”Server” – – landmark judgment of the Supreme Court on wreck removal page 4

New reality for LNG carrier time charters page 22

Getting ready for the recovery page 16

May 2017 Nor-Shipping

Update

PH

OTO

: Wik

bo

rg R

ein

Editors of the Shipping Offshore Update

Dear friends and readers,

I t is with great pleasure that we introduce the latest edition of Wikborg Rein’s Shipping Offshore Update.

We have chosen our articles for this update which highlight legal developments relating to the challenges and opportunities in the current shipping and offshore markets. After a lengthy period of depressed markets there are some signs of recovery and one of our articles looks at ways in which clients can think about getting ready for the recovery.

Awareness of changes and the expansion of environmental regulation is essential for both owners and offshore operators. The Norwegian Supreme Court has deliv-ered a landmark judgment on wreck removal in the “Server” case, which will have an important impact on other wreck removal cases in Norway and other jurisdictions. We provide insight into how wreck removals are dealt with in China using the “Bareli” case as an example. Linked to this we also consider the changing legal framework for recycling ships, as well as the risks associated with dismantling offshore units.

As Nor-Shipping will shortly take place we have also included articles relating to LNG transportation and international commercial arbitration in Africa which are featured topics at the conference this year.

This Update also includes a new feature which is a News and Views section. Included here are some short items of news concerning new legal developments and regulations and also some information about the firm.

We hope that you find the articles interesting and informative. We welcome any feedback and would particularly like to receive requests for topics that you would like us to address in future Updates.

If you require any legal advice, please contact your usual contact person at Wikborg Rein or any of the contact persons in the relevant article.

Enjoyable reading!

Gaute GjelstenHead of Wikborg Rein’s Shipping Offshore Group

Publisher WIKBORG REIN MAY 2017Chief editor CLARE CALNANEditors HERMAN STEEN, ENA AARSETH BARDERCover photo ISTOCKPHOTOLayout & design HELENE S. LILLEBYEPrint ROLF OTTESEN / 2500 COPIES

NEWS & VIEWS

PAGE 28

The controversial practice of beaching vessels in low cost countries has spurred initiatives to tighten regulations on the recycling of ships • PAGE 8

SHIPPING OFFSHORE UPDATE

Update May 2017 Shipping Offshore

This Update is produced by Wikborg Rein. It provides a summary of the legal issues, but is not intended to give specific legal advice. The situations described may not apply to your circumstances. If you require legal advice or have questions or comments, please contact your usual contact person at Wikborg Rein or any of the contact persons mentioned herein. The information in this Update may not be reproduced without the written permission of Wikborg Rein.

4 “Server” – landmark judgment of the Supreme Court on wreck removal

8 Recycling of ships – what is the legal status?

12 Wreck removal in China

14 Dismantling of offshore units

16 Getting ready for the recovery

20 Risk of deliberately delaying discharge

22 New realities for LNG carrier time charters

24 Commercial arbitration in Africa

28 News & views

30 Wikborg Rein’s Shipping Offshore Group

3

2UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

EDITORIAL

2

CONTENT

Clare Calnan Herman Steen Ena Aa. Barder

T he “Server” grounded at Fedje, off the west coast of Norway, on 12 January 2007 and broke in

two. The forward section was salvaged and the aft section sank at the grounding site, partially inside a nature reserve. The vessel’s mast was initially visible above the waterline, but was later submerged.

The incident caused a significant oil spill and the state immediately initiated a clean-up response. As the clean-up costs approached the vessel’s limitation amount for clean-up costs, owners and insurers argued that they were not obliged to remove the wreck because the removal costs would exceed the limitation amount.

The wreck posed no hazard to naviga-tion and the possible grounds on which a wreck removal order could be made was either that wreck was considered “unsightly” or that it “may cause damage or inconvenience to the environment”. The first is an aesthetic requirement only, whilst the second requires an actual or threat-ened negative impact on the environment.

The Norwegian Coastal Admin-istration issued a wreck removal order on the basis that the wreck was partly located in a nature reserve and that this would be an inconvenience to the environment. No surveys or envi-ronmental assessments were under-taken. Upon administrative appeal, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs upheld the wreck removal order, but only on the basis that the wreck was “clearly unsightly”. The Ministry did not consider whether the wreck also posed a risk to the environment.

Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal held that the wreck removal order was validly issued on the basis of the wreck being a risk to the environment, but nevertheless found that the risk was minimal and that the inconvenience caused by substances in the wreck did not exceed background levels along the Norwegian coast. The District Court also held that the wreck could not be considered unsightly since it was not visible above the water.

5

4UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

SERVERP

HO

TO: K

ystv

erke

t

– landmark judgment of the Supreme Court on wreck removal

The Norwegian Supreme Court has in a recent judgment in the “Server” case clarified a number of unsettled issues that will have an impact on

other wreck removal cases, including whether the owners can use their right to limit liability as a defence against a wreck removal order. Wikborg Rein

acts for the vessel’s owners, managers and P&I insurers.

“SERVER”

There are many reasons why the duty to remove a wreck should rest with the

vessel’s owner rather than the manager

The owners were prevented from relying on the right to limit liability as a defence against the wreck removal

order, irrespective of the costs involved

The case was appealed and the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 9 February 2017.

ASSESSMENT OF THE VALIDITY OF REMOVAL ORDERThe Supreme Court first considered whether the courts could uphold the validity of the wreck removal order on the ground that the wreck posed a risk to the environment in circumstances where the Ministry had based its decision solely on the condition that the wreck was unsightly.

The Supreme Court held that, provid-ing that there is legal basis for the order for wreck removal, the decision is within the authorities’ discretionary compe-tence, which in general should not be subject to the courts’ judicial review.

The Supreme Court further held that when an administrative decision is to be made on a discretionary basis the courts’ assessment of the validity of the decision must be based on the same statutory condition as considered by the authorities. To do otherwise would mean that the courts may end up main-taining a decision which the authorities would not have made.

Thus on the issue of the validity of the wreck removal order the Court of Appeal’s decision was set aside and the case was referred back to the Court of Appeal for it to consider whether the wreck could be considered unsightly.

This decision has general applica-tion for Norwegian administrative law. Since the authorities in many instances are now not permitted to introduce alternative legal grounds during the courts’ review of their decisions, it can be expected that the authorities will consider more carefully and thoroughly the legal basis for their decisions before imposing significant and burdensome duties on private parties.

REMOVAL ORDER COULD BE ISSUED TO OWNERS, NOT MANAGERSThe next issue that the Supreme Court considered was whether the wreck

removal order could be issued to the ship managers. The wreck removal order was based on the Norwegian Pollution Act section 37 (2) which provides that a wreck removal order may be issued to the “owner” of the ship at the time of the incident or when the order is issued. The question was whether the managers could be considered as an “owner” for the purposes of this provision.The Supreme Court initially noted

that although section 37 (2) referred to the “owner” this was not limited to the registered owner and the “real” owner also fell within the definition. The Supreme Court commented that management agreements are common-place in shipping and that the mere existence of such agreements does not turn a manager into a “real” owner. The Supreme Court however remarked that the close relationship and lack of formalities between the owners and managers of the “Server” might open up the possibility of considering the managers as the “real” owner, but it did not address this further as it had not been argued by the state. It was held that the wreck removal order had not been validly issued to the managers.

In our opinion there are many reasons why the duty to remove a wreck should rest with the vessel’s owner rather than the manager. The owner has the financial benefits and risks of the operation of the vessel, whilst the vessel’s manager only receives a limited management fee. The owner will normally be the party taking out insurance and the managers are often

not covered by the owner’s P&I insurance. The channelling of liability towards the owner is found in legislation such as the Harbour and Fairways Act and the duty to pay for salvage. The Wreck Removal Convention, which Norway is currently considering implementing, also channels liability to the registered owner.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NO DEFENCE AGAINST WRECK REMOVAL ORDERThe Supreme Court also considered the question as to whether the owners may rely on their right to limit liability as a defence against the duty to perform a valid administrative order issued by the authorities when wreck removal costs would exceed the limitation amount. If limitation is not a defence it would expose the owners to liability in excess of the lim-itation amount and for all practical pur-poses impose an unlimited obligation to incur costs to remove the wreck. If it was a defence, the limitation amount would represent the maximum economic liabil-ity for the owners. It was not disputed that limitation could be relied upon if wreck removal was performed by a third party, such as the authorities, and the costs filed in a limitation fund.

