23 Mar. Suez Canal blocked.

Blimey.
She is welcome to perfect "reversing";) on me any old day.
1617537044965.png
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
She was also:

"At the time of the Suez blockage, Ms Elselehdar was working as a first mate, in command of the Aida IV, hundreds of miles away in Alexandria."

and:

Next month Marwa Elselehdar will be taking her final exam to attain a full rank of captain, and hopes she can continue to be a role model for women in the industry.

So perhaps she is not yet the captain, whether she is or she isn't; I would

Much of the BBC article seems to have been cut & pasted from here

Regardless I’d just like to point out that in the absence of @don't tell him pike I would.
 
A couple of updates this morning, looks like it may not be going anywhere for a while and the crew even longer.

London, Apr 4 -- A press report, dated today, states: Fully cellular containership Ever Given: According to media reports, Shoei Kisen Kaisha has declared General Average (GA) in connection with the Ever Given grounding disaster, indicating that it will impose a bond requirement on cargo interests before releasing containers from the ship. Richard Hogg Lindley has been appointed as the GA adjuster, according to a news report. GA charges are typically assessed as a percentage of the value of the cargo. No cargo has been damaged in connection with this incident, but the bonds may be used to recover the cost of the refloat effort. For its part, Evergreen believes that as the charterer it has "very low" exposure to financial risk from the grounding, president Eric Hsieh told Taiwanese reporters on Thursday. “Our risk exposure from the Ever Given incident is very low - even if there are damages, it will be covered by insurance,” Hsieh said. “Evergreen is free of responsibility from cargo delays [under the terms of carriage].”

London, Apr 5 -- A press report, dated Apr 1, states: The Indian crew members of fully cellular containership Ever Given are no longer stuck in the lower section of the Suez Canal, but they could get stuck in Egypt for a long time. Since the pressure on the investigation into the grounding is high, it is possible that they may face house arrest or even criminal charges in connection with the vessel's grounding, which closed the canal for six days and disrupted billions of dollars in trade. The chairman of the Suez Canal Authority has estimated the total economic damages from the casualty at about $1 billion and affected shipping interests will be looking to recoup their losses via insurance claims and litigation. Other seafarers who have been aboard troubled vessels in Egypt have ended up under a status equivalent to house arrest, sometimes for years, according to the International Transport Workers' Federation.
 
Egypt are apparently going after the ship owner of the Ever Given, the Japanese company Shoei Kisen Kaisha Ltd., for compensation for the canal blockage.
Egypt seeks settlement with ship owner for Suez Canal blockage

The Egyptians are apparently looking for a nice round $1 billion. The ship will not be allowed to leave Egypt until the owner has paid up.
The canal chief said last week the Suez Canal Authority was expecting more than $1 billion US in compensation, warning the ship would not be allowed to leave the canal if the issue of damages turns into a legal dispute.

I imagine that getting compensation from this Japanese company will be like squeezing blood from a stone.

I also imagine that the owners of the cargo can probably kiss goodbye ever seeing the contents of their containers again, as I suspect those won't be going anywhere any time soon either.
 
Egypt are apparently going after the ship owner of the Ever Given, the Japanese company Shoei Kisen Kaisha Ltd., for compensation for the canal blockage.
Egypt seeks settlement with ship owner for Suez Canal blockage

The Egyptians are apparently looking for a nice round $1 billion. The ship will not be allowed to leave Egypt until the owner has paid up.


I imagine that getting compensation from this Japanese company will be like squeezing blood from a stone.

I also imagine that the owners of the cargo can probably kiss goodbye ever seeing the contents of their containers again, as I suspect those won't be going anywhere any time soon either.

A billion dollars may be a tad on the high side but I suspect the ship and her crew will not be going anywhere until significant sums have changed hands. The ship's P&I insurer will cover most of it.
 
A billion dollars may be a tad on the high side but I suspect the ship and her crew will not be going anywhere until significant sums have changed hands. The ship's P&I insurer will cover most of it.
Watch out for reports of a number of Lloyds names leaving tower block windows without a parachute!
 
Or the crew...

Just a quick sidetrack...


This kind of thing has become increasingly common over the last few years, not so much getting the mate to sign for the ship as guardian, how he fell for that one I don't know and why him and not the captain. But there have been a few incidents in the UK where a ship and her crew have been abandoned by her owners and pretty much let to rot. The crew going unpaid for, sometimes, years and being fed by charities such as the Flying Angel. This also pisses off the port who have a blocked berth and no fees paid.
 
