cargo liquefaction january 2014

8/9/2019 Cargo Liquefaction January 2014

1/28


2/28


3/28

© Gard AS, January 2014

3

Liquefaction of unprocessed mineral ores - Iron ore fines and nickel ore ........................................ 4Intercargo publishes guide for the safe loading of nickel ore ........................................................... 8

Shifting solid bulk cargoes ....................................................................................................................9

The carriage of nickel ore from the Philippines and Indonesia - The insurance position ............. 11

Cargo liquefaction - An update ..........................................................................................................12

Cargo liquefaction problems – sinter feed from Brazil .....................................................................16

Liquefaction of cargoes of iron ore ....................................................................................................17

India - Safe Shipment of Iron Ore Fines from Indian Ports ..............................................................18Indonesia and the Philippines – Safe Carriage of Nickel Ore Cargoes .......................................... 20

Dangers of carrying Nickel Ore from Indonesia and the Philippines –

Mandatory Notification Requirements .........................................................................................23

New BIMCO Charterparty clause for solid bulk cargoes that may liquefy ...........................................24

IMSBC Code amendments regarding cargoes that may liquefy ...................................................... 25

Brazil - liquefaction of bauxite cargoes .............................................................................................26

Bar, Montenegro - zinc concentrate liquefaction risk .......................................................................26

Contents

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication is compiled from material previously published by Gard AS and isprovided for general information purposes only. Whilst we have taken every care to ensure the accuracy and quality

of the information provided at the time of original publication, Gard AS can accept no responsibility in respect of anyloss or damage of any kind whatsoever which may arise from reliance on information contained in this publicationregardless of whether such information originates from Gard AS, its shareholders, correspondents or othercontributors.


4/28


4

Liquefaction ofunprocessed mineral ores -

Iron ore fines and nickel oreBy Dr Martin Jonas, Brookes Bell, Liverpool.

(see Figure 1). This suddenly reducesthe friction between particles, and thusthe shear strength of the cargo.

The effect of this process is a transition

from a solid state to a viscous fluidstate in which all or part of the cargocan flatten out to form a fluid surface.In this condition, cargo may flow toone side of the ship with a roll one waybut not completely return with a rollthe other way, progressively leadingto a dangerous list and potentially thesudden capsizing of the vessel.

Cargo liquefaction will not occurif the cargo contains a sufficientlylow inherent moisture content andsufficiently high interstitial air that, evenin its most compacted state, there

are still sufficient interstitial spaces toaccommodate all of the moisture sothat the increase in water pressure isinhibited.

The lowest moisture content at whichliquefaction can occur is called the FlowMoisture Point (commonly abbreviatedFMP). Its numerical value can varywidely even for cargoes with the same

description. It is not possible to predictthe FMP of a given cargo from itsdescription, particle size distributionor chemical composition and the FMPtherefore needs to be determined bylaboratory testing separately for eachcargo provided by each shipper.

In cargoes loaded with a moisturecontent in excess of the FMP,liquefaction may occur unpredictablyat any time during the voyage. Somecargoes have liquefied and causedcatastrophic cargo shift almostimmediately on departure from the

load port, some only after severalweeks of apparently uneventful sailing.While the risk of liquefaction is greaterduring heavy weather, in high seas, andwhile under full power, there are no

Gard News 197,February/April 2010

Dr Martin Jonas considers some of thetechnical issues behind the casualtiesinvolving the carriage of unprocessednatural ores from India and nickel orefrom Indonesia, the Philippines andNew Caledonia.

IntroductionLiquefaction of mineral ores, resultingin cargo shift and loss of stability,has been a major cause of marinecasualties for many decades. Recentproblems, already leading to severaltotal losses this year, have primarilyinvolved the carriage of unprocessednatural ores such as iron ore fines fromIndia and nickel ore from Indonesia,the Philippines and New Caledonia.The main cause of casualties andnear misses is the poor complianceof shippers with the testing andcertification requirements that aredesigned to ensure that cargoes areloaded only if the moisture content is

sufficiently low to avoid liquefactionoccurring during the voyage.1

Principles of liquefactionCargoes that are at risk of liquefactionare those containing at least somefine particles and some moisture,although they need not be visiblywet in appearance. The most widely-known cargoes with this hazard aremineral concentrates, although manyother cargoes can also liquefy, such asfluorspar, certain grades of coal, pyrites,millscale, sinter/pellet feed, etc.

Although they often look dry inappearance at the time of loading,these cargoes contain moisture inbetween the particles. At the time ofloading, the cargoes are usually in theirsolid state, where the particles are indirect contact with each other and,therefore, there is physical strengthof resistance to shear strains. Duringocean transport, cargoes are exposedto agitation in the form of enginevibrations, ship’s motions and waveimpact, resulting in compaction of thecargo. This leads to a reduction ofthe spaces between the particles. If

compaction is such that there is morewater inside the cargo than there arespaces between the particles, thewater pressure inside the cargo can risesharply and press the particles apart

Figure 1: Liquefaction as a result of cargo compaction. In the solid state (left), the shearstrength of the cargo is provided by the direct contact between the cargo particles.There are sufficient interstitial spaces to accommodate the inherent moisture and aproportion of interstitial air. As the cargo compacts under the influence of the ship’smotions, the volume between the particles reduces and interstitial air is expelled.Eventually, the water pressure resulting from compaction presses the particles apart,potentially leading to them losing direct contact and a resulting sudden loss of shearstrength, i.e., a fluid state (right).

Iron ore fines before and after liquefaction.


5/28


5

safe sailing conditions for a cargo withunsafe moisture content. Liquefactioncan occur unpredictably even inrelatively calm conditions on a vessel atanchorage or proceeding at low speed.

It is for these reasons that SOLASand the IMSBC Code incorporate

provisions intended to ensure that onlycargoes with sufficiently low inherentmoisture content to avoid liquefactionare loaded. Strict adherence to theseprovisions is the only safe way ofcarrying these types of cargoes.

SOLAS/IMSBC Code RegulationsSOLAS requires that the shippersof bulk cargoes provide the Masterin writing sufficiently in advance ofloading with information on any specialproperties of the cargo, includingthe likelihood of shifting, and forconcentrates or other cargoes which

may liquefy additional informationin the form of a certificate on themoisture content of the cargo andits Transportable Moisture Limit(commonly abbreviated to TML).2 Cargoes which may liquefy shall onlybe accepted when the actual moisturecontent is less than the TML.3

Unlike the FMP, which can bedetermined in the laboratory, the TMLis a parameter that is calculated, ratherthan measured, as 0.9 times the FMP.Thus, for example, a cargo with an FMPof, say, 10 per cent (as determined in

the laboratory) has a correspondingTML of 9 per cent, this being 0.9 times10 per cent.

Thus, the maximum allowed moisturecontent of a cargo at the time ofloading (the TML) is lower than themoisture content at which liquefactionactually occurs (the FMP). Thisdifference between the TML and theFMP is intended to provide a safetymargin to protect against variationsin moisture or FMP throughout thecargo and to allow for measurementuncertainties in the laboratory

determination of moisture and FMP.It is essential that this safety marginis always preserved and thus cargoesshould never be accepted if themoisture content exceeds the TML,regardless of by how much.4

Full details on the underlying testingand sampling procedures for shippers’certification obligations under SOLASare given in the IMSBC Code 2009 (andpreviously in effectively identical formin its predecessor, the BC Code 2004)5.In brief, the IMSBC Code specifies thefollowing:

1) Identification of hazardPrior to start of loading, the shippermust declare to the Master in writing

whether or not the cargo offered forloading is a cargo that may liquefy.6 This is a very important part of theshippers’ obligation to provideappropriate cargo information, as it isnot necessarily obvious from the cargoname or from a visual inspection of thecargo whether the cargo may liquefy,and thus whether the Master shouldinsist on a declaration of moisture andTML prior to allowing the cargo to be

loaded. In principle, any bulk cargothat contains at least some moistureand at least some fine particles is atrisk of liquefaction. The IMSBC Codespecifies that all such cargoes shouldbe submitted for laboratory testing toestablish whether or not they possessflow properties.7 If such testingshows that the cargo possesses a flowmoisture point, then shippers mustprovide a certificate of moisture andof TML prior to loading, regardless ofwhether or not the cargo is specificallylisted by name in the IMSBC Code as acargo that may liquefy.

2) Certification of moisture contentThe declaration of moisture contentmust contain a statement from shippersthat this is the average moisture contentof the cargo at the time the declarationis handed to the Master prior tostart of loading.8 One importantconsequence of this is that the entirecargo must already be available at theload port to be sampled prior to startof loading, rather than be deliveredpiecemeal throughout a protractedloading process. The moisture contentdetermination must be carried out on

truly representative test samples ofthe entire cargo.9 This is an elaborateprocess requiring full access to thecargo and careful planning to ensure

the moisture content of the test sampleis truly the average moisture content ofthe entire consignment.10

Sampling for moisture content musttake place not more than seven daysprior to loading. Additional checktests should be conducted if there issignificant rainfall between samplingand loading.11

Shippers must declare the moisturecontent separately for each cargohold of the vessel, unless samplinghas shown that the moisture contentis uniform throughout the entireconsignment.12 In concentrates, themoisture content is often sufficientlyuniform, but in unprocessed ores suchas iron ore fines and nickel ore, themoisture content can vary significantlythroughout the consignment andthus separate hold-by-hold moisturedeclaration is required. In actualshipping practice, few if any shippersdo declare a hold-wise moisture

content even in highly non-uniformcargoes, and this is a cause for concern.

