A 99K DWT tanker vessel was presented for inspection upon completion of its first foot loading of a cargo of gasoline
Joint sampling conducted by Shippers and charterers surveyors, and subsequent testing, showed the cargo loaded to be Off specs. The parameter that failed testing was the Flash point of the Gasoil The loading terminal FOTT thereafter cast of the vessel and asked her to shift to anchorage with this part cargo. The vessel shifted to anchorage, pursuant to which the vessels owners IG P&I club requested us to attend.
WHAT WE DID
We initially boarded the vessel at anchorage and sampled all the
loaded tanks
We attended the lab for testing of these samples together with other
interests.
At that time, we discovered, post testing that Gasoil in all the
nominated tanks 1P, 1S, 4P, 4S, Slop P, Slop S was Off Specification
as the minimum flash point requirement was 60 degree Celsius.
We thereafter requested sampling and testing of the shore tank from
where the nominated cargo originated.
Together with the charterer’s representative, we sampled the shore
tank
The shore tank sample was jointly tested for flash point, and it
was observed passed, with the flash point very close to the minimum
required - 61°C vs minimum required 60°C
This presented a piacular problem for the owners, since the supplier
cargo was in specs…
We then conducted, together with the owners, a theoretical calculation
for volumetric dilution of flash point.
The theoretical calculations resulted in cargo being in specs, and
the owners, in their eagerness to continue the loading asked the
vessel to re-tender NOR for further loading.
We remained cautious of these theoretical calculations, and urged
the owners through the P&I club, as a safety net, to have a blend
sample prepared between the first foot sample (4.16% by volume)
with the shore tan sample (95.84% by volume) and have it laboratory
tested.
Indeed, this sample failed the minimum flash point requirement (result
58.5°C vs minimum required 60°C)
We thereafter started our investigation into a cause consideration.
Given that the vessel would NOT achieve the required flash point
for the cargo when fully loaded, a decision was taken to discharge
the full parcel of the first foot cargo at VOPAK terminal. This
discharge was achieved without incident.
The vessel thereafter re-arrived the FOTT terminal, and was presented
for loading after the initial first foot Off-spec cargo was transferred
to Tank # Slop P and was discharged at Vopak Terminal, Fujairah.
The vessel thereafter was lined up to load and loaded three (3)
parcels of Gas Oil in a comingled condition as equally distributed
by volume in all her nominated tanks. The cargo was loaded from
2 separate terminals.
We continuously attended the vessel during the loading operation,
and as pre agreed internally drew the following samples during the
loading progress
• Manifold samples at the time of commencement of loading
• First foot samples from each cargo tanks # 1P/S, 4P/S & Slop P/S
• Composite cargo tank samples after completion of 40% of cargo
by volume
• Composite cargo tank samples after completion of 80% of cargo
by volume
• Composite cargo tank samples after completion of loading of nominated
quantity
The above samples were tested, and each resulted in flash point
being barely above the minimum required 60°C, with the 4(P)-sample
testing only 59°C.
We again became suspicious and in order to ascertain the reason
behind this low flash point readings post testing, we insisted on
sampling the cargo from the Port facility distribution line.
We found out that DL No. 5 and DL No. 7 were being used to feed
the vessel its cargo the second time. Both DL samples were tested,
and indeed, DL 5 sample resulted with reading of 51.5°C and DL 7
with 60°C
We immediately alerted the Port Terminal Manager of this, and after
an operational discussion we had, it was decided that further loading
would continue only with DL 7 line.
We thereafter met the shipper’s representative and had a dialogue
with him, and ultimately convinced him to isolate the DL5 from the
Matrix manifold.
The Port facility thereafter carried out line pushing for DL
5, pursuant to which we again tested the sample from DL5, and results
obtained were 61.5°C
The loading thereafter continued till completion, with the final
parcel sampled upon completion was tested to find the cargo fully
in specs.
OUR VALUE ADDITION
We ensured what is commonly know as good practice – Had we relied
solely on the results of the theoretical calculation of volumetric
dilution, and not insisted to corroborate the results by a lab test
of a bled sample by volume, it was certain that during the initial
loading, the vessel would have ended up with a full load cargo being
off spec – the monitory consequences thus in comparison with discharge
of fist foot cargo versus full cargo would have been disastrous.
We did not sit back as mute observers assuming all would go well
during the second loading. We continued to sample, test and monitor,
and consequently were able to identify the issues related to off
spec cargo within DL 5, quickly, and prevent further issues.
We took tangible action to protect our customers interests – not
only did we identify the DL 5 issue during the second loading, but
we also liaised with operation owners (terminal and supplier) insure
prevention of further loss by convincing them to isolate DL 5 from
the matrix manifold
We also investigated the initial issues with contamination, and found a likely leaking manifold cross over valve, the possibility of vapor phase contamination, in view that vessel was initially also loaded with MOGAS in the remaining tanks.
About the Authors:
Capt. Vispy Rusi Dadimaster A career spanning 22+
years in various operation and management positions within the Maritime
and Shipping Industry, including 8+ years in Fujairah (Port Operation,
Agency and Logistic Management), and in command of various types
of vessels, including Offshore Dynamic Positioning crafts. Within
the professional roles held, I have proven to be result oriented,
decisive, possess tremendous interpersonal skills, and am technically
oriented My entrepreneurship skills have enabled me to lead and
managed teams up to 25 people successfully, achieving challenging
objectives, within challenging environments, with an aim to create
a positive outcome and impact.