A. Frequently Asked Questions and Club Cover
1. What are my obligations as an Owner if my vessel is loading a cargo which may liquefy?
Owners must ensure that any charterparty entered into for the carriage of cargoes which may liquefy
includes a suitable clause dealing with the carriage of these cargoes. Such a clause must apportion
both risk and expense, and must not limit a party’s ability to rely on the provisions of the IMSBC
Code.
The Master and crew must be made aware of the nature of the cargo to be loaded, and of any issues
which may arise. Owners must be aware of the potential inadequacy of cargo documentation, and the
Master and crew must also be made aware of this. Owners should also make clear that the Master will
have their support should he face any pressure at the loadport to load a cargo without the necessary
documentation, or should he find himself in a situation which he feels at all uneasy about. The Master
should be made aware of his entitlement (indeed, in some circumstances his obligation) to refuse to
load the cargo.
The ISM Code requires potentially hazardous situations to be risk-assessed, and states that vessels
must have procedures in place to deal with such situations. It is strongly recommended that Owners
whose vessels are likely to carry cargoes which may liquefy put in place procedures to deal with any
issues which may arise. These procedures should include:
(a) carrying out a detailed risk assessment prior to loading the cargo;
(b) carrying out stability calculations after loading the cargo and prior to departing the loadport;
(c) the Master making himself aware of any potential ports of refuge on the vessel’s planned route,
prior to departure from the loadport;
(d) requiring that as soon as a problem occurs, detailed information regarding the situation is passed
from the vessel to Owners, who should then contact the Club who can recommend an expert to
provide advice;
(e) given the dangerous and unpredictable nature of a liquefied cargo, the Club recommends that if a
problem arises the Master in any event proceed to the nearest port of refuge.
A detailed risk assessment and having such procedures in place is by no means a guarantee of safe
carriage of a cargo which may liquefy. These are measures to have in place in addition to, as opposed
to instead of, the steps and requirements set out in the rest of this Bulletin. It must be recognised that
even if all required steps are taken (as regards sampling/testing, cargo documentation etc), an issue
could still arise whilst the vessel is at sea.
2
2. What are my obligations if I am chartering a vessel loading a cargo which may liquefy?
A vessel and its Master are generally under the orders and directions of Charterers as regards the
employment of the vessel. As such, Charterers have a responsibility to ensure that their orders do not
put a vessel or the lives of its crew at risk. Charterers must therefore make themselves aware of the
effects of liquefaction, the provisions of the IMSBC Code and what is required to comply with those
provisions.
Charterers have an absolute obligation to provide a safe and lawful cargo. It is highly likely that the
tender of a cargo with a moisture content in excess of its TML would not reasonably fall within any
description of a lawful or contractual cargo. Charterers must therefore conduct all surveys/tests
required to ensure that the cargo to be carried meets these requirements, or ensure that such
surveys/tests are conducted by the relevant party down the supply chain. Alternatively, depending on
the provisions of the relevant charterparty, Charterers may be required to indemnify Owners for any
costs incurred by them in arranging such surveys and tests.
A regards Club cover, for the carriage of cargoes which may liquefy Members should only charter to
or from parties which are entered with an International Group Club for TCL on a strict liability basis.
Club cover may be prejudiced in the event that the contractual counterparty is not either insured with
an International Group Club, or approved in advance by the Association.
3. What are the sampling and testing requirements for a cargo which may liquefy?
For each cargo to be carried, certain figures must be determined. The Flow Moisture Point (“FMP”) is
the percentage moisture content at which a flow state commences. From this figure, the Transportable
Moisture Limit (“TML”) can be determined. This is 90% of the FMP, and represents the maximum
moisture content of the cargo which is considered safe for carriage. The actual moisture content of the
cargo must also be determined.
These figures must be determined by testing samples which are fully representative of the particular
cargo to be carried. Section 4 of the IMSBC Code sets out a “best practice” sampling procedure.
A cargo’s TML must be determined within the six months prior to loading. A test for the actual
moisture content must be carried out within the 7 days prior to loading.
Before the cargo is loaded, the Shipper must provide a certificate setting out both the actual moisture
content of the cargo and its TML. These figures must relate to the actual cargo to be loaded. Under the
IMSBC Code, cargoes which may liquefy may only be accepted for loading where the actual moisture
content of the cargo is lower than its TML.
4. What warning signs should the Master look out for when loading a cargo which may liquefy?
The Master should remain vigilant throughout the loading process, and should look out for any signs
that the moisture content of the cargo may be higher than stated on the cargo documentation, and
indeed may be too high for safe carriage. These signs include:
is any part of the cargo wet, or does it have a muddy appearance as opposed to a granular, sandy
or gravel-like appearance?
is there any free moisture/water on the surface of the cargo, or running out of the base of the
stockpiles ashore?
does any part of the cargo appear to be contaminated or to have significantly different
characteristics or moisture content to the majority of the cargo?
3
If the answer to any of the above is “yes”, the cargo may well not be safe to carry and further tests will
need to be carried out.
Once the cargo is in the holds, it should be checked regularly. Free water above the cargo, a muddy
surface appearance, slumping/flattening of party of the cargo in the hold and splashing/quaking of the
stow on impact of fresh cargo being loaded are all signs that the water content of the cargo may be too
high. In such situations, the Master should arrange for further sampling/testing of the cargo if still at
the load port, and should immediately seek the nearest port of refuge if at sea.
5. What should the Master, and I as a Member, do if an issue arises?
If the cargo has not yet been loaded, and the Master is worried about its moisture content, he should
refuse to load the cargo. If the cargo has been or is in the process of being loaded, the Master should
halt the loading procedure and/or off-load the cargo currently on board. He should keep Owners
informed of the situation at all times.
Arrangements should be made for an expert surveyor to attend and for the cargo to be sampled and
tested.
6. How should the situation be dealt with if it is raining during loading?
The IMSBC Code specifies that cargoes covered by the entry for Mineral Concentrates (e.g. sinter
feed and pellet feed) should not be handled during precipitation unless the actual moisture content of
the cargo is sufficiently less than the TML. This will mean that the actual moisture content is not liable
to be increased beyond the TML by the precipitation. In practical terms, the effect of this will depend
on the rate of rainfall and the margin between the moisture content and the TML.