If more than one distinct type of cargois loaded commingled in the samecargo hold, e.g., if loading is fromdifferent stockpiles from a differentsource of supply or with differentexposure to rain, then shippers mustprovide separate certificates for eachtype of cargo in each cargo hold.Similarly, shippers must carry outseparate sampling and certification foreach substantial portion of materialwhich appears to be different in

characteristics or moisture contentfrom the bulk of the consignment. Themoisture content must be below therespective TML separately for each

Flow table test.


6/28


6

distinct parcel of cargo. Any portionsthat are shown to have a moisturecontent above the TML should berejected as unfit for shipment.13 Thus,if cargo is loaded from more thanone source, it is not sufficient for theaverage moisture content of all of thecargo in each hold to be below the

TML. One important consequenceof this is that it is not possible tocompensate for the loading of a batchof excessively wet cargo by thenloading additional drier cargo into thesame cargo hold.

3) Certification of TMLAs discussed above, the TML is derivedmathematically from a laboratorydetermination of the FMP. In principle,there are several different alternativetest methods to determine the FMP:three of them are described in fulldetail in Appendix 2 of the IMSBC

Code and the competent authorityof the exporting county may approveadditional test procedures.14 Inactual shipping practice, the only testmethod that is in widespread use isthe flow table method, as described inparagraphs 1.1.1 to 1.1.4 of Appendix2. While the test method is not difficult,it contains a subjective elementand needs to be carried out by anexperienced analyst who is familiar withthe early signs of liquefaction in a testsample. The critical part is the ability toreliably identify a flow state in the testsample using the criteria given in the

Code.15 It is a matter of some concernthat laboratories testing iron ore finesin India and nickel ore in Indonesiaand the Philippines depart in manyimportant respects from the IMSBCCode test procedure without approvalfrom the respective competentauthorities and without conductingsystematic inter-laboratory comparisonsto establish consistency of their resultswith laboratories using the unmodifiedIMSBC Code method.

For most processed ores, such asconcentrates, the TML depends

mainly on the technical details of theconcentration process and does notvary significantly between shipments.For these cargoes, it is sufficient ifshippers carry out a TML test onceevery six months. However, if thecomposition or characteristics of thecargo are variable between successiveshipments for any reason, then anew TML test is required each time.16 Unprocessed ores such as iron orefines and nickel ore vary greatly incomposition not only from shipment toshipment but also within each individualshipment. Thus, for these cargoes,

shippers must carry out a new TML testfor every single cargo being loaded.

Close adherence to the above

requirements of the IMSBC Codeis essential in order to ensure thatonly cargoes that are safe for oceantransport are loaded. The IMSBC Codeplaces the burden of certification onshippers, not on the Master. Withoutaccurate information and certificationbeing provided by shippers, the Master

can not independently assess whetheror not the cargo offered for loadingis safe to carry. This is because it isimpossible to determine from a visualinspection or from ad hoc samplingof cargo being delivered to the vesselwhether or not the moisture contentof a cargo is below the TML. Cargoeswith moisture above the TML typicallylook much the same as cargoes withmoisture below the TML. Clearlydiscernible alarm signals, such asseparation of free water on the cargosurface or muddy appearance of thecargo, are only visible during loading

when cargoes have a grossly excessivemoisture content.

Unprocessed ores - Iron ore finesand nickel oreThere is a wide range of mineralcargoes that may liquefy, and theyvary in their appearance and physicalproperties. One sub-group ofcargoes has a particularly dangerouscombination of risk factors, andaccounts for a large proportion ofrecent casualties, near misses andcontentious load port disputes duringcarriage of cargoes that may liquefy.

The cargoes in question areunprocessed ores, the most widely-encountered of which are iron ore fines,mainly exported from India, and nickelore, mainly exported from Indonesia,the Philippines and New Caledonia.Unlike concentrates, these are simplydug out of the ground in open-castmines in mineral-rich, and often remote,locations and are presented for oceantransport with little or no processing.Thus, where concentrates have a highlyuniform particle size and physicalconsistency, unprocessed ores are very

heterogeneous, consisting of a mixtureof fine-grained ore, clay-like material,pebble-sized stones and the occasionallarger lump.

For shipowners contemplating carriageof these cargoes, and for Mastersinstructed to load them, a majordifficulty is that neither iron ore finesnor nickel ore have a specific listingin the IMSBC Code and thus it is notimmediately obvious from consultingthe Code that these are indeedcargoes that may liquefy. Unlesshe is already aware of the potential

hazards from other sources, the Masteris dependent on shippers correctlydeclaring the cargo as a liquefactionhazard. Although most shippers do

indeed acknowledge that the cargois a liquefaction hazard by supplyinga moisture and TML certificate, albeitfrequently flawed, some shippers donot, and without expert knowledgeit is difficult for the Master to knowthat he should insist on a declarationof moisture and TML before allowing

loading to commence.

Implementing a sampling andtesting regime that complies with theprovisions of SOLAS and the IMSBCCode, as summarised above, is atechnically much more demandingtask for unprocessed ores than it isfor concentrate cargoes. The IMSBCprocedures were designed withconcentrates in mind and thereforehave an implicit assumption of uniformparticle size and reasonably uniformmoisture distribution throughout theentire cargo. Neither of these applies

to unprocessed ores.

It is an unfortunate combinationthat although sampling and testingcargoes of unprocessed ores is atechnically more demanding task thanfor concentrate cargoes, the shippersof these cargoes are typically relativelysmall operators often lacking in theknowledge, expertise and technicalinfrastructure, and sometimes thewill, to comply with their SOLAS andIMSBC Code obligations. Because ofthe unprocessed nature of the cargo,shippers have only very limited control

over moisture content and someshippers may not actually be able tosupply cargoes that meet the SOLASrequirements.

Following are some of the technicalissues that need to be consideredby shippers when designing theircertification procedures.

The physical composition ofunprocessed ores varies significantlyeven within a single open cast pit,and even more so as most cargoesare mixtures of material dug out

from several, and sometimes verymany, individual pits, which may bedistributed over a wide geographicalarea. As a result, the TML may varygreatly from one part of the cargo toanother, but in an unsystematic andunpredictable manner, which doesnot allow to simply test each source ofmaterial separately.

The moisture distribution throughouteach cargo is typically highly non-uniform. The material is alreadyvariable in moisture at the time it isdug out of the ground. Most mining

locations are in tropical countries withfrequent heavy rainfall and the cargoesare typically transported in open lorries/wagons and stored in open stockpiles


7/28


7

leading to unpredictable increases inmoisture.

The IMSBC Code specifically statesthat the ubiquitous test method forTML determination, the flow tablemethod, is unsuitable for materialscontaining particles above 7mm in

size.17

This creates a dilemma forlaboratories testing unprocessedcargoes, which frequently containpebble-like stones above that size.Nickel ore, in particular, often has avery high proportion of lumps above7mm. Iron ore fines are generallysomewhat finer, but some cargoesalso have a significant proportion oflumps above 7mm. The most frequentworkaround to avoid this problem isto screen out all particles above 7mmprior to analysis and to conduct theTML test only on the proportion that isbelow 7mm in size. When doing so, it is

essential that the particles above 7mmare removed from both the samplesubmitted for TML testing and thesamples used to certify the moisturecontent of the cargo. Failure to do sowill systematically overstate the safetyof the cargo and may therefore leadto cargoes being accepted for loadingthat are actually unsafe.

Because of the non-uniform natureof unprocessed ore cargoes, samplesfrom every single cargo need tobe submitted for laboratory TMLtesting. Shippers therefore need

to have a suitably equipped andqualified laboratory close at hand forTML testing to achieve acceptableturnaround times between samplingand certification. This differs fromshippers of concentrate cargoes,who only need to submit one sampleevery six months, and therefore donot find it onerous to courier samplesto reputable laboratories overseas.TML testing is a specialised task, andthere are few laboratories worldwidewho have a track record of obtainingreproducible results and participating ininter-laboratory comparisons over many

years. None of these are in the mainexporting countries of unprocessedores.

In India, shippers of iron ore fines usedto ignore their SOLAS obligations toprovide a TML certificate until quiterecently. Independent laboratoriesoffering TML testing have only startedto operate in the country after the2007 monsoons. Although there arenow many laboratories in India, all

of them were started quite recentlyand therefore there is little or noexperience data available to assesstheir reproducibility and consistencywith leading international laboratories.To date, there has been no centralisedaccreditation or inter-laboratory testingeffort to establish the soundness ofthe test procedures used by Indianlaboratories.

In Indonesia, the Philippines andNew Caledonia, mining locationsare typically very remote indeed,and loading takes place at natural

anchorages close to the mines,well away from any sophisticatedinfrastructure. The mines thereforegenerally operate their own flowtable for TML testing in their in-house laboratories rather than usingindependent laboratories. On closerscrutiny, many of these in-houselaboratories have been found tobe poorly equipped and to departsignificantly, and sometimes grossly,from the test procedures set out in theIMSBC Code.

