В статье рассматриваются вопросы, связанные с Международным кодексом морской перевозки навалочных грузов (МКМПНГ). Эти вопросы не утрачивают актуальности, поэтому глубокое исследование, предпринятое автором, не могло не обратить на себя внимание, тем более, что положения МКМПНГ систематически пересматриваются. Автор анализирует причины изменений в положениях МКМПНГ и противоречия между перевозчиками (судовладельцами, их страховщиками и сюрвейерами), с одной стороны, и грузоотправителями (трейдерами) – с другой. Значительное внимание уделяется сути таких новелл и их воздействию на практику в морской индустрии различных стран, в частности, Индии, Австралии и Бразилии.
Iron ore and iron ore fines have been a subject of much deliberation over the last decade or so. Seafarers may well find themselves asking ‘What are fines? Is there a difference between concentrates and fines? What percentage of‘fine’ material can iron ore lumps contain before they must be treated as fines?’ The answers to these questions are available. But the challenges are getting bigger, and the stakes are getting higher. We need to develop our own perspective on the interpretation of the changes in the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargo Code (IMSBC Code) while keeping its spirit intact.
Why all the fuss?
Iron ore and iron ore fines are two separate cargoes. Iron ore largely comprises lumpy material resembling small rocks or stones of 10-25 mm in diameter. It is defined as a category ‘C’ cargo under the IMSBC Code, meaning it is not liable to liquefy. Iron ore fines are largely made up of powdery material below 10 mm in size, and may be produced by sieving the natural ore. The IMSBC Code defines iron ore fines as a category ‘A’ cargo, meaning that it may liquefy if shipped at a moisture content in excess of its Transportable Moisture Limit (TML).
The transportation of iron ore fines has increased massively since the process of sintering – that is, coagulating iron ore fines with coke to enable their use in the blast furnace – came of age in the late 20th century. Before sintering became common, just 10-20% of all iron ore produced was used. The rest-fines and micro-fines – was dumped as waste. With the introduction of sintering, there was suddenly a market for the so called ‘dumps’. In addition to this, demand for iron ore has increased exponentially in recent years. India alone exported over 100 million tonnes annually to China in the years 2009-2011.
Suddenly, there was so much margin and so much money involved in the iron ore trade that ‘export at all costs’ became the name of the game. In the complete disregard for anything but business that followed in some quarters, many seafarers lost their lives. The Bulk Jupiter in Jan 2015, Hcirita Bauxite in 2013, Jian Fu Star, Nasco Diamond and Hong Wei in 2010 and the Asian Forest in 2009 are only a few of the vessels affected by liquefaction.
While the price of iron ore has been heading south for some time now, shippers and traders are (conveniently) still not ready to believe in the consequences of liquefaction, their common motto being ‘We have transported ore for the last 50 vears without a mishap’. Ignorance coupled with commercial pressure leads to unprofessionalism and malpractice. Essential and mandatory information is being treated as a cumbersome paper exercise.
Owners, guided by P&I Clubs and associated surveyors, are in direct confrontation with the shippers. Shippers do not cooperate with owner’s representatives. This has to change if we are to address the appalling safety record in the industry.
The IMSBC Code
The understanding that liquefaction will kill is not new. There has been plenty of work in this regard since 2004. The Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes (BC Code) has been replaced by the IMSBC Code, adopted in 2008 and mandatory from 2011.
The IMSBC Code is considered the Bible of dry bulk cargo carriage. Adherence to the code is mandatory under the SOLAS Convention, and the P&I Clubs have been working hard to keep members abreast of the latest developments. However, while the code is widely available and fairly well comprehended within the surveyor/seafarer community, there is still a fair amount of debate upon its actual interpretation and implementation. Issues which have emerged over the past ten years include:
- No separate schedule for iron ore fines While DSC.l/Circ.71 addresses this issue, it becomes mandatory only from 1 Jan 2017. This means iron ore fines are still being shipped as ‘iron concentrates’. However, the definition of the word ‘concentrate’ is very generalised and encompasses a w ide range of mineral ores. The shipping industry is of the opinion that iron ore fines should not be generalised with other minerals (eg nickel ore or similar ore concentrates).
- Ambiguous definitions The Code is very ambiguous in its definitions of quantity. For example, when it says ‘Any substantial portions of material which appear to be contaminated or significantly different in characteristics or moisture content from the bulk of the consignment shall be sampled and analysed separately’ – how much is a ‘substantial quantity’? There is no context to place this correctly. What does ‘certain proportion’ mean? When it savs ‘If there has been significant rain or snow between the time of testing and loading, check tests shall be conducted,’ how much rain is ‘significant rain’?