Many bulk cargoes are stored in open stockpiles between sampling and loading and so are liable to be
affected by the weather conditions. A cargo suitable for loading may become hazardous and may
liquefy if exposed to precipitation as this will significantly increase the moisture content of the cargo.
The Master should if at all possible halt the loading procedure during any periods of rain. If he is at all
worried about the state of the cargo, an expert or surveyor should be appointed and additional analyses
of the cargo carried out.
The IMSBC Code specifies that if there has been significant rain or snow between the time the cargo
was initially tested and loading, check tests must be carried out. These are to ensure that the moisture
content of the cargo is still less than its TML. The interval between such sampling/testing and loading
must never be more than 7 days.
7. Which party is responsible for paying for surveys and laboratory analysis?
This will depend on the exact provisions of the charterparty in question. As set out in more detail
below, the Club recommends that the clause prepared by the International Group of P&I Clubs be
incorporated wherever possible. This provides that Owners are entitled to appoint surveyors and/or
experts to test samples of the cargo at their discretion, and that Charterers will indemnify Owners for
the costs of this.
In respect of Club cover, the Member bears the costs of surveys and laboratory analysis. If the
Member complies with all of its obligations pre-shipment (subject to the Club Rules), they are likely
to have the Club’s support in respect of any later disputes.
4
8. What are the consequences for Club cover of failing to comply with the various Rules and Club
requirements/guidelines in relation to hazardous cargoes?
The consequences for Club cover will, of course, largely depend on the specific facts of each situation.
However, Members should be aware that Club cover may be prejudiced if:
(a) the vessel loads a cargo that is found to have a moisture content in excess of its transportable
moisture limit; or
(b) a vessel is lost, and the loading of such a cargo is found to be the likely cause of that loss.
B. The Cargoes
(1) Nickel Ore
Nickel ore is non-homogenous in form, unlike many mineral concentrates, and consists of both very
fine clay-like particles and larger, rock-like pieces. There are two different types, limonite and
saprolite, which differ in both chemistry and physical appearance. However, they present similar
problems in bulk shipping due to their high moisture content.
Nickel ore is mined largely in Indonesia and the Philippines. Very little processing takes place when
the ore is mined: it is usually dug up, sorted for size, stored in stockpiles and then shipped. Different
mining methods are used in different areas, which can lead to variations in the physical consistency
and moisture content of the cargo.
(2) Iron Ore Fines
When iron ore is processed to allow its use in the iron/steel making industry, it is first separated into
lumps and fines. Iron ore fines are the less desirable, and lower value, product of this processing. They
also have a higher moisture content than the iron ore lumps.
Iron ore fines are often stored in open-air stockpiles, meaning that they are subject to all weather
conditions. Any wet weather will therefore cause the moisture content of the fines to increase. For
example in India, which is a major producer of iron ore fines, the cargo is often left in these stockpiles
during the monsoon season.
It is important not to confuse a cargo of iron ore fines with one of lump ore: the two have very
different properties.
(3) Recent Incidents (as at January 2012)
There have been several recent incidents involving vessels carrying cargoes of nickel ore and iron ore
fines. The most recent incident involved the “VINALINES QUEEN”, which sank in December 2011
whilst carrying a cargo of nickel ore. The vessel was a total loss, and only one crew member survived
the incident.
In late 2010, three vessels (the “JIAN FU STAR”, “NASCO DIAMOND” and “HONG WEI”) sank
during the carriage of nickel ore from Indonesia to China, with the loss of 44 lives.
In the 2009 monsoon season, there were at least four separate serious casualties involving vessels
loaded with iron ore fines from Indian ports. The “ASIAN FOREST”, “HODASCO 15” and “BLACK
ROSE” all sank, with one crew member missing from the latter vessel. The “VINALINES MIGHTY”
5
listed shortly after sailing, but was able to return to port. It is notable that in the majority of these
cases, problems occurred shortly after leaving the port where the cargo was loaded.
It is quite possible that liquefaction was a factor in each of these casualties. The serious nature of these
incidents highlights the importance of taking particular care when carrying these cargoes, and indeed
any cargoes which have similar properties.
C. The Main Issue: Liquefaction
The reason why nickel ore and iron ore fines, and similar bulk cargoes, can cause such serious
problems during their carriage by sea is because they may liquefy. This is a process by which cargoes
may appear to be in a relatively dry granular state when loaded, and yet may contain sufficient
moisture to become fluid under the stimulus of compaction and the vibration which occurs during a
voyage.
Granular materials, particularly the finely particulate minerals which make up a large proportion of
cargoes such as these, may become saturated with moisture. This saturation may mean that the cargo’s
state changes from solid to liquid under the influence of external forces such as vibration, impaction,
or the motion of the vessel. Specifically:
the volume of spaces between the particles reduces as the cargo is compacted due to settlement,
vibration of the ship’s engines and the ship’s motion;
this reduction of the spaces between the particles increases the water pressure; and
the increase in water pressure reduces the friction between particles and causes a reduction in the
sheer strength of the cargo.
Liquefaction is likely to seriously affect the stability of the vessel, which in turn can lead to the vessel
listing or even capsizing and sinking. When a cargo liquefies, it may flow to one side of the ship with
a roll but not completely return with a roll the other way. Consequently, the vessel may progressively
reach a dangerous heel and capsize quite suddenly.
As will be clear from the above, the moisture content of the cargo is critical to whether or not it is
likely to liquefy. There are certain figures in particular which must be determined in order to
determine whether a cargo may liquefy:
The Flow Moisture Point (“FMP”). This is the percentage moisture content at which a flow state
commences. When the moisture content of the cargo reaches this percentage, the cargo may begin
to change from a solid state to a liquid one, i.e. it may begin to liquefy.
The Transportable Moisture Limit (“TML”). This is 90% of the FMP, and represents the
maximum moisture content of the cargo which is considered safe for carriage.
The actual moisture content of the particular cargo to be loaded.