In previous years the Norwegian authorities have in wreck removal cases such as the “Hedlo” and “John R” accepted that the owners’ duty to remove the wreck was subject to limitation. However, this attitude changed in the early 2000s, when the authorities started to argue that the duty to remove a wreck and conduct clean-up efforts was abso-lute, irrespective of the right to limit. In 2005 Norway made a reservation under the Limitation of Liability Convention 1976 as amended by 1996 Protocol for wreck removal and clean-up efforts and implemented higher limitation amounts for such claims. Since the wording of the new provisions on limitation in the Maritime Code was identical to the ear-lier wording implementing LLMC 1976, the diverging interpretations of the right to limit liability continued.

The Supreme Court did not find a clear answer in the wording of the provision the Maritime Code or in the LLMC 1976. Consequently, the Supreme Court turned to a statement in the preparatory works describing the existing law prior to the introduction of the national legislation on the higher limits for wreck removal and clean-up efforts. The preparatory works stated that the higher limits of liability for such costs only applied to claims from third parties and that “[c]osts which the owner incurs if the owner himself initiates removal and clean-up measures (…) are thus not subject to limita-tion of liability. (…) The owner must himself cover any such costs in addition to claims by third parties resulting from the marine casualty.”

This interpretation of the law prevented the owners from relying on the right to limit liability as an abso-lute cap on liability. In order to provide owners with an incentive to perform wreck removal and clean-up efforts, the legislator introduced a national rule whereby the owners are entitled to file such costs in the fund, thereby compet-

ing with the claims of third party claim-ants. In other words, the owners would be given a discount on costs which they would incur in addition to having to put up a limitation fund.

On this basis the Supreme Court held that the owners were prevented from relying on the right to limit liability as a defence against the wreck removal order, irrespective of the costs involved.

WHERE NEXT?Even though the Supreme Court has had its say on the matter, it remains to be seen whether the conditions for validly

ordering the removal of the “Server” wreck are fulfilled.

In any event, the decision has provided useful clarification of the law. Most importantly, the highly disputed inter-pretation of the relationship between the owners’ duty to take action and their right to limit liability has been clarified. Further the decision on the limits of judi-cial review of an administrative decision will have general application in admin-istrative law to the potential benefit of numerous private parties. •

Nina M. Hanevold-Sandviknmh@wr.no

Gaute Gjelstenggj@wr.no

CONTACTS /

Trond Eilertsentei@wr.no

7

6UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

SERVER

PH

OTO

: Kys

tver

ket

9

8UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

– what is the legal status?When a ship has reached the end of its life, the owners are inevitably

faced with the decision of how to dispose of it in a manner that is both commercially viable and environmentally sustainable. The controversial practice of beaching vessels in low cost countries has spurred initiatives to tighten regulations on the recycling of ships. In the following pages

we look at the current legal framework as well as what is to come.

9

RECYCLING OF SHIPSP

HO

TO: i

Sto

ckP

hoto

UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

RECYCLING OF SHIPS

11

10UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

The Basel Convention (Con vention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

Wastes and Their Disposal 1989) is the only internationally recognized legal framework currently in force concerning recycling of ships. The Basel Convention does not apply to recycling of ships as such, but regulates cross-border trans-portation of hazardous waste. Since many older ships contain materials and substances which are categorized as hazardous waste, the Basel Convention has a significant impact on the recycling of ships.

In respect of ship recycling, one of the most important rules in the Basel Convention, in practical terms, is the ban on the exportation of waste from developed countries to less developed countries. This rule is set out in an addendum to the Basel Convention which is not yet in force, but which has already been implemented by a number of signa tories, including Norway.

CONTACTS /

Mattias Griegmgr@wr.no

Øyvind Axeaxe@wr.no

It is however not clear under the Basel Convention when a ship as such is to be considered as waste.

The lack of a clear and comprehensive regulation of the recy-cling of ships is the backdrop to the Hong Kong Convention (Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships 2009), which was the result of nine years of negotiations before finally being signed at a diplomatic conference in Hong Kong in 2009. Today, eight years later, the Hong Kong Convention has still not entered into force because of an insufficient number of ratifications. It is uncertain when it will enter into force, but when it does it will represent a significant shift towards stricter regulation.

The Hong Kong Convention covers design, construction,

Many older ships contain materials and substances which are categorized as

hazardous waste

1 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC.

operation and preparation of ships for recycling as well as the operation of ship recycling facilities. The aim is to ensure that recycling is being done in a safe and environmentally sound manner. To ensure compliance the Hong Kong Convention also provides for the establishment of an enforcement mechanism, incorporating certification and reporting requirements.

