05 October 2006

Our Ref.: HS-10123/4700000

MINUTES

INTERTANKO Vetting Committee # 29

Held at INTERTANKO Office

St Clare House

30-33 Minories

London

EC3N 1DD

3rd October 2006.

ATTENDEES:

Company / First Name / Last Name
1 / A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm / Mr. / Peter / Abildgaard
2 / V.Ships Inc. / Capt. / Bob / Bishop
3 / Scorpio Ship Management / Capt. / Ashley / Cooper
4 / Interorient Navigation Co. Ltd / Capt. / Steve / Hardy
5 / Heidenreich Marine Inc / Capt. / John / Hill
6 / Tsakos Shipping & Trading S.A / Capt. / Alan / Johnson
7 / Neda Maritime Agency Co. Ltd / Mr. / Ken / Marshall
8 / Frontline Ltd / Capt. / Svein / Ommundsen
9 / Eagle Ship Management Pte. Ltd / Capt. / Raja / Rajalingham
10 / Hanseatic Shipping Co. Ltd / Capt. / Graeme / Ross
11 / Teekay (Singapore) Pte. Ltd / Capt. / Dinesh / Pradhan
12 / Unicom Management Services (Cyprus) Ltd / Mr. / David W. / Sharp
13 / Kyklades Maritime Corporation / Capt. / Cosmas J, / Thiraios
14 / Chandris (Hellas) Inc. / Mr. / Christophorous / Vallianatos
15 / Laurin Maritime (America) Inc. / Capt. / Michael / Wilson
16 / INTERTANKO / Capt. / Howard / Snaith
17 / INTERTANKO / Dr. / Peter / Swift

Apologies Received From:

Capt. Andy Hill. MOL Tankship Management (Europe) Ltd

Capt. Antonis Filippidis. Roxana Shipping SA

Capt. Amit Jain. Unix Line Pte Ltd.

Mr. Patrick Russi. Stolt Nielsen Transportation Group

1.Anti-Trust/Competition Law Compliance

At the start of the meeting members were reminded of INTERTANKO’s Anti-trust/Competition law Compliance Statement and that the meeting was being conducted in compliance with INTERTANKO’s anti-trust/competition law guidelines.

2.Minutes from the Last Meeting

The minutes from the last meeting had previously being approved by the committee via e-mail in the usual manner, circulated to all INTERTANKO vetting contacts and placed on the INTERTANKO members area of our web site. However, it was raised that Cosmos Thiraios was omitted from the attendance list shown in the minutes to vetting # 28 and it was thus agreed that this would be corrected.

Action Point 1:Update the attendance list in vetting committee minutes # 28 to reflect the attendance of Capt. Cosmos Thiraios.
  1. Action Points arising from the last meeting

Vetting #28, Action point 15: Whilst noting that the TMSA benchmarking section of the INTERTANKO web site had only being released for 2 weeks it was felt by the committee that the 27 entries entered into the database was quite low. Despite several alerts in the INTERTANKO weekly news and several vetting contact bulletins. It was agreed therefore that the secretary would continue to highlight the availability of the database to members accordingly.
Vetting # 28, Action Point 17: It was agreed by the committee that additional oil companies would be contacted regarding the TMSA requirements and that David Sharp would provide an updated contact list to the secretary.
Vetting # 28, Action point 19: The committee noted that the action point was completed but requested that the secretary also write similar letters, to that sent to OCIMF, directly to the oil companies who were members of SIRE, but were not submitting SIRE reports into the SIRE system;such Oil Companies included REPSOL, PETRONAS, CEPSA, ENI, ERG and SUNNOCO. It was agreed that Christophorous Vallianatos would submit details for ERG to the secretary.
Vetting # 28 Action Point 20: It was requested that the secretary re-solicit requests to the various MoU’s regarding requests for the availability for A.O.H. contacts for PSC officials to be made available in the case of situations that arose where a vessel was detained and the matter had being corrected, but the vessel needed PSC to re-attend to correct the defect.
Vetting # 28 Action Point 24: This related to the matter of “yes” and “no” answers in SIRE reports with regards to automation and the necessity that qualifications regarding the “yes” and “no” answers were included by the inspectors.
It was agreed:-
  1. Michael Wilson would draft a guidance note aimed at ships Masters to assist them regarding what to do at the close out meetings to ensure that comments were not added by the inspector after the event.
  1. A letter would be drafted to OCIMF with a request that this be raised at the OCIMF GPC meeting, regarding the importance of quantification of SIRE inspectors comments against yes/no answers and the apparent practice of adding additional comments post inspection.
  1. It was agreed that the committee would submit comments in this regard for inclusion in the letter to OCIMF.
  1. It was agreed that Steve Hardy would draft a letter (to be sent to the secretary) for forwarding to OCIMF regarding this matter in relation to new buildings that have recently left the ship yard.

Vetting # 28 Action Point 29: It was noted that this action point was completed, (such that INTERTANKO has made many attempts at contacting Kuwait Petroleum Company regarding the age restrictions they have imposed at their terminal, but no response had being forthcoming).But it was agreed that Steve Hardy would submit contact details to the secretary regarding additional contacts who may be approached on this matter.