- Poor understanding of English While the overall command of the English language in the seafaring world is improving, interpreting specific requirements remains a challenge for many nationalities.
The current Code – IMSBC Code 2013
Since the IMSBC codc became mandatory in 2011, specific amendments have been made to address some of issues:
Competent authority
The definition of a ‘competent authority’ now includes a requirement tor the competent authority to operate independently of the shipper.
Section 4 – Assessment of acceptability
Sub-section 4.3 states that certificates ot test are to be issued by an entity recognised by the competent authority at the port of loading.
A new paragraph 4.3.3 has been added requiring the shipper to have in place procedures for sampling, testing and controlling the moisture content of the cargo to ensure it is below the TML. These procedures are to be approved by the competent authority at the port of loading. A copy of the approved document issued by the competent authority is to be provided to the Master or his representative.
Barging
MSC.l/Circl454 adds a new paragraph 4.3.4 addressing the problem of uncovered barges with low freeboard transporting Group ‘A’ cargoes to other vessels. Shippers are to include measures to protect cargo on barges from precipitation and water ingress. This amendment will have a major impact on loading in Goa, where nearly all cargo is transported by open barges and loaded by either ships’ own cranes or by trans-shippers.
Sampling procedures
Under sub-section 4.4 – Sampling procedures, a new paragraph 4.4.3 requires shippers to facilitate access to stockpiles by the ship’s nominated representative for the purposes of inspection and sampling for subsequent testing. This amendment is of particular significance as between 2009 and 2013, a practice of blacklisting of particular surveyors by shippers had become common place in India. A provision was included in the charterparty barring owners from appointing specific surveyors. Even if owners managed to appoint their own surveyors, these surveyors were seldom allowed to access the stockpiles of the shippers.
Test procedures
Sub-section 8.4, covering test procedures for cargoes which may liquefy–, has been divided into two subsections. Subsection 8.4.1 retains the complementary test procedures for determining the possibility of liquefaction (Master’s use of an auxiliary method for determining the possibility of flow, aka the can- test). Sub-section 8.4.2 advising that even if a sample remains dry following the can-test, the moisture content of the material may still exceed the TML. This amendment is particularly intriguing and needs to be discussed in greater detail.
It may seem obvious to question why the can-test should be included in the IMSBC, if it does not indicate whether or not the moisture content exceeds the TML. However, it is important to emphasise that the can-test must not be confused w ith section 4 of the IMSBC Code, which defines criteria for accepting cargo for shipment. The can-test must not be used as a criterion for accepting cargo for shipment. However, it can be an extremely important tool, if not the only one, in the Master’s hands.
The can-test can give a lot more information than may previously have been thought. eDOT Marine Lab has analysed over 100 different samples using all methods in the IMSBC Code including the type D test, and compared the results with those of the can- test. The can-test unquestionably gives recognisable evidence of how the physical attributes of the cargo change when close to its TML/FMP.
Let us look at the TML set by the IMSBC, and compare the results of the can-test (column, left).
| Method used (As specified by | TML |
| the IMSBC code) | |
| Flow table test | 13.1 % |
| Penetration test | 13.3 % |
| Proctor & Fagerberg test, type С | 13.0% |
| Proctor & Fagerberg test, type D | 14.9 % |
Note the degree to which the cargo is compacted, and how that compaction changes as the moisture content increases. We can safely deduce that compaction of the cargo begins when the moisture level is somewhere between 12.58 % and 14.16 % (the cargo at 14.16% is compacted quite nicely). If the Master or his representative was earn ing out a can- test of the cargo being loaded; assuming that he has accepted the cargo for loading as per the provisions of Sec 4 of the IMSBC Code 2013, loading could still be halted as soon as the can-test shows that significant compaction begins (significant meaning when the cargo ceases to crumble, as shown in the first couple of pictures, and starts forming a hard jelly-like mass). The moisture level at that point would be around the 13-13.5% mark; very close to the TML obtained by the three older methods and well below the TML obtained using the new type D method. This will negate the possibility of loading any unsafe cargo into the ship’s holds.
The role of the can-test becomes even more important in the Indian context where cargo is often loaded at the anchorages from barges.
Challenges – The Indian context
There are a number of concerns about compliance with both the existing and future regimes in the Indian context in particular. Brazil and Australia are claiming to comply fully, not only with the IMSBC Code 2013, but also with the amendments scheduled for mandatory entry in 2017:
Compliance with the present regime — IMSBC Code 2013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||