Ships to be recycled will be required to carry an inventory of hazardous materials, which will be specific to each ship. They will be required to have an initial survey to verify the inven-tory of hazardous materials, intermediate renewal surveys and a final survey prior to recycling. Ship recycling yards will be required to provide a ship recycling plan where it will be specified in what manner the individual ship will be recycled, depending on its particulars and inventory.

Due to the uncertainty on when the Hong Kong Convention will enter into force, the EU has enacted its own regulation, the Ship Recycling Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013,1 which applies to vessels flying EU flags or calling at EU ports. The EU Ship Recycling Regulation entered into force on 30 December 2013 and is broadly in line with the rules in the Hong Kong Convention,

but with the notable exception that the EU Ship Recycling Regulation explicitly pro-hibits the practice of beaching, stipulating that recycling shall only be done at “built structures”. Ship recycling is something which the owners mainly need to consider towards the end of the ship’s life span, but given the introduction of much tighter regula-tions in the fore seeable future, dispos-ing of ships will need a greater amount of planning making it much harder for owners to make last minute decisions. •

O n 15 March 2012 the “Bareli” ran aground on a reef off Fuqing, China, with about 1,100 tons of

bunkers and 1,397 containers on board, of which 101 containers were classified to contain dangerous goods. A wreck removal order was issued by the Chinese local maritime authority, the Maritime Safety Administration (the “MSA”).

About two weeks after the grounding a wreck removal contract was entered

into between the owners of the vessel and Shanghai Salvage, one of the three lead-ing salvage companies in China. Three months later, at the end of June 2012, the wreck removal operation was completed to the satisfaction of the MSA.

According to the International Group of P&I Clubs, the “Bareli” was considered

Salvage already had a spread of assets at the wreck location in connection with the salvage operation. They were therefore invited by the vessel interests to tender for the contract for the removal of the vessel. Based on negotiations between the parties the wreck removal contract was concluded.

Shortly after the casualty the MSA had initiated a comprehensive salvage operation where a great number of vessels were involved. When Shanghai Salvage took over the responsibility of the operation pursuant to the wreck removal contract, all the other vessels were demobilised.

WRECK REMOVAL CONTRACTThe costs and risks for the owners and insurers in connec-tion with a wreck removal operation can often be significantly reduced by the drafting and negotiating of an appropriately worded wreck removal contract.

The contract entered into for the “Bareli” was based on one of the international standard wreck removal contract forms. It was a BIMCO “Wreckstage” lump sum contract and provided for pay-ment in stages. The scope of services under the contract included removal of oil as well as salvage of containers and the refloating and redelivery of the wreck. Responsibility for obtaining all neces-sary approvals and permits from the local authorities were placed on the contractor.

CONTACT /

Morten Lund Mathisenmlm@wr.no

Yafeng Sunyfs@wrco.com.cn

Herman Steenhst@wr.no

Claire Jiangcji@wrco.com.cn

In China none of the international salvage companies are permitted to conduct

any maritime salvage or wreck removal operation independently

as the most cost-efficient wreck removal operation among the International Group’s top 20 wreck removals from 2001 to 2012 in terms of combined costs of salvage, SCOPIC and wreck removal expenses.1

TENDER PROCESSA wreck removal contract is often entered into based on a tender process where an invitation to tender is circulated to a number of international and local salvage companies. Based on the tenders received, bid clarification meetings are arranged and after negotiations the contract is eventually awarded to the salvage company with the most favorable offer in terms of methodology, costs, personnel, craft, equipment and a number of other factors.

In China however none of the international salvage compa-nies are permitted to conduct any maritime salvage or wreck removal operation independently and it is therefore necessary to involve one of the three tiers of local salvors in China in any salvage operation in Chinese waters. Of those three tiers however, only the first-tier salvors, namely Yantai Salvage, Shanghai Salvage and Guangzhou Salvage, are qualified to deal with shipwrecks with displacement tonnage of 1,000 tons or above. All of the three first-tier salvors are state owned. Each of them have their own designated geographical area of operation. Yantai Salvage mainly covers the northern coastlines, Shanghai Salvage the eastern and Guangzhou Salvage the southern.