The IMSBC Code requires that cargoes shall only be accepted for loading when the actual moisture
content of the cargo is less than its TML.
Cargoes which have an actual moisture content that does not exceed the TML may be loaded in any
type of ship. However, cargoes which have a moisture content in excess of the TML may only be
carried in specially constructed ships. These must be fitted with permanent structural boundaries to
confine any shift of cargo to an acceptable limit. Alternatively, such cargoes may be loaded in ships
which are fitted with specially designed portable divisions serving the same purpose. Such ships
6
require approval by the flag state administration following an application under paragraph 7.3.2 of the
IMSBC Code.
The obligation under the Code is on the shipper to determine the TML and the actual moisture content
of the cargo prior to loading. These figures must then be declared to the Master prior to the cargo
being loaded.
D. The Regulatory Regimes
There are several regimes which govern the carriage of cargoes, and which will therefore be applicable
to the carriage of cargoes which may liquefy. These regimes will be referred to throughout this
Bulletin.
(1) The International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code (the “IMSBC Code”)
The IMSBC Code is the main reference point for a party when considering whether a cargo is likely to
liquefy, and is mandatory under SOLAS. The Code lists the dangers associated with various
commonly shipped cargoes, and groups these cargoes by reference to those dangers. Cargoes which
may liquefy (i.e. which contain a certain proportion of fine particles and a certain proportion of
moisture) are categorised as “Group A” cargoes.
The schedules to the IMSBC Code, in which the specific cargoes are listed, are not exhaustive. Some
cargoes which may liquefy are not listed, including iron ore fines. As a result, they are often
mistakenly treated in the same way as iron ore for the purposes of the Code. Iron ore, a “Group C”
cargo, is not likely to liquefy and so presents far less danger to a vessel on board which it is carried.
It should not be assumed that there is no risk of liquefaction simply because a cargo is not listed in the
Code. Both nickel ore and iron ore fines should be treated as “Group A” cargoes for the purposes of
the Code, and as such must be carried strictly in accordance with its provisions.
The differences between Group A and Group C cargoes under the IMSBC Code
Cargoes which may liquefy are cargoes which contain a certain proportion of fine particles and a
certain amount of moisture. Such cargoes are designated as Group A under the IMSBC Code. Cargoes
designated as Group C will not liquefy regardless of the moisture content, and are therefore not
hazardous. In order to assess whether a given material may liquefy, Appendix 3 of the IMSBC Code
specifies that any damp or wet cargo containing a proportion of fine particles should be tested for flow
characteristics prior to loading.
Cargoes can be tested using either the flow table method or the penetration test method, both of which
involve increasing the moisture content of a sample until actual liquefaction is observed. For genuine
Group C cargoes, this point is never reached and so no transportable moisture limit can be determined.
As a result, any cargo which possesses a TML determined by either of these methods is a Group A
cargo. However, it should be noted that some materials which are untestable by these tests may still
liquefy, and as such are Group A cargoes. Similarly, any cargoes for which actual liquefaction occurs
(for example by a flattening of the stow or large-scale cargo flow during ocean carriage) are Group A
cargoes, independently of any tests carried out.
On a practical level, Group A cargoes contain sufficient small particles that they can take on a muddy
consistency if wet enough. Group C cargoes, by contrast, are gravel-like materials which never
become muddy regardless of how wet they are, as any water added drains through the gaps between
the particles. Simple qualitative tests to assess this can be carried out on the spot by taking a cargo
sample and adding water to it to see if it turns into a mud-like consistency. If yes, the material is likely
to be a Group A cargo.
7
The IMSBC Code contains far more detail than it is possible to include in this Alert. The Club
strongly recommends that all Members who are involved in the carriage of bulk cargoes
familiarise themselves with the terms of the Code.
(2) The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (“SOLAS”)
Chapter VI Regulation 1-2 of SOLAS provides a general framework for the carriage of all cargoes and
states that “the carriage of solid bulk cargoes other than grain shall be in compliance with the relevant
provisions of the IMSBC Code”. This means that the provisions of the IMSBC Code are now
mandatory under SOLAS.
(3) The Code of Safe Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers (the “BLU
Code”)
The BLU Code is referred to in Regulation 7 of Chapter VI, Part B of SOLAS. It is primarily
concerned with arrangements between the terminal and the ship in order to ensure safe and efficient
cargo operations in port. It was adopted by the IMO by way of Resolution A.862(20), however its
provisions are currently only recommendatory.
(4) The International Safety Management Code (the “ISM Code”)
The ISM Code, issued by the IMO, is intended to provide an international standard for the safe
management and operation of ships. The ISM Code has been adopted by and incorporated into
SOLAS, and as such its provisions are mandatory. One of the key provisions of the ISM Code is that
every vessel must have a working Safety Management System.
In relation to the carriage of bulk cargoes, an important provision of the ISM Code is that potentially
hazardous situations must be risk assessed, and procedures put in place to deal with such situations.
E. The obligations of parties involved in the carriage of cargoes which may liquefy
The carriage of cargoes, and in particular bulk cargoes, is regulated in a number of ways. Where
cargoes which may liquefy are concerned, it is important to pay particularly close attention to the
provisions of these regulations, and in particular to the provisions of SOLAS and the IMSBC Code.
(1) Owners
Owners’ main concern will be to ensure that no harm comes to their vessel and her crew. It is therefore
essential that they ensure that any charterparty entered into for the carriage of cargoes which may
liquefy includes a suitable clause dealing with the carriage of these cargoes. For further details on
exactly what such a clause should include, see section F below.
Owners should also ensure that the Master and crew of the vessel in question are fully aware of the
nature of the cargo to be loaded, and of any issues which may arise. This will enable them to take any
action required in a timely manner. Owners must be aware of the potential inadequacy of cargo
documentation, and must make the Master and crew aware of this.
Owners should also make clear that the Master will have their support should he face any pressure at
the loadport to load a cargo without the necessary documentation, or should he find himself in a
situation which he feels at all uneasy about. The Master should be made aware of his entitlement
(indeed, in some circumstances his obligation) to refuse to load the cargo.