Footnotes

1 See article “Carriage of dangerouscargo - Questions to ask before yousay yes” elsewhere in this issue of GardNews.2 SOLAS, Chapter VI, Regulation 2,Para. 2.2.3 SOLAS, Chapter VI, Regulation 6,Para. 2.4 The difference between moisturecontent and TML is a frequent sourceof confusion, leading to nonsensicalstatements such as “The TML of thecargo increased because of rainfall”.The TML of a cargo depends on thetype and composition of the cargo, but

is not affected by whether the cargo iswet or dry. The TML is similar to, say, aspeed limit on a road. The speed limitdoes not depend on how fast you drive,

but you break the law if you drive fasterthan the speed limit.5 The IMSBC Code may be appliedvoluntarily from 1st January 2009 andwill become mandatory under theprovisions of SOLAS from 1st January2011.6 IMSBC Code, Para. 4.2.2.2. The

IMSBC Code classifies cargoes that mayliquefy in cargo group A and requiresshipper to declare the cargo group.7 IMSBC Code, Appendix 3, Para. 2.1.8 IMSBC Code, Para. 4.3.2.9 IMSBC Code, Para. 4.4.1 to 4.4.4.10 IMSBC Code, Para. 4.4.4.Paras. 4.6.1 to 4.6.6 give a set ofrecommendations for concentratestockpiles that specify the minimumnumber of sub-samples to be takento make up the representativesample. For a cargo of (say) 40,000MT a minimum of 160 sub-samples isrequired. For cargoes that are more

inhomogeneous than concentrates,including iron ore fines and nickel ore,collecting a sufficiently large numberof sub-samples is even more importantthan for concentrates.11 IMSBC Code, Para. 4.5.2.12 IMSBC Code, Para. 4.3.3.13 IMSBC Code, Paras. 4.3.3 and 4.4.3.14 IMSBC Code, Paras. 4.1.4 and 8.3.Appendix 2 contains the actual testprocedures to determine the FMP andTML, including the flow table method inParas. 1.1.1 to 1.1.4.15 IMSBC Code, Appendix 2, Paras.1.1.4.2.3 and 1.1.4.3.

16 IMSBC Code, Para. 4.5.1.17 IMSBC Code, Appendix 2, Para.1.1.1.


8/28


8

Intercargo publishesguide for the safe

loading of nickel oreThe International Association of DryCargo Shipowners (Intercargo) hasrecently published the “Guide for theSafe Loading of Nickel Ore”, whichaims to explain, through use of a flow-chart, how nickel ore can be safelyshipped, within limitations, whilst raisingawareness of the serious problem ofcargo liquefaction. It is targeted at thewidest possible audience within theindustry, including shippers, shipownersand masters.

In addition to a chart describing whatto look for when loading nickel ore, theguide recommends that:

• Responsible shippers must notmisrepresent cargoes. In order toprovide accurate cargo declarationsshippers should have in placeprocedures for sampling, testingand controlling moisture contentof cargoes including procedures to

Gard Alert,February 2012

protect cargo on barges from anyprecipitation and water ingress.

• Responsible shipowners must checkthat the cargo documentation isprovided as required in the IMSBCCode.

• Before fixing, charteringdepartments should refer to theirown internal procedures regardingthe acceptance of nickel orecargoes.

Intercargo also points out that the so-called “can test” is insufficiently robustas a means of checking cargo safety onits own.

A copy of the guide can be foundhere: http://www.gard.no/webdocs/Intercargo_Nickel_Ore.pdf . We aregrateful to Intercargo for their kindpermission to reproduce the document.


9/28


9

Shifting solid bulkcargoes

Gard News 1501998

An explanation of the processes ofdangersSolid bulk cargoes can shift by slidingor liquefying, and whilst the factorsinvolved in each of these processesare different, the potentially disastrousconsequences are the same – listing orcapsizing and/or structural damage.

Dense cargoes, e.g. ore concentrates,have by definition a relatively high mass

to volume ratio, so even a small amountof shifted cargo can have a largemass. Coupled with the momentumgenerated by a moving vesselconsiderable forces can act upon theship’s structure. This force will be evengreater when the cargo level within thehold is above the sea level outside thehold, so that the counter-acting forceof buoyancy is absent. Add to this thefrequent occurrence of multiple orrepetitive shifts and the result can beexcessive plate flexing increasing therisk of cracking and failure.

In terms of stability1, shifting cargo canhave numerous consequences. Theshift in cargo will cause a list if the cargodoes not return to its original positionwith subsequent vessel movement.Apart from increased draft concerns,the angle at which the vessel is listedwill, if uncorrected, become that aboutwhich the vessel rolls. This will usuallymean that the righting lever for anglesof heel towards the side the vesselis listed will be less than that whenthe vessel is heeled from her uprightposition, which in turn means that theforce returning the vessel from angles

of heel beyond the angle of list, backto the same angle, will be less thanthe force returning the vessel to theupright had she not been listed. Theangle of deck edge immersion willalso be closer than that for an uprightvessel and if this is reached stability willalso be reduced. A list will also tend tosubject the vessel to greater angles ofheel and this may give rise to a dominoeffect causing other cargo and objectsto break securings and/or to shift. Solidbulk cargoes that shift from one side ofthe vessel to the other with the rollingof the vessel, that is to say, cargoesbehaving like a liquid in a part-filledtank, will also give rise to a Free SurfaceEffect, and this again will reduce thevessel’s stability in a similar way to

that described above. The gravestconsequence of shifting is capsize ofthe vessel, and this can happen whenmultiple shifts occur with little returnof cargo to original positions. Thisprocess can be very quick and obviouslydisastrous.

Sliding occurs when the cohesivestrength, or “stickiness” of the cargo,is insufficient to withstand the effects

of rolling. Cohesive strength variesaccording to moisture content andthe height of the stockpile. A goodillustration of this is provided by sand.Wet or dry there is a limit on the heightof a pile of sand, but damp sand tendsto permit a higher sand pile. A commonexample of a cargo prone to sliding isgrain2, which is particularly free flowing.The International Maritime Organisation(IMO) Code of Safe Practice forSolid Bulk Cargoes 1991 states (atpara 5.2.4.2) that “non-cohesive bulkcargoes having an angle of repose3 less than or equal to 30 degrees flow

freely like grain and should be carriedaccording to the provisions applicableto the stowage of grain cargoes”.The stowage and carriage of grain isgoverned by the IMO Grain Rules 1982which set out a number of requirementsincluding specific stability criteria.There is also some industry authority tosupport a theory that sliding can alsooccur when, due to downward moisturemigration, a saturated base layer(which need not be liquefied) is formedallowing the upper, relatively drier layer,to move against it.

Liquefaction of solid bulk cargoesdepends on particle size anddistribution as well as moisture content.The former determines whethermoisture can drain freely through thecargo, and will obviously change duringa vessel’s voyage due to vibration,rolling, pitching and twisting. Theeffect of this movement is to breakdown lumps of cargo and reduce thespace between particles – effectivelycompacting the cargo. Moisture canthen become trapped between cargoparticles and if there is sufficientsaturation a flow state can develop.The point at which this occurs is calledthe Flow Moisture Point (FMP) and isusually expressed as a percentage ofthe moisture content. The IMO Bulk

Cargo Code referred to above adoptswhat is known as the TransportableMoisture Limit (TML), and this is themaximum moisture content of a cargodeemed safe for carriage by sea inships other than “specially designedships”. It is defined as 90 per cent ofthe FMP. Cargoes prone to liquefactionare those with a small particle size andthose which contain moisture as a resultof the way they are processed before

loading, e.g. iron ore concentrates andcoal slurry or duff 4.

It is perhaps worth mentioning herethat solid bulk cargoes are increasinglybeing carried in Intermediate BulkContainers (IBC)5. The Association’sexperience with this type of carriagesuggests that the dangers of shiftingcargo can be just as real. Solid bulkcargoes which are prone to sliding havebeen known to force the sides of evenrigid IBC’s to move and if there aregaps within the stow, or the sides of thestow are insufficiently shored, a general

collapse of the stow can occur.

A case example – Liquefaction ofscale dustAn increasingly common solid bulkcargo is dust, commonly originatingfrom industrial chimneys. Industry hasfor some time been required to limitthe pollutants discharged into theenvironment and to this end chimneyscan be installed with filters. The materialcollected by these filters is generallytermed filter dust; material which buildsup on the inner chimney surfaces alsogives rise to another type of dust – scale

dust. The contents of these substancesvary enormously and chemical hazardsare often associated with them. This isone of the reasons why many societiesin our greener world no longer allowthem to be left stored and forgottenon open slag heaps or in land-fill sites.The option to be considered in manyof today’s societies is re-cycling and itis this which has, to some extent, led tothe water transport of dust.

The problems and dangers of wateryfilter dust were last mentioned in GardNews Edition 1046, and a recent caseinvolving scale dust suggests to usthat these problems and dangers arenot fully understood and that essentialprecautions are not being adhered to.


