Navis Auto-Gate (Pre-Advise) System – Implementation date 01.02.2012

Hello all, for those of you that might not be aware or might have forgotten, please remember that as of 1st February 2012, Transnet’s Auto-gate (Pre-Advise) system will come into effect at Durban Pier 1 & Pier 2..

From the 1st of Feb 2012, Transnet Port Terminals at Durban’s Pier 1 & Pier 2 (formerly DCT) will no longer entertain/accept paper CTO’s except for Hazardous and Out of Gauge cargoes.. All other cargoes must be pre-advised via the Navis system.. What does this mean..??

  1. Once a booking is made with the shipping line, they will enter the booking details into the Navis system
  2. After the cargo has been packed into the container and all below details are known, the client or their packing station will need to log into Navis and update all below details into Navis (if they have direct access) or advise the relevant shipping line..
  3. Some of the details required by the shipping lines are as below with some them being  mandatory, but it looks like each line have their own requirement, so it is better to check with the lines what details they require for the pre-advise.. These are the “generic” requirements :

Booking
Container Number
Seal Number
Carrier
Weight
Equipment type
Gross weight
Port of load
Transporters Name

In case you have not registered with Transnet, pls contact the relevant shipping line and they will give you a Navis User Acess Form to fill up and submit to Transnet..You can download the “generic” Navis user access form here.. Some lines might have their own templates..

Navis access – to give or not to give

 

I received below question from one of the readers of this blog, one that relates directly to South African ports and shipments.. But there could be other such issues in other countries as well..

+++

Hi Manaadiar

Your blog is simply invaluable and it is incredible how generous you are with your wilingness to empower. I am a cargo surveyor. Pre-Navis I used to be able to access general information regarding the vessel discharge, container condition report, gate-out times etc etc. tehn I would call Ports (TPT) for any additional information like reefer temperature history etc.

Post-Navis: Nothing. I have no access. Ports refuse to provide any information and refer me consistently to the Shipping Lines. The Lines simply do not respond, because normally something has gone wrong where I am appointed. I honestly cannot do my work correctly and am now having to literally beg for the simplest of documents.

Your or any of your readers advice would be greatly appreciated.

I have asked Ports to arrange log on codes for surveyors and have run this past a number of their managers. Their response is to not respond, but refer me to the Line.

Maybe I should set up a Line!

Thanks so much for this blog

Michael

+++

My answer to this is – ” Michael, Navis is also designed for better security for all and what you are asking from the port, is information relating to the line and their vessels/container and this is privileged information between the line and the port and their clients.. The port requires the lines permission in order to provide you the same..

If you have been appointed by the merchant to check and protect their cargo interests, then you need to provide that information/authorisation to the relevant shipping line and request them to provide you third party access for Navis or provide you with the information relating to that shipment.. I dont think any of the shipping lines will decline any genuine request..

Anyone else has any other ideas/suggestions/comments pls do share..

DCT Pier1 News

Below from DCT..

Quote

Pier1 will be re-launching Tier Releasing for imports off the Porthos. Transporters must place stickers printed on an A4 page and clearly visible in their windscreen indicating which stack area they have been assigned e.g PORTHOS, E2. Only transporters who have received confirmation from the Call Centre will be able to uplift boxes. Further updates to follow

Unquote

Transnet invests in Durban container-handling capacity

Transnet Port Terminals (TPT) is buying six mobile harbour cranes to add to its fleet as part of a R438.3-million investment in container-handling capacity at its Durban RoRo and Maydon Wharf terminal.

Liebherr-Werk Nenzing has agreed to handle the design, fabrication, delivery, erection, testing and commissioning of the cranes as part of its contract, TPT announced on Thursday.

The increase in capacity at the terminal, which mainly handles bulk, agri-bulk and roll on, roll off cargo, complemented the Durban Container Terminal’s existing capacity, reducing vessel delays and improving service offering at the port.

“The investment in these assets is part of our aggressive drive to improve infrastructure and facilities at all our terminals,” TPT CEO Karl Socikwa said in a statement.

The Durban Container Terminal’s Pier 2 was expecting delivery of seven tandem-lift ship-to-shore cranes in late 2012, while two cranes were being assembled at the Ngqura Container Terminal, adding to the terminal’s existing fleet of six mega-max ship-to-shore cranes.