8
The ISM Code requires potentially hazardous situations to be risk-assessed, and states that vessels
must have procedures in place to deal with such situations. This will logically include the carriage of a
cargo which may liquefy. It is strongly recommended that Owners whose vessels are likely to carry
cargoes which may liquefy put in place procedures to deal with any issues which may arise while the
vessel is at sea. These procedures should include:
(a) Carrying out a detailed risk assessment prior to loading the cargo.
(b) Carrying out stability calculations after loading the cargo and prior to departing the loadport.
Section 2.1.3.1 of the IMSBC Code states that “the Master shall be able to calculate the stability
for the anticipated worse conditions during the voyage, as well as that on departure, and
demonstrate that the stability is adequate”.
(c) The Master making himself aware of any potential ports of refuge on the vessel’s planned route,
prior to departure from the loadport.
(d) As soon as a problem occurs, detailed information regarding the situation should be passed to
Owners, who should then contact the Club who can recommend an expert to advise on the best
solution.
(e) Expert advice should be taken as to how best to resolve the problem.
(f) Given the dangerous and unpredictable nature of a liquefied cargo, the Club recommends that
the Master in any event proceed to the nearest port of refuge.
Members should note that a detailed risk assessment and having such procedures in place is by no
means a guarantee of safe carriage of a cargo which may liquefy. These are measures to have in place
in addition to, as opposed to instead of, the steps set out in the rest of this Alert. It must, however, be
recognised that even if all required steps are taken (as regards sampling/testing, cargo documentation
etc), an issue could still arise whilst the vessel is at sea. The Master must be in a position to take some
practical steps in such a situation.
(2) The Master
The IMSBC Code, which is mandatory under SOLAS, requires (at paragraph 7.3.1.1) that a cargo
which may liquefy shall only be accepted for loading when the actual moisture content of the cargo is
less than its TML. The Master must not, therefore, accept a cargo for loading without receiving a
certificate setting out the actual moisture content of the cargo, and confirming that this is less than the
TML.
It is the Master’s responsibility to ensure that the vessel is safely loaded. Where the required
information and cargo declaration have not been received from the Shipper, the Master will be
unaware of the properties of the cargo to be loaded. As such, he will not be in a position to know
whether the requirements of SOLAS and the IMSBC Code have been complied with. If the necessary
declaration is not received, the Master should not commence loading and should immediately inform
Owners.
Members should remember that the Master has an overriding authority under SOLAS to delay or cease
loading where he has reasonable doubts as to the safety of the cargo. If the Master reasonably believes
that the cargo to be loaded is unsafe, he should be given all possible support in resisting any pressure
which may be put on him to load the cargo.
The Master or appointed crew members should monitor the entirety of the loading operation in order
that they may immediately identify any problems with the cargo. Loading should not however be
commenced until the Master is in possession of all requisite cargo information.
9
Whilst the Master should not unduly question Charterers’ orders as regards the employment of the
vessel (which will include orders relating to the cargo to be loaded), where such orders endanger the
safety of the vessel or her cargo, the Master is not only entitled but may be obliged to refuse
Charterers’ orders.
(3) Charterers
A vessel and its Master are generally under the orders and directions of Charterers as regards
employment of the vessel. As such, Charterers have a responsibility to ensure that their orders do not
put a vessel or the lives of its crew at risk. Charterers must therefore make themselves aware of the
effects of liquefaction, the provisions of the IMSBC Code and what is required to comply with those
provisions. Charterers should not sign, or require to be signed, any charterparty or other document
which limits a party’s rights to apply the IMSBC Code, or which limits the Shipper’s duties as defined
in the Code.
Whilst the vessel will generally be under the orders and directions of Charterers, there are some limits
to that rule. Commonly used time charter forms for example provide that the vessel is only to be
employed in carrying lawful merchandise. A voyage charter will usually specify a contractual
description of the cargo, or will refer to a more general description such as “lawful merchandise”.
What exactly amounts to lawful merchandise will largely depend on the interpretation adopted under
the law governing the charterparty. Where a charterparty is governed by an English law and
jurisdiction clause, a bulk cargo will only be lawful if:
(a) The Master has been provided with appropriate information on the cargo sufficiently in advance
of loading to enable him to take necessary precautions for its proper stowage and carriage; and
(b) In the case of any cargo listed as “Group A” under the IMSBC Code, or any other cargo which
may liquefy, its moisture content is below its TML (except where the vessel is specially
constructed or fitted to carry cargoes with a higher moisture content with the full approval of the
relevant Flag state administration).
The prohibition on unlawful cargo is absolute. A Charterer is taken to warrant that the cargo is lawful,
and not that it is lawful to the best of his belief. Where a cargo is specifically described, the cargo
loaded must be one which it is reasonable to ask the Master to load and carry. It is highly likely that
the tender of a cargo with a moisture content in excess of its TML would not reasonably fall within
any description of a contractual cargo.
If an excluded cargo is tendered for loading, Charterers will be in breach of the charterparty. While
such a breach will not entitle Owners to terminate the charterparty, it will entitle Owners to bring a
damages claim against Charterers.
Where the tender of a specific cargo is rejected, Charterers are entitled to find and tender another
cargo (indeed, an invitation to do so may well be Owners’ first response to a breach by Charterers).
Once Charterers have been put to such election, Owners may well be entitled to terminate the
charterparty if:
(a) It is impossible, or impossible within a reasonable time which would not frustrate the charterparty,
for Charterers to tender another cargo; or
(b) Charterers indicate an unwillingness to tender another cargo.
It is, therefore, essential that Charterers ensure that the cargo to be loaded is a lawful cargo under the
relevant charterparty. This is likely to incorporate a duty to survey and analyse the cargo to ensure that
the level of moisture content is acceptable.
10
As regards Club cover, for the carriage of cargoes which may liquefy Members should only charter to
or from parties which are entered with an International Group Club for TCL on a strict liability basis.
Club cover may be prejudiced in the event that the contractual counterparty is not either insured with
an International Group Club, or approved in advance by the Association.
