16 March 2006

Our Ref.: HS-10123/2150000

MINUTES

Vetting Committee meeting # 28

Houston

Wyndham Greenspoint Hotel

HoustonTX, USA

12400 Greenspoint Drive

Houston, TX77060

Tel: (281) 875-2222

Fax: (281) 875-1652

Room: Gallery I-III

09:00-17:00

ATTENDEES:

The following is a list of those attending the meeting:

Company / First Name / Last Name
A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm / Mr. / Peter / Abildgaard
V.Ships (UK) Ltd / Capt. / Bob / Bishop
Scorpio Ship Management / Capt. / Ashley / Cooper
Hanseatic Shipping Co. Ltd / Capt. / Steve / Hardy
MOL-Tankship Management / Capt. / Andy / Hill
HEIDMAR Inc. / Capt. / John / Hill
Unix Line Pte Ltd. / Capt. / Amit / Jain
Petroships Pte. Ltd / Capt. / James / Jeeris
Tsakos Shipping & Trading S.A / Mr. / Alan / Johnson
Teekay Shipping (Singapore) Pte. Ltd / Capt. / Dinesh / Pradhan
Stolt Parcel Tankers Inc. / Mr. / Patrick / Russi
Kyklades Maritime Corporation / Capt. / Cosmas J. / Thiraios
Laurin Maritime (America) Inc. / Capt. / Michael / Wilson
INTERTANKO / Capt. / Howard / Snaith

1.ANTI-TRUST/COMPETITION LAW COMPLIANCE

The Chairman reminded all those attending that the meeting would be conducted under INTERTANKO Anti-trust guidelines that were written on the first page of the agenda and repeated here for good order:

INTERTANKO’s Anti-Trust/Competition law Compliance Statement

INTERTANKO is firmly committed to maintaining a fair and competitive environment in the world tanker trade, and to adhering to all applicable laws which regulate INTERTANKO’s and its members’ activities in this market. These laws include the anti-trust and competition laws, which theUS, the European Union and many nations of the world have adopted to preserve the free enterprise system, promote competition and protect the public from monopolistic and other restrictive trade practices. This meeting will be conducted in compliance with these laws and in accordance with INTERTANKO’s anti-trust/competition law guidelines.

2.MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING

The committee took note that the minutes from the Vetting # 27 had being approved by e-mail and are now available on the INTERTANKO members section of our web site.

3.An Audience with Chevron

We are very grateful to Chevron and Tom Pappas for agreeing to spend some time with the committee and engage in discussions with us. The opportunity was taken to exchange views in a wide range of vetting issues and industry concerns, this is greatly appreciated by INTERTANKO and the committee.

4.Reports from the Working Groups.

4.1 Terminal Vetting Database WG (TVD)

The committee approved the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the TVD Working Group.

The committee also discussed the possible options of redefining the definitions within the TVD report with regards to the explanations for the scores1-5, based upon various feedback received from some oil companies that it would be beneficial to utilise appropriate base definitions from within ISGOTT.

Following due discussion the committee also agreed that access to the TVD at the current time should remain restricted to members and associate members of INTERTANKO, but agreed this could be reviewed at some stage in the future.

Action 1: It was agreed that the secretary would re-draft appropriate definitions for the TVD utilising appropriate wording from ISGOTT.
Action 2: It was agreed that the secretary would review the system of terminal report comments and produce an overview of the existing system and evaluate alternatives for consideration by the committee, regarding appropriate follow up upon receipt of a TVD “low-score alert” including aspects such as how such a system could work in practice to facilitate feedback but still allow and encourage frank and open responses from the Ships Masters who submit this data. Should the terminal comments be received before or after release of the report into the TVD as an example?

4.2 Detention Statistics WG

The committee agreed to the TOR’s for the Detention Statistics Working Group. In addition the committee noted the progress regarding the discussions and communications between INTERTANKO and the Paris MoU with regards to access to Paris MoU detention statistics in a spreadsheet format. Once access is granted to this it will enable INTERTANKO to continue producing its annual detention statistics report.

4.3 Officer Matrix WG

The committee approved the TOR’s for the Officer Matrix Working Group. In addition the committee undertook a considerable discussion regarding the many and various aspects: difficulties and problems in complying with the various Officer Matrix requirements that exist as well as evaluating the officer experience data we have accumulated across the Officer Matrix requirements.