“In total, TPT has bought 15 cranes for container-handling throughout its terminals in the last nine months as part of Transnet’s accelerated fleet renewal programme – a key element of the company’s efficiency improvement drive,” he said.

Further, Liebherr has committed to implement local supplier development initiatives, as part of the Department of Public Enterprises’ Supplier Development Programme, over the next five years.

This would ensure competence and expertise within South African companies to manufacture parts and fully assemble cranes and maritime equipment.

Source : http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/transnet-invests-in-durban-container-handling-capacity-2012-01-19

Container review – 2012 – Whatever your expectations, lower them..

A look at 2012 and the container industry as seen by http://www.lloydslistgroup.com/lloydslistintelligence/home.. Thanks to Mike Poverello for the article..

+++

For the liner industry, 2011 proved to be a year that, among other things, offered a firm reminder and an overwhelming conclusion that this business never ceases to remain unpredictable, cyclical and highly risky.  There are few (if any) other industries that would require a consistent 90% plus utilisation and still fail to break even or earn a below average profit. There are few industries, indeed, where sentiment and herd mentality continue to influence market conditions, dictate company policy and formulate investment strategy. So while 2011 has been a year which ocean carriers would rather quickly forget for all those reasons associated with failing to maintain a healthy balance sheet, could 2012 prove to be the year where carriers manage to find their path back to normality?

At first sight, this is unlikely. Since facts must always beat rhetoric in the debate as to whether there is an immediate respite in sight for the industry’s current downturn, Lloyd’s List Intelligence does not expect underlying market conditions to improve significantly in 2012, barring unexpected conditions.

Those facts, can be grouped into the following five categories:–

  1. a challenging macroeconomic environment and a persistent economic uncertainty in the US and Eurozone that still has the potential to lead to sovereign insolvencies and consequently affect consumption patterns in the developed world,
  2. ever-soaring bunker prices that continue to push up operating costs,
  3. a chronic overcapacity in the key east-west trade arteries which disturbs the supply-demand equilibrium,
  4. the cascading effects of this overcapacity which could, in effect, jeopardise the profitability of other trade lanes, and
  5. a huge overhang of orders that is due to be delivered and, may yet, present the biggest threat to all freight rate recovery efforts.

Taking a closer look on the supply side, the Lloyd’s List Intelligence container database shows that the fully cellular container fleet stands today at 5,047 vessels with an aggregate intake of 15.34 million TEU. It represents a total increase of 7.6% in TEU terms from exactly a year ago. While the Panamax sub-sector remains the largest at present with just under 4 million TEU globally deployed, it grew by a mere 5.5% last year. Conversely, in the ULCS (<12,500 TEU) category, the fleet grew by a significant 37.5% while, in the ULCS (>12,500 TEU) sector, the delivery book accounted for a massive 86.5% capacity increase.

All main ocean carriers took new vessel deliveries in 2011, with the exception of Evergreen. The Taiwanese carrier has a total of 30 x 8,000 TEU ships in its orderbook, but with deliveries commencing only in 2013. Maersk and MSC took delivery of new ships from across all sub-sectors. But it was in the ultra-large category that they particularly dominated taking 9 and 14 vessels respectively. Following closely on their steps, CMA CGM, Cosco, Hanjin, CSCL, UASC & APL took delivery of a total of 21 ships in the same category with an aggregate intake of 246,000 TEU. The APL tonnage (2 x 10,100 TEU), marked the start of a new era for the carrier as it entered the super large league.

There is a fair degree of truth in the claim that this substantial capacity increase in the ultra-large categories prolonged the unsustainable battle over market share in the main east-west trade lanes which had already started in 2H10 and was the main factor behind the justification for entering into an aggressive freight rate war to protect, and gain, new cargo volumes to ensure that this new slot capacity was fully utilised but which also, possibly, went beyond what the excess capacity levels would have suggested in the first place.