10/28


10

The vessel in question loaded atAlgeciras, Spain, and the scale dustin bulk was to take up most of hercentre hold. The majority of the scaledust was noted by the master to bein open storage on land, unprotectedfrom the elements, and on closerexamination, was found to have a high

moisture content in parts. Whilst themaster was concerned as to the stateof the cargo, loading commenced, andsince this took place during periodsof rainfall, moisture levels increased.No documents were produced by theshippers to record the properties of thescale dust, and when the master didraise concerns with the various cargointerests, including their surveyors,he was told that the loading of thecargo during rain, and the wettingof the cargo, was normal and of noimportance with regard to the quality ofthe cargo.

The loading of the cargo seemed tobe completed without further eventor protest and clean bills of ladingwere issued. On the loaded passagethe vessel encountered moderatelyheavy weather, causing heavy rollingand pitching at times. Four days intothe passage a series of splashing andbanging noises were heard whichseemed to come from the holdcontaining the scale dust. Inspectionof this hold revealed that the scaledust had become fluid and wassplashing violently against the hold

sides. The inspection itself was notwithout danger as a 5 – 6 metre geysererupted from the booby hatch openedfor inspection. The resultant mess onthe ship’s superstructure was the leastof the worries facing the master asshortly afterwards the vessel took ona list. Fortunately the vessel was ableto compensate for this by careful andstrategic ballasting and was able toreach the discharge port without furtherserious incident.

Further inspection at the dischargeport revealed that the forces involved

with the shifting of the liquefied scaledust had resulted in the penetration ofthe cargo into an adjacent hold underand above a moveable transverse grainbulkhead. Problems ensued with theconsignees who held the vessel liablefor loss and damage to the cargo andthe extra costs of discharging andstoring the fluid cargo. The surveyorsappointed by the owners learnt thatthe surveyors appointed on behalf ofshippers, had issued a “certificate” ofthe moisture content at the loadingport and given this to the consignees,but not to the master. The certified

moisture content was said to be in theregion of 11 per cent but tests at thedischarge port determined a moisturecontent of nearly double this figure.

Lessons learned and precautionsto be takenIt is perhaps fair to say that theabove vessel was fortunate to havecompleted her voyage without moreserious incident. Having read the casesummary, the reader will probably beable to find a number of areas where

essential additional precautions couldhave been taken. Outlined below area number of points which should beconsidered when contemplating theloading of solid bulk cargoes suspectedof having a propensity to shift.(1) Carry out a visual examination ofthe cargo and enquire as to the extentand duration of exposure to moisture(unprotected stowage on wet ground orin wet weather).(2) Obtain and keep safe ship’s ownsamples (the quantity should besufficient for any necessary tests andbe properly labelled and recorded etc).

Do not just accept shippers’ samples,unless these are taken in your/yourrepresentatives’ presence.(3) Request in advance of the vessel’sarrival, the shippers’ declarations withregard to FMP, stowage factor, TML,moisture content, angle of repose, anychemical hazards and details whichmay require safety precautions to betaken7. If such documentation is notforthcoming it should be demandedand a letter of protest to shippersand charterers should be issued. Themaster can and should refuse to loadthe cargo if the documentation is still

not forthcoming8. Remember that eachindividual cargo is unique. Details ofcargoes previously carried, even if fromthe same origin, should not be reliedon.(4) Check the details of the shippers’declaration carefully. The details shouldbe accurate at the time the certificateis issued and the combination of apre-dated declaration and suspectedexposure to further moisture sincethe date of the certificate shouldraise concern. Some ports have raingauges to assist in the quantitativeassessment of the effects of rainfall on

moisture content after certificates havebeen issued. If suspicions are raised,the shipper should be requested toperform the necessary tests. In anyevent, loading should not commenceagain until the vessel itself is satisfiedthat the cargo can be transported.It may be necessary for the ship toperform its own tests9. Do not be ledastray by shippers proclaiming that allis fine and normal and that the cargoquality will be unaffected. This is not aquality issue, it is a safety issue.(5) In any event, cargoes with a moisturecontent above the TML should not beshipped. Remember that it may only benecessary to reject parts of the cargo,but this should raise concern as to thesafety of the remaining cargo.

(6) The cargo space should be filledas much as is practicable, but alwayswithin stability, stress and deck loadingconstraints. A part-filled compartment ismore prone to shifting and has greaterspace in which to allow shifting.(7) Longitudinal separation (e.g.temporary bulkheads), and overstowing

(e.g. bulk bundles) can be effective inlimiting the distance cargo can shift, theshift amount and forces involved. Expertadvice is recommended to ensurethat these measures are appropriate.In addition, overstowing may not beappropriate, and shifting forces areoften underestimated thus risking thefailure of longitudinal separation.(8) Cargo stows should be trimmedlevel right out to all sides of the cargocompartment. It is appreciated thattrimming has its disadvantages, e.g.increased time and cost at load anddischarge ports. However, it has more

important advantages. Apart fromreducing the possibility of cargo shift,weight distribution and stability areimproved.(9) Do not stow other cargoescontaining moisture in samecompartment.(10) Do not load during rain. If thiscannot be avoided have the moisturecontent re-tested to ensure that itcomplies with point 5 above (it shouldbe noted that some cargoes can bedamaged by exposure to moisture).(11) If possible, adjacent tanks to thecompartment concerned should be

empty. If they cannot be made empty,extra care should be taken to ensurethat watertight integrity is intact. Thisrecommendation also applies for thewhole compartment; hatch covers inparticular should be closely examinedand tested (hose/chalk/day light tests).(12) The vessel should not be too stiff interms of her stability as this will causethe vessel to roll quickly and perhapsviolently. In saying this, the vessel needsan adequate metacentric height takinginto account all the various factorswhich can lead to a reduction in thisduring the voyage.

(13) Bilges should be clean and empty,strums or rose boxes should be clearand lumber boards, where fitted, shouldbe intact. Bilge well grilles should becovered with burlap. The pumps andbilges should be tested in all respects(particularly alarms and non-returnvalves) prior to loading. Soundings areto be taken at regularintervals during the voyage and bilgespumped as necessary. Concerns asto the effect of cargo weight loss dueto moisture removal are understood,but again there are more importantconcerns. To protect owners’ position it

is recommended that a record is madeof the amounts of moisture removedvia the bilges, and this can be done bysoundings.


11/28


11

(14) Weather routing is recommendedin order to avoid heavy weather and/orsustained periods of it.(15) Always consult the relevant IMO/flag state/port state/company codes/guidelines/recommendations. Portstates in particular may imposestricter rules than those adopted

internationally, e.g. with regard to theTML.(16) If in doubt and assistance isneeded, the Association is always onhand.

In conclusion, shifting solid bulkcargoes can be costly, not least interms of money, but people’s lives.The dangers are real and are not tobe ignored – precautions need to beadhered to.

Footnotes1 For a guide to the basic principles oftransverse stability (including definitions usedin this article) please refer to the article in GardNews Edition 145, March 1997 (pages 14–18).2 The term grain includes wheat, maize, oats,rye, barley, rice, pulses and seeds.3 The angle which the cargo naturally, and of itsown accord, makes with the horizontal.4 The IMO Code of Safe Practice for SolidBulk Cargoes 1991 (as amended) lists somecommodities which may liquefy.5 An IBC may be described as a disposable orre-usable receptacle designed for the carriageof bulk commodities in parcels of 0.5 to 3.0tonnes. They can be of rigid (e.g. fibre board) orflexible (e.g. bags) construction.6 December 1986 (page 13).7 As of 1st January 1994 it became a SOLASrequirement for the shipper to provide this typeof information. See International Convention forSafety of Life at Sea 1974 (as amended) Chapter

VI, Part A and specifically Regulation 2.8 Charterers are obliged to load only

safe cargoes and without the necessarydocumentation this can not be determined.Laytime disputes may arise and it isrecommended that charterparties expresslystipulate that time lost due to non-productionof the necessary documentation and/or dueto reasonable measures taken by the shipwhere the accuracy of document details isreasonably suspected, is to be counted aslaytime. Diversion to a port of refuge may

also be necessary and it is recommended thatcharterparties make provision for charterers tobear the costs and consequences of this wherecaused without the owners’ negligence.9 The IMO Code of Safe Practice for Solid BulkCargoes 1991 sets out the tests and procedures.

The carriage of nickelore from the Philippinesand Indonesia - Theinsurance positionAdvice should be sought regarding theposition under the P&I and hull andmachinery policies before agreeing tocarry nickel ore from certain ports.

The previous article in this issue ofGard News, by Brookes Bell, identifiesthe potential problems and dangersfacing a shipowner who is asked toload a cargo of nickel ore in the portsand places mentioned in that article.

Any owner who is asked to load such acargo is recommended to contact Gardin relation to either their P&I cover ortheir hull and machinery cover, or bothif both are placed with Gard, for adviceas to the position under the relevantinsurance policy(s) if it is decided toload the cargo on offer.

Each case will be considered onits own merits, but some generalcomments can be made. Firstly, it isessential that a shipowner identifiesaccurately and informs the insurers of


the nature and characteristics of thecargo his ship will be carrying. Rule 7of Gard’s P&I Rules for Ships deals witha situation where the risk is altered.A similar rule concerning hull andmachinery insurances can be foundin §§ 3-8 to 3-13 of the NorwegianMarine Insurance Plan. It seems clearfrom Brookes Bell’s article that a shipmay be invited to load cargo withcharacteristics which have either been

misdeclared by the shippers, or whichcan not be ascertained accurately bythe tests which have, according tothe shippers, been performed. Insuch circumstances, it is likely thatGard will take the view that the riskbeing assumed by an owner who,nevertheless, agrees to load such acargo is altered.

