Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 158

1.

DAMAGED CARGO, REQUEST TO REPLACE


This is to inform you that today, on.... 19.. during loading of
cargo of white mineral oil under B/L... into Hold N... damaged was
caused to... barrels of white mineral oil due to negligent work of
the crane operator who struck the pallet with the barrels against the
coaching of the hatch square while lowering the draft into the hold.
The barrels are badly dented and leaking.
I kindly ask you to replace the damaged barrels before
completion of loading.

1. , .

, , 19
.
11 - ,
,
6 . .
.

2. DAMAGED CARGO REJECTED


This is to inform you that today, on..... 19.00 during loading of cargo of
white mineral oil under B/L 11 into Hold 3 damaged was caused to 6 barrels of
white mineral oil due to negligent work of the crane operator. The barrels are
badly dented and leaking. Before break for lunch, my Cargo Officer asked you to
replace the defective barrels. Nevertheless this has not been done and the
defective barrels are still in Hold 3.
I kindly ask you to remove the aforesaid barrels to shore before
completion of work today as I refuse to accept them for transportation.

2.
, 1992 .
11 3 - 6
. .
.
3.
,
.

3. DAMAGED CARGO STATEMENT


STATEMENT
We, undersigned, Jean Marimba, Chief Stevedore for the 'Perry Mass on
Stevedoring Co. ', and Peter Voronov, the Cargo Officer of the m. v. 'Shuya'
hereby wish to state that while discharging the cargo of grain from Hold 4 Port
and Starb. D. T. of the m. v. 'Shuya' some wet damaged cargo was found on the
bottom of the D. T., about 30-40 tons, packed and stuck to the bottom.
The quantity and quality of the wet damaged grain will be stated after the
completion of discharging.
Signed in the port of Matanzas, Cuba, on 14 July, 1992.
Chief Stevedore..... J. Marimba
Cargo Officer..... P. Voronov

3.

, , ,
, , / "", ,
4 / ""

33-44 , .
.
, 14 1992 .

4. DAMAGED CARGO BY FIRE WHILE LOADING.


This is to bring to your notice that on the 13th of November in the course
of loading liquid bulk containers with benzol on deck of Hold 7 of my vessel, a
fire broke out about 14.00 hours, causing damage to one container.
Your stevedores' smoking undoubtedly caused the fire, through they had
been repeatedly warned not to smoke during loading.
I request that the damaged cargo is to be discharged and replaced at your
earliest convenience, so that the vessel may leave without delay.

4.
, 13
7, 14, ,
1 .
, , ,
.
,
.

5. CLAIM FOR BAD STOWAGE REJECTED.


Referring to your tale of July 14, 1992 regarding damaged to the shipment
of the machinery in crates delivered to you under the B/L 81 on voyage 2/92
please be advise of the following.
The damaged cargo was first noticed by the Cargo Officer on June 17, at
about 10.00 when he was making daily rounds inspecting lashing of the cargo in
the Holds. He found some of the braces securing the crates gone, and the wire,
with which he had been lashed, broken. Immediate additional lashing of the
crates was impossible, owing to heavy rolling and pitching of the vessel. Any
work in the hold would be endangered lives of the crew. Neither it was possible
at time to evaluate the scope of the damage. The fact and extent of damage was
ascertained by a P&I surveyor immediately upon the ship's arrival in Montreal.
I can not agree with you that damage was caused by improper stowage or
lack of due care on the part of the ship's crew. As you can see from the
enclosed documents, that the stowage had been approved by an official cargo
surveyor at the port of loading and the security of lashing was regularly
checked by the ship's crew on passage to the port of destination. As soon as it
became possible, we made additional lashing in order to prevent further damage.
Therefore, in my view, the crew has done everything that can be reasonable
expected to safeguard the cargo and the damage occurred due to exceptionally
severe storm with which the ship met on that voyage.
In view of the above, I reject your claim as groundless.

5.
14.7.92
, 81 2/92,
.
17.6
. , ,
, , ,
, . -
, . .
.
P & I .
,

. ,
,
.
,
, ,

,
.
.

6. IMPROPER LASHING OF DECK CONTAINERS.


I regret to inform you that lashing of cargo by the stevedores at our two
last calls at your port were carried out negligently. The bridge fittings and
lashing rods were not properly tightened and mostly only assembled together
owing to which the crew had to tighten up the lashing on both occasions. Usually
the Dockers leave the vessel on completion of cargo operations leaving the
lashing equipment lying about everywhere and without approval of the ship's
Cargo Officer.
In view of the above I kindly ask you to take action and instruct the
stevedores to report completion of their work to the ship's Cargo Officer and
not to leave without his approval which should be formally certified by his
signature. Otherwise, the ship will not leave the port until the cargo is
properly lashed and secured. In this case we shall hold the stevedoring company
fully responsible for all extra expenses and loses caused by such a delay of the
ship.

6. .

,

, -
,
.

,
, .
, .
,
, .

7. CONTAINER DROPPED DURING THE LOADING.


This is to inform you that today, on July 14, 1992 during the morning
shift due to negligence and incompetence of the crane operator working on Hatch
1 container SU 7171345 was dropped when it was being lifted and fell onto the
quay. As a result of the fall, the container and its contents were damaged.
As the stevedoring Company refuses to reimburse the damages in full on the
grounds that according to the Stevedoring Contract they have the right to
limitation of liability, we kindly ask you to arrange an independent survey of
the damage for tomorrow morning and invite a good lawyer specializing in cargo
claims for consultations on the matter.

7.
, 14 1992 . -
, 1,
7171345, .
.

,
,
,

8. BOXES WITH CARGO BROKEN DUE TO NEGLIGENT SLINGING.


This is to inform you that today, on the 14th of July during the morning
shift, while discharging the cargo tea from my vessel, due to careless handling
of cargo and improper slinging 5 boxes were dropped from the sling and were
totally broken.
I advise you hereby that I shall bear no responsibility for any claims in
connection with the above-mentioned damage caused to the goods in the course of
such inefficient discharging. At the same time, I hold the stevedoring Company,
Messrs..... responsible for the damage caused and for all the consequences,
which may arise therefrom, of which I kindly request you to advise the said
Stevedoring Company, port Authorities, and all concerned.

8. -

, , 14 1992 .
- 5
.

.
,
,
.

9. DAMAGE TO CONTAINER.
This is to inform you that today, on the 14 of July during the morning
shift, while discharging the cargo from my vessel, due to rough handling of the
containers and/or inefficient of the stevedores discharging the vessel, 1
container was stroked against the coamings the Hatch 4. As result of this, the
container was dented, and due to the impact, the cargo inside the container
sustained considerable damage. An appropriate Statement of Facts showing details
of the damage and signed by the Foreman of the Stevedoring Company
is enclosed herewith.
Please note that we shall reject any possible claims for this damage as
under the terms of the Stevedoring Agreement the Stevedoring Company undertakes
to refund damages. I am writing on this subject to the said Stevedoring Company
too.

9.
, , 14 1992 .
- /
, ,
4. , , ,
. ,
.
,
,
.
.

10. BAGS TORN BY HOOKS DUE TO IMPROPER SLINGING.


This is to inform you that today, on the 14 of July 1992, during the
morning shift, while discharging of cargo of rice from my vessel, due to
inadmissible use of hooks 6 bags of rice were badly torn and considerable
leakage and loss ensued.
I advise you hereby that I shall bear no responsibility for any claims in
connection with the above-mentioned damage caused to the goods in the course of
such inefficient discharging. At the same time, I hold the stevedoring Company,
Messrs..... responsible for the damage caused and for all the consequences,
which may arise therefrom, of which I kindly request you to advise the said
Stevedoring Company, port Authorities, and all concerned.

10. - .
, 14 1992 .
- 6
, .


,
,
.

11. PILFERAGE: STATEMENT OF FACTS


STATEMENTS OF FACTS

We, undersigned, Paul Hook Van Holland, Chief Stevedore for Vaalhaffen
Stevedoring Co. and V. A. Boriskin, Cargo Officer of m/v 'Shuya' do hereby
certify that on examining the box marked 'Rosexport 3472/92' shipped on board
the m/v 'Shuya' under the B/L 23 and consigned to "Genex Co. ", Rotterdam stowed
in Hold 1 of the above vessel we found the box broken and 100 wrist watches
missing. Signed in the port of
Rotterdam, Netherlands, on the 14th of July, 1992
.......... (P. H. Van Holland)
.......... (V. A. Boriskin)

11. :

, , ,
. . . / ""
, " 3472/92",
/ "" 23 " "
, 1 , ,
100
________
. . ________

12. PILFERAGE: REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE.


I regret to inform you that today, at 2.20 p. m., while the stevedores
were out for the lunch break, a Watch Sailor making the inspection round in Hold
1 found a box with cargo of wrist watches the packing of which had been broken.
The Watch Officer to whom this fact was reported immediately call the
Chief Stevedore. On inspecting the contents of that box, they found shortage of
100 pieces of watches. An appropriate Statement of Facts has been drawn up; the
copy of this Statement is enclosed herewith. As before the commencement of
discharging the contents of all holds had been inspected by a Cargo Surveyor and
the goods had been found to be in proper condition and the packing to be intact,
it is evidently a case of pilferage by the stevedores working in that hold.
In view of the above, I have to request you to investigate this matter.

12.
, 14.20,
, 1 ,
.
, ,
100
. ,

, , ,
, .
.

13. CONTAINER SEAL BROKEN, CARGO STOLEN.


This is to inform you that today, on June 17th, 1992 at 10.00 my Second
Mate inspecting the cargo in Hold 3 found that container SU/MMF 123245673 under
B/L 5 had been broached and part of cargo of woolen shawls was missing. It is
evidently a case of pilferage by the stevedores working in the hold, as prior to
commencement of discharging a cargo survey had been carried out and all the
seals on the containers had been found intact.
A copy of the survey report is enclosed herewith. On my orders, the
container has been detained on board for a damage survey and retallying the
cargo.
I kindly ask you to invite an independent surveyor for drawing up the
report, I give you a formal notice hereby that I hold you fully responsible for
all losses arising therefrom and ask you to take necessary action.

13. ,
, 17 1992 . 10.00
3 , / 123245673 5
. , ,
, ,
.

.

, ,
.

14. CARGO MIXED AND DAMAGED WHILE DISCHARGING.


I would like to draw your attention to inefficient and incompetent
discharge of the cargo of deals and boards from my ship by the stevedores of
"Haram Stevedoring Co. ". During discharge of the cargo of sawn timber from
Holds 1 and 2 today and yesterday the stevedores broke two bundles of boards
while discharging them into lighters and part of the cargo fell overboard into
the dirty water. Besides, the steel wire sling used by stevedores chafed part of
the cargo. Nevertheless my repeated requests, the foreman has not replaced it
with a sling of natural or synthetic fibre. The lost of the cargo had been
properly marked, as shown in the stowage plan, but while collecting boards from
the broken bundles the stevedores mixed them with boards bearing different marks
and numbers.
In view of the above, I warn you that I will hold the above stevedoring
company responsible for all the damage and will not accept any claims for short
shipment or mixed cargo after the cargo is discharged from the ship. Please
advice the consignees and all concerned.

14.

" . ".
1 2 , 24 1992 ., 2
. .
, , .
,
.
, -, ,
, .
,

- .

15. CARGO MIXED DURING LOADING.


This is to inform you that many of the pipes loaded into my vessel under
B/Ls 21-26 consigned to "Promsyrioimport" are rusted and their ends are not
covered with plastic caps.
Pipes of different diameters and marks are mixed in the barge from which
they are loaded into the ship's holds.
I give you a (formal) warning hereby that I shall have to make appropriate
remarks in the B/L and that the ship will not take responsibility for sorting
the pipes at the port of discharge.

15.
, ,
21-26 "" ,
.
, , ,
.

()
,

, ,
.

16. BROKEN CASES: REQUEST TO REPAIR.


This is to inform you that today, on September 11, 1992, during loading
part of cargo of automobile spare parts in boxes consigned to Messrs. "Ant",
Moscow, under the B/L 34, into Hold 3 some damage was caused to 6 boxes, when
the crane operator struck the pallet with boxes against the coaming of the hatch
square, while lowering the draft into Hold 3. The boxes have broken planks on
one side and require repair.
The damage caused to the contents and the packing is described in detail
in the Damage Survey Report made up by the Surveyor, invited after the incident.
A copy of the report will be send to you through my agent, as soon as it is
received.
I hold you responsible for the damage and all consequences thereof, and
kindly ask you to have the damaged boxes repaired before completion of loading.

16. :
, , 11 1992 . 34 3
, "" ,
6 ,
. .
, ,
, ,
. ,
.


.

17. REPACKAGING OF CARGO REQUIRED.


Please note that the covers of the packed steel sheets loaded into N 2
lower hold aft part are rusted and most of the bands broken. The Mate's Receipt
for this particular lot will be claused accordingly. The cover of steel package
N 120 is very badly damaged and the contents exposed.
Kindly have the cover renewed and inform the authorities concerned.

17. .
, ,
2,
.
. 120
.
.

18. COILS OF STEEL WIRE BADLY PACKED.


I consider it my duty to advise you in good time of the fact that the
steel wire delivered for loading and addressed to Messrs. "....... " is poorly
wrapped. The present wrapping consists of only one layer of burlap, which can
not protect the wire from possible sweating. In the previous voyage, the
consignees refused to accept part of the cargo owing to surface rust on the
wire.
Kindly take urgent measures to secure proper wrapping of the above
shipment, otherwise I will be obliged to make a remark in the B/L about
insufficiency of wrapping.

18.
,
, .......,
. ,
.
- .

,
.

19. PACKING SOILED / STAINED.


This is to inform you that today, on September 11, 1992, after discharging
of the part cargo of gunny bales from Hold 3 had begun, my Cargo Officer found 8
bales in the top layer of the bales in N3 lower hold badly stained. The damage
was caused by the stevedores' walking on top of the gunny bales in dirty shoes
during discharging operations.
I kindly ask you to take necessary action to prevent further damage to the
cargo. Please note that the ship will not be responsible for any damage caused
by the stevedores.

19.
, 11 1992 .
3, , 8
3 .
, .

. ,
, .

20. FAILURE TO PROVIDE FULL LOAD.


This is to inform you that according to our computation based on the
measurements of the ship's draught before and after loading the cargo of
cottonseed expellers into Holds 1, 2, 4 and 5 under C/P dated Jan. 7, 1991, the
weight of the above cargo is only is only 1600 metric tons, and not 1750 as per
the above Charter Party.
As the time allowed for loading expires at 16.00 tomorrow, please let me
know, if you wish to complete the cargo. If not, I will hold you responsible for
dead freight on 150 metric tons which, according to terms of the Charter Party,
at the rate of $ U. S. 50 per metric ton, is $ U. S. 650, and kindly ask you to
pay the above sum before the ship's departure.

20.
, ,
1,2,4 5
7 1991 ., 1600
, 1750, .
, , 16.00,
, . ,
150 ,
50 1 650
.

21. CLAIM FOR DEMURRAGE MONEY.


This is to inform you that due to your failure to provide cargo of linseed
expellers for my vessel as fast as she could receive, as per C/P dated 03.01.91,
laytime allowed for loading expired at 08.00 hours local time March 8, 1991.
From that time until completion of loading, that is 15.00 hours local time,
today, March 10, 1991 the vessel was on demurrage of which you had been duly
warned in advance by my letter of March 3, 1991. Therefore, the time of the
vessel on demurrage is 2 days and 6 hours 30 minutes, which at the rate of 500
U. S. Dollars per 1 hour of demurrage as per the C/P makes the total of 10750 U.
S. Dollars.
I hold you responsible for the above sum and kindly ask you to pay it
before our departure.

21.

, - ,
,
03.01.91, 08.00 8
1991 . , .. 15.00
, 11 1991 . ,
3 1991 . ,
2 6 30 , 500 ,
, 10750 .

.

22. DEMURRAGE, FULL CARGO NOT SUPPLIES.


This is to bring to your notice that the laydays for loading my vessel
expired yesterday, on the 11th of April, 1991.
As up to date you have not supply full cargo of 5000 mat of maize to my
vessel, as per Charter Party of Jan. 24, 1991, I hereby request you to let me
know whether you intend to load any more cargo at all.
Please note that in accordance with the Charter Party terms under these
circumstances you will be held liable for demurrage, dead freight, and damages
incurred through your not supplying full cargo.

