/P Clauses – report from the Secretariat. Your feedback to us on commercial vetting matters

4.

Singapore Marine Academy, - Vetting Awareness Training Courses for none SIRE personnel.

4.1

(Report from the Secretariat)

5.

CDI - ISSUES

5.1

INTERTANKO position regarding the release of CDI Data & Transparency

6.

Terminal Vetting In Singapore.

6.1

Report from the Secretariat

7.

Port State Control

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Naming Charterers – The USCG & The Paris MoU & the definition of the charterer Progress with Detentions and Appeals Procedure USCG – QUALSHIP 21 USCG & Oily water separator Inspections The Tokyo Mou Annual report 2000


Page 2 of 13

8.

Report on Independent Vetting Inspections (Noble Denton)

9.

Vetting Reference Groups Asian & European

10.

Malacca Straits UKC - Update

11.

Any Other Business


Page 3 of 13

AGENDA 1.

OCIMF/ SIRE – Update of SIRE Issues

1.1

Presentation of SIRE data A brief presentation of SIRE data and current status. (Note the full Slide show is available on the INTERTANKO Web site).

2.1

The Oil Majors - Update on Oil Majors Vetting Requirements

2.1.1

Exxon/Mobil - Revised Vetting concept We understand that Exxon/Mobil are finalising a new system, which focuses more closely on the company and the various offices running the ship. We are told that will involve a rating of the Owner and thus a grading system will be used with the top three grades being accepted. In addition specific offices will be taken into consideration, e.g. a regional office controlling a ship may have approval whereas the head office may not. This will be introduced around the end of the year along with a revised “Marine safety Criteria” (Details on the INTERTANKO Web site)

2.1.2

NAVION - revised Mooring rope policy NAVION will not accept Polypropylene rope tails, that are composed of 100% Polypropylene - this is due to inherent problems with Polypropylene and its diminishing properties due to age, friction and U.V. and is in accordance with the OCIMF Mooring Equipment Guidelines, section 6.3.1.3 which says the following: "Polypropylene rope has approximately the same elasticity as Polyester rope, but is significantly weaker than either Polyester or Nylon. Polypropylene has a low melting point and tends to fuse under high friction. It also has poor cyclic loading characteristics. Lastly, prolonged exposure to the suns ultra violet rays can cause Polypropylene fibres to disintegrate due to degradation. Polypropylene is lighter than water and can used for floating messenger lines. Otherwise, the use of Polypropylene for moorings is not recommended." NAVION will not accept mooring ropes that are composed 100% of Polypropylene. NAVION have also stated that they cannot accept 100% Polypropylene rope tails that are U.V. Protected. However, NAVION are allowing a "Grace Period" for the replacement of such 100% Polyprop rope mooring lines and are asking Owners to replace the 100% composition polyprop rope lines (As and when they are ready for replacement due to age. The replacement must be an alternative that is acceptable to the OCIMF Mooring Equipment Guidelines. There will be no grace period with regards to 100% Polypropylene rope tails. NAVION will however, accept Polypropylene mooring Ropes and Tails that are mixed with other materials such as Polyester and/or nylon for example. The warning to owners is to ensure that the certificates for their ropes actually do state what the mixture of the other materials actually is. We are aware that a few rope manufacturers are still simply stating Polypropylene on the rope certificate despite that fact that the tails/ropes are actually a mix of materials. The 18- month period suggested [in the OCIMF Mooring Equipment Guidelines, page 94, section 6.2.7] is a general guideline based on "average use" for "normal" tails. In some


Page 4 of 13

vessels, using the tails every day on rough ground or jetties will create abrasive handling damage in addition to any load stress damage, and may make replacement necessary every few months. A vessel that uses the tails 3 or 4 times a year, keeps the tails out of sunlight and in a clean, dry environment may be able to use them for a few years without any significant weakening factors becoming apparent. Either option will conform to the OCIMF guidelines. In any case, but particularly if an extended period above the 18 months is planned, it would be prudent for the ship operator to have a clear policy on rope tail replacement established within the vessel's safety management system. Parameters for assessment of the tail's condition and the experience and qualifications of the competent inspector (including a knowledge of the characteristics of the material the tail is made from) should be the minimum type of information within such a policy, along with records of periodical inspections and findings. (Full details are available on the INTERTANKO Web site) 2.1.3

AGIP-Reports to Sire The matter has been raised previously that AGIP were not apparently entering their SIRE reports into the SIRE system. INTERTANKO & OCIMF wrote to AGIP independently and we have being assured that this would not continue. We have received no further reports that this has re-occurred, but ask members to keep us fully informed.