The committee agreed to a number of actions points aimed at moving forward on this issue, the actions points agreed too are outlined as follows:

Action 3: Training criteria – the example the vetting committee reviewed takes into account statutory information it was thus suggested this be developed to look at “additional” items that may be assessed. The Working Group will develop these areas further.
Action 4: It was agreed that due to the many different variables in assessing the Officer Matrix spreadsheet with the various criteria that exists, INTERTANKO would investigate the possibilities of undertaking an outsourced professional analysis of the pooled figures that can be provided for INTERTANKO members to use,that will show the current difficulties and inabilities to comply with today’s Officer Matrix requirements.
Action5: The committee agreed to draft a formal letter to all the current companies that are requesting Officer Matrix requirements advising them of the difficulties faced by members in complying and the necessity in most cases to fly sea staff around the world to ensure that the vessels meet the criteria for the inspections and advise them of the committees view that this is counter productive towards enhancing safety, as it drives down officer experience on those ships which are not being inspected.
Action6: The committee agreed to develop further mitigating circumstances and alternatives that could be taken into account by the oil companies requiring an Officer Matrix such as taking into account the individuals experience in their previous rank when promoted, for example 15 years as a Chief Officer could balance against a newly promoted Master for time in rank and/or time on sister vessels. The secretary will write to the oil companies accordingly.
Action7: It was agreed that the secretary will ask TOTAL if they will share their database resource information with INTERTANKO to help us understand better how TOTAL achieve their Officer Matrix criteria.
Action8: The committee agreed that the secretary will ask all INTERTANKO Vetting Contacts to furnish advice and details regarding the problems they are faced with in complying with existing Officer Matrix requirements and prepare a paper regarding the shortfall that is currently experienced now and address how we need to raise with broader industry partners.
Action9: It was agreed by the committee that INTERTANKO should expand its current Officer Matrix database and approach additional companies directly for their feedback and in addition approach Cardiff Marine and/or ISF/BIMCO for their feedback and stimulate wider discussion within the industry.
Action10: The committee agreed to add the oil and chemical crew data together to proceed with further analysis of the spreadsheet.
Action11: The committee agreed that we should make available to our members the existing various Officer Matrix criteria as we know them today

4.4 Vetting Charter Party Working Group

The TOR’s for this Working Group were approved by the committee. The committee noted that this publication had been produced in draft form and is currently under review

4.5 Vetting Publication Working Group

The committee approved the TOR’s for this Working Group.

The committee agreed that this Working Group should continue to monitor the various Charterers requirements and keep members advised as appropriate (via the web site for example) until such time as the 7th Edition of “A Guide to the Vetting Process” will be developed.

4.6 SIRE/CDI Harmonisation Working Group

The committee approved the TOR’s for this Working Group and agreed that the group would establish and outline the differences between the SIRE & CDI for review by the Committee and also ask the Oil Majors how they utilise CDI reports.

Action 12: Establish the main differences between SIRE & CDI for review by the committee.
Action 13: Ask the Oil Majors how they utilise CDI reports for review by the committee.

4.7 TMSA Working Group

The committee reviewed the TOR’s for this committee. The committee also agreed to include the wording “regulatory changes” within the INTERTANKO definition of Management of Change and advise members of this via our weekly news, Vetting Contact Bulletins and Web site as well as OCIMF. On this basis the TOR’s for the Working Group were approved.

Action 14: It was agreed that the secretary will circulate our last letter to OCIMF regarding TMSA and the response we received from OCIMF and ask for additional comments from the
Vetting, Environmental and ISTEC committees to build upon these comments in preparation for
TMSA 2.
Action 15: Whilst noting that work is continuing with the INTERTANKO TMSA benchmarking system for the INTERTANKO website, the committee reasserted its desire for a prompt production of this benchmarking system and a request for urgent completion of this work .The secretary agreed to bring this request to the attention of the TMSA project team within the secretariat.
Action 16: Lost Time Indicators (LTI’s), the committee requested INTERTANKO to produce on its web the INTERTANKO web site a confidential benchmarking system based upon the OCIMF LTI system. Lost Time Indicating System. The committee expressed its view that this would be a great benefit to all benefit for INTERTANKO members and satisfy their current needs to be able measure these items a and benchmark against them.
Action 17: The committee agreed to contact as many oil companies as possible and gather information regarding TMSA with regards to how each oil company intends to utilise TMSA in the future and any special requirements they may have.
Action 18: BP’s best practice was brought to the attention of the committee where it was suggested that this would be useful information to make available to all INTERTANKO members. It was agreed that the secretary will approach BP with a request for this information and also a permission to circulate it within INTERTANKO.

4.8 SIRE Inspector Working Group

The committee approved the TOR’s for this Working Group.The committee noted the response we have received from OCIMF regarding our request for SIRE inspection location. We are currently waiting a formal response and will advise the Working Group further once more details are received from OCIMF.