22. ,
,
11 1991 . 5000 ..
24 1991 . ,
, -
.
,
, ,
.

23. DISCREPANCY IN CALCULATION OF DEMURRAGE.


I have received all the documents in relation to the calculation of
laytime and demurrage of my vessel in your port. I deem it my duty to contend
that the amount of demurrage offered by you is much less than that claimed for
by my Owners. Enclosed please find copies of our demurrage calculations.

23.

. , ,
, ,
. .

24. VERIFICATION BEFORE DEPARTURE DEMANDED.


This is to inform you that according to our calculation based on
measurements of the ship's load lines made before and after loading the cargo of
cottonseed expellers loaded into Holds 1, 2 and 4 under B/L 12 is only 4600
metric tons, while you claim that the total amount of the cottonseed expellers
under this B/L is 4750 metric tons.
Fearing claims for short shipment, and acting under Clause 11, Part (e) of
the Charter Party of June 17, 1992, I formally request to have weight verified,
which under Part (b) of the same Clause will be for your account. For this
purpose, I kindly ask you to invite urgently an independent cargo surveyor for
verification of the weight of the cargo to be held immediately after completion
of loading tomorrow.

24.

, ,
, ,
, 1,2 4 12 08.00
4600 ,
, , 4750 .
11, ()
, 17 1992 .,
, , () , .

, , .

25. SIGNING BILL OF LADING UNDER PROTEST.


This is to inform you that according to measurements of the ship's load
lines before and after loading, the cargo of coal loaded into Holds 2 and 4
under B/Ls 12 and 13 is only 4600 metric tons, and not 4750 mat as indicated in
your documents.
Since you contest the fact and insist on issuing clean Bills of Lading, I
declare hereby that I am signing the B/Ls 12 and 13 under protest, and I will
hold you responsible for short shipment in case of a claim by Receivers.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing and returning one
copy of it.

25.
, ,
, , 1, 2 4 12 13,
4600 , 4750, .
,
, 12 13
.
, .

26. SLOW LOADING, LAYTIME EXPIRING.


This is to inform you that loading 4750 metric tons of part of cargo of
cottonseed expellers into Holds 1, 2 and 4 of the m. v. "Rover" is being carried
out exceedingly slow, and that only 500 mat have been loaded up to now.
I have to remind you that taking into consideration 5 days allowed for
loading by the C/P of Jan. 3, 1991 in 3 days, that is, from 08.00 local, May 3,
1991 the vessel will be on demurrage.
I kindly ask you to speed up loading.

26. ,
, 4750
1,2 4 / "" .
500 .
, 5 ,
30.1.91 3 , .. 08.00 30.5.91,
.
.

27. SLOW LOADING, REQUEST TO SPEED UP WORK.


I should like to draw your attention to the fact that loading of the pipes
under B/Ls 1-20 consigned to "Promsyrioimport" is being carried out slowly. Only
950 metric tons, instead of 1600, were loaded during the first day.
Considering 5 days allowed by the Charter Party for loading, the ship will
be on demurrage in 4 days.
I kindly ask you to take necessary action to speed up the loading, and, if
necessary, to use an extra cranes and detail an extra gang for simultaneous
loading into two holds.

27. ,
, 1-20,
, .
950 1600 .
, 5 , ,
4 .
, ,

.

28. SLOW DISCHARGING, REQUEST TO SPEED UP WORK.


I wish to bring to your attention the fact that the rate at which the
cargo is being discharged is very slow and my vessel is already on demurrage,
taking into consideration five days reversible for loading and discharging.
Please make necessary arrangements to accelerate discharge and inform all
those concerned of the above.
I shall be obliged if you will sign and return the attached copy of this
letter in acknowledgement of its receipt.

28. ,
, ,
, 5
.
,
.
,
1 .

29. SLOW LOADING, DEMURRAGE, DEAD FREIGHT.


I would like to remind you that laydays for loading my vessel expired
yesterday, on March 12, 1992. Now the vessel is on demurrage.
As up to date you have not supplied the full cargo of 5000 mat of pipes to
my vessel, as per Charter Party dated January 24, 1992, I hereby request you to
let me know whether you intend to load any more cargo at all.
Please note that in accordance with the Charter Party terms under these
circumstances you will be held liable for demurrage and dead freight to be paid
in cash before the ship's departure.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing and returning one
copy of it.

29. , ,
,
, 12 1992 ., .
5000
24 1992 . , ,
.
, ,
, ,
,
.
, 1 .

30. SLOW DISCHARGE, LAYTIME EXPIRING.


This is to inform you that discharge of 1750 metric tons of part of cargo
of cottonseed expellers from Holds 1, 2 and 4 of m/v "Rover" is being carried
out exceedingly slow, and that only 500 mat have been discharged up to now. I
have to remind you that taking into consideration 5 days allowed for discharging
by the C/P of Jan. 3, 1991 in 3 days, tat is, from 08.00 local, May 3, 1991 the
vessel will be on demurrage.
I kindly ask you to speed up discharging and inform the Receivers and all
concerned.

30. ,
, 1750 1,2 4 /
"" 500 .
, 5 ,
03.01.91, 3 , .. 08.00 03.05.91,
.

.

31. LAYTIME EXPIRING, SHIP WAITING FOR BERTH.


This is to advise you that, as scheduled, my vessel arrived at the outer
roads of your port at 05.00 LT on June 24, 1992. The Port Authorities, however,
let me know that there was no berth available in the port, and they recommended
me, therefore, to anchor. At present, the vessel is still lying at anchor
waiting for berth.
I wish to remind you of the fact that, according to Charter Party, "time
wasted in waiting for berth is counted as loading or discharging time, as the
case may be". Therefore, laytime commenced to count, as provided by the Charter
Party, from 1.00 p. m. June 24, 1992 and after 2 days the ship will be on
demurrage.
Please inform all concerned and take necessary action.

31. ,

,
05.00. 24.06.92. , ,
, ,
.

. , , ,
, . ,
13.00 24.06.92 .
2 .
.

32. DEAD FREIGHT NOT PAID.


This is to inform you that, according to our computation based on the
measurements of the ship's draught taken before and after loading, the cargo of
cottonseed expellers into Holds 1, 2, 4 and 5 under Charter Party dated Jan. 7,
1991, the weight of the above cargo is only 4600 metric tons, and not 4750 as
per the above Charter Party.
Therefore, I hold you responsible for dead freight on 150 metric tons
which, according to the terms of the Charter Party, at the rate of $U. S. 15 per
metric ton, is $U. S. 225 and I kindly ask you to pay the above sum before the
ship's departure.

32.
,
, , 1,2 4 07.01.91,
4600 , 4750 , .
150 ,
15 1 225
.

33. FREIGHT NOT PAID IN FULL.


As provided in the C/P the goods were to be delivered to you against
payment of $25000.00, representing the amount of freight to be collected on
delivery the goods. In compliance with your request we began unloading yesterday
at 08.00 a.m. on the understanding that the money in question would be paid in
today by 10.00 a.m. to your Agent here.
Today, at 12.00 a.m., I was informed by our Agents, Messrs. "Rice Unruh"
that the money had not been paid as yet. Under the circumstances I had to stop
unloading and to detain a sufficient portion of goods until the said freight is
paid in full, of which please take due note.
I give you a formal warning hereby that if the money is not paid today, by
16.00 at the latest, I will exercise my right of lien to cover my loses and
expenses, including delay of the ship and storage of the goods subject to lien.

33.

, 25000
, ,
. 08.00 , ,
11.00.
12.00 " ",
.
, ,
, .
, ,
16.00, ,
,
.

34. CARGO IN DISPUTE/DIFFERENCE OF TALLIES.


This is to inform you that, according to the ship's tally, the part cargo
of canned meat in boxes loaded into Holds 2 and 4 under B/Ls 12 and 13 is only
16000 boxes and not 16150, as indicated in your documents.
Since you contest the fact, refusing to complete the cargo, and insist on
issuing clean Bills of Lading, I declare hereby that I am protesting against
your refusal, and that I am signing the above B/Ls 12 and 13 under protest, and
that I will hold you responsible for short shipment in case of a claim by
Receivers.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing and returning one
copy of it.

34. /
, ,
2 4 12 13, 16000 , 16150,
.
,
, ,
12 13 , ,
.

35. DAMAGE BY WETTING: REJECTING A CLAIM OF A RECEIVER.


Further to our telephone, conversation of June 24, 1992 regarding wetness
damage to the cargo of 150 tons of coffee consigned to you under B/L 21. Please
be advised that in compliance with article 35 of the Regulations for
transporting coffee and also taking into account peculiarities of a voyage
between the tropics and North European ports, during which a heavy fall of
temperature and intensive sweat formation may be expected, we made all proper
arrangements to protect the cargo. The upper tier of the sacks was covered with
the plastic foil fully preventing penetration of moisture from outside. The
sacks were stowed at about 15 cm from the ships' bulkheads and sides to ensure
free circulation of air and to avoid contact with wet parts. The holds were
regularly ventilated throughout the voyage. However, crossing the Atlantic, we
met a very bad storm. Owing to continuous hogging stress of the hull, the nuts
of the bolts securing a flange became loose, which resulted in considerable
leakage of water on the bottom of the hold, and, consequently, some wetness
damage to your cargo. I stated all these facts, together with the precautions
taken by the ship's crew to safeguard the cargo and the ship, in the Sea Protest
declared by me yesterday, upon the ship's arrival in port.
Regretting the damage, I should like to point out, however, that in my
opinion, the ship's crew has done all they could under the circumstances, but
the vessel can not be held liable for damage caused by an Act of God.

35. :
24 1992 .
150 21 ,
35 ,
,
,
. ,
. 15
.
.
-

. , ,
, . ,
,
, .
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
.

36. DAMAGED BY WETTING: SEA PROTEST.


STATEMENT OF SEA PROTEST

I,......., Master of m. v. Shuya, international call sign UIWD, registered


at the Port of St. Peterburg, and sailing under flag of the Russian Federation,
Gross Tonnage -2889 register tons, Net Tonnage-1034 register tons, loaded in
Mombasa 4000 tons of general cargo and completed loading in Dar-Es-Salam with
4000 tons of general cargo on the 27th of June, 1991, and sailed from the above
said port for Montreal, Canada on the 27th of June, 1991 with 8000 tons of
general cargo, the vessel being then tight, staunch and strong, well manned,
victualled and sound, and every respect fit to perform the said intended voyage.
During the said voyage, when crossing the Atlantic Ocean, on the 9th, 10th
and 11th of July, 1991 the ship encountered very heavy weather with South-West
by West and South- West winds of full gale force, reaching force 10 at times,
rain and swell up to 8 meters.
The vessel was pitching, rolling and labouring heavily, shipping very
heavy water fore and aft, the hatches being continually sprayed overall by the
sea water and washed by heavy continuous showers during the said period.
During the said crossing air temperature varied from +30 C to +6 C. The
crew of the vessel has taken all possible measures for safeguarding the ship and
the cargo: all the cargo in each port of loading was properly lashed and secured
under supervision of official cargo surveyors, the lashing of the cargo was
regularly checked by the crew during the whole voyage. The upper tier of the
sacks with coffee was covered with plastic foil fully preventing penetration of
moisture from outside.
The sacks were stowed at about 15 cm from the ships' bulkheads and sides
to ensure free circulation of air and to avoid contact with wet parts. Before
sailing from the last port of loading - Dar-Es-Salam, the holds were sealed with
hatch cover sealing tape "Ramnek" and regularly ventilated throughout the
voyage.
Nevertheless, fearing damage to the cargo through the above-said heavy
weather and sweating on the metal surfaces, I declare this Sea Protest against
all-possible damage and claims, reserving the right to extend it at a place and
time convenient.
Master......
Witnesses:
....... HHHHHH Cargo mate
....... kkkkkk Second engineer
....... LLLLLL Able Seaming

36. :

, / "", , -,
, - 2889 , - 1034,
4000 , -- 4000 27

1991 . 8000 , , 27 1991 .


3111 .

.
9,10, 11
, 10 ,
8 .
, ,
,
.
+30 +6 .
:

,
. ,
.
15
.
- - -
"" .
,
,
,

:
:


1 .

37. DAMAGE BY WETTING: EXTRACTS FROM SHIP'S LOGBOOK.


EXTRACTS FROM THE LOG BOOK N 70 of the m. v. SHUYA
09.07 04.00... The ship pitching and rolling heavily from the sea and
swell and waves from Southwest by West up to 3-4 meters. Deck cargo and hatches
sprayed by seawater overall.
09.07 08.00... The ship pitching heavily from the sea swell and waves from
West-South-West up to 8 meters. The deck cargo and hatches sprayed by seawater
overall.
10.07 24.00... The ship pitching heavily from the sea swell and waves from
West-South-West up to 6- 8 meters. The deck cargo and hatches sprayed by
seawater overall and continually washed by heavy showers.
11.07 08.00... The ship pitching heavily from swell up to 5 meters. The
deck cargo and hatches sprayed by seawater overall. The ship's hull slammed by
sea waves and suffering vibration. The lashing of the cargo checked. The ship
following the optimal course at small angles to the swell to decrease the
slamming of the hull by sea waves.
11.07 24.00... The ship continually washed by heavy showers. Rain water
washing the deck cargo and hatches.
Air temperature:
07.07 1200 +28C 11.07 2400 +10C
07.00 1600 +30C 11.07 0400 +09C
07.07 2000 +30C 11.07 0800 +07C
Master of the m. v. SHUYA......

37.
N 70 / ""
09.07 04.00
3-4 .
.
09.07 08.00
8 .
.
10.07 24.00
6-8 .
.

11.07 08.00
5 .
. .
.
.
11.07 24.00 .
.
:
07.07 1200 +28C 11.07 2400 +10C
07.00 1600 +30C 11.07 0400 +09C
07.07 2000 +30C 11.07 0800 +07C
/ ""

38. SCRATCH DAMAGE TO CARS.


In reply to your claim concerning scratch damage to the consignment of
cars delivered to you under B/Ls 21-121 at our previous call in Montreal on
September 11, 1992 I wish to advise you that loading and securing of the
consignment in the ships' holds and on her deck were carried out in full
compliance with the existing regulations for transportation of automobiles.
Before commencement of loading the shipper's surveyors was called on board. He
inspected the cargo compartments and drew up a report stating that the vessel
was fit for transporting automobiles and met all requirements of said
regulations. He also supervised the loading and inspected the cargo after
loading, and, as you may see from his report attached herewith, found no fault
with the securing and no damage of the said automobiles.
As 20 cars of this consignment for which we found no place in the ships'
holds were shipped on deck, while signing the Bill of Lading covering this
transport, I made a remark "Shipped on deck at Shipper's risk, Owner not
responsible for slight scratch damage to uncrated cars", which, as I understand,
relieves the Carrier of liability for the scratch damage and a few small dents
found on 12 cars from those shipped on deck.

38. ()
() ,
21-121
11 1992, ,

.
.
, ,
.
, ,
,
.
20 , ,
,
" ,
, ", , ,
, 12
, .

39. SEA PROTEST.


I,......., Master of m. v. Shuya, international call sign UIWD, registered
at the Port of St. Peterburg, and sailing under flag of the Russian Federation,
Gross Tonnage -2889 register tons, Net Tonnage-1034 register tons, loaded in
Liverpool, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven, completed loading in Bremerhaven on the 7th
of July, 1991, and sailed from the above said port for Montreal on the 7th of
July, 1991 with 9631 tons of general cargo in 556 containers destined for
Montreal, the vessel being then tight, staunch and strong, well manned,
victualled and sound, and every respect fit to perform the said intended voyage.
During the crossing the Atlantic Ocean on the 9th, 10th and 11th of July,
1991 the ship encountered very heavy weather with South-West by West and SouthWest winds of full gale force and swell up to 3-5 meters.
The vessel was pitching, the hatches, deck cargo and reefer containers'
refrigeration installation being continually sprayed overall by seawater and
washed by heavy continuous showers during the said period. During the said
crossing air temperature varied from +30 C to +6 C.
The crew of the vessel has taken all possible measures for safeguarding the
ship and the cargo: all the cargo in each port of loading was properly lashed
and secured under supervision of official cargo surveyors, the lashing of the
cargo and normal operation of the reefer containers' refrigerating installations
were regularly checked by the crew during the whole voyage.
The ship followed the optimal course at small angles to the wind and the
sea to avoid slamming, strong vibration of the hull and spraying the deck cargo,
and the hatches, and berthed at Berth 78 in Port of Montreal on the 16th of
July, 1991.
Nevertheless, fearing damage to the cargo through the above said heavy
weather and sweating on the metal surfaces, I declare this Sea Protest against
all possible claims, reserving the right to extend it at a place and time
convenient.
Master of the m. v. SHUYA.......
Witnesses:
....... HHHHHH Cargo mate
....... kkkkkk Second engineer
....... LLLLLL Able Seaman

39. :

, / "", , -,
, - 2889 , - 1034,
,, 7 1991 .
7 1991 . 9631 556
, .
.