2.2. 2.2.1

Structural Vetting Shell We have received requests from several members for information on the ‘Shell - New measures for Ship Quality Assurance’ policy. Having contacted Shell directly, we have received confirmation of their policy and more detailed information as well as a blank copy of their standard letter, which is sent to owners showing the information requested. Below you will find a copy of the confirmation received from Shell The confirmation from Shell reads: QUOTE 1) The STASCO Ship Quality Assurance Department operates a comprehensive ship vetting programme to protect the interests of the Royal Dutch Shell Group of Companies. Generally, our inspections are carried out in port during cargo operations when access to a vessel's internal cargo and ballast compartments is restricted. In order to address this issue, we have introduced additional measures to assist us in better determining the condition of a vessel's structural integrity. Unlike some of the other majors STASCO has not laid down additional requirements such as CAP ratings and fatigue analysis which place a financial burden upon ship owners, we prefer to gain the structural assurance required through professional assessment of data readily obtainable from owners records and class documentation. We employ a team of inhouse naval architects specifically for this task. For good order I attach a generic copy of our request letter and the list of information required to make a meaningful assessment. We proactively seek this information for vessels over 15 years old; the requests are initiated from this office. The programme commenced in April 2000 and was initially focussed upon ULCC's and VLCC's but has since been cascaded down the tonnage


Page 5 of 13

bands. Requests are made for data on all vessels in an owner’s fleet over 15 years of age. In addition we also request the data for single ships, irrespective of age whenever the content of a SIRE report gives rise to potential concern in chapter seven. Owners are made aware of the results of the assessment and the date at which further information is required (typically the date of the next special survey). Assessments are made on a case-by-case basis but it is fair to say we are particularly concerned with corrosion protection systems and the measures taken by owners to ensure their effectiveness. We also look for a clearly defined steel replacement policy. 2) None of the information requested is contained in VIQ or VPQ in the detail required. 3) As you are aware Stasco "vets" each vessel when it is proposed for Shell business. All information available to us at the time is taken into account during the vetting and steps are taken to close out any matters arising by requesting data from the vessels technical managers. For example port state control interventions are followed up in this manner, as are any incidents or casualties. These items and our structural review require an owner’s response in order to close any outstanding issues. When important items cannot be closed due to lack of information the vessel is rejected. UNQUOTE INTERTANKO Comment: We would like to extend our thanks to SHELL for supplying us with the information and the explanation or clarification. INTERTANKO suggests to its members that the supply of such information to Shell would be in order and reminds its members that all such correspondence is in strict confidence between the owner and Shell.

Details are on the INTERTANKO Web site 2.2.2

B.P.- CAP II & Fatigue Analysis The revised requirements have being widely publicised within INTERTANKO, and became effective from the 1st January 2001 and apply to all types of tankers (oil, gas, chemical) that are over 15 years of age and greater than 20,000DWT. The requirements are a CAP 2 rating from DNV, Lloyds or ABS, PLUS a fatigue analysis. Recent confirmation from B.P. indicates that these requirements are indeed being sought. We understand that B.P. will not be prepared to review vessels on a case-by-case basis irrespective of the CAP rating and be prepared to forego the fatigue analysis. The only proviso is that If the fatigue analysis is not already completed then they would be prepared to have it attained by the end of the next scheduled special survey, docking survey or intermediate survey which ever is the sooner after 1st January 2001. (Details are available on the INTERTANKO Web site)

2.3

Vetting Acceptability A general talk and discussion revolving around the elements that constitutes acceptability, the differences between inspections, screening and risk analysis


Page 6 of 13

2.4

New Vessel Inspections Due to increased requests from members regarding the requirements for new building vetting criteria and the difficulties in attaining that 1st acceptability after the vessel is built. INTERTANKO has made enquiries to the various Oil Majors requesting the respective requirements. The vetting committee has passed these collective replies to the European Vetting reference Group who are reviewing the comments and/or questionnaires and identify the areas that are common. These finding will be presented to the vetting committee in March 2002. Most of the Oil Companies have responded and any details including questionnaire are now available on our web site under the Marine & Environmental section at the following link http://www.intertanko.com/marine/

3.