Watch out for reports of a number of Lloyds names leaving tower block windows without a parachute!

The P&I insurer will most likely be left to pick up the bill. P&I covers 3rd party liability, Lloyd's would, generally, cover hull and machinery damage and salvage costs which will not be cheap in this case but not the eye watering figures being claimed by the SCA.

When a P&I club faces a significant claim it is split into 3 layers, the first few million is covered by the club itself, the next few is insured on the re-insurance market with the top layer, above about 9-10 million IIRC, is covered by the International Group of P&I Clubs. The IG is a kind of trade body to which all the big mutual clubs belong and pay into so no one club is faced with a potentially bankrupting bill but the risk is spread through the whole of the ship owning community.
 
A billion dollars may be a tad on the high side but I suspect the ship and her crew will not be going anywhere until significant sums have changed hands. The ship's P&I insurer will cover most of it.
I get the impression from the news story that the Egyptians are waving the $1 billion figure around as a threat, but are going to be willing to accept a much lower figure if the ship owner is prepared to settle out of court.
 
As an aside it will be interesting to see how the $1 billion claim pans out given that Egypt is, I believe, a signatory to the Convention on Limitation of Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, the Limitation Convention. This is an international convention which allows a shipowner, in certain circumstances, to limit his liability for damages based on the gross tonnage of the ship involved. The original convention was made in 1976 but the limits have been increased a couple of times since, in 1996 and 2012. Different countries apply different limits, Singapore for example still applies the original 1976 limits whereas the UK applies the much higher 2012 limits. I don't know which limits would apply in Egypt but whichever would be a lot less than $1 billion.

Any claim against the EG will no doubt be heard in an Egyptian court with the SCA as the plaintiff, good luck defending that one!

 
As an aside it will be interesting to see how the $1 billion claim pans out given that Egypt is, I believe, a signatory to the Convention on Limitation of Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, the Limitation Convention. This is an international convention which allows a shipowner, in certain circumstances, to limit his liability for damages based on the gross tonnage of the ship involved. The original convention was made in 1976 but the limits have been increased a couple of times since, in 1996 and 2012. Different countries apply different limits, Singapore for example still applies the original 1976 limits whereas the UK applies the much higher 2012 limits. I don't know which limits would apply in Egypt but whichever would be a lot less than $1 billion.

Any claim against the EG will no doubt be heard in an Egyptian court with the SCA as the plaintiff, good luck defending that one!

Does that have to be balanced against scaring people away from using Suez with unreasonable claims, or is the convenience and time saving worth the risk?
 
An interesting article here on the potential litigation and delays to the ship which may follow:


Richard Sarll is an barrister with much experience in shipping law.
 
This morning's update:

London, Apr 12 -- A press report, dated Apr 11, states: Fully cellular containership Ever Given: The vessel is still anchored in Egypt's Great Bitter Lake, weeks after salvors freed it from the banks of the Suez Canal and may not be leaving soon. The vessel will remain here until investigations are complete and compensation is paid," said Suez Canal Authority head Lt. Gen. Osama Rabie. Rabie said that Egypt will seek $1 billion in compensation from the shipowner for the incident. The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) lost less than one-tenth of that amount in canal transit fees throughout the six days that the vessel was grounded. The cost of the salvage has not been disclosed, but it would have to cover the efforts of two dredgers, a dozen tugs of varying sizes, fees for the professional salvor, and wages and overtime for an Egyptian workforce numbering in the hundreds. After the grounding, the canal authority is contemplating modifications to its physical operations, potentially including larger salvage tugs, bigger cranes, and the widening of the narrow southern section of the canal. However, the SCA denies that it bears any responsibility for the grounding. Egyptian investigators have retrieved data from the vessel's VDR and are in the process of examining the evidence. The crew members have also been interviewed by officials, and they remain onboard.

It will be interesting to see how this eventually pans out if, as is suggested in the Richard Sarll article a limitation fund is established in London. As the saying goes "Possession is nine-tenths of the law"
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
I hope none of you are waiting for items on board! ;)
Do you think my daughters Easter present will be OK?


She is so looking forward to having a puppy
 
Top