9,11, 11
3- 5 .
, ,

.
+33 +6 .

:
,
.

, ,
4... 16 78
.
-
,
,

:
:


1 .

40. EXTRACTS FROM THE SHIP'S LOGBOOK.


EXTRACTS FROM THE LOG BOOK N 70 of the m. v. SHUYA p. 172
09.07 04.00... The ship pitching heavily from the sea and swell and waves
from West-South-West up to 3-4 meters. Deck cargo and hatches sprayed by
seawater overall.
09.07 08.00... The ship pitching heavily from the sea swell and waves from
West-South-West up to 3- 4 meters. The deck cargo and hatches sprayed by
seawater overall.
11.07 08.00... The ship pitching heavily from swell up to 5 meters. The
deck cargo, hatches and reefer containers' refrigerating installations sprayed
by seawater overall. The ship's hull slammed by sea waves and suffering
vibration. The lashing of the cargo checked. The ship following the optimal
course at small angles to the swell to decrease the slamming of the hull by sea
waves.
Air temperature:
07.07 1200 +28C 11.07 2400 +10C
07.00 1600 +30C 11.07 0400 +09C
07.07 2000 +30C 11.07 0800 +07C
Master of the m. v. SHUYA......

40. :
70 / ""
09.07 04.00
3-4 .
.
09.07 08.00
3-4 . .
11.07 08.00 5 .
,
. .
.
.

:
07.07 1200 +28C 11.07 2400 +10C

07.00 1600 +30C 11.07 0400 +09C


07.07 2000 +30C 11.07 0800 +07C
/ ""

41. DAMAGE TO CARGO IN CONTAINERS.


Referring to your telex of July 14, 1992 addressed to our Agent, regarding
damage to containers with electronic equipment, delivered to you by my vessel
under B/Ls 81 and 82 on voyage 2/92 please be advise of the following.
The above containers, as well as the another cargo, were loaded and
discharged under supervision of my Cargo Mate, an experienced officer, who made
no mention to me of any rough handling of the containers by the stevedores. Our
stowage plan and the stowage was approved by the Cargo Surveyor. So, there is no
question of improper stowage or damage during loading or discharge. The breakage
of the goods inside the containers could have been caused either before, or
after shipment, or the cargo was stowed into the containers in damaged
condition.
Moreover, as you can see from my remark on the B/Ls, following the usual
practice in container transport, when the goods are received in a sealed
container the quality and condition of the cargo were accepted as unknown to the
Carrier. Which, as your lawyer, no doubt, will tell you, relieves the Carrier of
liability.

41. :
14 1992 .,
, 2
, 81 82
2/92, :
, ,
,
, .
.
.

.
, , ,
,
,
, , ,
.

42. DAMAGE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT INSIDE PACKING.


Referring to your telex of July 14, 1992 addressed to our agent, regarding
damage to 2 boxes of glassware delivered to you by my vessel under B/Ls 81 and
82 on voyage 2/92 please be advised of the following.
As usual, at the port of loading the cargo was loaded under supervision of
an official port cargo surveyor and my Cargo Officer. Neither of them made any
mention to me of any rough handling of the cargo by the stevedores. The Cargo
Surveyor approved our stowage plan and the stowage.
Moreover, The Cargo Surveyor in the port of discharge made no remarks about
damage to the cases: they were apparently in good order when they were
discharged from the vessel.
On voyage, on March 18 and 19 of this year, when the vessel was in the
North Atlantic, she was caught by a violent storm of force 10 and seas of about
30 feet high. The ship suffered rolling and pitching and slamming of sea waves
for 2 days. Therefore, fearing damage I lodged a Sea Protest on arrival at the
port of discharge, in which I stated all the above facts, as well as the
measures taken by the crew to safeguard the ship and her cargo.
Please find enclosed a copy of this protest together with extracts from
the ship's logbook.
As there had been no shifting of the cargo in the holds during the storm,
I think that the damage resulted not from uncorrected or negligent stowage, but
occurred due to insufficient inside packing, for which the ship can not be held
responsible.

42. -
14 1992 .,
, 2 ,
81 82 2/92
:
,
. ,
.
.
,
- . ,
.
, 18 19 ,
10 30 .
2 . ,
, ,
, ,
.
.
,
, , ,
, ,
.

43. DAMAGE TO CARGO: TIME LIMIT OF LIABILITY.


Referring to your telex of July 14, 1992 regarding damage by wetting to
the part cargo of 2000 metric tons of wheat shipped to you by my vessel under
B/L 81 on voyage 2/92, please be advised of the following.
Subject to article 15 of the Contract of Carriage claims as to quality and
quantity of the cargo delivered must be made not later than its discharge has
been completed. Moreover, the Consignee is allowed five extra days for giving a
written notice, if, due to certain causes, it appeared impossible to find
existing defects. However, all terms allowed for such claims expired yesterday,
and therefore I am discharged of any liability regarding the cargo accepted by
you.

43. , :

14 1992 . 2222
81 2/92
:
15
.
, 5
,
.

, .

44. DAMAGE TO CARGO BY FIRE.


Referring to your telex of July 14, 1992 regarding damage by fire to part
cargo of textiles shipped to you in 1 container by my vessel under B/L 81 on
voyage 2/92 please be advised of the following.
The fire started in Hold 3 due to self-ignition of the cargo of mineral
oil. The fire was successfully put out, but the ship and the cargo sustained
some damage.
Your claim for damages and refusal to pay your share in the general
average is based, as I understand, on the results of the survey after the ship's
berthing, when your representative found several smoked cigarette ends in Hold
3, where the fire had started. You interpret this as an evidence of the crew
smoking in the holds - a clear negligence of the Carrier's servants.
I should like to point out, however, that this is very difficult to prove:
the cigarettes could have been smoked by stevedores in any of the ports before
Philadelphia.
Moreover, my lawyer tells me that according to British law, and the Hague
Rules, the Carrier is liable for damage by fire, only if his own act, or
direction, or those of the ships' officers were the caused of the fire, and he
is not answerable for omissions or negligence of the crew. So, legally your
claim is groundless in any case.
Understanding your feelings, I, however, suggest that you review your
stand on matter, and drop your claim.

44. ,
14 1992 .,
, - ,
81 82 2/92
:
3 - .
, .

, , ,
,
3, .
, -
. , , ,
:
.
, ,
, ,
,
, .
.
, , ,
.

45. STORAGE OF BULK CARGO ON DELIVERY.


Referring to your claim for shortage of 150 tons of linseed expellers in
the shipment of 2500 tons delivered to you by my vessel under B/L 81 on voyage
2/92 please be advised of the following.
According to measurements of the ship's load lines before and after
loading, the cargo loaded into Holds 2 and 4 under the above B/L weighed only
2350 metric tons, and not 2500 mt as indicated in the Bill of Lading.
Since the Shipper contested the fact, and insisted on issuing a clean Bill
of Lading, I warned him in writing that I was signing the above B/L under
protest, and that I would hold him responsible for short shipment in case of a
claim. A copy of my letter please find enclosed herewith.
I believe I have done all I could under the circumstances to fulfill my
part of the contract of affreightment evidenced by the above B/L and I can not
be held responsible for this case of short shipment which in my opinion is
entirely the fault of the Shipper.
Moreover, as the fact of short shipment of 150 tons is proved by the
surveyor's report upon discharge of the cargo, my Owners are going to make a
claim to the Shipper for deadfreight.

45.
150 2500
, 81 2/92
:
,
, , 2 4 ,
2350 , 2500 , .

, ,
.
,
,
, , ,
.
, 150
, ,
.

46. SHIPPER'S DEMAND FOR CLEAN BILLS OF LADING.


This is to inform you that according to measurements of the ship's draught
before and after loading, the cargo of coal loaded into Holds 2 and 4 under B/L
12 and 14 is only 1600 metric tons, and not 1750 mt as indicated in you
documents.
Since you contest the fact and insist on issuing a clean Bill of Lading, I
declare hereby that I am signing the above B/Ls 12 and 14 under protest, and
that I will hold you responsible for short shipment and deadfreight in case of a
claim by Receivers.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing and returning one
copy of it.

46.
, ,
, , 2 4
, 1600 , 1750 , .
,
, 12 13

.
,
.

47. SHIFTING IMPOSSIBLE: SHIP IMMOBILIZED FOR ENGINE


REPAIR.
With reference to your order to shift our vessel from Berth A-1 North to
Berth A-3 North today at 19.00 which was delivered to me at 10.00 hours today,
please note that my vessel will not be able to carry out your order, since the
vessel is immobilized as per prior permission for overhaul of the main engine.
Acting on the promise of the Appledore Co. whose repair team is replacing
a cylinder liner of our main engine, in my request for permission to immobilize
the vessel I indicated that the ship would be immobilized until 16.00 today.
Unfortunately, the work has not completed, and according to the repair team
information, will require another 12 hours for reassembling of the faulty
cylinder and testing the engine.
I kindly ask you to cancel your shifting order and to let us complete the
repair at the present berth.

47. :
-1
-3 19.00, 11.00,
, ,
, .
"",
,
,
16.00 . ,
, , 12
.

.

48. SHIFTING ORDER CONTRARY TO CUSTOMS.


With reference to your order to shift our vessel from Berth A-1 North to
Berth A-3 north today at 19.00 which was delivered to me at 10.00 hours today, I
consulted our Agent, Mr. John Phillips. He told me that according to port
customs, any ship engaged in line service staying in the port less than a week
can not be shifted more than once.
As this would be the second shifting for 6 days, I consider this to be a
case of clear discrimination of my vessel, and ask you to cancel your order.

48.
-1
-3 19.00, 10.00,
,- .. ,
, 1 ,
1 .
6 ,
()
.

49. SHIFTING ORDER CONTRARY TO CHARTER PARTY.


This morning at 10.00 I received the Harbor Master's order to shift our
vessel from Berth A-1 North to Berth A-3 north today at 19.00. I should like to
point out that according to the Charter Party of June 24, 1992 the cargo in the
port of loading is to be loaded at one berth.
As shifting would certainly cause a delay in cargo operations and extra
expenses, I kindly ask you to inform the Charterers about the above, and that
according to the above Charter Party the cost of this shifting will be for their
account.

49.

10.00
-1 -3 19.00 .
, 24 1992 .
.
, ,
, , ,

.

50. DELAY IN SHIFTING.


As you know, my vessel was to be shifted about 150 feet ahead this morning
at 06.00 hours. I specially asked shifting to be arrange for that time, so as
not to cause unnecessary delay of cargo operations.
The vessel was all ready to shift at 06.00 hours sharp whereas the shore
morning crew were not present and came only at 07.00 hours. The resulted in one
hour's delay in discharging the cargo.
I hold the port authorities fully responsible for the delay. Kindly inform
the authorities concerned.

50.
, 6.00
150 .
, .
6.00,
7.00.
.
.
.

51. DETENTION OF VESSEL.


Please inform the Harbor Master and all concerned that I positively
protest against detention of my vessel in connection with the investigation of
oil slick found alongside my vessel this morning. As I have already told the
Port Safety Inspector, Mr. J. Blackboot, who has been charged with the
investigation, we can not wait until 11.00 a.m. tomorrow, when the results of
the analyses will be ready. We are completing cargo operations today by 16.00
and our departure has been arranged for 19.00.
Moreover, I think detention is absolutely unnecessary, as I can leave a
bank guarantee for the sum of the fine.
Please take all necessary measures to have my ship immediately released
from detainment.

51.
,

, .
- .,
, 11.00 ,
. 16.00
19.00.
, , ,
.

.

52. DELAY IN DEPARTURE.


Please be advised that since 15.30 hours of this date my vessel... has
been in all respects ready for sea. Nevertheless I am still being held idle at
the wharf without clearance due to the absence of two landing cards which were
lost by members of my crew, though I reported this omission earlier in the
afternoon.
I should like to protest this action and to ask you to have my vessel
cleared for immediate departure.

52.
, 15.30 .
- 2
, ,
, .

.

53. DAMAGE TO SHIP CAUSED BY STEVEDORES.


This is to inform you that today, on September 11, 1992, at 11. 30 Gang n2
discharging the m. v. Shuya caused the following damage to the vessel:
1. Railings of the winch isle on the starboard side near the Hold 3 - bent;
2. The Ships' railings on the starboard side near Hold 3 - bent;
Kindly have this damage repaired before completion of the cargo
operations. If, owing to ship's short stay, repair of the damage is impossible,
we ask you to pay the cost of repairs according to an estimate by an independent
surveyor. In this case kindly arrange a survey before completion of the cargo
work and inform all concerned.

53. ,
, , 11.09.92 11.30 2 /
"" :
1. 3 - ;
2. 3 - ;
.
,
.

.

54. DAMAGE TO SHIP BY A FALLEN WEIGHT.


I regret to inform you that today, on the 11th of September, 1992, at 8.35
a.m., due to gross negligence of your stevedores discharging part cargo of
machinery in crates from Hold 3, a crate with spares weighing 750 kilos fell
from the sling, when it was being hoisted, causing extensive damage to the
ship's hull. To evaluate the scope of the damage to the ship, I have intended
the Lloyd's surveyor of the port.
I hold you responsible for damage caused to the cargo and the ship and all
the consequences thereof, including possible delay of the vessel and all the
expenses and loses arising therefrom.

54.
, , 11.09.92 . 8.35

3 750 ,
. ,
, .

, ,
.

55. ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TO SHIP, REQUEST TO REPAIR.


Further to our letter of September 11, 1992, we should like to inform you
that during the cargo operations the following additional damage has been caused
to the vessel due to negligent work of the stevedores:
1. tweendeck hatch cover of Hold 3 - bent:
2. cargo cluster light in Hold 4 - crushed.
I hold you responsible for the above said damage and kindly ask you
have them repaired before ships departure and also to speed up the repairs
per our letter of September 11, 1992. If, due to short stay, it is impossible
carry out the repairs, I ask you to pay their cost according to an estimate
an independent surveyor whom I ask you kindly to invite urgently for drawing
a damage survey report.

to
as
to
of
up

55. ,
11.09.92 . ,

:
1. 3 - ;
2. 4 - .

,
11.09.92.
,
,
.

56. DAMAGE TO SHIP CAUSED BY CRANE OPERATOR.


This is to inform you that, on March 23, 1991 when discharging cargo of
aluminum in bundles from Hold 3, Gang N1, due to his own negligent work, the
crane operator knocked down a stanchion and part of the railing on the starboard
side in aria of Hold 3.
Kindly have this damage repaired before the ship's departure.

56. ,
, 23.03.91 3
1
3.
.

57. FINE FOR ABSENCE OF PROPER CHARTS.


Today, on December 11, 1991, your officer clearing us in accused us of
absence on board the vessel of American navigation charts and publications for
sailing in the US waters and imposed on us a fine of 10000 US Dollars.
In connection with the above I wish to comment as under: 1. Paragraph 164.
33, Part 3b of the US CFR 33 permits the use of foreign nautical charts and
publications, provided they are of sufficient scale, are corrected up to date
and contain information similar to that contained in appropriate American
editions and which allows safe navigation in the aria. I give you a formal
notice hereby that The Russian navigation charts and publications used by the
vessel fully correspond to the above requirements, in which regard you can
satisfy yourself, if need be.
2. Foreseeing exactly such difficulties, 10 days ago, on December 1, 1991,
I ordered by radio through my agent a complete set of Coast Pilots, charts and
tables of the Atlantic Coast of the USA to be delivered to me by the Pilot on
our arrival at the Ambrose Pilot Station, which, for reasons unknown to me, was
nevertheless not delivered (a copy of the cable is inclosed herewith).
In view of the above I kindly ask you to urgently reconsider the decision
of your officer and to cancel the fine imposed on the vessel as unjustified.

57.
11.12.91 .