Considering the southeast location of the wreck of the “Bareli”, both Shanghai Salvage and Guangzhou Salvage were permitted to undertake the operation. However, Shanghai

1 The Challenges and Implications of Removing Shipwrecks in the 21st Century, Lloyd’s, March 2013

The wreck removal operation was immediately commenced and was c arried out swiftly and in accordance with the contract and to the satisfaction of the authorities. •

WRECK REMOVAL IN CHINA

When undertaking wreck removal in China, as in any other jurisdiction, it is essential to combine international wreck removal experience with local

knowledge. The local peculiarities of such operations in China are illustrated by the removal of the wreck of the container vessel “Bareli”. The matter was handled

by Wikborg Rein on behalf of the vessel owners and their insurers.

13

12UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

PUBLIC INVESTIGATIONS

PH

OTO

: iS

tock

Pho

to

WRECK REMOVAL

CONTACT /

Finn Bjørnstadfbj@wr.no

Andreas Fjærvoll-Larsenafl@wr.no

Minna Vaahteramva@wrco.co.uk

I t is estimated that there are more than 380 offshore units of various descriptions that have been

stacked in warm or cold lay-up, and, with the majority of these units being older than 30 years, their long-term fate is likely to be a decision to dismantle and recycle them. Owners however are often reluctant to dismantle units, mainly i because of the general challenges that are likely to be faced and the costs asso-ciated with transporting and handling offshore units to their final resting place.

A key consideration for owners is the cost of transportation of the unit as against the current steel price. If the cost outweighs the steel price achievable then scrapping is unlikely to be profitable for owners. Accordingly, one consideration for owners is whether or not to fix the steel price with the potential scrapyard at the time of sign-ing the contract, or at the time of delivery of the unit. Yards and breaking firms are becoming much more cautious about fix-ing steel prices upon delivery and several buyers and yards have recently found them-selves in financial difficulties when units have been delivered at the yards during short-lived peaks in steel prices.

TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY AND POTENTIAL DELAY There is an extensive framework of global, regional and national regulations which ensure that the vast majority of units will be brought ashore for recycling or scrapping. Yards that purchase units for scrapping often require the seller to deliver the unit at the scrapyard, as the yards are unwilling to take on the risks associated with transportation. Therefore, owners will need to enter into transpor-tation agreements and obtain adequate insurance cover for the voyage.

A detailed technical analysis of unit being dismantled will need to be carried out at the preparation stage of the project in order to have a sound basis for describ-ing the condition of the unit in trans-portation agreements, insurances and ultimately the contract of sale with the buyer or scrapyard.

In general, the owners’ obligations will be satisfied when the unit is delivered to the scrapyard. All expenses incurred prior to this point are for the owners’ account and all expenses incurred after delivery, if any, are for the scrapyard’s account. Consequently, ownes will need to ensure that the risk of delay in delivery is adequately addressed in the contract of sale, so that owners can either (i) deliver the unit to the scrapyard irrespective of any delay without any liability arising, or (ii) propose a new delivery date in case of delay, and have the option of cancelling the contract of sale without any liability arising, should the scrapyard not accept the new delivery date.

RESIDUAL LIABILITY The dismantling process is somewhat similar to that of a construction project in reverse in the sense that there will be many contractors involved in the project, all with different roles and con-tractual obligations. An issue of signifi-cant importance to an owner will be to ensure that the ultimate buyer actually dismantles the unit and fulfils its obliga-tions under the contract of sale. In order to minimise any risk of residual liabil-ity to the original owner, it is impor-tant that the contract of sale includes reporting mechanisms as regards pro-gress and execution, as well as adequate inspection, due diligence and monitor-ing rights for the original owner. To ensure that the mechanisms are suffi-ciently robust, an owner would be wise to obtain comprehensive legal advice in the countries of export and import, and potentially also in any transiting states.

SELECTION OF THE YARDThe environmental aspects of disman-tling offshore units is a pressing issue for the industry and it is becoming increas-ingly important for owners to select a scrapping yard which addresses the social, corporate and environmental aspects asso-ciated with dismantling. The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships 2009 (“the Convention”) is intended to address many of the issues around scrapping, including the fact that units sold may contain environmentally haz-ardous substances. The Convention also addresses concerns raised about the work-ing and environmental conditions at many of the world’s scrapping yards and sets out minimum environmental and working standards, which a yard must comply with.