(4) Shippers
Under the IMSBC Code, the Shipper must provide either the Master or his appointed representative
with “appropriate” information about the cargo. This information must be provided sufficiently in
advance of loading to enable the necessary safety precautions to be taken so that “proper stowage and
carriage of the cargo” can be carried out. In the case of bulk cargoes, this information must include:
(a) the Bulk Cargo Shipping Name (“BCSN”) of the cargo. This must be one of the names listed in
the index to the IMSBC Code, corresponding to the specific commodity entries in Appendix 1 of
the Code. Whilst for many Group A cargoes the BCSN is obvious, some shippers will either
provide an incorrect BCSN or omit this information entirely. If none of the names listed in the
IMSBC Code correctly describes the cargo, then the shipper must apply to the competent
authority of the exporting country, who must issue the Master with a certificate stating the
characteristics and required conditions for carriage and handling of the cargo. For Group A
cargoes, this certificate must be agreed with the authorities of the vessel’s Flag State and the
country of destination. There is currently no applicable BCSN for either nickel ore or iron ore
fines;
(b) the cargo group, as specified in the IMSBC Code, i.e. Group A for cargoes which may liquefy.
(c) the IMO Class and UN number of the cargo, if applicable;
(d) the total quantity of cargo offered;
(e) the stowage factor;
(f) the need for trimming and the trimming procedures, as necessary;
(g) the likelihood of shifting, including angle of repose, if applicable;
(h) A certificate setting out both the actual moisture content of the cargo, and its TML. Under the
IMSBC Code, cargoes which may liquefy may only be accepted for loading where the actual
moisture content of the cargo is lower than the TML.
(i) The likelihood of formation of a wet base. Some Group A cargoes are prone to moisture
migration during the voyage, i.e. where water drains downwards towards the tanktop and the
bilges. These cargoes may develop a dangerous wet base even if the average moisture content of
the cargo as a whole is below the TML. This can lead to undetected liquefaction, even if the
cargo surface appears to be dry. This is key information, and yet few shippers are currently
providing it, despite it being an express requirement of the IMSBC Code. In order to minimise
this risk of undetected liquefaction as far as is possible, it is suggested that the Master request
that the cargo be trimmed flat (for more details, see section E below).
The BLU Code sets out a recommended form for cargo information at Appendix 5. Information
provided by the Shipper must be accompanied by a declaration. An example form for this declaration
is at section 4.2.3 of the IMSBC Code.
This information must be provided prior to the cargo being loaded.
11
In the case of cargoes which may liquefy, a certificate must also be supplied which certifies both the
actual moisture content and TML of the cargo. The TML is derived from the FMP, which can only be
determined by laboratory analysis. Unless the FMP has been determined by a reputable laboratory, it
is likely that any documentation tendered by the Shipper will be unreliable. The interval between
testing the FMP and loading must be no more than 6 months, and the interval between testing the
actual moisture content and loading must be no more than 7 days. The IMSBC code requires a new
test “where the composition or characteristics of the cargo are variable for any reason”. Cargoes such
as nickel ore and iron ore fines are inherently variable, and as such require a new TML test for each
cargo.
The Shipper must be required to identify the laboratory where the cargo samples were tested. The
number of laboratories which are able to carry out suitable tests on these sorts of cargoes is currently
very limited. For further details and recommendations on laboratories, see section F below. The
Shipper must also be asked to identify the stock piles from which the cargo is to be loaded. He should
confirm, in writing, that the samples tested and in respect of which certificates have been issued or
declarations made originated from these particular stock piles. All such samples must be tested prior to
loading.
The information provided must be in relation to the actual cargo to be loaded. Some shippers have
been known to offer moisture certificates which are based on an average of previous cargoes, rather
than the cargo actually offered for loading. This does not comply with the IMSBC Code sampling
requirements.
Shippers’ liability
The effects of liquefaction are likely to mean that cargoes which may liquefy satisfy the definition of
“dangerous” cargoes. Under Article IV Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, the Shipper of dangerous
cargo is absolutely liable where the Master or carrier has not consented to the shipment of the cargo in
question. Further, the Shipper is liable for “all damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising or
resulting from such shipment”.
F. Specific Issues and Guidance
(1) Sampling and testing of cargo
As set out above, before a cargo which may liquefy can be loaded, the TML and the actual moisture
content of the cargo in question must be determined and certified prior to loading. This means that any
sampling and testing must also take place prior to loading. The IMSBC Code states that both TML and
moisture tests are meaningless unless they are conducted prior to loading on truly representative
samples.
Shippers sometimes state that their stockpiling arrangements make it impractical to take representative
samples prior to loading, and instead propose that samples be drawn during the loading process itself.
This is common practice for sampling for the purposes of the contractual quality specifications.
However, such proposals are not compatible with the shipper’s certification obligations under the
IMSBC Code (see section E(4) above).
There have been many instances where information provided by the shipper has stated that the cargo
has been within the TML, but has later proven to be a cargo which may liquefy. This could be due to
poor testing procedures, or a lack of understanding on the part of the Shipper of the sampling and
testing procedures required, despite the detailed advice on the conduct of such tests provided in the
IMSBC Code.
Sampling the cargo
12
The IMSBC Code states that a test to determine the TML shall be conducted within six months prior
to the date of loading. Where the composition or characteristics of the cargo are variable for any
reason, a further test must be carried out after it is reasonably assumed that such variation has taken
place (paragraph 4.5.1 of the IMSBC Code).
For actual moisture content determination, samples must be tested as near as practicable to the time
of loading and in any event within a seven day period prior to loading. If thereafter there is significant
rain (or snow) between the time of testing and loading, “check tests” must be conducted to ensure that
the actual moisture content remains less than the TML. These check tests are quick tests, for example
the “can test” or using a properly calibrated rapid moisture meter, which will give an idea as to
whether the moisture content of the cargo is too high. If there is any indication of such, the actual
moisture content must be tested again and the FMP and TML may need to be tested again. Should the
check tests show any signs that the moisture content is too high, the Club requires that an expert be
appointed, if this has not already been done.