10000 .
:
1. 164. 33, 3 33
,
, , ,

. ,
, ,
,
.
2. , 10 , 01.12.91 .

,
, , ,
( ).

, , .

58. FINE FOR EXCESSIVE SPEED.


This is to inform you that today, on the 31st of July, 1991, your officer,
Mr. Dupont visited the ship in connection with an alleged damage to a privet
pleasure boat on our way up to your port from St. Lawrence Bay yesterday, on
July 30, 1992. As proof of the above he quoted a telex from Trois Rivier Coast
Guards Branch Office, which says they received a complaint from a local resident
that our ship had allegedly caused damage to his pleasure boat moored to a
private berth somewhere between Trois Riviere and Quebec. According to this
resident, Mr. Joules Blas, we were proceeding at a speed of more than 14 knots,
and raised a very powerful wake which struck his boat against the berth, causing
considerable damage to the hull of same.
Your officer informed me that the sum of the claim for this alleged damage
to the above boat is $ Canadian 10000. He also informed me that if the court
finds us guilty, we shall also have to pay a fine for exceeding safe speed and
damage to property.
I assure you that never on this run on the way from Quebec to Montreal we
have exceeded speed of 10 knots, which can be easily verified by checking our
speed recorder and questioning our pilot.
In view of the above I reject this claim as absolutely unjustified.

58.
, 31.07. 91 30.07. 91

- .
, ,
, ,
- .
, - , 14
, ,
.
,
$ 10000. , ,

.
,
10 ,
.
.

59. FINE FOR DUMPING GARBAGE OVERSIDE.


This is to inform you that today, on the 31st of July, 1991, your officer,
Mr. Dupont visited the ship in connection with an alleged dumping of garbage
into the harbour waters.
He said that this morning he received a report from the Terminal
Superintendent Captain Rogers about garbage floating alongside the pier in the
direction from Berth 76 where our vessel is lying at berth. After coming on
board and finding some garbage floating alongside our seaside - at a distance of
above 20 m from the ship's side, he imposed a fine of US $ 25000 for pollution
of harbour waters.
I strongly protest against the decision of your officer. In my opinion the
evidence he has collected is not sufficient proof of my guilt: there are 4 other
ships moored at Berth 70-80, and the waste might have been dumped from any of
these vessels or vessels passing the place in either direction.
I assure you that none of my crew has dumped any of the ship's waste
overside. They know and observe the US Department of Agriculture regulations for
disposal of waste: all food waste is kept in tightly closed drums or extra heavy
plastic bags and while in port is disposed of in the prescribed manner through
port facilities.
I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision of your officer and cancel the
fine as unjustified.

59.
, 31.07. 91 .
,
, ,
76, .
, 20 ,
$25000 .
.
, :
70-80 4
, . ,
. ,
:


, .
.

60. FINE FOR VIOLATION OF CUSTOMS REGULATIONS.


This is to inform you that today, on the 31st of July, 1991, your officer,
Mr. Dupont phoned me on board my vessel and informed that one of my crew, the
ship's turner, Viktor Bokov, was caught by the port police this morning selling
smuggled cigarettes to a local resident. Mr. Dupont informed me that they have a
videotape recording this illegal transaction and 5 cartons of cigarettes
confiscated as material evidence. He warned me that according to Canadian laws
my turner will stand trial a police court and may be sentenced to a fine of $
Can. 5000, or 1 month in prison, or both. He offered me to pay a bail in the sum
of the fine and take the man on parole.
As I have repeatedly warned my crew against violation of Canadian customs
regulations, I do not feel in any way responsible for his transgression and I
refuse to pay the fine for the man.

60.
, 31.07.91 -
, 31.07.91
,
. - ,
5 ,
. ,

$5000
, .
, .

,
.

61. FINE FOR ALLEGED OIL SPILL.


This is to inform you that at 11.00 today, 27th inst. your representative
visited our vessel and accused us of an alleged spoilage of oil and nonreporting the above to the Port Authorities. On inspecting the vessel and the
ship's paper it was established that no oil pumping operations had been carried
out after berthing, and that all the seals an the discharge valves were intact.
As to non-reporting the oil slick alongside our vessel, I would like to
inform you that it was found at approximately 10.30 by the Watch Officer who
tried to call you twice on VHF Channel 16 between 10.30 and 11.00, that is, just
before the arrival of your representative but received no answer.
It was duly recorded in the ship's logbook. Besides, I should like to draw
your attention to the fact that no rules contain exact time limits for reporting
oil pollution.
I explained all this to your officer who, nevertheless, fined us US $ 50000
for oil pollution, the latter being suspended pending the results of the
analyses of oil from the oil slick and the tanks of my vessel.
In view of the above, I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision of your
representative and cancel the fine as unjustified.

61.
, 11.00 27

.
,

.
, ,
, 10.30
, 16 10.30 11.00, . .
. , ,
. ,
,
.
, ,
$10000 $50000 ,
,
.

.

62. LETTER TO THE HARBOUR MASTER WITH A REQUEST TO


PERMIT IMMOBILIZATION OF THE SHIP.

In view of necessity for maintenance of the ship's main engine, I kindly


ask your permission to immobilize the ship for 6 hours from 12.00 to 18.00 LT
today, May 24, 1991.

62.


6 12.00 18.00
24.05.91

63. LETTER TO THE SHIP'S AGENT WITH A REQUEST TO GET


PERMISSION TO IMMOBILIZE THE SHIP.
I kindly ask you to obtain permission from the Port Authorities for
immobilization of our vessel for 2 days in connection with urgent overhauling of
and repairs to the main engine.
Please also request permission for turning the propeller shaft while at
berth to test engine and let us know when permission is granted.

63.


2
.

, .

64. TO ARRANGE FUMIGATION OF THE VESSEL.


As you probably know, the Consignee has refused to take delivery of the
cargo without its being fumigated.
In view of the above, I kindly request you to make necessary arrangements
for fumigating Holds Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in which the cargo is stowed and to inform
me in due time of the arrangements made.

64.
, , ,
.
1, 3 5, ,
.

65. TO ORDER OVERTIME AND SEPARATION MATERIALS.


As due to delay caused by rainy weather loading is not likely to be
completed by 15.00 tomorrow, and according to our estimate will require 4 more
hours, please make necessary arrangements with the Stevedoring Company for work
to go on until all cargo is loaded after 15.00 LT, tomorrow, September 1, 1992.
Payment of overtime will be for the ship's account.
Also, kindly supply me with dunnage and lashing materials as per attached
list.

65.
, , ,
15.00 4 ,
, 01.09.92
15.00 . .

.

66. TO ORDER AN EXTRA GANG OF STEVEDORES.


Please make arrangements with the Stevedoring Company for working overtime
from 5.00 p. m. until midnight on the 21st, 22nd and 23rd inst. to speed up
loading.
The overtime money is to be paid for our account, subjects to our
preliminary approval.

66.

17.00 24.00 21, 22 23 .

.

67. TO ORDER AN EXTRA GANG FOR SHIFTING CONTAINERS.


This is with reference to the request to take 20 additional containers
aboard our vessel. As far as loading of agreed number of containers has been
completed in compliance with your Cargo Plan, to ensure the ship's stability, as
I told you yesterday, we shall need some loaded containers to be shifted:
1. 20 containers (20 feets) stowed in Hold N1, to be moved into Holds Nos.;
3 and 5;
2. Ten 20 feets to be moved from Hold N 4 onto the deck.
Please order one extra gang of stevedores for this afternoon or tomorrow
morning, at the latest, to effect the above shifting without causing a delay in
vessel's departure which has been planned for 19.00 tomorrow.

67.
20 .
,
, ,
:
1. 20 (20 ) 1 - 3 (10 .) 5
(10 .);
2. 10 20- 4 - .

, , ,
, 19.00 .

68. TO ARRANGE REPAIR OF CONTAINERS.


According to the report of my Cargo Officer among the empty containers to
be returned aboard our ship there are several units with broken hinges and
dented doors. Please make necessary arrangements for effective repairs of these
defects, consistent with standard requirements, before delivering these
containers to our vessel.
Otherwise, I will not accept them for transportation without proper
remarks in the Bill of Lading.

68.
, ,
,
.

.

.

69. TO TRACE A LOST CONTAINER.


We refer to the exchange of letters during our last call at your port on
our previous voyage on 27th of January, 1991, concerning container N 179821
under our B/L n 172. According to our Discharge Record dated 25th of January,
1991 this container had been duly discharged from our vessel, but the
Consignees, Messrs. M. Windsfield and Co. Inc., claimed that it had not reached
them. At was agreed on that occasion you were to look into this matter and carry
out an appropriate investigation.
We should be obliged if you let us have the results of the investigation.

69.
,
27 1991 .
179821 172. 25
1991 . ,
" . ., . " , .
,
.
.

70. TO RELEASE THE DETAINED VESSEL (TO THE PORT


MASTER)
As you must know, my vessel has been under arrest following the collision
with m. v. "Osaka Maru".
On account of the above the vessel is unable to continue her voyage, and
the Shipowners are suffering loses.
Today I have received a telex from the Owners in which they express
consent to refund damages sustained by the Owners of the m. v. "Osaka Maru" and
authorize me to sign the appropriate documents.
Kindly make urgent arrangements to release my vessel.

70.
,
/ " ".

.
,
/ " "
.
.

71. TO EMPLOY TALLYMEN FOR SHIP'S ACCOUNT.


In compliance with the established custom in your port, I would kindly
request you to employ for our account sworn tallymen of the local Company to
take the ship's tally.

71. .

.

72. TO ARRANGE SURVEY OF THE CARGO.


Further to our Notice of Readiness, we would ask you to arrange a joint
survey of containers and checking their seals aboard our vessel "Viking" before
we start discharging.

72.


/ "" .

73. TO REPAIR ENGINE (TO A COMPANY OF SHIP REPAIRERS).


Further to our telex of June 24, 1992 the following list of repairs we
would like you to do on our ship's engine.
1). Main bearings, crank pin bearings and crosshead bearings (12 sets
altogether) of our main diesel- engine (Burmaister and Wine type) to be
rebabbitted, bored to correct size and fitted.
2). 12 piston rings of perlite iron - to be taken out and replaced with new
ones (to be supplied by you).
3). 6 atomizers for the main engine injection valves to be overhauled,
cleaned and fitted into position.
4). A copper pipe Outer Diameter 70 mm, inner diameter 60 mm, 4 meters in
length, with 2 flanges of 250 mm outside diameter, to be supplied and fitted
into position.
5). A sheet iron patch, 300x400x5 mm in size, to be welded on the boiler
furnace.
6). Crankpins and journals of the crankshaft to be inspected and, if
necessary, set in order.
7). A set of cutting tools for ship's lathe - to be supplied.
Please quote your prices for every item of the list and let us know of the
time required for effecting the repair.

73.
24.06.92 .
, , :
1. , ( 6
) ( ) - ,
;
2. 12 - (
);
3. 6 - ,
;
4. 70 60 4
250 - , .
5. 3004005 - ;
6. -
;
7. - .

.

74. TO ARRANGE REPAIR OF THE HULL AND MACHINERY.


Kindly inform us if you can execute the following urgent repairs to our
ship's hull and deck:
1. A fissure in way of sheer strake belt, between frames 85- 86, for a
length about 1. 7 meters, to be welded.
2. A dent in way of bilge strake, between frames 120-126, to be planished.
3. Several sheets of shell plating, 12 mm thick, for a total area of 5-6
sq. meters, on the starboard bow above waterline, to be cut out and replaced.
4. A sheet of iron 15-20 mm thick to be welded over in the distorted
portion of the deck in way of Hold N4, near the hatch coamings.
5. Fireline piping damaged during the storm to be replaced for length of
about 20 meters, in way of Hold N1, starboard side.
6. Longitudinal beams welded to deck to secure deck cargo to be cut off.
The deck to be planished and painted after removing the beams.
7. The roller of the roller fairlead on the after deck to be
straightened up.
It is, of course, understood that all the work done under items 1, 2, 3
and 5 is to be examined and passed by a Lloyd's Register Surveyor.
I shall very much appreciate your prompt reply.

74.
,
:
1. 85-86 1. 7
- ;
2. 120-126 - ;
3. , 12 , 5-6
, , - ;
4. 15-20 -
4 ;
5. , - 20
1 ;
6. , - .
;
7. - .
, 1, 2, 3, 4 5
.
.

75. TO SEND AN EXPERT FOR REPAIR.


I would kindly request you to send a specialist aboard my vessel for
repairing the cargo derrick at Hold N3.
The distorted hell block of this derrick is to be planished, tested and
made workable.

75.

3. ,
.

76. TO SEND A TUG TO RETRIEVE THE LOST ANCHOR.


I would like you to make arrangements with the tug owners to send a
tugboat to look for, and recover, our anchor with about three shackles of chain
which we lost on the 21st inst. close to the Port of Refuge Light House in
position about 38-56N 075-04W.
I shall be very grateful to you for your prompt action in this matter.

76.


3 ,
21 3856N 075-04W 04.00.
, .

77. TO SEND AN ESTIMATE OF THE REPAIR.


We confirm our today's conversation with your representative, Mr. W. G.
Hollace, regarding the following repairs to be done to our ship:
1. 15 economizers tubes, 40mm in outside diameter and 3800 mm in length, to
be removed and replaced. Tubes to be supplied your Company.
2. Two section of steam superheater (tubes 4800 mm in length, 30 mm outside
diameter, heat resisting steel) to be examined, hydraulically tested and, if
necessary, replaced.
3. 12 safety valve stems, 380 mm in length, 32 mm in outside diameter, to
be made of chrome nickel steel and machined to model.
4. 12 steel springs for safety valves with the length of a single coil of
110 mm and total vertical height of 330 mm for a 10 ton load to be made as per
drawing and fitted into position.
5. 1 boiler furnace for temperature of up to 1800 degrees C to be lined up
with fire bricks and coated with plastic chrome or refractory.
6. 400 figure-shaped refractory bricks for boiler furnace to be made to
model and supplied to the ship.
7. Four supporting beams for superheaters to be welded(the beams are of
heat-resisting steel).
8. Two boiler foundation frames to re-riveted.
9. Double safety valve for boiler to be made as per drawing. Diameter of
bore for each valve - 65 mm. Valves are to be ground in and tested in assembly
for working pressure of 45 atmospheres.
10. Fifteen safety valves of stainless steel are to be made to model.
11. 4 gears and 4 pinions for the maximum speed regulator are to be cast
and machined as per drawing.
12. One cylinder of the servo- motor for the condensate level regulator is
to be welded and tested.
14. Fifteen spare ball-bearings, N 2732 as per our catalogue are to be
supplied to the vessel.
To conclude the negotiations we would request you to quote your prices for
all the above items and inform us how many days you will be able to complete
work.

77.
,
- . . ,
:
1. 15 40 3800 -
. ;
2. ( 4800 , 30
) - , ;
3. 12 , 80 , 32 - ;
4. 12 110
330 10 -
;
5. 1 1800 -
;

6. 400 -
;
7. 4 - (
);
8. 2 - ;
9. - .
- 65 .
45 ;
10. 15 - ;
11. 4 4
- ;
12.
14. 15 2732 -
.
,
,
.

78. TO ARRANGE REPACKAGING OF THE CARGO.


Please note that the covers of the packed steel sheets loaded in Hold N2
lower hold aft part are rusted and most of bends broken. The Mate's Receipt for
the particular lot will be claused accordingly. The cover of steel package N120
is very badly damaged and the contents exposed.
Kindly have the cover renewed and inform the authorities concerned.

78.
, ,
2, ,
, .
. 120
.
.

79. NOTICE OF READINESS, WARNING ABOUT DEMURRAGE.


Please take notice that my vessel 'Shuya' is now lying alongside the
Commercial Wharf at Berth N5, and is ready to discharge the cargo under Charter
Party dated February 9, 1991.
The laydays according to the Charter Party are commencing this 15th of
March and will expire on the 20th inst., after which time the vessel will be on
demurrage.

79. ,
, / ""
5 9 1991 .
15
20 , .

80. NOTICE OF READINESS, THE SHIP LYING AT OUTERROAD.


Please be advised that the subject vessel now lying at Sewells Point
Anchorage, Norfolk, Virginia, and having been passed by the National Cargo
Bureau and the Virginia Department of Agriculture Inspector as of 16. 30,
February 21, is in every respect ready as of 09.00 February 24, to load a full
cargo of wheat in accordance with all terms, conditions, provisions and
exceptions of Charter Party dated February 5, 1992 New York.