Rule 74 of Gard’s P&I Rules (Unlawfultrades, etc.) may also be relevantinsofar as the loading and carriageof misdeclared nickel ore can be

considered to be an “unlawful, unsafeor unduly hazardous trade or voyage”.

Furthermore, and although not statedexplicitly in Gard’s P&I Rules, it is acondition of cover that any dangerouscargo is carried in full compliance withthe IMO Code of Safe Practice for SolidBulk Cargoes (the BC Code). Similarly,the BC Code may be considered as asafety regulation in relation to hull and

machinery policies, whereby a breachof the Code may affect cover. Seefor instance § 3-22 and § 3-25 of theNorwegian Marine Insurance Plan. Thecircumstances described by BrookesBell indicate clearly that the insufficientand/or inaccurate testing performed bythe shippers and the resulting inabilityon their part to accurately state thecharacteristics of the cargo as requiredby the BC Code mean that suchrequirements will almost certainly nothave been met.


12/28


12

Cargo liquefaction -An update


Solid bulk cargo liquefaction continuesto be a hot topic for P&I Clubs and theirMembers. There have been severalrecent developments on which toupdate readers.

BackgroundThe topic of cargo liquefaction gainedprominence in Gard News in the earlypart of 20101 and since then Gard hasdealt with a large number of enquiries

and requests from Members to arrangeprecautionary surveys. Despite the well-publicised potential dangers, it appearsthat market forces are driving ships tocarry cargoes that may liquefy and weakfreight markets may make it difficultfor owners and charterers to pass upemployment opportunities.

Since early 2010, Clubs in theInternational Group of P&I Clubs (IGClubs) have issued circulars alertingMembers to the dangers and problemsof iron ore fines shipped from Indiaas well as nickel ore shipped from

Indonesia and the Philippines.2 Concerns have also arisen with regardto other cargoes and countries ofshipment, such as sinter feed fromBrazil,3 chromite ore and mill scale.The problems are often exacerbatedby commercial pressures, and indifficult market conditions, ownerswill feel under greater pressure fromcharterers and shippers seeking topersuade owners to avoid extra costsand delays, such as may be causedby owners’ own surveys and tests oncargo waiting to be shipped. Variouscharterparty clauses have been seen

in circulation that attempt to weaken,avoid, and/or restrain owners’ abilityto take appropriate and necessaryprecautions, such as those set out inthe aforementioned Circulars. Thisresulted in the IG Clubs recentlyproducing a standard charterpartyclause to assist owners in trying to resistcommercial pressures that could leadto the International Maritime SolidBulk Cargoes Code (the IMSBC Code)provisions and precautions relatedthereto being compromised.4

The heart of the problemMembers may well ask why theyshould go through the time, cost andtrouble of arranging their own survey,sampling and analysis of cargo, when

it is the shippers who are obligedunder the IMSBC Code to declare thata consignment is fully and accuratelydescribed, that their given testresults are correct to the best of theirknowledge and are representative ofthe cargo to be loaded. The answer,and what lies at the heart of theproblem, is inaccurate declarations andcertificates from shippers. This mayrange from cargo being mis-declared

as Group C (i.e., cargo not liableto liquefy), to inaccurate FMP (flowmoisture point)/TML (transportablemoisture limit) figures and/or moisturecontent. Judging by what has beenreported at IMO level, this appears tohave had disastrous consequences insome cases where it is likely that shipsand crews had relied on declarations/certificates being accurate. In 2010the IMO issued a circular5 referring totwo serious casualties in the monsoonseason of 2009 and many near-misseson ships engaged in the carriage ofiron ore fines. In that circular the IMO

stated: “some shippers have in thepast declared iron ore fines as iron ore,which is a Group C cargo”. This wasfollowed by the loss of 45 seafarersand three vessels carrying nickel orefrom Indonesia and a submission byChina to the IMO in March 2011 whichstated that “According to the evidenceavailable, the direct cause of theseaccidents was the loss of stability as a

result of cargo liquefaction and shiftin bad weather. However, the cargodocumentation provided to the mastersindicated that the moisture content ofthe cargo samples was lower than theTransportable Moisture Limit (TML)”.

Market forces appear to be drivingships to carry cargoes that may liquefy.

The reasons behind inaccurate

declarations and certificates arenumerous and in Gard’s experiencethese can range from a complete lackof knowledge that the IMSBC Codeexists, a lack of understanding of theIMSBC Code, improper samplingand analysis procedures/equipmentand even deliberate manipulationof samples/test results. The latter isparticularly concerning and may arisebecause shippers are unwilling orunable to provide cargo with a moisturecontent below the TML because to doso would require an investment in time/costs to remove moisture. This may

particularly be the case where cargoesare simply shipped straight from theground without any processing.

Other problems and complicationsWhilst unreliable shippers’ declarationsand certificates may be at the heartof the problem, this is complicated byseveral other problems, some of whichare discussed below.

Market forces appear to be driving ships to carry cargoes that may liquefy.


13/28


13

Successful shipment historyA number of shippers and charterersare quick to point out that manycargoes have successfully reachedtheir destination without incidentand without owners having arrangedtheir own precautionary samplingand analysis. There may be numerous

reasons for this, such as the fact thatcargoes are rarely homogenous in allholds, as well as the weather and seaconditions. Some voyage orders havebeen known to advise masters to avoidheavier seas/weather, which is ratherimpractical and ignores the fact thatconditions can not always be accuratelyforecast, particularly at a local level.Perhaps a significant factor is that theTML is set at 90 per cent of the FMP,in other words there is a 10 per centsafety margin. A cargo may thereforehave a moisture content above theTML, but not so high as to reach the

FMP. All this said, it is fair to say thatthe precise reasons why some cargoesliquefy and some do not are not fullyunderstood. It is reasonable to assumethat the IMSBC Code has been draftedwith this in mind. Sadly, it would seemthat numerous shippers and indeedsome owners do not feel obliged tocomply with the IMSBC Code. It is notuncommon to hear that, following therejection of cargo by one owner, thevery same cargo is loaded onto anothership.

Sampling

The IMSBC Code includes provisionsfor sampling and there is oftena problem obtaining sufficientlyrepresentative samples. Ownersare often refused access to shorestockpiles, if indeed there are any, assome cargoes are taken directly fromthe ground and loaded to the ship.Even if access to stockpiles is given,shippers may not make clear whichstockpiles will be used to load thevessel. The number of samples required

for analysis also presents a logisticalchallenge (especially if the laboratoryis located overseas). For example, fora stockpile of 50,000 MT, samplingaccording to the IMSBC Code requires200 samples to be taken and thencombined to at least 50 sub-compositesamples. Owners trying to avoid delays

by making early survey arrangementscan also face the problem that,according to the IMSBC Code, thetime interval between moisture contenttesting and sampling shall not be morethan seven days. If unprotected cargois affected by precipitation betweentesting and loading, further samplingand analysis would be required. It isalso worth mentioning here the dangerof Members and their crews over-relyingon ‘can tests’. Whilst these may indicateif cargo is unfit for shipment they cannot determine if a cargo is fit to beloaded - this can only be determined by

proper laboratory testing. To make thisclear, one of the revisions to the IMSBCCode agreed at the 16th Session ofIMO Sub-Committee on DangerousGoods, Solid Cargoes and Containers(DSC 16) was to make clearer thelimitations of the ‘can test’ by addingto the IMSBC Code a statement that “Ifsamples remain dry following a can test,the moisture content of the materialmay still exceed the TransportableMoisture Limit (TML)”.

TestingSome shippers have questioned

whether the tests recognised by theIMSBC Code are suitable for certaincargoes, particularly if they have alarger particle size and/or the cargoconsists of only a small portion offine material that may liquefy. Expertsadvising Gard and the IG have beenable to successfully test numerouscargoes, using the different testmethods, with reasonable consistency.The lack of independent laboratoriesthat are competent to perform testing,

especially with regard to the FMP/TML, is also a problem, not just in thecountry of shipment, but world-wide.With many competent laboratorieslocated outside the country of shipmentthere can be significant delays andcosts. Often owners take the decisionto start loading pending laboratory

analysis results, but this can also leadto complications if such analysis showsthe cargo to be unsafe. However, a lotof good work has been done, notablyin India, where industry experts havewitnessed proper testing in a numberof independent laboratories, oftenthrough training by the very sameexperts.

The on-board rectification ofcargo moisture levels is far fromstraightforward.

Cargo already loadedIf cargo is loaded and subsequentconcerns arise as to its fitness for safecarriage, there is the obvious problemof identifying within the bulk what partsof the cargo are unfit. Often, therefore,the whole bulk has to be discharged.However, it can be extremely difficult toget cargo re-discharged at the place ofloading. This may be because of a lackof facilities to take cargo back: in someremote locations cargo is bulldozedinto barges from ashore and whilstcargo can be off-loaded to barges withthe ship’s cranes, shippers may have a

problem getting it back ashore. Theremay also be complications caused bylocal customs regulations, which mayconsider a cargo to be exported onceloaded. Quite often, when owners findtheir ships with unsafe cargo on board,lawyers are instructed and legal battleswith charterers and others ensue. Theon-board rectification of cargo moisturelevels is far from straightforward. Manyattempts, using various techniques,have been carried out but with limitedsuccess, particularly in holds that arefull.