4.9 Questionnaire 88 Working Group

The committee agreed that the work of this Working Group has being completed and was currently up to date and would thus become dormant for the time being.

5.Multiple Inspections

5.1 General Discussion

The committee held a discussion regarding today’s multiple inspection burden and agreed that the work currently being undertaken by INTERTANKO and the Vetting Committee was addressing the needs of its members and the burden of multiple inspections

5.2 REPSOL: Unannounced Inspections

The committee noted the concerns regarding these unannounced inspections by REPSOL and agreed that the secretary would draft a letter (for prior review by the committee) to OCIMF regarding these REPSOL reports that are not entered into the SIRE database.

Action 19: The secretary to draft a letter (for review by the committee first) to OCIMF regarding our concerns at these REPSOL reports that are not entered into the SIRE database.

6.1 PSCIntegrity

The committee agreed that this issue remains difficult but agreed that the secretariat will continue to encourage members to submit data on such incidents to INTERTANKO.The committee also agreed to encourage PSC official to publish relevant designated after office hours (AOH) contacts for PSC officials that are on duty over weekends or after hours to ensure that appropriate follow up and response may be progressed to avoid unnecessary delays to vessels during these periods. The committee also agreed to continue to address the outlined PSC elements outlined in the agenda as these are important and relevant aspects to the long term work of the committee.

Action20: The secretariat we will continue to encourage members to submit confidential data on such incidents regarding PSC integrity to INTERTANKO.
Action21: INTERTANKO will encourage PSC official to publish relevant designated after office hours contacts for PSC officials that are on duty over weekends or after hours to ensure that appropriate follow up and response may be progressed to avoid unnecessary delays to vessels during these periods.

7.Administrative Matters

The committee suggested a small change to the revised TOR‘s for the Vetting Committee under section 2.4 (this will be amended and confirmed with the Chairman before submission to Council.

The committee approved the following nominees to join the Vetting Committee:

  • Capt Antonis Filippidis – Roxana Shipping SA
  • Capt Svein Ommundsen Frontline Management.

The committee agreed that the names of the Working Group members should be included under each Working Groups’ Terms of Reference.

Action 22: Make the amendment to section 2.4 of the draft revised TOR’s for the Vetting Committee and submit the revised TORS’for the Vetting Committee to INTERTANKO Council for endorsement.
Action 23: Include the names of the Working Group participants and Chairmen under the TOR’s for each Working Group

8.Other Matters & Next Meeting

8.1SIRE Automated Yes/No Comments

The committee raised a general question with regards to inspectors “yes” and “no” remarks in particular regards to circumstances when comments are recorded in a SIRE report. The question in particular related to “automated systems” whilst it was apparent that the “yes” “no” are relatively easy to automate would the comments be carried over into the automated systems also? The committee agreed that clarification should be sought from SIRE on this issue because as systems become more automated there is a perceived chance that inspectors answers would be difficult to qualify if the comments are not included with the “yes” “no” answers.

Action 24: The committee agreed that clarification should be sought from SIRE on this issue because as systems become more automated there is a perceived chance that inspectors answers would be difficult to qualify if the comments are not included with the “yes” “no” answers

8.2. Installation of HVPQ onboard ships

Some members of the committee reported problems when using the HVPQ with Windows XP onboard vessels and requested if SIRE will be issuing corrections for this.

Action 25: The secretary will enquire via SIRE of any patches available to correct this problem

8.3. Terminal reports on ships

The committee raised its concern with regards to reports raised by Terminals during the vessels stay in port, in particular that the owners do not get to see these reports until such time as the owner may be advised that the vessel may be on hold, rather than advise the owner at the time or shortly thereafter to ensure that such matters may be efficiently addressed.

Action 26: The committee agreed that INTERTANKO would issue collectively to its members a “Terminal Satisfaction Sheet” so that the ship can ask the terminal to complete this upon completion of operations for the ships own records. The committee also agreed that the “Terminal Satisfaction Sheet” would be included as an annex to the Terminal Vetting Report
Action 27: It was agreed that the secretary would write a letter to OCIMF raising our concerns at the lack of feedback from terminals when poor comments are received from terminals.

8.4. ILO 180

The committee discussed the forthcoming interest by PSC in ILO 180 and their interest in seafarers hours of work and rest, the committee generally discussed their views on this and what the INTERTANKO position should be as well as the difficulties regarding compliance.

Action 28: It was agreed that the Chairman would send a paper on these issues to the secretary for circulation to the committee for their further discussion and consideration.
Action 27: The secretary will circulate ILO 180 to the committee for their further review and comment.

8.5 KPC 20 year ban – no CAP