80. ,

,
,

16.30 21 09.00 24
5
1992, -.

81. LOADING COMPLETED TO SATISFACTION.


Loading of m. v. Shuya has been done in full compliance with my proforma
cargo plan and I have received full and complete quantity of cargo, viz.:1571
metric tons of coal.
The draught of my vessel after loading complies with the navigation
requirements during summer time, i. e. fore: 5. 55 meters; aft: 6.02 meters;
with allowance of 2. 5 inches for density of sea water.
The vessel is loaded to my entire satisfaction and quality of cargo
received to my computation. Trimming effected satisfactorily.

81. ,
/ ""
, . . 1571 .

, : - 5. 55 ; - 6 2.5
.

. .

82. LOADING COMPLETED, NO MORE CARGO REQUIRED.


This is I certify that loading of the my ship 'Viking' commenced on the 23d
of November, 1991 at 08.00 a.m. and was completed on 29th of November, at 3.30
p. m.
The ship is fully loaded and no more cargo required. Trimming effected
satisfactory.

82. ,
, 23 1991
08.00 15.30 29 .
.
.

83. LAYTIME EXPIRING, WARNING ABOUT DEMURRAGE.


Further to my letter of the 16th inst., I herewith wish to inform you that
the laydays for discharging the cargo under Charter Party dated February 9,
1991, have expired today and that my ship is now on demurrage for the payment of
which you and all concerned will be held liable.

83. ,
16 ,
, 9 1991,
,
, .

84. DEMURRAGE EXPIRING, WARNING ABOUT DETENTION.


I would like to remind you that the laydays for loading my vessel expired
3 days ago, on April 12, 1992. And now the vessel is on demurrage.
As up to date you have not supplied the full cargo of pipes to my vessel,
as per Charter Party dated January 15, 1991, I hereby request you to let me know
whether you intend to load any more cargo at all.
Please note that in 2 days, at 08.00, on April 20, 1991, the 5 days
allowed by the Charter Party for demurrage will expire, and the ship will be on
detention. In accordance with the Charter Party terms under these circumstances
you will be held liable for detention and dead freight to be paid in cash before
ship's departure.

84. ,
, , , 3
, 12 1992 . .
,
15.01.92 ,
.
2 , 08.00 20 1992 ., 5
, .
,
( , ) ,
.

85. LINE SHIFTING: STATEMENT ABOUT ECONOMY.


This is to confirm that on request of the Port Master of the port of Mobile
the m. v. Shuya line shifted 150 meters forward from Berth A-3 North to Berth A1 North on November 19, 1991, using the ship's engine and lines. If mooring
gangs and port tugs had been used, at the port rates such shifting would have
cost 1800 US, as it was carried out outside normal working hours (Friday, after
16.00). The above sum will be deducted from the ship's disbursement account.

85. :
, / "" 19
1992 . 150 -3 -1 ,
.
1888
, ( 16.00
. .

86. STATEMENT: CARGO OPERATION COMPLETED W/OUT INJURY.


STATEMENT
I, the undersigned,......., Chief Stevedore for Page and Jones, Inc.,
certify herewith that to the best of my knowledge no personal injury has been
caused to, and no accident involving company personnel has been occurred during
discharging and loading of the m. v Shuya in the port of Mobile from.... to....,
or has been reported to me up to the time present.

86. : ,

, ,......., & ,
, , , /
"" ...... .... ....
.

87. RECEIPT FOR MONEY RECEIVED FROM AGENT.


RECEIPT
Received from Messrs. Harry Cross and Co., Ship Agents, 17 Black Friars
Str., London, by order and for account of the Baltic Shipping Company, Saint
Peterburg, the sum of 1500 pounds (say: one thousand five hundred fifty pound
sterling) for the ship's expenses.
In witness whereof two copies of this receipt have been signed this 20th
of March, 1991.

87. ,

& ., :
,. , . 17
- 1500 (
).
22 1991 .

88. RECEIPT FOR CARGO DOCUMENTS.


Received from Messrs. Watson and Co., 12 Pine Street, London, the
following shipping documents covering the cargo of coconuts shipped by my
vessel:
1 copy of Bills of Lading No-s: 2702 -2704,
1 copy of Manifest of Cargo,
1 copy of Time Sheet,
1 copy of Disbursement Account,
1 copy of Statement reloading.

88.
& ., : .
,12, , :
1 . 2702 -2704
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 . .
27 1991

89. COLLISION: TELEX TO THE OWNERS.


11. 20 GMT 24/03 approaching Houston collided Japanese m/v Rose Maru near
buoy 70 Houston ship channel. Owner Rose Maru Orient Express Shipping, port
Registry Nagasaki. Collision occurred due to violation COLREGs by Japanese
vessel, which was proceeding opposite direction and entered my lane overtaking
tug. Owing to narrow fairway and insufficient depth could not use last moment
manoeuvre. As result gliding collision sustained damage:
1. Aft and forecastle on portside torn away;
2. Chock plate deformed and indented 150 mm deep between frames 126/127;
3. Handrail on port side is bent, crushed;
4. Shell plating between frames 123/127 indented 300mm deep.
Proceeding Houston under own power for discharging and repair. Rose Maru
agreed pay 80 percent damage. Awaiting your instructions.

89.

11.20 24/3 / "


" 70 . / " "
, .

.
.
:
1.
2.
150 126-127
3. , ;
4. 123-127 300 .
, . 88
% . .

90. TELEX TO THE AGENT.


11. 20 GMT 24/03 approaching Houston collided Japanese m/v Rose Maru near
buoy 70 Houston ship channel. Due to collision arrival delayed by 2 hours.
Sustained following hull damage:
1. Aft and forecastle on portside torn away;
2. Chock plate deformed and indented 150 mm deep between frames 126/127;
3. Handrail on port side is bent, crushed;
4. Shell plating between frames 123/127 indented 300mm deep.
Please arrange:
1. lodging Sea Protest;
2. Damage Survey;
3. repair dry dock.
Rose Maru calling Galveston. Please contact port master Galveston, make
official Protest and demand on behalf my Owners detain Rose Maru until damage
survey our vessel when cost repairs is known. Also arrange bank guarantee from
Rose Maru. Owners/Master in favour Baltic Shipping Co. for amount sufficient
cover damage and expenses incurred by my ship in relation to above collision.

90.
11.20 24/3 / "
" 70 .
2 .
:
1.
2.
150 126-127
3. , ;
4. 123-127 300 .
:
1. ;
2. ;
3. .
/ " " . ,

" " ,
.
/ " "

.

91. REQUEST TO THE PORT MASTER TO DETAIN THE GUILTY


VESSEL.
11. 20 GMT 24/03 approaching Houston collided Japanese m/v Rose Maru near
buoy 70 Houston ship channel. Owner Rose Maru Orient Express Shipping, port
Registry Nagasaki. Collision occurred due to violation COLREGs by Japanese
vessel which was proceeding opposite direction and entered my lane overtaking
tug. Rose Maru proceeding to your port. Due to collision my ship sustained
following hull damage: 1. Aft and forecastle on portside torn away;
2. Chock plate deformed and indented 150 mm deep between frames 126/127; 3.
Handrail on port side is bent, crushed;
4. Shell plating between frames 123/127 indented 300mm deep.
I hold Master and Owners Japanese m. v. Rose Maru responsible for damage
caused to my vessel in accordance with law I request you to detain that ship
until her Owners give bank's letter of Guarantee in favour Baltic Shipping Co.
for amount sufficient cover damage caused and expenses incurred by my vessel.
Amount our claim will be determinated after damage survey tomorrow.

91.
11.22 24/3 / "
" 70 . / " "
, .

. / " " .
:
1.
2.
150 126-127
3. , ;
4. 123-127 300 .
/ " "
.

, ,
.
.

92. CLAIM: RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLISION.


This is to inform you that, today, on the 24th of March 1992, at 11. 20
GMT, proceeding to Houston through the Houston Shipping Channel, our vessel
collided with your vessel which had entered the opposite traffic lane for
overtaking a tug near Buoy 70. Our vessel sustained considerable hull damage the
amount of which is being ascertained.
As your vessel started overtaking without having made certain as to the
safety of the manoeuvre, thus violating the COLREGs, and entering the opposite
traffic lane made the collision inevitable, I hold your Master fully responsible
for the collision and all the losses and damage arising therefrom. In my opinion
he could not have failed to see our vessel proceeding in opposite direction.
I also give you a formal notice hereby that damage survey of my vessel
will be held at 11.00 local time tomorrow, the 25th of March 1992 in the Port of
Houston, after our arrival in the port.

92. :
, 24.03.92 . 11.22 ,
, ,
70.
, .
, ,
, ,
,
, . ,
, .
,
, 25.03.92 . 11.00
.

93. SEA PROTEST.


I,..........., Master of the m. v. Khudozhnik sailing under the flag of
the Russian Federation, Gross Tonnage 15893, Net Tonnage 8092, registered at the
port of St. Peterburg, International Call Sign: UUSW, on March 22, 1992 sailed
from Jacksonville, FI., USA, bound for Houston, Tex., USA, with 4072 metric tons
of general cargo, the vessel being then tight, staunch and strong, well manned,
victualled and sound, and in every respect fit to perform the said intended
voyage.
On March 22, 1992 at 11. 20 GMT, proceeding through the Houston Shipping
Channel in condition of full readiness for passing narrows and with the pilot,
Mr. J. Hawkins on board the ship collided with the Japanese m. v. Rose Maru near
buoy R70.
The collision occurred under the following circumstances: I had been
following the progress of the Rose Maru for about half an hour on my radar
screen and saw that it was proceeding from the opposite direction at a speed of
10 knots and was gaining on a pusher tug pushing a barge at a speed of about 6
knots. My own speed was about 10 knots. I first sighted the oncoming pusher tug
at 10.55 when I was abeam of Buoy R58. The distance between us was about 8
miles. Immediately after that, at 10.56 I heard the Rose Maru calling on VHF
channel 16 " unknown pusher tug in position abeam buoy C81 proceeding seaward,
speed 6 knots". After they established contact, the Rose Maru asked the tug
"Beetle" to switch to channel 13. As the conversation was of no immediate
concern to me, I did not follow it further. At 11.05 I sighted the Rose Maru
which had left her lane and was overtaking the tug "Beetle" proceeding in the
wrong lane. The distance between us was 4 miles. The speed of Rose Maru,
according to my SARP was 12. 5 knots, my speed was 10 knots. At 11.06 I reduced
my speed to 6 knots and altered course to starboard to move to the starboard
side of the channel in order to avoid a close quarter's situation. At 11.08 on
VHF channel 16 I received request from the Rose Maru to reduce speed and to keep
to the starboard side of the channel. I answered that I was already doing that.
At 11.11, seeing that a close quarter's situation was imminent, I gave the order
for emergency full astern. But the headway of the both ships was too great and
at 11. 20 they collided near Buoy R70 in position 39N 34.5 and 094W 55.8. Due to
narrow channel and insufficient depths at the sides I could not effectively use
the last moment manoeuvre and alter my course hard to starboard.
Though the crew has applied all available means to safeguard the vessel
and the cargo, fearing damage to the cargo and the ship, and losses in
connection with the above collision, I declare this Sea Protest, reserving the
right to extend it at time and place convenient.

93. :

,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 22 1992 . , ,
, , , , 3148 .

.

24 1992 . 11.20 ,
, -
. , / " "
70.
:

, 10 , , 6 .
11 . - 11.50,
58. 8 .
, 11.56, , 16
-, 81
6 . , ,
13 . ,
. 11.05 ,
, .
4 .
12.5 , 11 . 11.06 6
,
. 11.08 16
. ,
. 11.11, , ,
.
, 11.22 77 39 34.5 094
55.8 -
.
, ,
,
,
.

94. MASTER'S STATEMENT ON ARRIVAL IN PORT.


This is to inform you that on........ 199... at 11. 20 GMT, proceeding
through the Houston Shipping Channel in condition of full readiness for passing
narrows and with the pilot, Mr. J. Hawkins on board the ship collided with the
Japanese m. v. Rose Maru near buoy R70.
The collision occurred under the following circumstances:
I had been following the progress of the Rose Maru for about half an hour
on my radar screen and saw that it was proceeding from the opposite direction at
a speed of 10 knots and was gaining on a pusher tug pushing a barge at a speed
of about 6 knots. My own speed was about 10 knots. I first sighted the oncoming
pusher tug at 10. 55 when I was abeam of Buoy R58. The distance between us was
about 8 miles. Immediately after that, at 10. 56 I heard the Rose Maru calling
on VHF channel 16 " unknown pusher tug in position abeam buoy C81 proceeding
seaward, speed 6 knots". After they established contact, the Rose Maru asked the
tug "Beetle" to switch to channel 13. As the conversation was of no immediate
concern to me, I did not follow it further. At 11.05 I sighted the Rose Maru
which had left her lane and was overtaking the tug "Beetle" proceeding in the
wrong lane. The distance between us was 4 miles. The speed of Rose Maru,
according to my SARP was 12. 5 knots, my speed was 10 knots. At 11.06 I reduced
my speed to 6 knots and altered course to starboard to move to the starboard
side of the channel in order to avoid a close quarters situation. At 11.08 on
VHF channel 16 I received request from the Rose Maru to reduce speed and to keep
to the starboard side of the channel. I answered that I was already doing that.
At 11. 11, seeing that a close quarters situation was imminent, I gave the order
for emergency full astern. But the headway of the both ships was too great and
at 11. 20 they collided near Buoy R70 in position 39N 34. 5 and 094W 55. 8. Due
to narrow channel and insufficient depths at the sides I could not effectively
use the last moment manoeuvre and alter my course hard to starboard.
As a result of the gliding collision I sustained the following damage:
1. Aft and forecastle on portside torn away;
2. Chock plate deformed and indented 150 mm deep between frames 126/127;
3. Handrail on port side is bent, crushed;
4. Shell plating between frames 123/127 indented 300mm deep.
As m. v. Rose Maru started overtaking without having made certain as to
the safety of the manoeuvre and entering the opposite traffic lane violated Rule
9(e. 1) of the COLREGs and made the collision inevitable, I hold her Master
fully responsible for this collision and all losses and damage arising
therefrom. In my opinion he could not have failed to see our vessel proceeding
in the opposite direction and should not have started overtaking under these
circumstances.

94. :
24 1992 . 11.20 ,
, -
. , / " "
70.
:

, 10 , -

, 6 .
11 . - 11.50,
58. 8 .
, 11.56, , 16
-, 81
6 . , ,
13 . ,
. 11.05 ,
, .
4 .
12.5 , 11 . 11.06 6
,
. 11.08 16
. ,
. 11.11, , ,
.
, 11.22 2 70 39 34.5 094
55.8 -
.
:
1. ;
2.
150 126-127;
3. , ;
4. 123-127 333 .
" " , ,
9 ( 1) ,
, ,
, " ". ,
, .

95. REJECTING A CLAIM ABOUT MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR


THE COLLISION.
Further my oral statement made yesterday at our meeting I consider it my
duty once again to state you that I flatly refuse to admit any fault on our part
in case of collision with your vessel which occurred in the Houston Shipping
Channel near Buoy R&) on March 24, 1992.
One can see from the ships' documents which I had forwarded to my
solicitor that our ship was sailing in full compliance with all regulations and
can therefore bear no responsibility for the consequences of your incorrect and
dangerous actions.
In view of the above I reject your claim for mutual responsibility for the
above collision as groundless and hold you responsible for all the damage and
losses arising therefrom.

95.

, ,
,

, 70 24.03.92 .
, , ,
, ,
.


, .

96. COUNTER CLAIM ON COLLISION.


We deeply regret about the collision and are ready to pay our share of the
losses related to it. But in our opinion your vessel shares responsibility for
the collision, as after the request of our Master to reduce speed in order to
avoid collision your vessel did not comply and did not sufficiently reduce her
speed. Besides, you did not use the last moment manoeuvre, which certainly is a
violation of the COLREGs. If, after receiving the request to reduce the speed
you had worked emergency astern propulsion and had altered your course to
starboard, the collision, would have been avoided.
In view of the above we are ready to pay 65% of the losses related to the
above collision, and are ready to present bank guarantee for the appropriate sum
immediately on receiving your consent to such settlement.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing and returning to us
one copy of same.

96.

, . , ,
,
,
. ,
, , , .

