Minton, Treharne & Davies Ltd - GIA · Minton, Treharne & Davies Ltd ... The cargo was always off-specification, despite reports to the contrary 2. The cargo received is in fact on-specification,

www.minton.co.uk

Minton, Treharne & Davies Ltd

Scientific Investigation of Marine Claims

Presentation 2 – Oil Contamination Claims

For theGeneral Insurance Association of Singapore

& Singapore Maritime Foundation

03rd November 2010

1

www.minton.co.uk

Oil Contamination Claims

Presentation Two

2

www.minton.co.uk

Topics

1. Oil cargoes

2. Quality Specifications

3. Routine Testing

4. Quality Disputes

5. Contaminations

6. Investigative Methodologies

7. Case Studies

Presentation Two

3

www.minton.co.uk

Oil Products

• Many different liquid oil products are produced, traded and shipped in bulk around the world every day

• Typical bulk liquid cargoes include:

– Crude oil

– Naphtha

– Gasoline/Petrol

– Kerosene/Jet Fuel

– Diesel/Gasoil

– Fuel Oil

– Petrochemicals

– Vegetable Oils

– Biofuels

Presentation Two

4

www.minton.co.uk

Quality Specifications

• The quality of a material is typically governed by the quality requirements stipulated in the sales contract

• These quality requirements are often internationally or nationally recognised standard quality specifications

• A general quality specification should detail:– A list of the quality parameters to be determined

– The units required for each test parameter

– The limits (minimum and/or maximum) for each quality parameter

– The specific test method used to determine each quality parameter

Presentation Two

5

www.minton.co.uk

Example Quality Specification –EN 590 European Diesel Specification

Presentation Two

6

www.minton.co.uk

Example Quality Specification –ISO 8217 Marine Fuels Standard

Presentation Two

7

www.minton.co.uk

Routine Testing• The quality of the material is checked at various stages in the product

movement, for example:

– Before Loading – Shore Tank samples

– During Loading – Line/manifold/”first foot” samples

– After Loading – Ship’s tank samples

– Before discharge – Ship’s tank/receiving shore tank samples

– During discharge – Manifold/line samples

– After discharge – Shore tank samples

• Inspection companies draw samples of the material at each stage in the cargo movement and test them against either the full specification requirements or certain key point tests

• A quality problem should be picked up by this routine testing

Presentation Two

8

www.minton.co.uk

Quality Dispute

• If routine testing or sampling gives rise to a quality dispute this is where we get involved

• A quality dispute arises when a receiver of goods claims them to be of unsatisfactory quality, in contradiction to the Shipper’s / Load Port inspectors reports showing them to be in good order

Presentation Two

9

www.minton.co.uk

Quality Disputes

• Quality disputes arise for 1 or more of 7 reasons

1. The cargo was always off-specification, despite reports to the contrary

2. The cargo received is in fact on-specification, despite reports to the contrary

3. Different and incompatible test methods are being used at the load and discharge port

4. Measurement tolerances

5. The cargo suffers from inherent instability

6. The cargo is physically damaged on voyage

7. The cargo has been contaminated

• Scenarios 1 to 5 can be thought of as “apparent” contaminations

• Scenarios 6 relates to physical damage of the cargo, but not a contamination

• Scenario 7 can be thought of as a “real” contamination

• In normal circumstances only the last two would give rise to proper claim against underwriters

Presentation Two

10

www.minton.co.uk

Previous Cargoes

Presentation Two

11

www.minton.co.uk

Contaminations – Dirty/Damaged Tanks

Presentation Two

12

www.minton.co.uk

Contaminations – Poor Quality Inert Gas

Presentation Two

13

www.minton.co.uk

Contaminations – Dirty Tanks from Poor IG

Presentation Two

14

www.minton.co.uk

Colour Contamination

Presentation Two

15

Before Loading After Loading

www.minton.co.uk

Method of Investigation

• Questions to be answered:

– Is the contamination real?

– What is the extent of the contamination?

– What is the contaminant?

– When did the contamination occur?

– Who caused the contamination?

Presentation Two

16

www.minton.co.uk

Case Studies

• We are going to look at three different scenarios where there has been a quality dispute

1. An “apparent “contamination

2. A “real” contamination

3. An oddball investigation

Presentation Two

17

www.minton.co.uk

Case Study 1 – An Apparent Contamination

Presentation Two

18

www.minton.co.uk

Case Study 1 - An Apparent Contamination

• Cargo of biodiesel loaded in Europe - maximum specification for water content is 500 ppm

• Load port shore tank water content before loading is 480 parts per million (ppm)

• Vessel arrives at discharge port –vessel composite sample before discharge found to be 540 ppm

• Is this a “real” contamination?