P&I coverWhilst Gard does not see the P&Icover as a complication or problem asregards liquefaction issues, Membersmay benefit from the clarification givenbelow.

Gard has taken the decision notto afford cover for the cost ofprecautionary surveys. Some say thatsuch surveys are a measure to avertor minimise loss. Subject to certainprovisos, Gard’s Rule 46 provides coverfor “extraordinary costs and expensesreasonably incurred on or after the

occurrence of a casualty or event for thepurpose of avoiding or minimising anyliability on the Association”. Whilst it is

The on-board rectification of cargo moisture levels is far from straightforward.


14/28


14

debatable whether any event has takenplace at the time a precautionary surveyis requested, the key point in Gard’sview is that the primary purpose of suchsurveys is to confirm that the cargo issafe for carriage and not to minimiseany liability on the Club.

In addition, Gard’s Rule 8 provides that“it shall be a condition of the insuranceof the Ship that...) the Member shallcomply or procure compliance withall statutory requirements of the stateof the Ship’s flag relating to the...safeoperation...of the Ship”. The IMSBCCode is part of SOLAS (a statutoryrequirement) and under SOLAS themaster has an overriding duty andauthority not to load the cargo or tostop the loading of the cargo if he hasany concerns that the condition of thecargo might affect the safety of theship.

It should also be borne in mind thatbulk carriers are not the only shipsthat carry dangerous cargo. Containerships carry many dangerous goodsand the Club can not be expectedto pay for surveys to check that thenumerous dangerous cargoes are safefor carriage. For similar reasons as thoseoutlined above, P&I cover is unlikely torespond to the cost of discharging anunsafe cargo.

So what costs does Gard cover? Clearly,the carriage of these cargoes may give

rise to various claims for which Defencecover may be available, includingsurvey costs in connection with suchclaims and incurred with prior approvalfrom Gard. Cover may also be availableif a survey is subsequently used in thedefence of a claim that is covered byP&I. That brings us to the more difficultissue of Club cover where a Memberdoes not follow the recommendationsmade by the Club, notably thoseset out in the International Groupof P&I Clubs circulars. As stated inthose circulars “...if a Member fails tocomply with the [IMSBC] Code or local

regulations when not in conflict withthe Code, they should also be awarethat they might be prejudicing Clubcover. All of the Group Clubs havesimilar Rules which in essence excludecover for liabilities, costs and expensesarising from unsafe or unduly hazardoustrades or voyages”.6 Until such timeas Gard or the IG Clubs may decideto take a stricter line, Gard’s approachhas been to forewarn Members thatthere is a grave risk of losing cover7 ifthe Member knowingly carries unsafecargo, for example where independenttest results on samples show a moisture

content in excess of TML. Membersare also at significantly greater risk ofprejudicing cover if unsafe cargo isloaded without any checks, or if the

Member loads unsafe cargo from acountry where there is a history ofunreliable shippers’ certificates, doingso solely on the basis of ‘can tests’ andwithout independent sampling andanalysis.8 Of course, much dependson the facts of each case and there arelikely to be a number of facts (notably

whether or not the cargo is unsafe and/or the shipper’s certificates are accurate)unknown to the Club at the time cargois presented for shipment and Membersseek the Club’s position on cover.

Gard’s view is that it essentially boilsdown to a question of risk which oneMember may be prepared to take, butwhich at a certain level, the mutualmembership of the Club can notreasonably be expected to share. Is itright that an owner who does not followthe recommended precautions, thusavoiding time, trouble and cost, should

get the same level of cover as one whodoes?

Cargoes not listed in the IMSBCCodeThe fact that a number of cargoes thatmay liquefy, such as nickel ore and ironore fines, are not listed in the IMSBCCode causes uncertainty. However, theIMSBC Code recognises (in section 1.3)that some cargoes that may liquefy maybe not be listed in it . The IMSBC Codealso states that “many fine-particledcargoes, if possessing a sufficientlyhigh moisture content, are liable to

flow. Thus any damp or wet cargocontaining a proportion of fine particlesshould be tested for flow characteristicsprior to loading”.9 In addition, GroupC cargoes are defined in the IMSBCCode as cargoes not liable to liquefyand Group A cargoes are defined ascargoes which may liquefy. The wordsemphasised tend towards a morecautious approach, which given thepotentially disastrous consequences, iswholly appropriate.

At the 16th Session of the IMO Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid

Cargoes and Containers it was agreed,as a matter of principle, that if a cargomay liquefy it should be categorisedas Group A. As mentioned above,section 1.3 of the IMSBC Code dealswith cargoes not listed in the IMSBCCode and if such a cargo may liquefythe IMSBC Code requires preliminarysuitable conditions for carriage to beset by three competent authorities, i.e.,those in the port state of loading, theflag state of the ship and the port statereceiving the cargo. Gard has yet to seeany such ‘tripartite agreement’ issuedin respect of nickel ore or indeed iron

ore fines (despite IMO circular DSC.1/Circ.66 recognising that iron ore finesare not listed but may liquefy).

Local pressuresMention has already been made ofcommercial pressures. There are alsolocal pressures, despite the fact thatsome states, such as India, have takenthe problem seriously and introducednational regulations in support of theIMSBC Code. For example, a circular

recently issued by one Indian portauthority, concerned with the effectof loading stoppages on berthingschedules, required the productionby the owners’ P&I surveyor of testcertificates together with a statementby the surveyor that the cargo was fitfor loading. The circular went on tosuggest that if, despite such certificates,vessels subsequently stopped loading,surveyors’ licences would be reviewed.This is a good example of the pressuresthat local surveyors often face, not leastsince such pressure may cause themto believe they are being asked to

choose between their own livelihoodand the lives of those on board ships.It is worth emphasising here that asurveyor appointed by the Club onbehalf of the owners is not speakingfor the Club itself. Neither the Clubnor the owner can confirm whether ornot a particular cargo is safe to carryand it is not their obligation to doso under the IMSBC Code. Ownersshould be aware that doing so couldprejudice any potential recourse againsta shipper/charterer were somethingto go wrong. Local tensions have alsoseen surveyors and experts, especially

those from overseas, refused access toports. Local authorities have also beenknown to have threatened legal actionagainst the removal of samples fromthe country for testing overseas withouttheir prior approval (which is unlikely tobe given anyway).

What is being done to address theproblems?Alerting Members to the problems anddangers has been a priority in the pastyear. Members have then been able toraise the level of awareness within theirown organisations and with long term

business partners. Whilst Gard tries tolend as much support to its Membersas it can, this is an industry problem thatneeds to be addressed at a nationaland international level.

National levelAs already mentioned, some stateshave recognised the problems anddangers of liquefaction and havetaken action. For example, The Indiangovernment, through the DirectorateGeneral of Shipping (DGS), has issued anumber of Merchant Shipping Noticeswhich generally support the IMSBCCode. China is also understood to bein the process of drafting regulations.It is of course important for nationalprovisions to be in uniformity with the


15/28


15

internationally agreed IMSBC Code.Where they broadly are, these canbe powerful points of reference forshippers attempting to compromisesafety. A number of states have alsomade submissions to the IMO, withvarious suggestions being made toaddress the problems (see below).

International levelIndustry bodies, including theInternational Group of P&I Clubs, haveattended numerous meetings in thepast year which recently culminated in

joint industry papers being submittedto the 16th Session of the IMO Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods,Solid Cargoes and Containers. Thatsession included a meeting of aWorking Group on Amendments to theIMSBC Code, including the evaluationof properties of solid bulk cargoes.The meeting was attended by state

and industry representatives and on22nd September 2011 it reported onmeasures to improve safe transportof cargoes that may liquefy. Thesemeasures are considered in more detailin the article “Future IMSBC Codeamendments regarding cargoes thatmay liquefy”, which appears elsewherein this issue of Gard News.

What can owners do in practice?One might say that the IMSBC Codealready provides a sufficiently soundbasis on which to safely transportsolid bulk cargoes that may liquefy.

The agreed amendments to theIMSBC Code, which seem unlikelyto come into effect until 2013 at theearliest, should serve to strengthenthe precautions to be taken, notablyby shippers. Ultimately, however, muchdepends on shipper compliance andif there is insufficient confidence in thereliability of shippers’ declarations andcertificates, owners and their Clubswill be hesitant to relax their ownprecautions. So this is what owners cando, practically speaking:

Know what to expect

- Understand the problems andcomplications, such as those mentionedabove.- Chartering and operationsdepartments and most importantlyships’ crews should be aware of thedangers and precautions.- If they are not satisfied the cargois safe to carry, owners shouldbe ultimately prepared to sailwithout cargo and to deal withthe consequences (safer than thealternative).

Pre-fixture/order- If the vessel is on time charter, checkwhether the cargo is permitted underthe charterparty. Consider excludingit given the time/trouble/costs/risksinvolved.- If owners are prepared to carry thesecargoes (in accordance with the IMSBC

Code) discuss the owners’ expectationswith the charterer well in advance.- Try to incorporate into the contract thecharterparty clause recommended bythe International Group of P&I Clubs.- Do not accept any charterparty clausesthat may compromise the IMSBC Codeor prevent owners’ appointment ofcertain surveyors/experts.