Although the Convention is not yet in force, it is evident that a number of own-ers are already seeking scrapping yards with “green” credentials so that they can be assured that their units can be dis-mantled in an environmentally safe man-ner. This is in part due to these owners own sense of social responsibility, but it may also be a reflection of the fact that environmental campaign groups and local prosecutors are taking an increasingly aggressive stance on environmental com-pliance. Against a background of recent accidents and “bad press” owners and buyers of offshore units are well advised to undertake a dismantling project with a high degree of due diligence. •Dismantling of

offshore unitsThe number of offshore drilling and production units due to retire has grown substantially as a result of the reduction in drilling activity and the challenge of dismantling offshore units has become increasingly relevant for owners and operators. Cost, liability, selection of a recycling or scrapping yard, as well as

corporate social responsibility, are just some of the considerations an owner needs to bear in mind when considering scrapping offshore units.

15

14UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

Owners will need to enter into transportation agreements

and obtain adequate insurance cover for the voyage

PH

OTO

: iS

tock

Pho

to

DISMANTLING OFFSHORE UNITS

GETTING READY FOR THE

RECOVERYIt has been a brutal few years in the shipping and

offshore markets with over-capacity, declining demand and the dramatic fall in the oil price, all contributing to historically low charter rates and

plummeting asset values. It is no wonder that owners and operators in these markets have adopted

defensive strategies in recent years.

PH

OTO

: iS

tock

Pho

to

16UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

RECOVERY

17

T he recent bid by Borr Drilling for Transocean’s jack-up fleet being one of a number of current

transactions perhaps suggests that the arrow on the shipping and offshore baro-meter may no longer be locked on an axis between “stormy” and “rain” and could be about to swing upwards towards “change” or, dare we hope, to “fair”.

History tells us when the Greek and Norwegian investors start to take aggres-sive positions, the bottom of the market has at least been sighted and recovery may not be far round the corner. Certainly our experience from the last few months shows that already in 2017 there is a marked increase in deal flow since the dark days of 2015 and 2016.

So whilst in recent years, owners have been battening down the hatches in a bid to survive, consideration is now being given as to how and when to act to seize the opportunities that may pre-sent themselves in any recovery. In this article we look at a number of opportu-nities that might now be available.

NEW ASSETSWith order-books at the major shipyards at their slimmest for many years, ship-yards are increasingly desperate to sign new orders and build up their back-log and as a result are offering prices that in many vessel classes are 15-25% cheaper than they were only a couple of years ago. Unfortunately for the shipyards however, almost new second-hand tonnage can often be picked up even more cheaply.

CHARTERINGIn recent years, owners have been faced with some tough choices between accepting off-market terms, including assuming risks and liabilities that have traditionally been regarded as charterer risks, and/or unprofitable rates or risk their vessels or rigs lying idle.

With change on the horizon though, owners must now decide whether to continue to accept such off-market terms or to hold out for better times.

Owners should therefore be wary of locking themselves into long-term charters on the current terms and rates or should at the very least consider trying to insert contractual mechanisms into their agreements for breaking or renegotiating the terms of the charter if and when the markets pick up.

REMOBILISATIONWith many rigs and vessels having been cold or warm stacked since 2014, owners may now be considering whether the time is right to consider re-mobilising these assets in readiness for a recovery.

However, the costs of re-mobilisation can be significant depending on the type of stacking that has been used, the length of time an asset has been idle and the standards of maintenance that have been employed, and in some cases the costs of re-mobilising may outweigh the potential income going forward.

SCRAPPINGIn these circumstances, scrapping may be a better option for owners as well as having a wider benefit for the industry as a whole by helping to reduce over-capacity and thereby helping

Owners on the lookout for new tonnage, either to replace ageing assets or to expand their existing fleet, therefore have an un rivalled opportunity to acquire assets at historically low prices. But as previous shipping cycles have taught us, as the markets pick up so too will the prices, and the best time to pick up assets at the most attractive prices may well be in the coming months.

FINANCINGAny acquisition of a newbuild or second-hand asset requires access to capital and unless an owner is sitting on significant cash reserves or has the benefit of shareholders with deep pockets and an appetite for counter-cyclical play, then they will be forced to raise funds externally.