4.Reports from the Working Groups

4.1 Terminal Vetting Database – Chairman Capt.John Hill

The committee reviewed the TVD discussion paper that was circulated prior to the meeting. Various proposals had been suggested to build upon the terminal database that currently exists,as it is believed that additional functionality can be incorporated into the database, and feedback from the terminals needs to be enhanced by allowing the terminals to submit their own comments, where negative observations (scores less than 2) have been recorded.It was also proposed that and a definitive life-time should be incorporated for each report submitted, such that members’ interest and pertinent reports remain active, current and up to date.

With this framework in mind and following initial preliminary discussions with our IT consultants regarding “pro’s and con’s” the following changes were agreed by the committee, to be incorporated into the TVD.

In order for these proposals to be incorporated successfully it will be necessary for the existing access rights for the TVD to be opened a little wider to what we will term “registered users”, these registered users may or may not be Members or Associate members of INTERTANKO, as will become obvious later.

All fields on the Terminal Vetting form will continue to have to be completed in order to proceed to the next data entry field, this will remain important to ensure that the accuracy of the system is maintained regarding the country, port, terminal and berth are properly identified. (This will also continue to form part of our internal quality check prior to releasing the report into the database).

All answers will have to be completed by the Master/Owner and the ratings entered along with an appropriate explanation or comment provided when giving a low rating of 1 (poor) or 2 (below average).

Enhancements were agreed with regards to amplifying the ratings involved, this has being undertaken with regards to suitable references contained in the OCIMF publications ISGOTT and the Mooring Equipment Guidelines. The actual questionnaire of the TVD will remain unchanged at this time,other than the simple addition of an e-mail contact for the terminal. The main changes that will be made are simply an enhancement of the guidance given regarding what the ratings should be.

Once the TVD is completed on line, the report will then be sent to the INTERTANKO TVD Admin section and the report status will be marked “Received”

An internal quality check will be made to ensure that the correct spellings of countries and ports have been provided, (Although this may appear minor it will continue to be critical to the accurate operation of the TVD), along with a simply veracity check of the quality and comments made.

Once the quality checks are completed and the TVD report “Accepted” the report will be transferred into “Standby Mode”.

At this stage the TVD report (minus the ship name and/or owner identifiers to ensure confidentiality remains paramount), will be automatically sent electronically to the terminal representativeONLY if the report contains a specific low score or 2 or less.Accompanying, the report will be a standard covering letter that will advise (for example), “The report has being received with a low score and is being sent to the terminal representative to allow the terminal to submit their comments into the “Terminal Comments” section of the INTERTANKO TVD and indicate what if any corrective actions have been or are planned to be undertaken. Access details for the terminal to access the TVD will be included at this time.

The terminal will be granted 1 Monthto enter their comments into the TVD with regards to the negative comments received.Once 1 Month has elapsed the report will be released into the INTERTANKO TVD irrespective if the terminals comments to the low score are received or not”.

At the end of the 1 month period the terminal report will be electronically changed from “Standby Mode” to “Report Active”, irrespective of the receipt of terminal comments. If no terminal comments have been received the area for terminal comments will be marked “Terminals comments not received”.

Once the report is active, registered users of the TVD will be able to access the active reports, which will remain confidential to the vessel/owner/master who submitted the report i.e. it will remain anonymous. Users will also be able to view the terminals comments if submitted with regards to any low scores.

It would be hoped and expected that the terminals comments will be positive, reflective of sound ISO practices and relate to deficiencies raised with appropriate close out of same, with the long term view of continual improvement as appropriate.

The database will maintain 10 active reports for each terminal until the report reaches 12 months of age when it will be archived.

A system will be incorporated into the TVD that will automatically move the TVD reports from the “Report Active” area to the “Archived Section”at this stage only the INTERTANKO secretariat will have access to the report and it will longer be accessible to registered users of the TVD.

The committee agreed that what was more important than thousands of old reports, were up to date reports with feedback from the terminal within the last 12 months.

A graphical representation of the concept is shown below:

