Detainable deficiencies linked to fire continue to be the most significant reason
In Intercargos fifth edition of Benchmarking Bulk Carriers 2010-2011 publication, ports where bulk carriers were detained in 2010 are listed.
Last year was challenging for dry bulk shipping, even though the number of detentions overall stayed surprisingly consistent, when compared with recent trends. Flag administrations such as China and India are becoming increasingly important, whereas the Paris MOU recorded as sharp decrease in the number of bulk carriers detained from 142 in 2009 to just 103 in 2010. This suggests that targeting of vessels is becoming an important issue.
It is very important to reduce the likelihood of multiple detention s and to reduce the risk of banning order being imposed. Deficiencies for serious structural reasons declined, suggesting that vessels with the potential to show these types of deficiencies were not as active in the market as they were in previous years.
Detainable deficiencies linked to fire continue to be the most significant reason relating to bulk carriers, matched only by increases in ISM-related issues such as ensuring that the correct documentation is on board and pollution related issues.
Interesting points of notice:
- Many Australian ports detain for deficiencies for reasons in the Development of Plans for Shipboard Operations.
- A significant number of detentions in India are subsequently followed by the ship being sold for scrap although cause and effect cannot be deduced from this observation.
- Iranian ports detain significant numbers of bulk carriers for reason related to cargo and other hatchways with cleanliness of engine rooms being a significant detention reason in one port.
- Water level indicators remain a significant reason for detention in some, but not all, Chinese ports.
- Remote fuel shutoff valves bottled or blocked open are a significant reason for detention in New Orleans.
Port |
Detentions |
Tianjin (China) |
27 |
New Orleans (USA) |
26 |
Xiamen (China) |
17 |
Port Hedland (Australia) |
17 |
Port Kembla (Australia) |
16 |
Vishakhapatnam (India) |
16 |
Shanghai (China) |
15 |
Gladstone (Australia) |
14 |
Bandar Abbas (Iran) |
13 |
Ningbo (China) |
12 |
For more details, please refer to Benchmarking Bulk Carriers 2010-2011, 5th edition issued by Intercargo.