Prior to sampling, the cargo should be inspected and any substantial portions which appear to be
different from the bulk of the consignment (e.g. parts which are visibly wetter or muddy) should be
sampled and tested separately. Portions that on separate testing are found to have a moisture content
above the TML should be rejected as unfit for loading, even if the average moisture content of the
entire consignment is below the TML.
Sampling methods must be carefully adapted to the manner in which the cargo is stored or handled,
and to the physical properties of the cargo. The overriding requirement in the IMSBC Code is that the
samples to be tested must be truly representative of the cargo to be loaded. In particular the Code
emphasises that sampling methods must take into account any variations in moisture distribution
throughout the consignment. These variations could occur, for example, because of natural drainage
which may result in the lower levels of a stockpile being wetter than the surface.
Procedure for Sampling Concentrate Stockpiles
The IMSBC Code provides guidance on sampling frequency for concentrate stockpiles of cargo. It is
emphasised that what is referred to in the IMSBC Code is guidance, designed to assist and inform. It is
not mandatory because, as the Code states, it is not practicable to specify a single method of sampling
for all consignments. However, the procedures set out in the Code are to be taken as best practice. All
samples tested must be fully representative. Simply taking samples from the surface of a stockpile, for
example, will not satisfy this requirement. Whilst it may be inconvenient to take the required
representative samples, this is not a reason to cut corners. If the sample tested is not fully
representative, the cargo documentation will be inaccurate and lives will be put at risk.
Following the IMSBC Code’s suggested procedure, a plan of the stockpile is drawn and divided into
areas, each of which contains approximately 125t, 250t or 500t, depending on the amount to be
shipped. Such a plan will indicate the number of sub-samples required and where each is to be taken.
Each sub-sample taken is drawn from approximately 50cm below the surface of the designated area.
For consignments between 15,000MT and 60,000MT, at least one sub-sample is drawn for each
250MT to be loaded. This rises to one sub-sample for each 500MT for consignments above
60,000MT. This is the minimum requirement. The Code envisages that all sub-samples are composited
to form a final analysis sample. However, if there are concerns that a stockpile may be nonhomogenous, an expert may recommend separate analysis of multiple samples, or even analysis of
every sub-sample.
Cargoes such as nickel ore and iron ore fines are less homogenous than concentrate cargoes, and given
the properties of a particular cargo it may be appropriate to take more frequent samples. Where sub-
13
samples are taken from a stockpile, they should be drawn evenly from all parts of the stockpile
including the interior. This will require the use of mechanical equipment, and cannot be done by hand.
For cargoes whose composition or characteristics are variable for any reason, the IMSBC Code
requires separate TML testing for every single cargo to be shipped. This will include many Group A
cargoes, including nickel ore and iron ore fines. The most practical approach is to carry out both the
TML and moisture determination on the same set of samples, drawn as set out above.
Methods of testing
Appendix 2 of the IMSBC Code sets out three recommended test methods for determination of the
TML. The most common method of testing is the “flow table test” which, whilst straightforward for
some materials, is not so for these sorts of cargoes. Materials such as nickel ore and iron ore fines are
more complex than the homogenous mineral concentrates for which the flow table test was developed,
and testing must be carried out by experienced analysts. For example, the IMSBC Code specifies that
the flow table method is only suitable for materials with a maximum particle size of 7mm. Many iron
ore fines cargoes, and essentially all cargoes of nickel ore, exceed this size. While a certain percentage
of particles over 7mm in size can be tolerated,the flow table method often requires adaptation which is
not covered in the Code to deal with these cargoes.
The two other testing methods (the penetration test and the Proctor/Fagerberg test) are encountered
very rarely. There have been some moves recently to use one or the other of these methods due to the
perceived shortcomings in the flow table test method. The penetration test has the potential to be the
most useful test, and there are no known technical issues. However there are very few setups in
operation for this test and so it is unknown whether such issues will surface in the future. The
Proctor/Fagerberg method involves first oven-drying the sample, and then adding water to determine
the bulk density at a number of different moisture contents. The test method is therefore unsuitable for
materials that change properties on drying and subsequent re-wetting, for example materials with a
significant clay content. This includes all nickel ore cargoes and many cargoes of iron ore fines.
Recommended laboratories
The IMSBC Code requires that samples be tested in a competent laboratory. There are very few
reputable, independent laboratories which deal with the testing and sampling of cargoes. Shippers
often insist that their own laboratories be used for testing and sampling, which can lead to
questionable results. Many laboratories are not equipped, and do not have sufficiently experienced
staff, to properly test cargoes such as nickel ore and iron ore fines. As for suitable laboratories please
contact The Swedish Club Loss Prevention department (lossprevention@swedishclub.com) for
recommendations.
(2) Cargo documentation
One of the reasons for the provision of inadequate cargo documentation may be due to a lack of
understanding on the part of the shipper and/or its representatives of the potential dangers posed to the
vessel by spurious figures. If the figures provided on the cargo documentation are incorrect, and no
additional investigations are carried out, the Master could leave the loadport believing that the cargo is
safe to carry, when in fact it has a higher than recommended moisture content and may well liquefy
whilst the vessel is at sea.
There may be situations where the shipper’s cargo declaration is not presented before loading, where
the required moisture information is not included with the declaration, or where the documentation
presented does not reflect the characteristics of the cargo actually presented for loading.
14
The inaccurate information could also be due to the fact that the state of the cargo has changed since it
was tested, for example if it has been affected by heavy rains. The IMSBC Code requires a shipper to
retest the cargo in such circumstances, but many shippers fail to do this.
The Master may come under considerable pressure to load a cargo without first receiving the required
cargo documentation. This pressure should be resisted if at all possible, and Owners should support
the Master in such resistance. It is far better to delay loading whilst awaiting accurate documentation
than to have to discharge cargo which is subsequently found to be unsuitable, or indeed to put the
vessel at risk.
Before loading commences, the Master must ensure that he receives, in writing from the Shippers, the
required certificates stating both the TML and actual moisture content of the cargo. Certificates which
simply state that tests have been carried out to the correct standard and have been “passed” should be
rejected. Further, any local rules or requirements to have the cargo sampled and satisfactorily analysed
as a condition for obtaining port clearance are not a substitute for the Shipper’s obligation to present
the necessary certificates. See Section E(4) above for full details of the information that must be
provided by the Shipper.