Revised Vetting Inspection Feedback Forms & Vetting Clauses.

3.1

Update of Inspection feedback forms Further to feedback from the Hellenic panel, and the Vetting committee these forms have now being revised taking into account the various & copious feedback from members regarding their revision. They are available on our web site at the following address http://www.intertanko.com/pdf/weeklynews/inspectform.pdf and are marked revision 2/2001. We ask that only these forms be used from now on, because the data obtained by the forms will be incorrect if the old forms are utilised.

3.2

Vetting Statement & C/P Clauses – report from the Secretariat. The final vetting Statement and C/P were published in the weekly news and are available on our website at the following link http://www.intertanko.com/members/vetting/statement2001.asp Subsequent to the Ship Inspection Vetting Committee meeting No.19 in London in October this year, we have issued the following weekly news article We refer to our Weekly NEWS No. 28/2001 regarding the revised Vetting Statement and Charter Party Clauses, which are available on our web site. The Ship Vetting Inspection Committee at its meeting on 5 October reported that some members were already incorporating these into their charter parties. As part of our continuing review process, we would appreciate to receive feedback from members regarding the acceptability of these clauses

Please submit comments to either [email protected] or [email protected] 3.3

Your feedback to us on commercial vetting matters. Your Opportunity to give the INTERTANKO secretariat your feedback on issues relating to Vetting.

4.

Singapore Marine Academy, - Vetting Awareness Training Courses for none SIRE personnel.

4.1

(Report from the Secretariat) After noting some requests from our members INTERTANKO agreed to meet with the SMA in Singapore in the early part of 2001 to discuss the needs and possibilities of a


Page 7 of 13

training course that would deal with vetting training. Subsequent meetings in November 2001 indicate that the first course may be early in 2002. The aim is to produce a course that senior tanker personnel and Superintendents could attend. One of the primary differences being that this course will not be producing accredited SIRE inspectors. - Though there will be many common areas of knowledge and many similar objectives. The purpose of this course would be for those attending to gain a better understanding of the objectives and requirements of OCIMF's SIRE Programme and Tanker Vetting. Such training would naturally differ from 'Inspector Training' (which the SMA participate in, with OCIMF, in Singapore). A large portion of the course work will however be based upon the OCIMF/SIRE training course. OCIMF have agreed to grant copy right to the final course (after reviewing and approving of the final course work) and INTERTANKO have agreed to endorse the course (after reviewing the final course work). The course itself would then be totally administered by the SMA. Comments are invited.

5.

CDI – INTERTANKO POSITION – RELEASE OF CDI DATA

5.1

INTERTANKO position regarding the release of CDI data & Transparency. The main aim of the Ship Inspection Vetting Committee is to reduce the number of inspections to which a vessel is subjected. In this respect it is seen that the closer cooperation there is between CDI & SIRE and the more similar the two systems become, then the easier it will be to harmonise the two inspections systems into one system and thus reduce the number of inspections. Apart from the fact that SIRE is an inspection system for Oil Tankers and that CDI is an inspection system for Chemical & Gas tankers -the fundamental differences between the SIRE & CDI ship Inspection systems were identified to the committee. These being as follows; • The Ship Owner owns the CDI report and controls its release, whilst SIRE owns the SIRE report and the owner cannot control its release. • SIRE release all the data in the SIRE report to PSC (under a confidentiality agreement). • CDI only release the statutory information contained within the CDI report to PSC, (under a confidentiality agreement). The Ship Inspection Vetting Committee and the CTOAG had both reviewed these current differences and raised the question, "With regards to the CDI report, should INTERTANKO agree to release all the CDI data to PSC and not just the statutory information? Thus creating a better harmony between the systems and increased transparency. The Vetting and CTOAG both agreed that there was no objection to PSC having all the data in the CDI report. The matter was also discussed at the Executive Committee level in Athens in October where it was also agreed that there was no objection to this and the INTERTANKO position on this matter would be - “INTERTANKO agrees to the release of all the CDI data to PSC and not just the statutory data”. This would help PSC in the better targeting of sub-standard ships, increase greater harmonisation between the CDI & SIRE systems and assist in bringing the two systems closer together with the ultimate aim of harmonising into one system. Comments are invited


Page 8 of 13

6.