Overcapacity thus remains the single biggest threat to ocean carriers. With a 2012 delivery book reaching 1.8 million TEU and the first series of 16,000 TEU ships, largest-to-date, due to be delivered later this year, it is difficult to see the market having any opportunity to gain traction. We expect that carriers will finally respond to the glut of ship supply by restraining new orders, especially for ULCS, which are driven by expediency and sentiment, rather than fleet renewal opportunities and sustainable investment strategy programmes. We expect the largest carriers to fully concentrate on re-aligning their services and making most of their pending cooperative agreements to curb excess capacity and install discipline to weather the tough times that lie ahead. We expect an advanced rate restoration programme in which applying common sense will prevail over maintaining market share, at all costs. Until such coordinated measures have been taken, all negotiating powers over spot and contracted business will remain firmly in the hands of shippers, forwarders, and BCOs this year.

Until next time,
Dimitris Morochartzis
Container Channel Analyst
Lloyd’s List Intelligence

+++

Thought provoking..?? Scary..?? What are your thoughts/comments..??

Part bill of lading

As advised in one of my very first articles – Article 2 – The Documents - a Bill of Lading – abbreviated to read B/L is a document that establishes the terms of a contract between a shipper and a transportation company. It serves as a document of title, a contract of carriage and a receipt for goods.. This is issued by the shipping line after ascertaining and confirming that :

  • - the container(s) covered in the bill of lading are infact physically shipped on board the specific ship/voyage
  • - the relevant freight and other charges have been paid by the shipper or his agent
  • - the relevant authenicated docs – B/E and CDO have been submitted by the shipper or his agent

When, Where and under what circumstances is a Part Bill of Lading issued..??

There may occur cases where a seller has probably 2 or more buyers at the same port of discharge, or where the buyer is the same, but cargo/order numbers could be different.. In order to optimise the utilisation of the container, all the orders for the various buyers could be packed in the same container..

In such cases, depending on the terms of trade between the seller and buyer, individual bills of lading needs to be issued.. Since the container is the same, the bill of lading is split into “n” number of “parts”..

Example, if there are three bills of lading covering the cargo packed in a container number MANU1234567, three bills of lading SISA1234, SISA1234A, SISA1234B maybe issued whereby

  • SISA1234 is the first part bill of lading,
  • SISA1234A is the second part bill of lading and
  • SISA1234B is the third part bill of lading

In order to ensure that each of the bills of lading are individual, yet linked to each other, it is very important that the body of the bill of lading denotes clearly that there are part bills issued.. It is usually done by endorsing the body of the bill as

  • SISA1234 should be endorsed as Part 1/3 (indicating that this is the 1st part of 3 part bills)
  • SISA1234A should be endorsed as Part 2/3 of bill of lading SISA1234 (linking it to the first bill)
  • SISA1234B should be endorsed as Part 3/3 of bill of lading SISA1234 (linking it to the first bill)

SISA1234 being the primary bill will normally carry all the freight charges and the freight charges for all 3 bills has to be paid by one entity (either shipper or consignee)..

Port delays and its consequences

Lets assume you are shipping a container from Durban to Nairobi which as per the map is not too far and you would expect it to reach Nairobi in a few days time by ship right..?? Wrong !!

Currently it could take your container anything between 48-50 DAYS, yes DAYS to get it from Durban to Nairobi.. :(

How you say..??

Currently the port of Mombasa is extremely congested and below is the time line (reproduced from a Kenyan newspaper) of how long it takes cargo to move from Mombasa (gateway port) to Nairobi.. Add to this about 6 days steaming time from Durban to Mombasa..

Can you imagine that.. This is how long a seller might have to wait in certain cases to get paid by his buyer.. Or for the buyer to have paid the money to the seller and wait to get his goods.. Shows you how so many things are dependent on the efficient handling  and operation of the ports..

Stricken container ship M/V Rena splits in two

Further to my previous article on the ill-fated Rena, below is an article about the Rena finally breaking in two.. Graphic images, not for sensitive viewers..

UPDATE: Sunday, 6pm EST: MNZ says that four containers and a considerable amount of debris have washed up on Waihi Beach this morning.  Another seven containers are known to be within a mile of shore, and container recovery company Braemar Howells is using tugs to tow them offshore. Over flights have observed up to 40 containers in the water. Braemar Howells has been able to tag 21 with buoys and will be corralled and collected as soon as conditions allow.

