This post first appeared in October 2012 as an article advertising the course I run “Tanker Delays in Ports – How ship, terminal and shore staff can minimise claims for demurrage”.
In August BIMCO posted an article on their website discussing the ever increasing burden put on Masters by paperwork of various kinds, see the link here: Easing the seafarer’s burden. I’m sure most Masters would be quite happy concentrating on the safe navigation of their vessels without the need to fill out acres of paperwork to meet this or that regulation. The trouble is we, in the laytime and demurrage world, don’t make it any easier for them, do we?
I remember taking part in a working group organised by Asdem where we were trying to come up with a universal Notice of Readiness clause. It was a good discussion but I don’t think we changed the world in any significant way and I still believe the two top areas of dispute in this business are NORs and Time Bars. Of course we need something to argue about in the office to fill up our time, but what about the poor master of the vessel? When should he tender his NOR?
The four most common charter parties in the tanker trade all say something different; Asbatankvoy, BPVOY4, ExxonMobil Voy2012 and Shellvoy6. Can we really expect the Master to be aware of every aspect of these NOR clauses when he has no end of visitors to his vessel when he gets to a port? Not only those concerned with the navigation and the loading/discharging of the cargo, but remember a port call is normally the only opportunity to replenish stores, take bunkers, change crew and carry out repairs. Yet we expect the Master to know whether to tender NOR at the anchorage, after he has anchored, at the pilot station or at the berth. Does the vessel have Free Pratique and customs clearance? Some charter parties impose additional obligations around these and others don’t.
I’ve been thinking about these issues and I can’t take the problem away from the Master, but in my next training course I will be looking at a set of guidelines the Master can use. This will tell him when and where the NOR should be tendered and when he should re-tender without prejudice to earlier NORs. It will give his Owners some protection in case an NOR has been tendered prematurely. It won’t be foolproof but I hope it will go some way to minimising any exposure for his Owners.
At the same time shore staff, whether terminal staff or agents acting on their behalf, need to be aware of the consequences of accepting an NOR which later turns out to be invalid.
The course I am presenting, “Tanker Delays in Ports – How ship, terminal and shore staff can minimise claims for demurrage” in London on 27/28 November, will address many of these points together with other issues that those on the ground need to know about Laytime and Demurrage. For details see this link: Tanker Delays in Ports – How ship, terminal and shore staff can minimise claims for demurrage.
What are your views of the pressures we put on Masters in port? Should we simplify NOR clauses across this business? Have you been caught out or profited from any of these clauses? Have you come across other clauses which give you pain? Please feel free to comment here
One thought on “NOTICE OF READINESS – THE MASTER’S PROBLEM”
Hello, Colleagues!
the subject of this post is really imprtant and the issue is quite problematic.
really – the Master should be the expert in all commercial aspects of the shipping.
at least – that was the realities of the past.
now the Master's actual role is somehow shifted to the different area.
and i afraid the solution is not within the proper/accurate/adequate wording of NOR clause in the C/P.
but i sure – there should be good and sound backing available to the Masters from the Manager's office: one ashore should undertake all such matters and issues for proper and responsible handling and preparations for only making consequent short and clear instructions and "ready-for-signing" drafts for the Master aboard.