But with many of the Western shipping banks having had their fingers badly burnt in recent years, traditional bank financing is still difficult to source. Owners are therefore having to consider other financing solutions and we are increasingly seeing ECA financing, alternative lending institutions (such as hedge funds), Chinese banks, Chinese leasing houses, sellers’ credit and private equity playing an active part in the financing new assets, either alone or in combination.

We may also be beginning to see the resurgence of the secured Norwegian high yield bond market which has been almost dormant since 2014, but which in is showing increasing activity with two bonds having been placed early in Q2 2017.

One thing is for certain though, with the traditional banks less active other than for blue chip clients, the cost of financing for owners is becoming much more expensive, at least in the short term, with alternative lenders continuing to price risk into their margins and fees.

to restore some much needed balance to charter rates.

And with scrap values on the rise so far in 2017, now may be the right time to take this decision.

However in deciding where to scrap – or recycle – their assets, owners will need to weigh up the costs and risks of transportation to the relevant yard as well as the applicable regulations and reputational risks that may influence the decision.

FORTUNE FAVOURS THE BRAVEDespite the potential of a recovery in the offing, times will no doubt continue to be difficult for many owners and operators for some time to come some tough decisions will need to be taken in the coming months as to when and how to act to stay ahead of the curve. •

Traditional bank financing is still difficult to source

19

CONTACT /

Jonathan Pagejpa@wrco.co.uk

Andreas Fjærvoll-Larsenafl@wr.no

RECOVERY

Unrivalled opportunity to acquire assets at historically

low prices

19

18UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

A recent Commercial Court decision in Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd -v- Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd [2016] EWHC 3132 (Comm), has held that a charterer is 100% responsible under the Inter-Club Agreement for damage to cargo arising from an order to the vessel to delay discharge until the receivers were able to pay for the cargo.

T he cargo concerned was soya beans, and the vessel was kept waiting for 6 months off the discharge port, during which time it went lumpy and discoloured in

two holds. This was not due to any improper monitoring on owners part, nor any breach on charterers part, but instead was caused by a combination of the inherent nature of the cargo and the lengthy delay prior to discharge. It led to a cargo damage claim from receivers which owners settled for EUR2,654,238. The issue before the Court was whether owners could claim a full indemnity under clause 8 (d) of the Inter Club Agreement on the basis that the claim arose from the charterer’s decision to delay discharge.

INTER CLUB AGREEMENT CLAUSE 8 (D) Clause 8 (d) says:

“(8) Cargo claims shall be apportioned as follows: (...)(d) All other cargo claims whatsoever

(including claims for delay to cargo): 50% Charterers 50% Owners

Unless there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the claim arose out of the act or neglect of the one or the other (including their servants or sub-contractors) in which case that party shall then bear 100% of the claim.”

Charterers argued that the words “act or neglect” should be read together, so that the fault element in “neglect” should also apply to “act”. The judge decided that since the Inter Club Agreement was a mechanical apportionment of liability, the word “act” should be read in accordance with its ordinary and natural meaning without regard to questions of fault. As such, charter-ers’ “act” in deciding to delay discharge, even though without fault, was enough to make them 100% responsible for the cargo claim which then arose as a result of the delay.

Permission has been granted for an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

COMMENTThis decision follows the non-fault approach underlying the Inter Club Agreement but questions could be raised in respect of the finding that the claim arose solely due to charterers’ decision to delay discharge. Given the time-sensitive nature of a cargo like soya beans it might be said that owners should have also considered whether they should have rejected the order from charterers to delay discharge on the grounds that it was likely to adversely affect the safety of the cargo and

thus on their ability to deploy an inherent vice defence against receivers. Whilst the logic of the Court’s decision in this case may be difficult to dispute in other cases where there are delays in discharge it may be more difficult for owners to obtain a full indemnity where it can be shown that their decision to comply with charterers’ orders to delay discharge had failed to take sufficient account of the impact of a delay on the condition of the cargo on discharge.

Given the number of delayed shipments these days more disputes may be expected on these issues. •

DELAYING DISCHARGE

RISKS OF DELIBRATELY DELAYING DISCHARGE

PH

OTO

: iS

tock

Pho

to

CONTACTS /

Stewart Munrosim@wr.com.sg

Robert Joinerraj@wr.com.sg

2120UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

New realities for LNG carrier time charters

In keeping pace with the changing sentiment and nature of the LNG sector, the traditional long term LNG time charter

market is evolving and charter periods are becoming shorter. This trend has a number of commercial, financial and legal

implications which we consider in this article.