Salvors have not yet been able to land on the stern section of the vessel to assess its state, although a Monday morning aerial observation showed no significant change in its position on the reef. MNZ Salvage Advisor Jon Walker said the stern section would not float if it came off the reef. The bow section of the vessel is still wedged firmly in its original position, but is fully exposed to the sea suffering internal damage from the continued heavy sea state [See photos below].

A three nautical mile exclusion zone is in place around the MV Rena, along with a 1500 feet aerial exclusion zone.

UPDATE Sunday, 12pm EST: Container recovery company Braemar Howells now estimates that between 200 and 300 containers of the approximately 830 that were still remaining on the Rena when she broke have been lost. 30 had been identified and with 17 tagged with buoys. Meanwhile Authorities have advised communities along the Bay of Plenty coastline that container debris and oil from the MV Rena is likely to begin coming ashore overnight Sunday and Monday.

The current bad weather is forecasted to slowly ease over next 3 – 4 days although seas are expected to remain rough with 4 – 4.5m swells.

Original: Severe weather overnight has separated the MV Rena into two pieces, which are now about 20-30m apart on the Astrolabe Reef, Maritime New Zealand says.

Both sections of the vessel still remain on the reef, with the forward section remaining firmly wedged, while the aft section has separated and moved clockwise (or to starboard) about 13 degrees, after the ship was hit by seas of over 7m overnight, further worsening the damage it sustained following its grounding on the reef just over three months ago. The current bad weather is forecast to slowly ease over next 3 – 4 days.

MNZ Salvage Unit Manager David Billington said the fresh damage to the ship had resulted in the loss of a large number of containers and debris.

“While the two sections of the Rena currently remain on the reef, there’s no question the ship is badly damaged with the severe movement breaking off many of the hatch covers and releasing containers from the holds. Salvors are now working to assess the state of the vessel so that naval architects can undertake further calculations get gain a clearer picture of its ongoing stability.”

Mr Billington said the vessel Go Canopus was currently connected to the aft section of the Rena and was continuing to monitor its status.

At least 23 containers had been confirmed as being lost from the ship, which were floating or partly submerged, with another 7 (unconfirmed) thought to be in the water. However, Mr Billington said more were likely to be lost. There was also a large debris trail, including wood, around the vessel.

Container recovery company Bramear Howells had tugs en route to tag containers with buoys as it was currently too rough to tow or safely recover them, while vessels with trawl nets would also be sent out to collect debris once weather conditions improved.

Navigational warnings had also been issued to shipping, with the port company communicating with individual ships via port radio and warnings issued to recreational vessels via Coastguard radio. Shipping lanes were also being monitored for containers and debris. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council Harbour Master is considering extending the 3nm exclusion zone due to the large debris field from Rena.

National On Scene Commander Alex van Wijngaarden said the National Response Team had been mobilised, which included trained oil spill response and wildlife experts, who were preparing for the likelihood of more oil coming ashore.

“While reports at this stage indicate there has not been a significant release of oil, with the Rena in its current fragile state, a further release is likely. While it is unknown at this stage exactly how much oil may be released, teams have been mobilised and will be ready to respond to anything that may come ashore. The wildlife response had also been increased to help deal with any affected wildlife.

“At this stage, preliminary trajectory modelling predicts that any oil released will come ashore around midnight tonight, landing on beaches south east of Mt Maunganui – however, this could change at any time depending on the weather and wind conditions. We also remind people that there may be large amounts of debris or containers that could come ashore so they need to exercise common sense and please keep clear. Instead, if people do see any oil or container debris, please report it to us via the 0800 OIL SPILL number (0800 645 774).”

Original article from http://gcaptain.com/claims-rena-stricken-containership/?36822..

Related article from www.ifw-net.com (http://www.ifw-net.com/freightpubs/ifw/index/rena-finally-breaks-in-two/20017930311.htm)

Timber, plastic and sacks of milk powder, along with other debris from containers began being washed up onto popular New Zealand beaches this morning after the containership Rena, stuck on an offshore reef for three months, broke apart in heavy seas yesterday.

The 47,230-tonne Liberian-flagged Rena, grounded on Astrolabe Reef, finally broke in two about 22km off Tauranga on the east coast of New Zealand after being pounded by waves of up to six metres.

Up to 300 containers have been washed overboard, with most expected to sink.