The certificates provided should be carefully scrutinised to check for completeness and any
inconsistencies or signs that cast doubt on their authenticity. The Shipper or its agent should be asked
questions about the sampling procedures, so that the source of the samples is properly identified. Even
where a certificate states that a cargo is safe to load, the Master and crew must be vigilant in
monitoring the condition of the cargo as it is loaded. Different stockpiles of cargo have different
characteristics, and all involved in the loading operation should not assume that the properties of the
cargo loaded will match the cargo documentation precisely.
Where a cargo declaration has not been received, or where either the TML or actual moisture content
are not included in the certification, the Master should refuse to load the vessel and should
immediately contact Owners or the local Club correspondents for advice.
The Club has concerns about the accuracy of cargo documentation presented by some Shippers, as
many laboratories do not have the experience or facilities to conduct the analyses required for that
documentation to be accurate. The Club therefore requires independent analysis of the cargo to be
carried out at a suitable laboratory. If cargo documentation is provided which does not meet with
recommendations contained in this bulletin and/or International Group circulars, Members should, if
necessary make their own arrangements for analysis. If in exceptional circumstances this is not
possible, Members should speak to the Club for guidance as to what steps to take.
(3) Steps to take to minimise the risk of loading an unsafe cargo
As set out above, it is essential that all members of a vessel’s crew involved in cargo operations, and
in particular the Master, understand the characteristics of the cargo to be loaded. The Shipper’s cargo
declaration cannot always be relied on to be accurate. As a result, it is essential that the Master and
crew remain vigilant throughout the loading process. Failure to identify a cargo which may liquefy
may lead to serious problems for the vessel. It is, however, acknowledged that this is not an easy task:
cargo which has an unacceptable TML may still appear to be dry.
During loading, the Master and crew should look out for any signs that the moisture content of the
cargo may be higher than stated on the cargo documentation, and indeed higher than is safe for the
vessel to carry. These signs include:
(a) is any part of the cargo wet, or does it have a muddy appearance as opposed to a granular, sandy
or gravel-like appearance?
15
(b) is there any free moisture/water on the surface of the cargo, or running out of the base of the
stockpiles ashore?
(c) does any part of the cargo appear to be contaminated or to have significantly different
characteristics or moisture content to the majority of the cargo?
If the answer to any of the above is “yes”, the cargo may well not be safe to carry and further tests will
need to be carried out. Once the cargo is in the holds, it should still be checked regularly. Free water
above the cargo, a muddy surface appearance, slumping/flattening of part of the cargo in the hold and
splashing/quaking of the stow on impact of fresh cargo being loaded are all signs that the water
content of the cargo may be too high. In such a situation, the Master should arrange for further
sampling/testing of the cargo if still at the load port, and should immediately seek the nearest port of
refuge if at sea.
It is suggested that the “can test”, as detailed in paragraph 8.4 of the IMSBC Code be used to check
the state of the cargo at frequent intervals during loading, and in particular if the Master is at all
worried about the moisture content of the cargo. A small can is filled with a sample of the cargo, and
is repeatedly banged against a hard surface. The appearance of the sample following this will give an
indication of whether or not the cargo is suitable for shipment. If the sample shows any free moisture
on the surface, or has become fluid (i.e.if the sample has flattened into a mud-like surface appearance
rather than a granular sandy or gravel-like appearance), then the moisture content of the cargo may
well be too high, i.e. above the FMP.
This test is not a substitute for proper laboratory testing and should never replace a reliable TML and
moisture content declaration from the Shippers. Further, it cannot detect whether or not the moisture
content of the cargo is also below the TML. However, if the results indicate that the cargo may
liquefy, then this should be taken as a major warning sign that the cargo may be unsafe. Expert advice
should then be sought and arrangements made for additional tests to be conducted on a representative
sample.
Where a Shipper presents a significant amount of cargo which fails the “can test”, this indicates that
the cargo as a whole may be unsafe, and that any documentation which states to the contrary may be
flawed. It should also be borne in mind that just because no free moisture is seen in the sample
following the “can test”, this does not mean that the cargo is definitely safe for shipment.
As set out in section E(4) above, a cargo which appears dry on the surface can still form a dangerous
wet base and liquefy. This risk can be minimised by trimming the cargo flat over the entire width of
the cargo space to the longitudinal boundaries of the holds on completion of loading and prior to
sailing. The height difference between the peaks and troughs of the cargo should not exceed 5% of the
ship’s breadth. The IMSBC Code states that the Master has the right to require the cargo to be
trimmed level, and it is recommended that the Master insist on flat trimming for all Group A cargoes.
Indeed, trimming is a mandatory requirement for cargoes covered by the entry for Mineral
Concentrates in the IMSBC Code (which includes cargoes such as sinter feed and pellet feed).
Members should note, however, that this is not a complete solution and trimmed cargoes can still
liquefy.
It is sometimes suggested that pumping off any free water from the surface of the cargo will minimise
the risk of cargo shift. This is not the case: free water is a symptom of liquefaction, not its cause.
Pumping off free water will still leave the cargo in a flow state and liable to shift unpredictably.
Further, it should not be assumed that the absence of free water means that the cargo has not, or will
not, liquefy. Undetected liquefaction may take place inside the cargo even if the surface appears dry.
In the event of any problems arising over the properties of a particular cargo, it is strongly
recommended that Members engage an independent surveyor or expert to assist. At some ports, it may
16
in fact be a local requirement to appoint such a person. Members should contact the Club for advice as
to who to appoint. Where a surveyor is appointed, it should be made clear to the port authorities,
Shippers and Charterers that the appointment of a surveyor is not intended to, and indeed does not,
relieve any party of its obligations under any relevant codes or local regulations.
The IMSBC Code contains some specific recommendations to aid the stability of the vessel when
loading bulk cargoes at section 2.1.3.