Terminal Vetting In Singapore.

6.1

An update report from the Secretariat. INTERTANKO's involvement with this has being widely reported in the Weekly news over the last year and through the vetting committee meetings. The latest information we have on this is as follows: Background There are 3 companies in Singapore that were required by the MPA to Carry out ship vetting: VOPAK/GATX, Tankstore and Oil tanking. Each of these Companies have developed its own inspection procedures. VOPAK/GATX started inspecting vessels from May 2001. VOPAK will use SIRE reports in their risk assessment evaluation and will only perform vetting inspections on vessels that are not SIRE. These inspections will be undertaken by Independent (and not in house) inspectors. Oiltanking started in January 2001 and inspections are being done by inhouse personnel. Although Oiltanking does not charge" owners for these inspections they will inspect ALL ships that call at their terminals and will not "fully" rely on SIRE reports Tankstore has advised that they will implement a ship- vetting scheme for Tankers calling at Pulau Busing Terminal, Singapore from 1 November 2001. We have received the following memo from Tankstore: “As we do not have access to SIRE / CDI database to extract the necessary information, we requested through agents of vessels to send us the pre -berthing questionnaire with the information such as when and by whom the vessel was last inspected. We intend to appoint an independent reputable SIRE/CDI/OCIMF approved surveying company to inspect vessels while at berth rather than at anchorage or elsewhere to minimise delay and cost. Terminal will maintain a database for vessels inspected by our appointed surveyor and any non-conformity will be noted and a copy will be extended to the master. The inspection report will remain in our database for one year and all vessels will be inspected at least once a year and if a vessel received non-conformity report will be inspected subsequently to verify compliance. We are anticipating the cost to be in the region of S$650 to S$700 per inspection excluding GST and a 5% administrative fee by the terminal for maintaining database and follow up”. All three companies say they are/will be inspecting vessels at the terminal during cargo operations to avoid unnecessary delays to the ships. The information above is available on our web site at the following link http://www.intertanko.com/marine/issue.asp?topic_id=89 Comments are invited

7.

Port State Control

7.1

Naming Charterers – and their definition The USCG has proposed amending 33 CFR part 160(USCG-2001-8659) Notification of arrival message: With the Addition of the Charterer to the required Information.


Page 9 of 13

INTERTANKO has supported this innovation and has submitted its comments to the USCG Docket management System in the public domain. We have attached a copy of our submission as (Appendix 1). It can be seen from our submission that we have mentioned our concerns regarding identification of the “Charterer” and identified this as the head charterer. We also forwarded a copy of our submission the Paris Mou advisory board for information and follow up to our meeting with them in May 2001. This was further discussed at the vetting Committee No.19 where the committee felt that the definition of charterer as proposed was not accurate enough. Therefore since that meeting the legal department of INTERTANKO have redefined the term charterer based on the comments from the vetting Committee. This definition is containe d in 7.3 below. Definition of The Charterer After further review INTERTANKO Legal council have redefined the term charterer as follows: - “The charterer is the person or entity who have deemed this specific vessel suitable for carrying the cargo and who thus have taken the decision to place the cargo on-board the vessel for this specific voyage”. The general comments received from the vetting committee are in favour of this definition as it is simple, concise and without ambiguity. It is proposed that it is this definition that is sent to The Paris Mou in a spirit of co-operation and assistance. The Forum is invited to comment. 7.2

Progress with Detentions and Appeals Procedure Subsequent to INTERTANKO’s meeting with the Paris Mou Advisory board earlier this year - one of our members has graciously agreed to allow one of their vessels which suffered an unjustified detention to be used as a test case for demonstrating to the Paris Mou the real need for a formal appeals procedure. In this case the members vessel suffered damage whilst at sea and lost its anchor. The owner complied implicitly with the Paris Mou requirements regarding advanced notification to the relevant authorities and whilst in port. However, the vessel was still detained despite the statement in the memorandum that this will not happen. Therefore, details of the case have being submitted. We have received a very positive reply from the MCA explaining that the MAB did discuss the implementation of a formal appeals procedure and will be putting into place a proposal for a centralised Appeals procedure. Whilst this is not finalised it is a very positive step in the right direction and INTERTANKO has welcomed the assistance and time given by the MAB to look at and take this matter forward. The Forum is invited to comment.