While a new oil leak is feared, clean-up teams expect it to be smaller than the initial escape.

After the Rena struck the well-marked Astrolabe Reef off the North Island resort area of Tauranga on 5 October, the resulting fuel oil spill was described as New Zealand’s worst maritime environmental disaster.

The vessel’s captain and other senior officers face up to 16 charges relating to the wreck.

At least five containers have already washed ashore at Waihi Beach, a popular spot for holidaymakers, a Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) spokesman said.

“There are a lot of containers and debris in the water and washing up on the beaches,” he said.

An oil sheen was spreading 3km from the stricken vessel and small amounts of oil were washing up on nearby islands and beaches, he added.

Dozens of sacks of milk powder also littered the beach and stained the sea surrounding the ship after one container broke apart.

Recovery company Braemar Howells said it believed 200-300 containers out of the 800 still on the ship had fallen overboard when the ship split.

It is likely the stern section will capsize and sink, which could make recovering any further containers considerably more difficult, said MNZ salvage adviser Jon Walker.

Vehicles with combustion engines to be shipped as Hazardous cargo

It has been advised that as per IMDG Code Amendment 35, effective 1st January 2012, all equipment fitted with an internal combustion engine will fall within the scope of the IMDG Code and must be notified to carriers as dangerous goods, UN 3166, Class 9.. A dangerous goods declaration and document will be required to be submitted to the carrier and/or the master of the ship.. You can download the “generic” format of dangerous goods packing declaration here.. Remember that each shipping line has their own format of packing declaration..

As per UN 3166 items that are included but not restricted to, may be cars, vehicles, plant, boats or any equipment with an internal combustion engine.. These could be equipment that has either a connected battery or a fuel tank containing flammable liquid (petrol or diesel) or flammable gas..

Special Provision 961 describes technical measures that can be taken to neutralise the hazard of fuel and batteries and allow the articles to be consigned as non-hazardous, but that involves isolating the battery and removing the fuel from the tanks which could be quite a task, but can be done if the shipper wishes to ship it as a non-hazardous cargo..

Below is what the Special Provisions 312, 356, 961 and 962 from the IMDG Code Amendment 35 and the Dangerous Goods List say about the new ruling..

Observation from Dangerous Goods List Entry – UN 3166

“Types of articles transported under this entry include internal combustion engines,
compression/ignition engines, fuel cell powered engines, motor vehicles, hybrid
vehicles, motorcycles and boats.”

Special Provision 312:

“Vehicles or machinery powered by a fuel cell engine shall be consigned under the entries:

  • UN 3166, VEHICLE, FUEL CELL, FLAMMABLE GAS POWERED, or
  • UN 3166, VEHICLE, FUEL CELL, FLAMMABLE LIQUID POWERED, or
  • UN 3166, ENGINE, FUEL CELL, FLAMMABLE GAS POWERED, or
  • UN 3166, ENGINE, FUEL CELL, FLAMMABLE LIQUID POWERED, as appropriate.

These entries include hybrid engine vehicles powered by both a fuel cell and an internal combustion engine and wet batteries, sodium batteries or lithium batteries, transported with the batteries installed. Other vehicles which contain an internal combustion engine shall be consigned under the entries:

  • UN 3166, VEHICLE, FLAMMABLE GAS POWERED, or
  • UN 3166, VEHICLE, FLAMMABLE LIQUID POWERED, as appropriate.

These entries include hybrid electric vehicle powered by both an internal combustion engine and wet batteries, sodium batteries or lithium batteries, transported with the batteries installed.”

Special Provision 356:

“Metal hydride storage systems installed in conveyances or in completed conveyance components or intended to be installed in conveyances shall be approved by the competent authority before acceptance for transport. The transport document shall include an indication that the package was approved by the competent authority or a copy of the competent authority approval shall accompany each consignment.”