, , , .
65%

.
,
.

97. PROPOSAL OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT.


Further to my letter of the 25th inst. I beg to enclose herewith a copy of
the Surveyor Report dated the 28th of March, 1992 in connection with the damage
caused by your vessel to my ship in collision near Buoy R70 in the Houston
Shipping Channel on March 24, 1992. From the above-mentioned Report you will see
that the Surveyor, Mr. R. Sasoon of this city, on a thorough survey and careful
consideration of all circumstances, estimates the amount at US$ 25000.00.
I hope that you will consider our claim and amount of damage estimated by
the above mentioned Surveyor as quite reasonable and justified, and I offer you
to settle this matter amicably by paying the respective sum of US$25000.00 to
our Agents here, Messrs. Rice Unruh.
Your prompt reply will oblige.

97.
25
25.3.92 . ,
70 ,
24.3.92. , - .,
,
25000 .
, ,
,
, 25000
- .
, .

98. PROPOSAL OF ARBITRATION IN MOSCOW.


In reply to your letter of the 28th inst. from which we learn that you are
not willing to admit our claim for damage at US$ 25000.00, as estimated by the
Official Surveyor, we think it expedient and prudent to refer our dispute to
arbitration in Moscow by the Maritime Arbitration Commission. Enclosed please
find two copies of Arbitration Agreement for Cases of collision one of which we
would ask you to sign and return.

98.
28 , ,
25000
,
. 2
, .

99. AGREEMENT ABOUT ARBITRATION IN MOSCOW.


A G R E E M E N T
It is hereby agreed between:
Captain......., as accredited representative of the Owners of the ship m.
v. Rose Maru, sailing under Japanese flag and registered at the port of
Nagasaki, Japan, (Party of the first part), and
Captain........, as accredited representative of the Owners of the Russian
m. v. Khudozhnik, registered at the port of Sankt Peterburg, Russian Federation,
(party of the second part) as follows:
1. All disputes arising between the parties hereto, in connection with the
collision or the damage to the property on shore or at sea by the ship m. v Rose
Maru and m. v. Khudozhnik which occurred on the 24th of March, 1992, in the
Houston Shipping Channel, both with the regard to the cause of the said
collision or occurrence and eventual liability of each party and to the amount
of damages to be paid - are hereby referred to arbitration in Moscow by the
Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
2. Each party agrees forthwith to give security to the other to an amount,
which the other party shall require in accordance with the circumstances of
collision or occurrence, through the Maritime Arbitration Commission to cover
the losses and expenses of the party at whose request it was given. The security
shall be given in such form as the Maritime Arbitration Commission may think
proper, but The Maritime Arbitration Commission shall not be held responsible
either for the amount of form of effectiveness of the security.
3. The party to this agreement hereby agree not to demand the arrest or
detention of any ship of a party which has provided security in accordance with
Paragraph 2 hereof, so long as that security remains effective. Until the said
security is given, the rights of the parties to demand arrest or detention of
the ship remain unrestricted.
4. Within 30 days after the agreement has been signed each party is
entitled to choose an arbitrator from among the members of the Maritime
Arbitration Commission. Should both parties or any one of them fail within this
period to name arbitrator, the same shall be appointed by the President of the
Maritime Arbitration Commission. The parties hereto may, by mutual consent,
leave the personal choice of arbitrators to the Maritime Arbitration Commission.
In this event the Maritime Arbitration Commission may entrust the settlement of
the dispute to a sole arbitrator appointed from among the members of Commission.
the Maritime Arbitration Commission shall inform the parties of the arbitrator
appointed by the Maritime Arbitration Commission within 5 days after their
appointment.
5. The onus of providing shall lie with parties, yet the President of the
Maritime Arbitration Commission and arbitrators may gather evidence also on
their own initiative and may require each of the parties to submit to the
Maritime Arbitration Commission, prior to the hearing of the case, detailed
statements in writing and such information and documents, which the President of
the Maritime Arbitration Commission or the Arbitrators should consider essential
for ascertaining the fact of the case. Whether or not any given evidence or any
act of investigation (examination of witnesses, calling on of experts,
inspection on the spot) shall be admitted, depends on whether the arbitrators or
arbitrator consider them to have any essential significance for the case.
6. The case shall be heard by the arbitrators or arbitrator on open
session, both parties being invited to attend. The parties may conduct their
case either personally or through their representatives, but the hearing of the
case shall not be postponed on account of the failure of the parties to attend.
Parties desiring either themselves or in person of their representatives to
attend the hearing must communicate to the Maritime Arbitration Commission their
legal addresses indicating to whom notices, summonses, etc. are to be served.
Should the parties fail to communicate their legal addresses, the notices,

summonses, etc. shall remain in the office of the Maritime Arbitration


Commission and shall be deemed to have been duly served to the parties.
7. In the event of dispute coming before two arbitrators and their failing
to agree they shall elect an Umpire from among the members of the Maritime
Arbitration Commission. If the arbitrators fail to agree on an Umpire, the same
shall be appointed by the President of the Maritime Arbitration Commission from
among the members of the Maritime Arbitration Commission at his own discretion.
The arbitrators may yet before the hearing of the case agree to appoint an
Umpire to take part in the arbitration.
8. Disputes between the parties under this agreement shall be decided
pursuant to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code and other laws of the
Russian Federation, as well as to the Rules of the Brussels International
Convention of September 23, 1910, "For Unification of Some Rules Concerning
Collision of Vessels. "
9. The sum or sum awarded by the Maritime Arbitration Commission as well
as the expenses of the arbitration procedure shall be paid by the parties in
full accordance with the award of the arbitrators or the Umpire as soon as this
award comes into force. The President of the Maritime Arbitration Commission
shall give instructions for the realization of the security in the manner agreed
upon between the parties settled in award.

99.
:
........., /
" ", , , ,
( ),
........., /
"", , -,
, ( ), , :
1. ,
, 24 1992 . ,
, / " " / ""
, ,

,
, - .
2.
, ,

,
,
. ,
,
, .
3. -
,
.2 ,
. , ,
.

4. 30
.
,
,
.

,
.
, , 5 .
5. ,

,
, ,
,
.

( , , )
, .

100. TELEX TO OWNERS: INFORMATION ABOUT COST AND TIME


OF REPAIRS.
After discharging entered dry dock repairs. Upon inspection in the dry
dock beside damage listed in my tlx 28 large dent on bottom found which
according the surveyor not result of collision with the m. v. Rose Maru in view
above compensation repair of this indentation in relation this collision by
insurance company unlikely. Cost of repair of the above mentioned indentation
5000 US, total cost of repairs approximately 35000 US, time required 3 days.
Awaiting your instructions.

100.
, .
, 28/03,
, /
" ".
. 5000 ,
35000 , ,
3 . .

101. STATEMENT ABOUT COMPLETION OF REPAIRS.


I, the undersigned, Master of m. v. Khudozhnik, by the present state that
the damage caused by the m. v. Rose Maru on the 18th of March, 1991, has been
completely repaired to my entire satisfaction and that I have no claim of
whatsoever in respect to the quality of repairs.

101.
, , / "" , ,
/ " " 18.03.91 .,
.

102. TELEX WITH INFORMATION TO THE OWNER.


Drifted aground pos 55N 37 010E 56. 5 1405 03/03 due to engine failure.
Touched ground starboard bow. Approximately 1/3 ship hullstuck in the ground,
stern afloat, list starboard 15 degree, nature bottom mud and sand, some small
rocks. Grounding occurred ebb time, wind southwest 18 m per second, sea 5
meters.
Draft departure from Helsinki fore 5. 8 m aft 8. 53 m. Soundings taken
after grounding at ebb time as follows fore 5. 4 m amidships 6m, aft 9 m, draft
fore 5. 6 m, aft 8. 7 m, lost draft 20 cm fore. No apparent damage steering
gear, engine, hull, no leakage. After restarting engine will try refloat vessel
myself.
Request your permission use port Kalundborg facilities refloating and
divers inspections in case of failure. Awaiting your instruction.

102.
55-37 010-56.5 14.05 03/03
. . 1/3
, , 15 , ,
, . ,
18 /, 5 .
5.8 , 8.53 ,
: 5.4 , 6 , 9 , 5.6 ,
8.7 , 20 . ,
, , - .
.

103. RADIOGRAM WITH INFORMATION TO THE AGENT IN THE


NEXT PORT.
Drifted aground due to engine failure shoal 1/2 nautical mile southwest
Acnes Peninsula. Present position 55N 37.0 010E 56. 5.
No apparent damage steering gear, engine, hull, no leakage. After
restarting engine will try refloat vessel. Arrival Kalundborg outer roads
delayed. Will inform new ETA as soon as we get underway. Please arrange divers,
P&I surveyor drawing damage report, delivery ordered provisions, supplies upon
vessels arrival Kalundborg outer roads.

103.
1/2 - -
55-37 010-56.5 .
, , , - .
.
. .
, & ,
,
.

104. SEA PROTEST ABOUT GROUNDING.


S T A T E M E N T OF SEA PROTEST
I,......., Master of m. v. Utopia under the flag of the Russian
Federation, Gross tonnage 8092, registered at the port of St. Peterburg,
International Call Sign UUSW, on...... 1992 sailed from St. Peterburg to New
York with 4072 metric tons of general cargo, the vessel being tight, staunch and
strong, well manned, victualled and sound, and in every respect fit to perform
the said intended voyage.
On...... 199.. at 14.00GMT, approaching the port Kalundborg, in position
55N 37.0 010E 56. 5 due to the engine failure the ship began drifting to shore
carried by southwest wind of force 15-20 m/sec. Inspire of all the efforts to
restart the engine and stop the drift by letting go first the port and then the
starboard anchors, at 14. 15 the vessel was grounded on the shoal lying half a
mile North-East from the Palce of the engine failure. All the efforts undertaken
to refloat the vessel without outside assistance failed and vessel had to apply
for salvors services. Two salvage tugs of the port of Kulundborg were used for
refloating, and at 13.00.... 1992 the ship was refloated. A divers' inspection
was carried out after refloating the vessel. As no visible damage to the ship's
hull was found, the vessel continued the voyage and at 6.00 local time on....
1992 the ship was berthed at pier 7 Brooklyn Marine Terminal of the port of New
York.
The crew of the vessel have applied all means to safeguard the ship and
her cargo, but nevertheless, fearing damage to the cargo and the ship, and
losses in connection with reflating, I declare this Sea Protest, reserving the
right to extend it at a time and place convenient.

104. :

,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 22 1992 . - -
3148 .
.
23 1992 14.00 , ,
55-37 010
- 56.5
- 15-20 /.
.

, , ,
, ,
.

105. RADIOGRAM WITH INFORMATION ABOUT REFLOATING THE


VESSEL.
Vessel refloated by means two tugs 1300GMT 04/03, proceeding Kalundborg
outer roads for drivers examination, drawing damage survey report. Results
survey, expenses connected refloating later. Suppose can continue voyage without
repairs.

105.
2 1300 04/03,
,
. , . .
.

106. TELEX WITH INFORMATION TO THE OWNER.


0915GMT position 32N 54. 5 078W 16. 82 due to spontaneous ignition cargo
mineral oil fire started hold 3. Crew fighting fire, trying keep fire from
bursting into open flame, spreading into other compartments. Pumping carbon
dioxide into hold. Fire under control. Will report developments.

106.
09.15 32-54.5 078-16.8
3. .
, .
2. . .

107. REQUEST FOR FIRE ASSISTANCE.


SOS 1015 GMT position 32N 54. 5 078W 16. 82 due to spontaneous ignition
cargo mineral oil fire started hold. Request immediate fire assistance.

107.
1015 32-54.5 078-16.8
.
.

108. REQUEST FOR BOAT ASSISTANCE.


SOS 1115 GMT position 32N 54. 5 078W 16. 82 due to spontaneous ignition
cargo mineral oil fire started hold. Fire spreading to engine room, crew
quarters. Preparing abandon ship. Request immediate boat assistance.

108.

1115 32-54.5 078-16.8


.
, . .
.

109. TELEX WITH INFORMATION ABOUT PUTTING OUT THE FIRE,


1045 GMT position 32N 54. 5 078W 16. 82 fire put out by means of carbon
dioxide forced hold ship, cargo sustained following damage:16 barrels mineral
oil completely destroyed, on 60 barrels paint partly burnt, 1 pump under B/L 1
burnt down, 2 cases equipment B/L 32 partly burnt, 15 meters power cable line
inside hold destroyed, 1 ventilation duct damaged, 45 M. Sq paint sidewalls of
hold burnt. Proceeding Jacksonville under own power.

109.
1045 32-54.5 078- 16.8
2. , : 16
, 60 - , 1 1
, 2 32 - , 15
, 1 ,
45 . . .

110. SEA PROTEST ABOUT FIRE.


S T A T E M E N T OF SEA PROTEST

I,......, the Master of m. v. Utopia under the flag of the Russian


Federation, Gross tonnage 8092, registered at the port of St. Peterburg,
International Call Sign UUSW, sailed on...... 1992, from Philadelphia bound for
Jacksonville with 1352 metric tons of general cargo, the vessel being tight,
staunch and strong, well manned, victualled and sound, and in every respect fit
to perform the said intended voyage.
At 09. 15 GMT on...... 199... abeam of Charleston in position 32N 54. 24
078W 16. 8 fire started in Hold 3 due to spontaneous ignition of the cargo of
mineral oil. One hour later the fire was extinguished by the ship's crew by
means of forcing carbon dioxide into the hold. As a result of the fire the ship
and the cargo sustained some damage.
The crew of the vessel have applied all means to safeguard the ship and
her cargo, nevertheless, fearing damage to the cargo and the ship, and losses in
connection with the above accident, I declare this Sea Protest, reserving the
right to extend it at a time and place convenient.

110.
,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 22 1992 .
3148 .
.
09.15 25 1992 . . ,
32-54.5 078- 16.8 3 -
. 1
.
.

, , ,
, ,
.

111. SEA PROTEST ABOUT A STORM.


S T A T E M E N T OF SEA PROTEST

I,......, the Master of m. v. Utopia under the flag of the Russian


Federation, Gross tonnage 8092, registered at the port of St. Peterburg,
International Call Sign UUSW, sailed from the port of Mobile, Ala., USA on
August 15, 1992, bound for St. Peterburg with 6750 metric tons of general cargo,
the vessel being tight, staunch and strong, well manned, victualled and sound,
and in every respect fit to perform the said intended voyage.
At 18.00 GMT on....... 1992 in position 45N 20 015W 10 the ship
encountered a heavy storm with stern wind of force 9-10 from WSW and a heavy
swell up to 8 meters. As a result of this, the vessel suffered heavy pitching
and rolling up to 28 to either side. At 20.00 GMT the vessel had to reduce her
speed to 10 knots to reduce the rolling. At 23.00 GMT due to shifting of cargo
of pipes in Holds 2 and 3 vessel sustained a permanent list of 10 degrees to
starboard and had to deviate to the port of refuge Breast. At 09.00 on August
26, 1992 the vessel was moored at Pier 18 in the port of Breast.
Though the crew has made all precautions to save the vessel and the cargo,
fearing damage to the cargo and the ship from the above heavy weather, and also
losses connected with calling in at the port of refuge and delay of the vessel,
I declare this Sea Protest, reserving the right to extend it at a time and place
convenient.

111.
,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 19 1992 . , , ,
- 3148 .
.
18.00 21 45- 20 015-10
- - 9-10
8 .
28 . 22.00
, . 23.00 -
2 3 10
. 09.00 25 1992 .
18 .
,
,
, ,
.

112. LOST ANCHOR: MASTER'S STATEMENT.


I regret to inform you about the loss of anchor by my ship in Delaware Bay
yesterday, on the 14th of July 1992. The incident happened under the following
circumstances:
At 15.00 GMT on the 14th of July 1992, in full readiness for passage
through narrows the ship approached Philadelphia Pilot Station in Delaware Bay.
At 15. 15 GMT the Pilot, Mr. J. Jackpot, came on board and the ship
continued her voyage to Philadelphia through the Delaware Bay.
At 15. 54 GMT proceeding at a speed of 12 knots the ship approached Buoy
R10 of the Delaware Bay Ship Channel.
At 16.00 GMT, in position 38N 56 075W 04, a failure of the main engine
occurred and the ship began drifting to shore, in direction of the Crow Shoal,
driven by the wind from the West of force 7. On advice of the pilot in order to
stop the drift, we dropped the port anchor. Due to the great headway and the
strong wind the anchor cable parted and the anchor was lost together with 3
shackles of chain in position 38N 56 075W 04. 1.
At 16. 10 GMT the main engine was restarted and the ship resumed her
voyage.
The incident was reported to US Coast Guard Branch Office in Cape May on
VHF Channel 16 at 16. 15 GMT.
At 09.00 on the 15th of July 1992 the vessel was safely moored at Pier 18
of Camden Terminal in the port of Philadelphia.
I have asked my Agent here, Messrs. Rice Unruh, to arrange retrieval of
the lost anchor by a company of salvors.
For your kind information: I have a spare anchor on board and it will be
installed before departure from your port today, or tomorrow morning, at the
latest.