7.3

USCG – QUALSHIP 21 More than 400 ships have now been approved by the United States Coast Guard as qualifying for the benefits of its QUALSHIP 21 programme. Applying only to foreign flag ships registered in flag states with a “superior port state control”; the lists are of ships, which have themselves been identified by the Coast Guard as fulfilling certain eligibility criteria. Areas investigated include the vessel’s freedom from detention records over the past three years, lack of marine violations, success in a US port state control inspection, owned by a company not itself associated with violations, classed with a targeted classification society or with a flag state that has a detention ratio of more than 1/3 of the overall US detention ratio. Approved flag states are 10 in number: Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, Norway, Norwegian International Registry, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. Ships on the list of qualified


Page 10 of 13

vessels (other than passenger vessels) will be inspected fewer times by US port state control, as long as their standards are maintained. The Vetting committee was asked if the way the USCG use the flag criterion on a stand alone basis gives the wrong (and probably also for the Coast Guard) unintended results. The Vetting Committee observed that this system did hold an advantage particularly when trying to obtain a TVEL or LOC inspection by the USCG, where it greatly assisted in the arrangements for such inspections. However, The Vetting committee further agreed after discussing the flag criterion that this was not a priority item and that with regards to QUALSHIP 21 Criterion this should remain unalterered at the current time. (Full details, The Targeting criteria and Boarding matrix are available on the INTERTANKO web site). The Forum is invited to take note. 7.4

USCG & Oily water separator Inspections We reported in our weekly news NEWS No 27/2001, & 31/2001 that following. Recent examinations of foreign and US deep draught ships by the USCG has indicated that greater attention needs to be given to the examination of oily water separation equipment, bilge systems and oily waste storage. The USCG is now carefully inspecting these systems, and ships should ensure the following: • That the oily water separation equipment is operating in accordance with MARPOL • That the three way valve or re-circulating valve is operating properly • That the bilge system is in accordance with approved plans • That there is no excessive oil in the bilges • That the oil record book is properly maintained and consistent with engine room logs and supported with receipts for shore side discharges. As the USCG has neither the time nor manpower to conduct the necessary extensive investigations if discrepancies are found, every effort should be made to ensure compliance, also to avoid the costs associated with the vessel being held in port. (More details are on the INTERTANKO Web site, please note that the PSC section is currently being updated)

7.5

The Tokyo MoU – Annual Report - Inspection & Targeting Criteria The Annual report of the PSC in the Asia Pacific Region 2000 has being issued and is available on our website at the following link http://www.iijnet.or.jp/tokyomou/ann00.pdf It should be noted that whilst the Tokyo Mou has historically surpassed primary regional annual target inspection rates of over 50%, The Tokyo Port State Control has adopted an amendment to the memorandum to increase the annual target inspection rate to from 50% to 75% as a long term objective to be phased in gradually. A further point of interest is a new programme of fellowship training that has being introduced in accordance with the integrated strategic plan for training and exchange of port state control officers in the Asian pacific region. The Tokyo Mou has also decided to implement a further concentrated inspection campaign on the ISM code compliance on ALL ships during the period July – September 2002, which takes place concurrently with the same campaign planned by the Paris Mou. The report states that of all the ships inspected 3.58% were chemical tankers, with a detention average of 4.53%, - 1.96% were gas tankers with a detention average of 3.81%, - and 6.81% were oil Tankship/combination carriers, with a detention average of


Page 11 of 13

5.4% .The highest flag percentage of detentions was Korea and the regional average detention rate was 6.87%. The area that was found to contain the highest number of deficiencies was Life Saving Appliances. .

8.