Special Provision 962:

Vehicles or equipment powered by internal combustion engines, fuel cells or batteries not meeting the conditions of Special Provision 961 shall be assigned to Class 9 and shall meet the following requirements:

  1. Vehicles and equipment shall not show signs of leakage from batteries, fuel cells, compressed gas cylinders or accumulators, or fuel tank(s) when applicable;
  2. For flammable liquid powered engines and equipment, the fuel tank(s) containing the flammable liquid shall not be more than one fourth full and in any case the flammable liquid shall not exceed 250 litres;
  3. For flammable gas powered vehicles and equipment, the fuel shut-off valve of the fuel tank(s) shall be securely closed;
  4. Installed batteries shall be protected from damage, short circuit, and accidental activation during transport. Lithium ion or lithium metal batteries shall meet the requirements of the United Nations Manual of Tests & Criteria, part III, subsection 38.3, unless otherwise approved by the competent authority; and
  5. Dangerous goods required for the operation of the vehicle or equipment such as fire extinguishers, compressed gas accumulators, airbag inflators, etc., shall be securely mounted in the vehicle or equipment.

The marking, labelling and placarding requirements provisions of this Code shall not apply.

Special Provision 961:

“Vehicles and equipment are not subject to the provisions of this Code (IMDG Code Amndt. 35) if they are stowed on a roll-on/roll-off ship or in another cargo space designated by the Administration (flag state) as specifically designed and approved for the carriage of vehicles and equipment and there are no signs of leakage from the battery, engine, fuel cell, compressed gas cylinder or accumulator, or fuel tank when applicable.

In addition, vehicles and equipment are not subject to the provisions of this Code if any of the following conditions are met:

  1. The fuel tank(s) of the vehicle or equipment powered by a flammable liquid fuel is empty and installed batteries are protected from short circuit;
  2. The fuel tank(s) of the vehicle or equipment powered by a flammable gas is emptied of liquefied or compressed gas and the, the positive pressure in the tank does not exceed 2 bar, the fuel shut-off or isolation valve is closed and secured, and installed batteries are protected from short circuit; or
  3. The vehicle or equipment is solely powered by a wet or dry storage battery or a sodium battery, and the battery is protected from short circuit.”

Also refer to my previous articles on the details of hazardous cargoes, the process of hazardous cargo acceptance and shipment and Undeclared hazardous cargo and its consequences..

2011 – The year that was, for this shipping and freight blog

Greetings everyone.. Trust you had a grand entry into 2012..

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for my blog covering what went on in the background of this blog , and below is what they had to say..

This blog was viewed about 160,000 times in 2011.. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum which gets about 8.5 million visitors per year , it would take about 7 days for that many people to see it..

Majority of the visitors came to this blog searching, mostly for nvocctelex releasedemurrage and detentionhouse bill of lading, and types of containers..

The visitors came from various countries as below in ascending order :

Top 5 countries from North America  :

  1. USA – 82.7%
  2. Canada – 10.6%
  3. Jamaica – 1.6%
  4. Mexico – 1.6%
  5. Panama – 0.6%

Top 5 countries from South America :

  1. Brazil – 42.4%
  2. Argentina – 15.8%
  3. Chile – 13.2%
  4. Colombia – 9.1%
  5. Peru – 8.8%

Top 5 countries from Africa :

  1. South Africa – 79.0%
  2. Egypt – 4.6%
  3. Kenya – 3.9%
  4. Nigeria – 1.7%
  5. Ghana – 1.6%

Top 5 countries from Europe :

  1. United Kingdom – 21.8%
  2. Germany – 9.2%
  3. Netherlands – 6.4%
  4. France – 6.1%
  5. Italy – 5.6%

Top 5 countries from Asia :

  1.  India – 30.0%
  2. Singapore – 11.2%
  3. UAE – 8.8%
  4. Malaysia – 7.9%
  5. Philippines – 5.4%

Top 5 countries from Oceania :

  1. Australia – 74.9%
  2. New Zealand – 22.8%
  3. Fiji – 0.6%
  4. Papua New Guinea – 0.6%
  5. New Caledonia – 0.4%

Most visitors to this blog came from The United States with South Africa & India not far behind..

The most commented on post in 2011 was Under FOB terms – who should bear the charges for issuance of B/l : Shipper or Consignee??

The 5 most active commenters on this blog were:

  1. Albert Mhizha 18 comments
  2. MARLIN REDDY 8 comments
  3. nazim 7 comments
  4. yunus mohamed 6 comments
  5. DINESH.L 6 comments

Thanks Guys..

These are the top 5 posts that most of you visited in 2011..

Well that was 2011 and i am looking forward to what 2012 holds..