Graphical Representation for the Revised TVD

Revised TVD Process
TVD Report received from Owner into the TVD / In Internal Quality check undertaken / 1. If scores all above 2 Then Report goes direct to active mode.
2. If scores 2 or below: e-mail sent to Terminal with the report & request for Terminal comments to the low scores.
Time Limit for Terminal comments: 1 Month / 1.If scores above 2 the Report will be “active” and accessible to registered users in the TVD
2. If scores 2 or less the report will become “active” after 1 month, irrespective of Terminals comments being received or not.
3.If no Terminal comments to a score 2 or less the report will show “Terminal comments not received” / The database will maintain 10 active reports for each terminal until the report reaches 12 months of age when it will then be archived.
Report Status / Received / Accepted / Standby / Active / Archived
Action Point 2: A legal review would be requested by INTERTANKO’s general Council regarding the consequences (if any), of terminals which are currently outside of INTERTANKO membership having restricted access (by that this means registered access) to the reports that are available on other terminals within the TVD which is within the members area of the web site.
Action Point 3: Pending the positive outcome of action Point 1 it was agreed that INTERTANKO will proceed with the “upgrade” of the Terminal Vetting database to phase 2 of the databases development as outlined in the minutes to Vetting # 28.
Action Point 4: Parameters will be created such that the TVD will maintain 10 active reports for each terminal until the report reaches 12 months of age when it will then be archived.
Action Point 5: It was agreed to request the Maritime Security Working Group of ISTEC to continue to urge responses from members regarding the Industry Security form. It was also agreed that Ashley Cooper would submit a proposed revised draft of the Industry Security Form to the secretary for forwarding to the INTERTANKO Maritime Security Issue Manager for consideration to be incorporated by the industry.
Action Point 6: INTERTANKO is requested to continue its efforts to be engaged in future revisions of ISGOTT, solely based upon the ability to be able to submit comments to the authors.
Action Point 7: It was agreed that the Owner/Operator of the vessel would be the appropriate body to be able to enter the terminal e-mail contact details on the TVD form in the cases where a score of 2 or less was received in order to enable INTERTANKO to request feedback from the terminal.
Action Point 8: It was agreed by the committee that that the creation of a benchmarking system for terminal owners should not be progressed at this time within the TVD, but would be reviewed again in the future.

4.2Detention Statistics Working Group – Chairman Peter Abildgaard

The committee was updated regarding the current status and that we had being offered a contract between The Paris MoU and INTERTANKO regarding supply of the CAS information contained within Questionnaire 88 as held on the Q88.com web site (and linked to EQUASIS) in exchange for INTERTANKO receiving the detention statistics directly from The Paris MoU. It was noted that as the CAS information would be supplied by Q88.com, via the partnership agreement between INTERTANKO and Q88.com it would be necessary to re-draft the contract between The Paris MoU and INTERTANKO such that it included Q88.com as the data supplier. This re-draft was currently in hand and it was reported by the secretary that it was hoped this would soon be agreed. The committee took note.

Action Point 9: The committee requested INTERTANKO to issue an article in the INTERTANKO weekly news advising members that we believe an enhanced focus on vessels detentions will be undertaken by Oil Companies when screening vessels for business.

4.3 Officer Matrix Working Group – Chairman Steve Hardy

The committee reviewed the officer matrix discussion document that was circulated with the agenda which included an anonymous summary of the numerous officer matrix comments received from INTERTANKO members’, (in response to the secretaries request for comments regarding problems/difficulties in complying with current officer matrix requirements), a summary of the existing oil company officer matrix requirements, the collated pool data of officers experience (covering 222 tankers and 4617 Officers), after due discussion the committee agreed that:

  • The industry is increasingly set by time in rank requirements which are competing and contradictory for the industry overall,and if applied by all Charterers, would be unable to be complied with on all tanker vessels.
  • Current compliance levels created difficulties and restrictions in promoting officers.
  • Manning companies were unable to benefit from time in rank or time in company.
  • There is a growing shortage of experienced Officers.
  • Difficulties in maintaining manning levels will not disappear and an alternative approach is required.
  • Existing base criteria is different in each case and compounds the problems of compliance.
  • Officers are being flown to vessels to satisfy current compliance requirements, which diminishes the combined officer experience levels of the vessels they are removed from.

As a consequence of the committees conclusions the following action points were identified:

Action Point 10: INTERTANKO to re-assess current accident statistics and breakdown of causes utilising sources such as L.R. Fairplay, MAIB or the P&I Clubs and identify trends.
Action Point 11: Formally approach the oil companies requesting their officer matrix requirements for inclusion in the forthcoming 7th edition of “A Guide to Vetting Process” publication. Coordinate this with the Committee Chairman (Bob Bishop) and Vice Chairman (Michael Wilson).
Action Point 12: Approach the Oil companies with a request to shift existing time in rank to time in Company.
Action Point 13: Recognising the shortfall in (a) competence and (b) regulations to support operational excellence, INTERTANKO will seek to establish a Tanker Officers Training Standard (for Oil and Chemical) which,when complied with,will ensure tanker officers experience and competence. To achieve this aim the Vetting Committee has established a working group to over see and review such a task which will be chaired by Captain Rajalingham under the auspice of the Vetting Committee but coordinated with the INERTANKO Human Element Committee.
Action Point 14: The vetting committee requested that a proposal be made to INTERTANKO Council, via the INTERTANKO Q-Quest Group of the Executive Committee,to review a possible membership criteria that would place a requirement on INTERTANKO members’ to place at least 2 cadets on each vessel, although the vetting committee recognised that there are physical restraints on some vessels regarding accommodation to comply with such a requirement. As a consequence it was agreed that this concern should be passed to INTERTANKO ISTEC Committee to be taken into account with regards to that committees work regarding new building standards.
Action Point 15: The Secretary is to produce a paper regarding the shortage of seafarers today expanding upon the reasons behind the decline in crew numbers, which should also be passed and coordinated with the Human Element Committee.

4.4 Vetting Charter Party Working Group - Chairman Bob Bishop