At fixture/order- Demand proper declaration of thecargo and its Bulk Cargo ShippingName.- Consult the IMSBC Code.

- Make swift contact with Gard forguidance on specific cargoes/countriesso that sampling and independenttesting can be arranged to try andminimise delay.- Seek to clarify any improperdeclarations/certificates with charterersbefore the vessel arrives at the loadport.- Remember that the master will needsupport/help locally and that this cantake time (sometimes days) to arrange.

Before loading- Demand the proper IMSBC Code

documentation, including the shipper’sdeclaration and certificates of moisturecontent and TML/FMP.- Check shipper’s documents againstthe provisions of IMSBC Code.- Do not accept for loading any cargo orparts of cargo until it has been properlytested and documented as safe to carryin accordance with the IMSBC Code.- Support the master’s overridingauthority under SOLAS not to loadthe cargo or to stop the loading of thecargo if he has any concerns that thecondition of the cargo might affect thesafety of the ship.

ConclusionInaccurate declarations and certificatesfrom shippers appear to be atthe heart of the problem with thetransport of cargoes liable to liquefy,though it is recognised there arenumerous complications. Whilst factorscausing liquefaction may not be fullyunderstood, the IMSBC Code adoptsa cautious approach, which is whollyappropriate, given the potentiallydisastrous consequences. Until such

time as the risks of liquefaction in agiven cargo can be identified withmore certainty, the role of authoritiesin the ports of loading is vital to ensurethat shippers comply with the IMSBCCode. If they do not, owners and theirP&I Clubs will have no option but tocontinue to take their own precautions.

Owners who choose to run risks,calculated or otherwise, may have toface the consequences on their own.

Footnotes1 See for instance the article“Liquefaction of unprocessed mineralores - Iron ore fines and nickel ore” inGard News issue No. 197.2 See Gard P&I Member circulars No.16/10 (iron ore fines) and No. 23/10(nickel ore).3 See Gard Loss Prevention Circular No.6/11.

4 See Gard Alert of September 2011.5 DSC.1/Circ.66 (revised in 2011).6 Gard’s Rule 74 states: “TheAssociation shall not cover liabilities,losses, costs or expenses arising out ofor consequent upon the Ship carryingcontraband, blockade running or beingemployed in or on an unlawful, unsafeor unduly hazardous trade or voyage”.7 In respect of for liabilities, costs andexpenses arising out of carrying unsafecargo or out of non-compliance withthe IMSBC Code.8 Unless an independent expertcustomarily advising the Club/IG can

confirm that the shipper’s documentsare in accordance with the IMSBCCode and acceptable based onrepresentative samples and properanalysis from a competent laboratory.9 Section 2.1 of Appendix 3.


16/28


16

Cargo liquefactionproblems – sinter feed

from BrazilSeveral Members have reportedproblems with sinter feed cargoesloaded in Brazil. The ports of Ponta daMadeira and Santana have featuredmost prominently thus far.

Sinter feed and liquefactionSinter feed is an iron concentratecontaining fine particles and moistureand, being similar to iron ore fines, isat risk of liquefaction, resulting in cargoshift and loss of stability. Liquefactionis believed to have resulted innumerous casualties, causing the lossof many seafarers’ lives. This year twoInternational Group Member Circularshave been issued, alerting Membersto the dangers of liquefaction and theprecautions to be taken, specificallywith reference to iron ore fines andnickel ore.

ProblemsThe Association is aware of at least one

case where shippers have declaredsinter feed as a Group C cargo (notliable to liquefy) under the IMSBCCode. This is in clear contravention ofthe Code since sinter feed is classed asa Group A cargo (under the group entry“Mineral concentrates”) which mayliquefy if shipped at a moisture contentin excess of its Transportable MoistureLimit (“TML”), and defined in the Codeas 90% of the Flow Moisture Point,(“FMP”). There are also reports of lackof local survey capacity, with surveyorsreportedly acting for shippers as well asshipowners – a clear conflict of interest,

a lack of reliable testing facilities able totest for the FMP in accordance with themethods set out in the Code. Shippersare also presenting cargo to load fromstockpiles that have not been sampled/analysed.

Problems are exacerbated by heavyrainfall increasing the moisture contentof the cargo. As described in the abovecirculars, the ‘can’ test is not meantto replace or supersede laboratorytesting which is the responsibilityof the Shippers. Section 8 of theCode states that if the sample shows

signs of liquefaction, i.e. flat surfacewith evidence of free moisture,arrangements should be made to haveadditional laboratory tests conductedon the material before it is accepted

for loading. Cargo should never beaccepted on the basis of the ‘can’ testalone. The test may indicate if thecargo is unfit for shipment but cannotdetermine if a cargo is fit to be loaded– this can only be determined bylaboratory testing. Given an apparentlack of reliable testing facilities inBrazil, expert advice has recentlyseen samples sent as far as the UK fortesting, which can obviously result inserious delays. It is worth emphasisinghere the importance of avoiding theloading of cargo and parts of the cargowhich have not been properly testedand documented as safe to carry inaccordance with the Code as it can bedifficult to discharge cargo once it isloaded, not to mention the practicaldifficulty of identifying “unsafe” partsof the cargo that may have to bedischarged.

Survey costs and P&I cover

The primary purpose of surveys inrespect of cargoes such as sinter feed,iron ore fines and nickel ore, is toconfirm safe carriage. For that reason,the Club does not cover the surveycosts and neither are they considereda measure to avert or minimise loss,since if Members act in accordance withthe Code and satisfy themselves as tosafe carriage there should no undueexposure under the P&I cover. Thesurvey costs may, however, be coveredin full or part if the survey is activelyused in defence of a P&I claim.

The Club will assist Members facedwith these problem cargoes as best wecan. However, it is important to pointout that, if a Member fails to complywith the Code they may be prejudiceClub cover. Rule 74 of Gard’s Rulesexcludes cover for liabilities, costs andexpenses arising from an unsafe orunduly hazardous trade or voyage. Thecarriage of these cargoes may give riseto various claims for which Defencecover may be available, including surveycosts in connection with such claimswhich have been incurred with the priorapproval of the Club.

Advice and precautionsMembers should carefully consider thepotential costs/risks of carrying thiscargo before entering into new fixtures

and, if the cargo is not excluded, to tryand incorporate provisions that pass onresponsibility to charterers. If a Memberdoes fix to carry sinter feed they areadvised to refer to the precautions setout in International Group Circular No.16/2010.

Footnotes1 Gard News 197 Feb/Apr 2010“Liquefaction of unprocessed mineralores - Iron ore fines and nickel ores”.2 See Gard Member Circulars Nos.16/2010 and 23/2010.3 Described in section 8 of the IMSBCCode as a spot check a Master canconduct if he is suspicious of thecondition of the cargo

Loss Prevention CircularNo. 06-11


17/28


17

Liquefaction of cargoesof iron ore

BackgroundMembers may be aware of the problemsthat have arisen in recent times withrespect to the liquefaction of cargoesof iron ore fines originating in India andloaded at Indian ports . However, similarproblems have been experienced in thepast with similar cargoes elsewhere inthe world and, as such, these cargoesmust always be treated as liable to liquefyregardless of their origin.

Liquefaction of mineral ores, resultingin cargo shift and loss of stability, hasbeen a cause of some major marinecasualties for many decades. However,a spate of incidents leading to severallosses in recent times involving iron orefines loaded in Indian ports has leadto considerable focus on the lack ofcompliance with the requirements for safecarriage of this cargo . There have alsobeen incidents involving cargoes of nickelore from Indonesia, the Philippines andNew Caledonia.

The Southwest Monsoon generally

prevails from June to September andmainly affects India’s west coast. TheNortheast Monsoon generally prevailsfrom December to March and mainlyaffects India’s east coast. The advent ofthe Southwest Monsoon gives us goodreason to revisit this subject through thiscircular.

Main causes of casualtiesThe main cause of the casualties andnear misses appears to be the poorcompliance of some shippers with thetesting and certification requirementsthat are required under SOLAS and theIMSBC Code 2009 and designed to

ensure that cargoes are loaded only ifthe moisture content is sufficiently low toavoid liquefaction occurring during thevoyage. Indian iron ore fines tend to beleft in the open prior to shipment, andas a consequence, are entirely subject toweather conditions during this period.The problems related to wet cargo andits moisture content particularly worsenduring the wet monsoon seasons.

In cargoes loaded with a moisturecontent in excess of the Flow MoisturePoint (FMP), liquefaction may occurunpredictably at any time during thevoyage. Some cargoes have liquefied andcaused catastrophic cargo shift almostimmediately on departure from the loadport, some only after several weeks ofapparently uneventful sailing. While the

risk of liquefaction is greater during heavyweather, in high seas, and while under fullpower, there are no safe sailing conditionsfor a cargo with unsafe moisture content.Liquefaction can occur unpredictablyeven in relatively calm conditions on avessel at anchorage or proceeding at lowspeed.