Presentation Two

19

www.minton.co.uk


• It is important to note that no standard test method will give an absolute result

• The true value of a test parameter is simplistically defined as the average valueof single results obtained by an infinite number of laboratories

• Standard test methods have associated precision data which allow test results produced by different analysts and different laboratories to be compared

• Acceptable variation between the results produced by different laboratories is known as the reproducibility

Presentation Two

20

www.minton.co.uk


• Simplistically, we can say that successive results obtained by different operators in different laboratories on identical test material are considered acceptable if their differences are less than or equal to the reproducibility of the test method (R)

• Reproducibility of the water content (Test Method IP 438) for results of 480 and 560 ppm is 160 ppm

• The difference between the results is 80 ppm – well within the reproducibility of the test method

• As the analytical variations are within the precision of the test method then there is no indication that the quality of the cargo has changed. If no contamination has been proven then there will be no insurance claim, only a commercial claim

Presentation Two

21

www.minton.co.uk


• Other ways in which an apparent contamination might occur:

– Incorrect sampling or testing at the load or discharge port

• Unrepresentative sample drawn

• Incorrect test method followed

– Load port or discharge port quality certificates fraudulently produced

• Samples tested at load or discharge port by a test method the local inspection laboratory cannot perform

• The “Bic” Analyser

– Different test methods used at load and discharge ports

• You cannot compare the results of different test methods

Presentation Two

22

www.minton.co.uk

Case Study 2 – A Real Contamination

Presentation Two

23

www.minton.co.uk


• But what happens if we have a “real” contamination?

• Damage caused by the introduction of extraneous and incompatible concentrations of other material

• The following case study will look at an example where there has been a contamination onboard a vessel and investigative analysis has been used to get to the bottom of the problem

Presentation Two

24

www.minton.co.uk


• Vessel loads two segregated grades of cargo – gasoline and gasoil

• Gasoil cargo requires a minimum flash point of 56oC

• On arrival at discharge port, gasoil is found to be off-specification for flash point

Presentation Two

25

www.minton.co.uk


• It is known that is possible for gasoline vapours to contaminate a higher flash material via a vessel’s common inert gas system

• During attendance onboard the vessel for re-sampling, it was noted that the required double valve segregation between cargo tanks containing different grades was not in place

• Suggests that a vapour phase contamination may have occurred

Presentation Two

26

www.minton.co.uk


Presentation Two

MAST RISER VENT

IG MAIN LINE

CLASS A

GASOLINE

Flashpoint

-43°C

GASOIL

Flashpoint

56°C

P/V Valve P/V Valve

High

Vapour

Pressure

Low

Vapour

Pressure

27

www.minton.co.uk








Presentation Two

28

www.minton.co.uk


• Typically, contamination investigations will begin from a testing point of view with certain specification testing being performed under joint witnessed conditions

• To confirm whether the cargo is off-specification

• To determine the extent of the contamination

Presentation Two

29

www.minton.co.uk


• Flash Point is defined as the lowest temperature at which the application of an ignition source causes the vapour of a sample to ignite and the flame to propagate across the surface of the liquid under the specified conditions of test

• A joint analysis took place where samples from throughout the cargo movement were tested for flash point

• Flash point testing indicated load port samples acceptable, but pre-discharge samples were off-specification

Presentation Two

30

www.minton.co.uk








Presentation Two

31

www.minton.co.uk


• For certain contamination problems, routine analysis is not sufficient to establish the source/cause of the contamination

• Need to use more advanced investigative analytical techniques

– Gas Chromatography

– Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

– Infra-red Spectroscopy

– Scanning Electron Microscopy

Presentation Two

32

www.minton.co.uk


• Joint testing confirms that gasoil is off-specification for flash point at discharge, but was on-specification before loading

• Review of documentation does not suggest any other source for contamination e.g. from previous cargoes

• Samples of gasoline and gasoil cargoes carried by the vessel are tested by GCMS