112. :
, , 14 1992 .,
.
:
15.00 14 1992 .,
, .
15.15 - .
.
15.54 12 10
.
16.00 38-56 075-04.1
, 7
. , ,
, .
- 3
38-56 075-04.1 .
16.10 .
16.15
16 .

09.00 15 1992 . 18
.
-
- .
,
, , .

113. LOST anchor: SEA PROTEST.


S T A T E M E N T OF SEA PROTEST

I,......, the Master of m. v. Utopia under the flag of the Russian


Federation, Gross tonnage 8092, registered at the port of St. Peterburg,
International Call Sign UUSW, sailed from the port of New York on...... 1992
bound for Philadelphia with 6750 metric tons of general cargo, the vessel being
tight, staunch and strong, well manned, victualled and sound, and in every
respect fit to perform the said intended voyage.
At 15.00 GMT on..... 1992 in full readiness for passage through narrows
the ship approached Delpilot Pilot Station in Delaware Bay.
At 15.15 GMT the Pilot, Mr. J. Jackpot, came on board and the ship
continued her voyage to Philadelphia through the Delaware Bay.
At 15.54 GMT proceeding at a speed of 12 knots the ship approached Buoy
R10 of the Delaware Bay Ship Channel.
At 16.00 GMT, in position 38N 56 075W 04, a failure of the main engine
occurred and the ship began drifting to shore, in direction of the Crow Shoal,
driven by the wind from the West of force 7. On advice of the pilot in order to
stop the drift, we dropped the port anchor. Due to the great headway and the
strong wind the anchor cable parted and the anchor was lost together with 3
shackles of chain in position 38N 56 075W 04. 1.
At 16.10 GMT the main engine was restarted and the ship resumed her
voyage.
The incident was reported to US Coast Guard Branch Office in Cape May on
VHF Channel 16 at 16.15 GMT.
At 09.00 on........ 1992 the vessel was safely moored at Pier 18 of Camden
Terminal in the port of Philadelphia.
Though the crew has made all precautions to save the vessel and the cargo,
fearing losses connected with incident, I declare this Sea Protest, reserving
the right to extend it at a time and place convenient.

113. :
,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 12 1992 . -
3148 .
.
15.00 14 1992 .,
, .
15.15 - .
.
15.54 12 10
.
16.00 38-56 075-04.1
, 7
. , ,
, .

- 3
38-56 075-04.1 .
16.10 .
16.15
16 .
09.00 15 1992 . 18
.

, , ,
,
.

114. REQUEST TO SEND A TUG TO RETRIEVE THE LOST


ANCHOR.
I would like you to make arrangements with a company of tug owners of
salvors to send a tugboat to look for, and recover, our anchor with about three
shackles of chain which we lost on the 21st inst. close to the Crow Shoal in
Delaware Bay in position 38N 56 075W 04. 1.
I shall be very grateful to you for your prompt action in this matter.

114.

3 ,
21
38- 56 075-04.1 .
, .

115. TELEX WITH INFORMATION TO THE OWNER.


Berthing thick fog at night lightly contacted us m. v. "Grand Conyon".
Other ship was not lighted. "Grand Conyon" claims damages 3000 US. Own damage
paint scratched starboard bow and small dent 10 by 100 cm 10 cm deep. Rejected
claim on ground that "Grand Conyon" was not properly lighted from sea side. But
if "Grand Conyon" files law suit it will be cheaper come amicable settlement.
Will keep you informed.

115.
/ "
". . / " "
3000 .
:
1010010 . / " "
.
. .

116. SEA PROTEST.

S T A T E M E N T OF SEA PROTEST

I,......, the Master of m. v. Utopia under the flag of the Russian


Federation, Gross tonnage 8092, registered at the port of St. Peterburg,
International Call Sign UUSW, sailed from the port of New York on...... 1992
bound for Philadelphia with 6750 metric tons of general cargo, the vessel being
tight, staunch and strong, well manned, victualled and sound, and in every
respect fit to perform the said intended voyage.
On July 14, 1992, approaching Philadelphia, with the pilot, Mr. J.
Carpenter, on board, approximately at 00. 15 GMT I received through the pilot
instruction from the Port Authorities to proceed for berthing to Pier 18 of
Camden Marine Terminal and to berth starboard side alongside to berth, astern of
m. v. "Grand Conyon".
Approaching the assigned berth, I noticed that the ship moored to berth 18
astern of which I suppose to berth my ship was not properly lighted from seaside
and her stern was completely dark. I called the attention of the pilot, Mr.
Carpenter to the fact, and had this fact duly recorded in the ship's LogBook.
The above condition, together with the thick night fog, made it extremely
difficult for us to determine the distance to the ship's stern with sufficient
accuracy, and at 02. 25 GMT, when 2 tugs were putting me into position at my
berth, I lightly contacted the "Grand Conyon's" port quarter with my starboard
bow.
At 02.30 GMT on...... 199.. the vessel was safely moored at Pier 18 of
Camden Marine Terminal in the port of Philadelphia.
Though the crew has taken all precautions to save the vessel and the
cargo, fearing losses connected with incident, I declare this Sea Protest,
reserving the right to extend it at a time and place convenient.

116.
,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 12 1992 . -
3148 .
.
, - ,
00.15 14.07.92
18
/ " ".
, , 18,
,
, .
- .
, ,
02.25

, 2 ,
/ " " .
02.30 14.07.92 18
.

, , ,
,
.

117. REJECTING A CLAIM ABOUT CONTACT.


With reference to your claim for damage to your vessel caused by us as a
result of contact with you vessel while mooring astern of your vessel to Berth
18 of Camden Terminal, Port of Philadelphia at 02. 30 a.m. 14th inst. I wish to
state the following:
I regret about the contact, but the stern of your vessel and sea side were
not properly lit, as required by the Regulations, which together with the fog,
made it extremely difficult for us to determine the distance to your stern with
sufficient accuracy when we were approaching the berth. I called the attention
of the pilot, Mr. Carpenter to the fact, and had this fact duly recorded in the
ship's Log Book. I am sure he will confirm the fact.
As to your allegation about our approaching the berth at an excessive
speed, I assure you that our speed at the time of the contact was not more than
half a knot. This can be easily verified by questioning our pilot.
As my opinion your own lack of due care, and not my allegedly excessive
speed was the cause of the damage I reject your claim as groundless.

117.
,
18
02.30 14.07.92,
:
, ,
, , ,

. -
. , .
,
, ,
. , .
, , ,
,
.

118. MASTER'S STATEMENT.


This is to inform you that when shifting from "Berth 30" to "Berth 3", at
request of the Port Master, today, on...... 199.. at 14.00 local time during the
shifting the starboard bow of my vessel slightly contacted the rubbing piece of
Berth 3 between the fenders and the concrete pier causing minor damage to same.
The incident occurred under the following circumstances:
At 14.00 with Pilot, Mr. J. London, on board, weather clear and fine, wind
WSW force 6, assisted by 2 tugs, the vessel began shifting to Berth 3 in order
to discharge 3000 tons of infested grain there and prepare her holds for
loading.
At 14.41 the vessel approached Berth 3, one tug pushing on the port bow,
the another pushing on the port quarter, the vessel's speed about 2-3 knots.
At 14.44 when the distance to berth was about 30 meters, on account of
strong on shore wind I gave an order to both tugs to check her in order to
soften the contact with pier.
At 14.47 when the distance to pier was 5 meters, the towline of the
forward tug parted and the tow swung to shore and at 14.48 it contacted the
rubbing piece of the pier somewhat roughly, damaging same.
At 14.50 the ship was moored starboard side alongside Berth 3. In my
opinion, as the towline, which parted, was provided by the tug, the fault lies
entirely with the bow tug.

118. :
, 20.09.92 14.48
30 3
3
, .
:
14.00 . , , ,
- - 6 , 2
3 , 3000
.
14.41 3,
, .
2-3 .
14.44 30 ,
,
.
14.47 5 ,
, , 14.48
, .
14.50 3. ,
,
.

119. AN OFFER OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT( A LETTER TO THE


PORT MASTER).
Referring to your Statement of Facts about our contact with pier when
shifting to Berth 3 at 14. 48 today, I would like to state the following:
According to my agent, B. Lee, the cost of replacement of the damaged
rubbing piece is about US$ 500.
Though parting of tow line which led to damage is not the ship's fault,
and the amount of damage is not known, as it can ascertained only after the
ship's departure, in order to save time and unnecessary expenses, I am ready to
pay the above sum for replacement of the damaged rubbing piece without an
official survey.

119. : (
)
3
14.48 , :
- .,
500 .
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
.

120. SALVAGE DENIED, TUG CHARGE ACCEPTED.


Referring to your claim for alleged salvage of my vessel by two of your
port tugs while rendering assistance in taking my vessel off the shoal and
towing her into port on 21st inst. I would like to state following.
I regret to decline all your claims for paying salvage. Such services have
never been rendered to my vessel. Otherwise, the fact would have been
substantiated by relevant documents, e. g. Salvage Contract, or recorded
evidence of my agreement to sign it.
Please take notice that at the time of the occurrence nobody offered me to
sign a Lloyd's Salvage Contract. If such term had been offered by the Harbor
Master or by the tug's Master, they would have been rejected by me, as there was
no immediate danger to the ship.
In my opinion taking my vessel off the ground, carried out by the tugs was
within the scope of duties of the Port Authorities: I agree, therefore to pay
ordinary towing expenses in case you submit a proper bill for the work done.

120. ,

21
.
.
.
, ,
, .

.
,
, .
, , ,
,
, .

121. MASTER'S STATEMENT.


I regret to inform you about a case of personal injury to a Dockers aboard
my vessel which occurred at about 11.00 a.m. today, on July 14, 1992 under the
following circumstances.
On July 13, 1992, at 23.00 local time the vessel arrived at Pier 13,
Camden Sea Terminal in the port of Philadelphia.
At 08.00 a.m. yesterday we commenced loading part of mineral oil into Hold
3.
At 08.15 two Dockers from gang 3 in Hold 3 were noticed working without
protective helmets. The Chief Stevedore was informed about it and warned about
inadmissibility of violation of safety rules. He promised to give instruction to
his stevedores to observe the safety rules.
At 10.45 we completed loading the cargo of mineral oil into Hold 3. Six
barrels (three on each of 2 pallets) damaged due to careless handling by the
stevedores were rejected by the Second Mate.
At about 11.00 when the stevedores began removing the remaining wooden
dunnage from Hold 3, a plank fell down from a bundle stowed on top of the 6
rejected barrels with mineral oil lifted on a pallet by the shore crane and fell
on a Dockers below, in lower Hold 3. As a result of this, the Dockers, P. Lemon,
slinging the draft below, in the Hatch Square sustained injury of the head and
the right collarbone.
At 11.03 the Master was informed about the accident. The injured man given
first aid by the ship's surgeon. On the Master's order the Harbour Master's
Officer was informed about the accident over VHF. An ambulance was called in.
At 11.10 the injured Dockers was evacuated by the ambulance. Immediately
after the accident 2 other workers (P. W. Boat and P. Leclerk) working together
with P. Limon in lower Hold 3 were questioned by my Cargo Officer. They did not
deny the fact that the man was not wearing his helmet at the time of the
accident. The injured man helmet was found on a stack of barrels 2 meters away.
Taking into consideration all circumstances, I think that the accident
occurred solely through the stevedore's personal negligence and failure to
observe safety rules. They should have properly slung the wooden dunnage, or
still better, they should have removed it by a separate draft. And by all means,
the injured man should have been wearing protective helmet all the time during
his work on board the ship.

121. , :
,
11.00 14.07.92 :
12 1992 23.00 13
.
08.00 3.
08.15 2 3 3 ,
.
.
.
10.45 3. (
3 ), - ,
.

11.00
3, , , 6
, , , ,
3, . ., ,
, .
11.03 .
.
. .
11.10 .
2 (.. .),
. 3
, .
2 .
, ,
-
.
, , .

.

122. SEA PROTEST.


S T A T E M E N T OF SEA PROTEST

I,......, the Master of m. v. Utopia under the flag of the Russian


Federation, Gross tonnage 8092, registered at the port of St. Peterburg,
International Call Sign UUSW, sailed from New York on July 10, 1992 bound for
Philadelphia with 1528. 876 metric tons of general cargo, the vessel being
tight, staunch and strong, well manned, victualled and sound, and in every
respect fit to perform the said intended voyage.
On July 13, 1992, at 23.00 local time the vessel arrived at Pier 13,
Camden Sea Terminal in the port of Philadelphia. In the course of cargo
operation my Cargo Officer called the attention of the Chief Stevedore to a
violation of safety rules by the stevedores, some of whom were working without
protective helmets. This violation was duly recorded in the ship's log book an
extract from which is attached herewith.
The next day, on July 14, 1992, approximately at 11.00 local time, a
Dockers Peter Limon, working in lower Hold 3 sustained injury of the head and
the right collar bone from a plank falling from a bundle of remaining wooden
dunnage which was being hoisted by the shore crane on a pallet with rejected
defective barrels of mineral oil after completion of loading.
At 11.02 the accident was reported to me. First aid was given to the
injured man by the ship's surgeon.
At 11.03 the Port Master's Officer was informed about the injury over VHF,
and an ambulance was called in upon my instructions.
At 11. 10 the ambulance arrived and the injured man was taken to hospital.
Though the crew has done everything to ensure safe working conditions
aboard the vessel, fearing claims against my vessel in connection with the a
fore said accident, I declare this Sea Protest against the above injury and all
possible claims and losses arising therefrom, reserving the right to extend this
protest at a time and place convenient.

122. : ,
,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 10 1992 . -
3148 .
.
12 1992 23.00 13
.

,
.
, .
, 14 1992 11.00 ,
., 3,
, ,


, .
11.02 .
.
1.03
.
11.10 .
,
,
,
.

123. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION REJECTED.


Referring to your claim for compensation of personal injury to your
stevedore P. Lemon, sustained by him while working on board my vessel on......,
1992 wish to advise you that in my opinion the accident occurred solely through
your workmen personal negligence and his own failure to observe safety rules.
Immediately after the accident 2 other workers (P. W. Bota and P. Leclerk)
working together with P. Limon in lower Hold 3 were questioned by my Cargo
Officer. They did not deny the fact that the man was not wearing his helmet at
the time of the accident. The injured man helmet was found on a stack of barrels
2 meters away.
According to good marine practice they should have properly slung the
wooden dunnage, or still better, they should have removed it by a separate
draft. And by all means, the injured man should have been wearing protective
helmet all the time during his work on board the ship.
In view of the above I consider your claim groundless.

123. , :

,
. 14 1992,
, ,
-
.
, ,
.. ., .
3. ,
. 2
.
,
, , , ,
. ,
.
.

124. EXTRACTS FROM THE SHIP'S LOG BOOK.


Page 113

08.00 Commenced loading part cargo of mineral oil into Hold 3.


08. 15 2 Dockers from Gang 3 in Hold 3 working without protective helmets.
The Chief Stevedores is warned about inadmissibility of violation of safety
rules.
10. 45 Completed loading mineral oil into Hold 3. Three barrels on each of
2 pallets damaged due to careless handling by the Stevedores. The damaged
barrels rejected by the Second Mate. According to Chief Stevedore there is no
replacement of the 6 damaged barrels.
11.00 Removing the remaining wooden dunnage from Hold 3. A plank fell down
from a bundle stowed on top of the 6 rejected barrels with mineral oil lifted on
a palette by the shore crane and fell on a Dockers below, in lower Hold 3. The
Dockers P. Limon, slinging the draft below, in the hatch square sustained injury
of the head and the right collarbone.
11.03 Master is informed about accident. The injured man is given first aid
by ship's surgeon. On Master's order the Harbour Master is informed about
accident over VHF. Ambulance called in.
11. 10 The agent is informed about accident. The injured Dockers evacuated
by the ambulance.
11. 15 A representative of the Port Authorities arrived aboard.