Given this unpredictability, it is of utmostimportance that the length of voyageand prevalent and forecasted weatherconditions do not serve to encouragethe carriage on ships of cargoes proneto liquefaction with a TransportableMoisture Limit in excess of that whichis accepted as safe for carriage. It is forthese reasons that SOLAS and the IMSBCCode incorporate provisions intended toensure that only cargoes with sufficientlylow inherent moisture content to avoidliquefaction are loaded. Strict adherenceto these provisions is the only safe way ofcarrying these types of cargoes.

Preventive measuresBased on previous experiences with

respect to cargoes of iron ore finesloaded from India, Members are advisedto exercise extreme caution when loadingsuch cargo on their vessels. It is importantthat cargoes of iron ore fines unsuitablefor shipment are identified and rejectedbefore coming onboard the vessel andproper measures are taken to ensure thatthe cargo loaded on board complies withSOLAS and meets the requirements ofthe IMSBC Code. Additional samplingwill be required if the cargo is subject tosources of moisture during loading.

Although the IMSBC Code places theburden of certification on the shipper, in

many cases the information containedin the certificates may be incorrect.This may be due to failure to correctlyanalyse the samples, or use of facilitiesnot geared to properly test the samples,or the test samples not being properlyrepresentative of the cargo to be loaded.It is thus extremely important that the shipowner and master ascertain that the cargois suitable for sea transport.

Although exposure to moisture isheightened during the monsoonseasons, ship owners should ensure thatthe same level of caution is exercisedwith respect to the loading of ironore fines irrespective of the time ofthe year. The Association stronglyrecommends Members to contact thelocal correspondent or the Association in

good time to assist them in engaging theservices of a competent and experiencedsurveyor to act on the Member’s behalf toassist the master both before and duringloading operations in order to ensurethat the cargo is loaded in compliancewith SOLAS and that the IMSBC Code isadhered to.

Freight disputesAlthough not directly connected with thesafe transport of iron ore fines from India,this seems like an opportune time tohighlight this issue.

We understand that some Chinese portsdo not allow the discharge of low gradeiron ore without an import permit. Thiscan cause considerable delay of vesselsand disputes concerning, e.g. freight,demurrage or deadfreight may arise inrelation to iron ore from India.

We understand that “China Chamberof Commerce of Metals Minerals andChemicals Importers and Exporters”and “China Iron & Steel Association”

notified their members in April of thisyear to stop importing iron ore with anIron (Fe) content below 60%. This hasmade it difficult to obtain import permitsfrom the government through these twoAssociations.

It is therefore recommended that beforetransporting Indian iron ore or iron orewith less than 60% Fe content from othercountries into China, shipowners shouldcheck with the Charters/Shippers/Cargo Receivers if the Chinesebuyers have obtained the import permitso as to avoid unnecessary disputes overfreight, demurrage and detention of

vessels. Similar caution should also beexercised with respect to spot cargoes oflow grade iron ore into China.

See Gard Loss Prevention Circular No.10-07: Loading of iron ore fines in India. Liquefaction of cargoes of Iron orehas also been addressed in Gard News197 (Feb/April 2010) “Liquefaction ofunprocessed mineral ores – Iron orefines and nickel ore”, by Dr. MartinJonas, Brookes Bell, Liverpool. Thearticle describes the SOLAS/IMSBCCode Regulations, Certification of TML/ moisture content and principles ofliquefaction. We are grateful to “Hai Tong andPartners” of Beijing, China for providingthe information with respect to theFreight disputes.

Loss Prevention CircularNo. 08-10


18/28


18

India - Safe Shipmentof Iron Ore Fines from

Indian PortsIntroductionAs Members may be aware in 2009 twoships, the ‘Asian Forest’ and the ‘BlackRose’, capsized and sank followingliquefaction of iron ore fines cargoeswhich they had loaded in the Indian portsof Mangalore and Paradip. There havebeen other incidents of liquefaction,particularly when loaded during or afterthe Indian monsoon season, resultingin ships becoming unstable and being

forced to seek refuge. In other casescargoes loaded have been found tohave moisture content in excess of theTransportable Moisture Limit (TML) priorto the vessel’s departure and the shipsin question have been prevented fromsailing by the local port authorities untilthe situation has been rectified leadingto substantial delays.

The Indian Government through theMinistry of Shipping, Directorate Generalof Shipping (DGS) conducted enquiriesinto the sinking of the ships andestablished a Committee to look into

the safe loading and carriage of iron orelumps and fines from Indian ports. TheDGS has issued a number of MerchantShipping Notices, the latest of which is MNotice No. 9 of 2010, dated 27th August2010. The Group is in dialogue with theDGS on a number of issues arising fromthe M Notices and how they relate tothe International Maritime Solid BulkCargoes Code (the Code). M Notice No.9 is being made law in India as part ofthe new Carriage of Goods Regulations.

The Indian Government also submitteda report to the 87th session of the IMO

Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) inMay 2010 reporting on the findings of itsinvestigation into the two casualties andthe actions that the Indian authoritieshad taken following the casualtiestogether with various recommendationsrelating to the carriage of iron orefines. The report was considered by the15th session of the Sub-Committee onDangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes andContainers (DSC) in September 2010.The DSC issued a Circular DSC.1/Circ 63which sets out a number of conclusionsand recommendations relating to thecarriage of iron ore fines.

In view of the incidents referred toit is most important that Membersensure that all local and international

requirements including those under theCode, relating to the loading, stowing,carriage and discharge of iron ore lumpsand fines cargoes loaded at Indian portsare fully complied with.

International Maritime Solid BulkCargoes Code (IMSBC Code)The Code is issued under SOLAS 1974and its Protocols, which have beenincorporated into the Indian Merchant

Shipping Act 1958 (as amended). TheCode sets out the internationally agreedprovisions for the safe stowage andshipment of solid bulk cargoes, includingcargoes that may liquefy, such as ironore fines. Those cargoes not specificallylisted are covered by Section 1.3 ofthe Code. It is currently advisory butbecomes mandatory internationally on1 January 2011. However in India it isalready mandatory by virtue of M NoticeNo 9.

Regulation VI/2, SOLAS 1974 requiresthe shipper to provide the master or

his representative with all relevantinformation relating to the cargosufficiently in advance of loading toenable precautions which may benecessary for the proper stowage andsafe carriage of the cargo to be put intoeffect.

Section 4 of the IMSBC Code sets outthe obligations and responsibilitiesimposed on the shipper for providinginformation about the cargo.

Most importantly for cargoes that mayliquefy (Group A cargoes), certificates

should be provided evidencing themoisture content of the cargo at thetime of shipment and the transportablemoisture limit (TML). The TML is definedin the Code as 90% of the Flow MoisturePoint (FMP). The FMP can only bedetermined by laboratory analysis ofcargo samples. Any cargo with moisturecontent in excess of the TML shouldnot be accepted for loading (unless onspecially constructed or fitted ships). IronOre fines does not have its own schedulein the Code but should be regarded asbeing a Group A cargo.

(A) Master’s ObligationsThe master or his representativeshould monitor the loading operationfrom start to finish. Loading should

not be commenced until the masteror the ship’s representative is inpossession of all requisite cargoinformation in writing as describedabove. The master has an overridingauthority under SOLAS not to loadthe cargo or to stop the loading ofthe cargo if he has any concerns thatthe condition of the cargo mightaffect the safety of the ship.

(B) Shipper’s Obligations(1) Cargo Information The shipper must provide the

master or his representative inwriting with all information anddocumentation required underthe Code in sufficient time beforeloading to ensure that the cargocan be safely loaded onto, carriedand discharged from the ship(section 4.2.1).

(2) Documentation The documentation must include:

(a) a certificate/declaration

certifying the moisture contentof the cargo loaded in each ofthe ship’s holds together witha statement that to the bestof the shipper’s knowledgethe moisture content is theaverage moisture content ofthe cargo.

(b) a certificate certifying the TMLof the cargo together with theFMP test result prepared by acompetent laboratory.

The Code requires that the interval

between testing for the Flow MoisturePoint (FMP) and loading be no more thansix months for regular materials unlessthe production process is changed inany way and the interval between testingfor the moisture content and loadingshall never be more than seven days.However with irregular materials suchas iron ore fines every shipment shouldbe checked. Masters should be wary ofmoisture content certificates providedby the shipper’s laboratory and moisturecontent percentages that are very closeto the TML. If there is significant rainbetween the time of testing and the timeof loading the shipper must conduct testchecks (section 4.5.2) to ensure that themoisture content of the cargo is still lessthan its TML.

International Group MemberCircular No. 16/2010


19/28


19

(3) LaboratoriesThe shipper must identify the laboratoryused to conduct the tests on thecargo samples. It is recommendedthat masters check with the localcorrespondents/appointed surveyors toensure that the laboratory is reputableand competent. The number of such

laboratories in India is currently verylimited.

(4) StockpilesThe shipper must identify the stock pilesfrom which the cargo is to be loadedand confirm in writing that the samplestested and in respect of which certificateshave been issued/declarations madeoriginated from those stock piles.

(5) BargesWhere barges are used to transportcargo to the ship they must be capableof being individually identified by the

master/ship/ appointed surveyor.

Problems encountered with the shipmentof iron ore fines from India

It is understood that Members haveencountered a number of problems withshipments of iron ore fines from India,including:- • Cargo

cargo liquefaction january 2014

Documents