Presentation Two

33

www.minton.co.uk


1. Gas Chromatography is a means of separating and detecting compounds in a mixture

2. Mass spectrometry is a means of identifying the individual compounds that have been separated

Presentation Two

34

www.minton.co.uk


Presentation Two

Gasoil at load port

Gasoil at discharge port

35

www.minton.co.uk


Presentation Two

Vapour Phase of Gasoline Cargo


Normal- and iso-butanes and pentanes

36

www.minton.co.uk


• Comparison of the ratios of normal- and iso- butanes and pentanes showed very good match

• Indicates that vapour phase contamination via vessel’s inert gas system was responsible for the decrease in flash point in the gasoil cargo

Presentation Two

Sample Iso-butaneNormal-Butane

Ratio Iso-PentaneNormal-Pentane

Ratio


1.97 11.15 0.18 33.72 53.15 0.63

Vapour Phase of Gasoline Cargo

4.02 18.73 0.21 29.78 47.47 0.63

37

www.minton.co.uk


• Attendance onboard the vessel indicated that vapour transfer via the vessel’s inert gas system of a gasoline cargo also carried on board was a potential source of contamination

• Flash point testing performed in a joint analysis established that the gasoil cargo was on-specification for flash point in the load port shore tanks but off-specification by the time the vessel arrived at the discharge port

• Testing by GCMS allowed identification of more volatile, lower flash material present in the gasoil

• Reference to the specific ratios of certain components in the gasoil and the gasoline indicated that the most probable cause of the contamination was by vapour transfer via the vessel’s inert gas system

Presentation Two

38

www.minton.co.uk








Presentation Two

39

www.minton.co.uk

Case Study 3 – A Broken Wine Bottle

• Although it is not an oil contamination claim, this example is included to show that, even with the most advanced analytical testing equipment available, there is no substitute for common sense

Presentation Two

40

www.minton.co.uk


• In terms of quantum of claim, this was one of the smallest insurance claims we have been involved in

• A Lloyd’s Underwriter called into our London office with details of the new claim

• A bottle of allegedly vintage red wine, a 1911 Château Cheval Blanc, was reportedly dropped and smashed

• The owner of the wine filed an insurance claim for several thousand pounds -allegedly the value of this particular bottle

• Our remit was to establish if the wine was indeed what it was claimed to be

Presentation Two

41

www.minton.co.uk


• Our “sample” was several portions of the smashed glass in a plastic shopping bag

• The sample was passed to MTD’s Public Analysts laboratory for testing

Presentation Two

42

www.minton.co.uk


• A few days later, the laboratory called with the results of the testing

• The lab had reached three firm conclusions

• Conclusion One – Analysis of microbes detected on the glass indicated that the contents of the bottle had recently been exposed to air –consistent with the claim – this was a good start to the investigation!

Presentation Two

43

www.minton.co.uk


• Conclusion Two – Inspection of the glass fragments indicated that the wine bottle was a blown glass bottle

• This indicated that the bottle must have been produced pre-1920, after which moulding processes took over

• Again, suggests that the claim may have been valid

Presentation Two

44

www.minton.co.uk


• Conclusion Three – The wine was a 1911 Château Cheval Blanc

• Amazed at how the laboratory could be so sure about this and wondering what analytical technique they could possibly have employed to establish this, the question was asked – “How on Earth can you know this?”

Presentation Two

45

www.minton.co.uk


• “It was easy…” came the reply

• Included in the plastic bag was the neck of the bottle, which still had the cork in it….

• The lab removed the cork and written clearly along the side was “Chateau Cheval Blanc 1911”

Presentation Two

46

www.minton.co.uk

To Summarise

• The forensic investigation of a cargo quality dispute involves a formulated approach:

1. Establish if the contamination claim is real

• Review all documentation

• Attend at incident if necessary to gather evidence

• Reanalyse samples jointly

2. If the contamination is real, to what extent is the cargo off-specification?

• Routine testing under joint witnessed conditions

3. Investigate the cause of the contamination

• Investigative testing under joint witnessed conditions

4. Consider and interpret all available data in light of incident history

Presentation Two

47

www.minton.co.uk

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

Richard Minton

Minton, Treharne & Davies (UK) Ltd.

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +44 2920 540000

Fax: +44 2920 540111

Presentation Two

48

mailto:[email protected]

Minton, Treharne & Davies Ltd - GIA · Minton, Treharne & Davies Ltd ... The cargo was always off-specification, despite reports to the contrary 2. The cargo received is in fact on-specification,

Documents