<\/div>\n

Even today the mechanics of pumping is poorly understood and I feel that this clause in the wrong hands could lead to a lot more pumping disputes in the future. How will charterers respond when the vessel discharges in double quick time but makes very little back pressure because the shore facilities are very good, for example where there are large diameter shorelines over a short distance?<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

With a conventional 24 hour\/100 psi clause I still hear of issues like the request to deduct two hours stripping after a bulk discharge where the vessel maintained 100 PSI. When will people understand that the last one or two tanks will need to be stripped when the bulk of the cargo has been discharged? It is impossible to maintain the pressure for the last part of the discharge.<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

Dropping the 24 hour requirement means that every discharge will need to be looked at when the pressure falls below 100psi. I am reminded of my time at BP when every discharge was assessed by a technical team. In BEEPEEVOY2 83 clause 15 the rating of the pumps was assessed alongside the facilities provided by the shore. The move to 24hours\/100psi in BEEPEEVOY3 cut down the work considerably.<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

Pumping disputes reached their peak many years ago and I believe this was caused by a couple of factors. One was the changing nature of the trade. Where once we loaded a VLCC with one or possibly two grades of crude, we were often loading four grades. The old VLCCs were not designed for this kind of operation. This was coupled with the introduction of Crude Oil Washing, which diverted some of the pumping power to drive the COW machines. This coincided with a period of poor freight rates that led to cost cutting and a lower level of maintenance on equipment such as pumps. <\/span><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

A more modern fleet has meant that pumping disputes are much less frequent, but will the poor freight market, which does not appear to be improving, lead to poor maintenance and an increase in pumping disputes? I hope not. Let me know what you think. Please add your comments here.<\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post first appeared in the May 2013 Asdem Newsletter. To see this Newsletter please go to www.asdem.co.uk and look for the ‘Newsletters’ tab In March I wrote a blog (www.hubse.com) about the changes to the pumping clause in ExxonMobil VOY2012 where, in an interesting move, the pumping clause has been changed so that it is now incumbent on Owners […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-asdem-newsletters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hubse.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}