(4) Local and commercial pressures
Terminal representatives may put commercial pressure on Masters to load their vessels before
receiving the necessary cargo declarations. There may also be commercial pressures placed on the
Master by Shippers and/or Charterers to sail before the cargo has been sampled and tested. Due to the
limited number of laboratories available to carry out the required analysis, it can sometimes take a
long time for the results of the tests to be received. In situations where vessels are fixed for short
voyages, there may be a strong commercial motivation for the vessel to sail immediately after samples
have been taken rather than risk delay in waiting for the test results.
Masters are urged to resist such pressures. It is a Master’s responsibility to ensure that the vessel is
safely loaded. Where the cargo declaration has not been received, the Master has no idea of the likely
properties of the cargo to be loaded.
(5) Discharging unsafe cargo
If cargo is loaded prior to the receipt of the required documentation, it may be necessary to discharge
the cargo if it is subsequently found to be unsuitable. Such discharge may be problematic due to a lack
of suitable equipment or berths, or due to local customs procedures or other regulations. Terminals
and/or shippers may simply be unwilling to accept the discharged cargo.
A loaded cargo may well be regarded as having been exported by the relevant customs and excise
authority. As a result, unloading could create bureaucratic difficulties. Further, there may be
commercial reluctance on the part of shippers and/or ports to accept or unload unsuitable cargo. This
could lead to unwanted cost and delay. Should a dispute arise, valuable commercial relationships may
also be damaged.
If the cargo can be discharged, it may be possible to allow it to dry out ashore. However, this can take
months and requires the cargo to be regularly moved and turned over.
The question of whether or not a cargo is safe to transport should therefore be determined before the
cargo is loaded.
(6) Sailing with an unsafe cargo
It may be the case that, despite all precautions being taken and all necessary steps being followed,
cargo which is unsafe for transport is loaded and carried. Members must be aware, however, that
carrying such a cargo is contrary to both SOLAS and the IMSBC Code unless the vessel in question is
specially constructed or fitted. Where a vessel is not specially constructed or equipped for the carriage
of cargoes with a moisture content in excess of its TML, there is no SOLAS-compliant way to carry
such a cargo. If liquefaction takes place at sea, both the vessel and its crew may be in real danger.
Detailed stability calculations should be carried out for every cargo loaded prior to departure from the
load port. The results of these calculations should immediately be made available to any expert whose
assistance is requested following an incident of liquefaction.
17
In the past, where difficulties have arisen in persuading shippers or loadport authorities to discharge
unsafe cargo, various suggestions have been made as to steps which can be taken to minimise the risk
of liquefaction. These include sailing with reduced speed, staying close to land, and avoiding heavy
weather. While such measures may reduce the amount of movement to which the cargo is subjected,
they are not supported in SOLAS. There is no guarantee of their effectiveness and it is not possible to
quantify the risk in any meaningful way, as vessels have been known to sink suddenly in calm
conditions as a result of liquefaction of the cargo. Members should not, therefore use such measures as
a substitute for taking all required steps to ensure that the cargo is safe for transport.
Another suggestion which is sometimes made is to restrain the cargo surface by strapping or by
placing bagged cargo on top. Whilst this can prevent shifts in grain cargo, it cannot prevent shifts in a
cargo which may liquefy. Liquefaction happens throughout the depth of the stow and even if the
surface is restrained, cargo can flow in the depth of the stow independently of surface restraints.
Initial signs of liquefaction may include unusual rolling behaviour, sudden jolts or changes in trim.
However, there may be no warning signs at all and it should not be assumed that any large scale cargo
shift will be preceded by such alarm signals. Some vessels have experienced severe problems as a
result of liquefaction without first reporting anything amiss.
If liquefaction does occur, the Master must immediately notify Owners, who should then seek the
advice of an expert. In any event, if a cargo has liquefied it is both dangerous and unstable. The Master
should therefore immediately proceed to the nearest suitable port of refuge.
G. Charterparty Clauses
If it is anticipated that bulk cargoes which may liquefy will be carried, it is essential that a suitable
clause is incorporated into the relevant charterparty. Such a clause will need to provide for the
sampling, testing and certification of the cargo and deal with which party will bear the cost of both
those procedures and of any delays arising as a result of any issues with the cargo.
In the Club’s experience, Charterers may try to have Owners accept a clause which limits the
obligations of Charterers and Shippers to the extent that dangerous cargo may be loaded on board the
vessel. The following is an example of an inappropriate/insufficient clause:
“Cargo to be loaded, stowed, trimmed and discharged in accordance with latest IMO/IMDG Code
regulations and recommendations. For nickel ore, shippers and/or charterers shall provide the
customary documents only including the cargo declaration certificate showing the cargo moisture
content lower than the transportable moisture limit (“TML”). Once cargoes have been loaded on
board, the cargo which is already on board should be treated to have been accepted as safe cargoes
by Owners and should not be further sampled/tested. If the Master feels the cargo moisture content is
higher than the transportable moisture limit (“TML”), Owners are allowed to appoint one of the
surveyors from the 2 companies below. The cargoes are to be tested through the method of can test
only. Surveyors’ costs/expenses are to be for Owners’ account. If the cargo fails the can test
inspection, the Master has the right to refuse to load the cargo and to require the Shipper to substitute
a suitable dry cargo, in this case the surveyors’ costs, expenses and time wasted are to be for
Charterers’ account.”
This clause raises several issues.
(a) It attempts to limit the cargo documentation which the Shippers and/or Charterers must provide.
This will mean that the Master and Owners are unlikely to be fully aware of the true state of the
cargo prior to loading.
18
(b) It provides that once the cargo is loaded, all cargo on board shall be deemed to have been
accepted and shall not be sampled or tested further. This does not make any provision for the fact
that the state of the cargo may well change during loading or that the cargo documentation may
not accurately reflect the actual state of the cargo.
(c) It limits the surveyors which can be appointed by Owners to those which Charterers deem to be
suitable. As has been stated above, it is essential that any analysis of the cargo is carried out by
an experienced, competent laboratory. Owners must therefore be able to appoint a
surveyor/laboratory who will carry out any analysis thoroughly and accurately.