124. :
70
08.00 3.
08.15 3 3 .

.
10.45 3 . 3 2
- .
. 6 .
11.00 3 .
, 6 ,
, , , 3. .,
, , .
11.03 .
.
. .

11.10 .
.
11.15 .

125. RADIOGRAM WITH INFORMATION TO THE OWNER.


Owing to shifting cargo pipes in holds 2 and 3 caused by heavy storm have
10 degree list on starboard side. Trying secure cargo. No immediate danger
vessel, but consider necessary call to port to refuge restowing cargo. Request
your permission deviate nearest port breast.

125.
2,3
10 . .
, - .
, .

126. RADIOGRAM WITH REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ENTER


THE PORT.
Harbour Master Breast
= U R G E N T =
Proceeding St. Peterburg Russia tob 6750 mt general. Owing to shifting
cargo pipes have dangerous list starboard side. Request permission enter your
port restowing cargo.

126.

-, , 6750 , ,
.
.

127. SEA PROTEST.

S T A T E M E N T OF SEA PROTEST

I,......, the Master of m. v. Utopia under the flag of the Russian


Federation, Gross tonnage 8092, registered at the port of St. Peterburg,
International Call Sign UUSW, sailed from the port of Mobile, Ala., USA on
November 10, 1992, bound for St. Peterburg with 6750 metric tons of general
cargo, the vessel being tight, staunch and strong, well manned, victualled and
sound, and in every respect fit to perform the said intended voyage.
At 18.00 GMT on November 20, 1992, in position 45N 20 and 015W- 10, the
ship encountered a heavy storm with stern wind of Force 9-10 from WSW and a
heavy swell up to 8 meters. As a result of this, the vessel suffered heavy
pitching and rolling up to 28 degrees to either side.
At 20.00 GMT the vessel had to reduce her speed to 10 knots to reduce the
rolling.
At 23.00 GMT due to shifting of the cargo of pipes in Holds 2 and 3 the
vessel sustained a list of 10 degrees to starboard and had to deviate to the
port of refuge Breast.
At 09.00 GMT on November 27, 1992 the vessel was moored at Pier 18 in the
port of Breast.
Though the crew has taken all precautions to save the vessel and cargo,
fearing damage to the cargo and the ship from the above heavy weather, and also
losses connected with calling in at the port of refuge and delay of the vessel,
I declare this Sea Protest, reserving the right to extend it at a time and place
convenient.

127. : .

,........, / "", , - 2889 , - - 1034 , , , 10 1992 . , ,
- 3148 .
.
20 1992 . 18.00 45 20 015-10
- - 9-10
8 .
28 .
20.00 10 ,
.
23.00 - 2 3
10
.
09.00 27 1992 . 18 .

,
,
, ,
.

128. EXTRACTS FROM THE SHIP'S LOG BOOK.


Page 122
20.11 16.00 The ship is pitching and rolling heavily from the sea waves
and swell from WSW up to 3-4 meters. Deck cargo and hatches sprayed by sea water
overall.
20.11 18.00 The ship pitching and rolling from the sea waves and swell
from WSW up to 8 meters, heeling 28 degrees to either side. Deck cargo and
hatches are sprayed by sea water overall.
20.11 20.00 The ship pitching and rolling heavily from the sea waves and
swell from WSW up to 8 meters, heeling 28 degrees to either side. Deck cargo and
hatches sprayed by sea water overall. The cargo of pipes in Hold 2 shifting from
side to side owing to the ship's rolling. All the crew members not standing
watch securing cargo in Hold 2. Reduced speed to 10 knots to minimize rolling.
20.11 23.00 The ship pitching and rolling heavily from the sea waves and
swell from WSW up to 6 meters, heeling 20 degrees to either side. Owing to
shifting of the cargo of pipes in Holds 2 and 3 caused by the ship's heavy
rolling, the ship got a list of 10 degrees to starboard.

Master of m. v. Khudozhnik.

128. :
79
.122
20.11 1600
- - 3-4 .
.
20.11 1800 28
- - 8 .
.
20.11 2000 28
- - 8 .
.
2 .
2. 10
.
20.11 23.00 20
- - 6 .

2 3
10 .

129. WAKE DAMAGE BY A SHIP PASSING AT EXCESSIVE SPEED.


This is to inform you that today, on March 23, 1991, at 05. 15 your ship,
when passing by my vessel moored starboard side to Berth 13, Camden Terminal,
due to excessive speed of your vessel caused the following damage to vessel by
your wake striking my ship against the pier:
1. Gangway - partly crushed.
2. Shell plating on the starboard side - dented.
3. Paint on the starboard side - scratched.
The exact scope of damage will be determined upon a damage survey which
will be held today at 15.00 local time.
I hold you fully responsible for all damages and losses in connection with
the above accident and all consequences thereof.

129. :
, , 23.03.91 ., 05.15,
, 13
, -
, :
1. - ;
2. - ;
3. - .
,
, 15.00 .

, .

130. WAKE DAMAGE DURING ENGINE TRIAL AT BERTH.


This is to inform you that today, on March 20, 1991, at 06. 30 your ship
moored 20 meters ahead of my vessel alongside Pier A1 North caused the following
damages to my vessel by her wake during the propeller test carried out without a
prior warning:
1. Shell plating on the starboard side - dented.
2. Paint on the starboard side - scratched.
The exact scope of damage will be determined upon a damage survey which
will be held today at 15.00 local time.
I hold you fully responsible for all damages and losses in connection with
the above accident and all consequences thereof.

130. ,
, :

, , 23.03.91 ., 06.30, ,
20 1 ,
,
:
1. - ;
2. - .
,
, 15.00 .

, .

131. CLAIM FOR WAKE DAMAGE REJECTED.


With reference to your claim for damage to vessel allegedly caused by us
by proceeding past your vessel at an excessive speed at about 06. 30 a.m. inst.
I wish to comment as under:
1. Approaching your vessel moored at Berth 13 Camden Terminal
I reduced speed to the minimum safe maneuvering speed and this fact was
duly recorded in the ship's logbook.
2. The records in the logbook also show that your vessel had her headline
and backspring forward slack.
I am sure that both facts will be confirmed by our Pilot.
As in my opinion your own lack of due care and not my all legedly
excessive speed was the cause of the damage I reject your claim as groundless.

131.
,
06.30 20 ,
, :
1. , 13 ,

.
2. ,
.
, .
, , ,
,
.

132. DAMAGE TO TUG: MASTER'S STATEMENT.


We regret to inform you about the incident with the port tug 'Crosby' that
happened yesterday, July 25th, 1991 at about 21. 50 local time while the above
tug was passing the towing line to our bow before our entering Gladstone Lock.
At 20. 50 we received the Pilot, Mr. A. Malcolm at the Bar Light House and
began proceeding to port under his pilotage. The vessel's speed was 10-12 knots.
At 21. 40 we approached Gladstone Lock and reduced our headway to the
minimum safe maneuvering speed. Communication with the tugs was carried out by
our Pilot over VHF radio.
At 21.50 the tug 'Crosby' approached my vessel from the port bow and began
passing the towing line to my vessel.
At 21.52 the towing line was made fast and the tug started maneuvering in
order to begin the towing operation.
At 21.53 we saw that the tug was being swung around our stern from our
starboard side to port side, and then after a full turn she touched our port bow
right below the ship's name with the upper portside part of her wheelhouse. We
immediately took precautions to avoid heavy damage.
At 21.55 the tug 'Crosby' let go the towing line and moved away from my
vessel to a safe distance.
Later the towing line was again passed to my vessel by the same tug and we
proceeded to the Gladstone Lock. Further towing operations and mooring proceeded
normally.
Upon completion of berthing at Berth S-3 at 23. 45 on the same day, I
together with the Pilot and in the presence of the tug's Skipper examined the
apparent damage caused to both vessels.
The apparent damage caused to my vessel consists of a minor dent below the
ship's name on the ship's port bow and several scratches.
The apparent damage sustained by the tug includes a slight dent on the
bulwark of the port quarter and deformation of the aft port side upper corner of
the wheelhouse.
No one on board of either vessel sustained any injury.
Regretting about the incident, I have to say that in my opinion it
happened due to carelessness of the tug's Skipper who according to good marine
practice should have kept at a safe distance from the vessel when passing to her
the towing line.

132. , :

,
, 25 1991 . 21.50 ,

.
20.50 -
. 10-12
.
21.40
.
.

21.50
.
21.52 ,
.
21.53
,
.

:
.
21.55
.

.
.
-3 13.45
,
.
, ,
.
, ,

.
.
, , , ,
- , ,
,
.

133. CLAIM ABOUT DAMAGE TO TUG REJECTED.


Referring to your claim for damage to your tug 'Crosby' caused by us while
the above tug was passing the tow line to my bow in order to tow my ship into
your port through Gladstone Lock on July 21, 1991 I would like to state the
following.
Regretting about the incident, I have to say that in my opinion it
happened due to carelessness of the tug's Skipper who according to good marine
practice should have kept at a safe distance from the vessel when passing to her
the towing line.
I also hear that this not the first time the 'Crosby' had contact with the
towed ship. And that raises the question about the tug Skipper's qualification.
Moreover, I am surprised at receiving this claim, as, when examining the damage
sustained by the tug in the presence of my Pilot, the Skipper admitted it had
been his fault, and said he had no claims to my ship, whatsoever.
In view of the above I reject your claim as groundless.

133.
, , ,
, ,
,
.
, , ,
, ,
,
.
, .
. ,
, ,
, ,
, .
.

134. DAMAGE BY TUG: MASTER'S STATEMENT.


We regret to inform you about the incident with the port tug 'Crosby' that
happened yesterday, July 25th, 1991 at about 21. 50 local time while the above
tug was passing the towing line to our bow before our entering Gladstone Lock.
At 20.50 we received the Pilot, Mr. A. Malcolm at the Bar Light House and
began proceeding to port under his pilotage. The vessel's speed was 10-12 knots.
At 21.40 we approached Gladstone Lock and reduced our headway to the
minimum safe maneuvering speed. Our Pilot carried out communication with the
tugs over VHF radio.
At 21.50 the tug 'Crosby' approached my vessel from the port bow and began
passing the towing line to my vessel.
At 21.52 the towing line was made fast and the tug started maneuvering in
order to begin the towing operation.
At 21.53 we saw that the tug was being swung around our stern from our
starboard side to port side, and then after a full turn she touched our port bow
right below the ship's name with the upper portside part of her wheelhouse. We
immediately took precautions to avoid heavy damage.
At 21.55 the tug 'Crosby' let go the towing line and moved away from my
vessel to a safe distance.
Later the towing line was again passed to my vessel by the same tug and we
proceeded to the Gladstone Lock. Further towing operations and mooring proceeded
normally.
Upon completion of berthing at Berth S-3 at 23. 45 on the same day, I
together with the Pilot and in the presence of the tug's Skipper examined the
apparent damage caused to both vessels.
The apparent damage caused to my vessel consists of a minor dent below the
ship's name on the ship's port bow and several scratches.
The apparent damage sustained by the tug includes a slight dent on the
bulwark of the port quarter and deformation of the aft port side upper corner of
the wheelhouse.
No one on board of either vessel sustained any injury.
Regretting about the incident, I have to say that in my opinion it
happened due to carelessness of the tug's Skipper who according to good marine
practice should have kept at a safe distance from the vessel when passing to her
the towing line.

134. , :

,
, 25 1991 . 21.50 ,

.
20.50 -
. 10-12 .
21.40
.
.
21.50
.

21.52 ,
.
21.53
,
.

:
.
21.55
.

.
.
-3 13.45
,
.
, ,
.
, ,

.
.
, , , ,
- , ,
,
.

135. DAMAGE BY TUG: CLAIM TO THE TUG COMPANY.


We regret to inform you about the incident with the port tug 'Crosby' that
happened yesterday, July 25th, 1991 at about 21. 50 local time while the above
tug was passing the towing line to our bow before our entering Gladstone Lock.
At 21.50 the tug 'Crosby' approached my vessel from the port bow and began
passing the towing line to my vessel.
At 21.52 the towing line was made fast and the tug started maneuvering in
order to begin the towing operation.
At 21.53 we saw that the tug was being swung around our stern from our
starboard side to port side, and then after a full turn she touched our port bow
right below the ship's name with the upper portside part of her wheelhouse. We
immediately took precautions to avoid heavy damage. I ordered the tug to let go
the towing line and to move away to a safe distance.
At 21.55 the tug 'Crosby' let go the towing line and moved away from my
vessel to a safe distance.
Later the towing line was again passed to my vessel by the same tug and we
proceeded to the Gladstone Lock. Further towing operations and mooring proceeded
normally.
Regretting about the incident, I have to say that in my opinion it
happened due to carelessness of the tug's Skipper who according to good marine
practice should have kept at a safe distance from the vessel when passing to her
the towing line.
In view of the above I hold the tug Skipper wholly responsible for the
incident and the damage sustained by my vessel, the exact scope of which will be
ascertained upon a damage survey which will be held today at 15.30 local time.

135. , :

,
, 25 1991 . 21.50 ,

.
21.50
.
21.52 ,
.
21.53
,
.

:
.
21.55
.

.
.

, , , ,
- , ,
,
.

, ,
,
15.30 .

136. GARBAGE FOUND FLOATING ALONGSIDE.


This is to inform you that today, on 31st of July, 1991, your officer, Mr.
Dupont visited the ship in connection with an alleged dumping of garbage into
the harbour waters.
He said that this morning he received a report from the Terminal
Superintendent Capt. Rogers about garbage floating alongside the pier in the
direction from Berth 76 where our vessel is lying at berth. After coming on
board and finding some garbage floating alongside our seaside - at a distance of
about 20 meters from the ship's side, he imposed a fine of US 25000 for
pollution of harbour waters.
I strongly protest against the decision of your officer. In my opinion the
evidence ha has collected is not sufficient proof of my guilt: there are 4 other
ships moored qt Berth 70-80, and the waste might have been dumped from any of
these vessels or vessel passing the place in either direction.
I assure you that none of my crew has dumped any ship's waste overside.
They know and observe the US Department of Agriculture Regulations for disposal
of waste: all food waste is kept in tightly closed drums or extra heavy plastic
bags and while in port in disposed of in the prescribed manner through port
facilities.
I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision of your officer and cancel the
fine as unjustified.

136. ,
, 31.07.91 .
,
, ,
76, .
, 20 ,
25000 .
.
:
70 - 80 4
, .
, .
,
:

, .

.

137. OIL SPILL FOUND ALONGSIDE THE VESSEL.


This is to inform you that at 11.00 today, 28th inst. your representative
visited our vessel and accused us of an alleged spillage of oil and nonreporting the above to the Port Authorities. On inspecting the vessel and the
ships' papers it was established that no oil pumping operations had been carried
out after berthing, and that all seals on the discharge valves were intact.
As to non-reporting the oil slick alongside our vessel, I would like to
inform you that it was found at approximately 10. 30 by the Watch Officer who
tried to call you twice on VHF Channel 16 between 10.30 and 11.30, that is, just
before the arrival of your representative. It was duly recorded in the ship's
logbook. Besides, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that no rules
contain exact time limits for reporting oil pollution.
I have explained all this to your representative, but nevertheless, he
fined us US 10000 for non-reporting and US 50000 for pollution, the latter
pending the results of the analysis of the samples from the slick and from the
tanks of my vessel.
In view of the above, and with consideration to the ship's departure
planned for 23.00 today, I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision of your
representative and cancel the detention order issued by him and fines as
unjustified.

137.
, 11.00 27

.
,

.
, ,
, 10.30
, 16 10.30 11.00, ..
. , ,
. ,
,
.
, ,
$10000 $50000 ,
,
.

1. DAMAGED CARGO, REQUEST TO REPLACE


This is to inform you that today, on.... 19.. during loading of cargo of
white mineral oil under B/L... into Hold N... damaged was caused to... barrels
of white mineral oil due to negligent work of the crane operator who struck the
pallet with the barrels against the coaching of the hatch square while lowering
the draft into the hold. The barrels are badly dented and leaking.
I kindly ask you to replace the damaged barrels before completion of
loading.

1. , .

, , 19 .
11 - ,
, 6 .
.
.