Falsification of UTI could be a bunker dispute challenge.
Bunker survey investigation of apparent discrepancy between the figures received and delivered.
Upon receipt of the application for the investigation of the quantity of bunker, we contacted the local agent for ETA ships and attended the consequence bunker investigation.
The nominated quantity was 1,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil 380 cst. All the bunkers of the receiving vessel and were calibrated before refueling OBQ was found. There after the surveyor boarded the barge bunker with 4th ship engineer and calibrates all cargo tanks including non-appointed cargo tanks to determine the amount of pension (OBQ) before discharge . Calibration and temperatures were taken by UTI (instrument etc,) and the same certificate was presented to the inspector present.
At the end:
At the end of refueling we again able to judge reception of ships bunkers and according to initial and final surveys in the amount of received ship was 975 MT. We were given to understand that the difference would be provided by the Quantity bunker barge was indicating 995 MT 20 MT.
Figure declared by Bunker Barge:
After checking on board the receiving ship, we proceeded tp determine the quantity remaining on board the bunker barge.
We boarded the barge bunker with the ship's chief engineer and the fourth engineer, realized gauging all cargo tanks and our results were in total 995 tons of heavy fuel oil remaining on board who said the figure by the barge bunker.
While we using to gauge checked the reference sounding pipes heights. A second re-ullaging was performed using sampling tape and a 4 cm reading difference was noted with respect to the UTI. After a thorough investigation of UTI (Ullaging Instrument) we found that instead of 308 mm Instrumental Reference (for UTI certificate) .The actual measured actual measurement was 270mm (first showing more goods in tank cargo). On closer falsification of UTI was noted by the movement means to the top of the retaining ring from its initial position about 4 cm and evidence was noted by all present. The discharge was conducted from 4 cargo tanks and 2 of them were stripped (in altered UTI (machines, etc.) showed more original amount compared to the actual quantity on board.)
When we recalculated the initial and final calibration sheet with the correct measurement of numbers, the exact figure was noted to be less than 9 MT. In addition to that both the load lines were noted to be full (capacity of approximately 12 m3). Total approx. 20 MT. After a brief discussion, the figure was reduced to BDR receipt figure and the ship was signed for 975 MT.
Bunker survey investigation of apparent discrepancy between the figures received and delivered.
Upon receipt of the application for the investigation of the quantity of bunker, we contacted the local agent for ETA ships and attended the consequence bunker investigation.
The nominated quantity was 1,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil 380 cst. All the bunkers of the receiving vessel and were calibrated before refueling OBQ was found. There after the surveyor boarded the barge bunker with 4th ship engineer and calibrates all cargo tanks including non-appointed cargo tanks to determine the amount of pension (OBQ) before discharge . Calibration and temperatures were taken by UTI (instrument etc,) and the same certificate was presented to the inspector present.
At the end:
At the end of refueling we again able to judge reception of ships bunkers and according to initial and final surveys in the amount of received ship was 975 MT. We were given to understand that the difference would be provided by the Quantity bunker barge was indicating 995 MT 20 MT.
Figure declared by Bunker Barge:
After checking on board the receiving ship, we proceeded tp determine the quantity remaining on board the bunker barge.
We boarded the barge bunker with the ship's chief engineer and the fourth engineer, realized gauging all cargo tanks and our results were in total 995 tons of heavy fuel oil remaining on board who said the figure by the barge bunker.
While we using to gauge checked the reference sounding pipes heights. A second re-ullaging was performed using sampling tape and a 4 cm reading difference was noted with respect to the UTI. After a thorough investigation of UTI (Ullaging Instrument) we found that instead of 308 mm Instrumental Reference (for UTI certificate) .The actual measured actual measurement was 270mm (first showing more goods in tank cargo). On closer falsification of UTI was noted by the movement means to the top of the retaining ring from its initial position about 4 cm and evidence was noted by all present. The discharge was conducted from 4 cargo tanks and 2 of them were stripped (in altered UTI (machines, etc.) showed more original amount compared to the actual quantity on board.)
When we recalculated the initial and final calibration sheet with the correct measurement of numbers, the exact figure was noted to be less than 9 MT. In addition to that both the load lines were noted to be full (capacity of approximately 12 m3). Total approx. 20 MT. After a brief discussion, the figure was reduced to BDR receipt figure and the ship was signed for 975 MT.
bunker dispute investigation: what might be the reasons for bunker dispute? click here for more details
ReplyDelete