Report on Independent Vetting Inspections (Noble Denton) We received reports from some of our members regarding an Independent Vetting Inspection scheme run by a firm of consultants in London called “Noble Denton”. They reportedly perform between 2-3 inspections every day, 7 days a week for a primary client, Louis Dreyfuss. Although the inspections are based on the SIRE VIQ’s they are not entered into the SIRE system or conducted by accredited inspectors. INTERTANKO had quite a positive meeting with Noble Denton to discuss the matter, the primary aim too ensure that Noble Denton and Louis Dreyfuss conduct vetting inspections under the existing industry schemes, OCIMF are continuing with these discussio ns and INTERTANKO is continuing to monitor and pursue the matter.

9.

Vetting Reference Groups European & Asian Further to the appointment of an Asian vetting reference group consisting of the following members: • Capt Rajiv Mithal - Project Manager, Neptune Orient Lines • Capt Alan Skilton - Safety & Marine Manager, Primorsk • Capt Rajalingam, Senior Manager - MISC • Capt Atul Malik, Manager Marine Safety Dept Mitsui OSK Lines (Singapore) • Capt. Dinesh Pradhan, Marine Manager Teekay Shipping (Singapore) The committee agreed that a European vetting reference Group should be formed as well, with the same aims, which would be to view, discuss and form opinions regarding vetting matters that involved policy, decision making and position forming that would best represent members interests. It was agreed that communication would be established between the members of this group, the secretariat and the Chairman Mr Lars Mossberg. Whilst communications with the Asian vetting reference group would continue through INTERTANKO’s Senior Vice President, Minerva Alfonso in the Singapore office. The committee agreed that the members of the European reference Group would be: • John Brechin (V-Ships) • John Pocklington (Norbulk Shipping) • Alan Johnson (Tsakos Shipping London Ltd) • Michael Wilson (Laurin Maritime America) • Nikos Kiriakakis (Pioneer) • Dimitri Stamoudis (Ceres Hellenic Shipping).

10.

Malacca Straits UKC - Update INTERTANKO issued a statement regarding UKC, which is available on our web site, that basically highlights the background to this issue and that the requirement for a 3.5m UKC whilst transiting the Straits is a mandatory requirement. Several aspects however remained unresolved. •

Was the 3.5m UKC Static or Dynamic?


Page 12 of 13

The IMO have stated that the UKC should be maintained “AT ALL TIMES”, thus the question of static or Dynamic “should” be unquestionable because by complying at all times suggests that this would take into account squat and thus be dynamic. • What is the area for the controlling depth? Recent surveys indicate that Bhatu Berhanti is deeper than originally sounded and the latest edition of chart B.A. 2556 shows the water depth to the NW of Batu Berhanti is now 22.5 m (Chart Datum). However, the controlling depths and the times of the transits are calculated to coincide with High water at Batu Berhanti based upon the previous shoal depth at this point, which was 19.0m. Local charts still indicate the shallower depth. Recent Contact with the British Hydrographic Society in the UK informs us that: 1. The new depth at Bhatu Berhanti is based upon a survey by CONOCO, and was completed by a multi scan beam echo sounder (not single point echo sounder) and is thus a 100% bottom scan and accurate. We have faith that the British Admiralty would not have published the data if there was any doubt about it. 2. However the Singapore local charts do not recognise this new depth. This is because the Singaporeans did not have access to the CONOCO survey data. But as from 11th April 2002 the UK, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia Governments will enter into a joint “badging” system whereby the will recognise the data that the UK has utilised from the CONOCO survey. At this time there will be a whole new series of charts published for the area. The intention of OCIMF (subject to final confirmation) will be to re-publish there guide (BUT with no routing guidelines), just imply as a tidal calculation guide with a reference to the Minimum UKC as specified by IMO i.e 3.5m at all times. The guide would probably include 3 examples of tidal calc ulations 1. Using (for example) NERC, (National environment research council) tidal calculations which show tidal heights for every hour for every day. 2. Based on Admiralty tidal calculation method 3. The Admiralty Harmonic method. But making the point that reference points do change, and would thus probably be based upon Buffalo Rock, to the South of Singapore, which currently appears to be the limiting depth. The question we put to members relates to the question of Static or Dynamic, what should be the interpretation and should this be clarified through IMO?

11.

Any Other Business


Page 13 of 13

Asian Vetting

Recommend Documents