T he LNG industry in general has seen several interesting develop ments over recent years.

LNG prices in the Far East have dropped significantly and several projects have been cancelled or postponed. LNG carrier charter rates have at the same time plummeted and cross-basin trading has significantly reduced. To a large extent this is the result of a prevailing negative sentiment in the LNG market although it is expected that this trend is likely to be relatively short-lived. We are already seeing signs of im provements in charter rates and project activity is likely to pick up when the price of oil increases and the self-imposed restrictions on energy companies’ capital budgets are eased. The trend of LNG carriers being fixed on shorter-term and increasingly flexible contracts is, however, likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

THE TRADITIONAL LNG CARRIER CHARTERTraditionally, LNG carriers were built as “project vessels” meaning that they would be dedicated to a particular charterer and serve a specific LNG pro-ject for most, if not all, of their work-ing life. Time charters with a duration

of 20 years were the norm, often with charterers having the option to extend the total duration of the charter to 30 years as well as having the option to purchase the vessel on the expiration of the charter. The Snøhvit LNG project, for which Statoil chartered three LNG car-riers for 20 years from Norwegian and Japanese Owners, is a good example of this traditional project-linked charter structure. The three vessels were effec-tively intended to function as floating pipelines transporting LNG from the Melkøya liquefaction plant in Northern Norway to Statoil’s buyers under long term LNG sale and purchase agree-ments.

WHY SHORTER-TERM CHARTERS?There are several answers to this

question. Firstly, certain owners have shown a willingness to take on the mar-ket exposure and the risk that comes with shorter-term charter contracts. Some owners even appear to favour this type of contract with their strategy being to capture the peaks in the mar-ket when they fix their vessels. This is in stark contrast to the more risk-averse owners who prefer to lock-in their ves-sels on charters with the longest pos-sible duration and with a stable albeit lower value stream of income.

Secondly, charterers have less appe-tite to commit to longer-term contracts than they used to. This is partly due to owners such as those mentioned above being willing to provide ves-sels for shorter durations but it is also a reflection of the LNG market in gen-eral having become less rigid, with recently concluded sale and purchase agreements and offtake agreements often being more flexible and for shorter periods than in the past.

THE IMPACT ON OWNERSThe new realities of the shorter term LNG charter have resulted in owners look-ing to adopt new financing structures. Owners traditionally financed vessels

on long-term contracts by way of pro-ject financing but it is difficult to apply the same financing structure to vessels which on have the benefit of short term contracts. Owners and their financiers have therefore adopted shorter-term asset and corporate finance solutions, often involving owners having to invest more of their own capital into the pro-ject. This is in some respects positive as banks are not necessarily comfortable in taking on long-term debt risks. It does, however, mean that banks will be more exposed to the refinancing and residual value risks for the vessels they finance since the loan will not be repaid during the period of the charter contracts.

Another consequence of the reduced charter periods is that owners will not enjoy the security of a long term fixed income stream and they will be more exposed to the fluctuations in the LNG shipping market. Furthermore, owners are having to accept more risk in respect of operating costs as vessels are being fixed on a flat-rate basis as opposed to more traditional rate structures under which the operating costs are either passed on to the charterer, escalated annually, or subject to periodical reviews.

THE IMPACT ON CHARTERERSCharterers’ are now being given much greater flexibility as to how they fulfil their LNG shipping needs. Owners are still willing to provide vessels under more traditional long-term contracts but, at the same time, a growing num-ber of owners are prepared to provide shipping under short term or even spot fixtures. Charterers make their choice based on the view they take of the LNG shipping market, developments in the LNG market in general, their obli-gations under sale and purchase and offtake agreements and their trading requirements.

From a contract negotiation perspec-tive, charterers need to factor in that owners may be prepared to accept more charterer-friendly provisions for shorter-term contracts. By way of example, the off-hire clause in LNG time charters com-monly provides charterers with the right to terminate the charter if the vessel remains off-hire for a specified number of consecutive days or in excess of a certain numbers of days within a certain time period. The early termination of a 20 year charter is likely to have a far more severe impact on owners than the early termina-tion of a 5-7 year charter and owners may

therefore be amenable to accept more stringent off-hire provisions for charters of a shorter duration.

COMMENT The fixing of LNG carriers on shorter-term and more flexible contracts is a sign that the overall LNG industry becoming much less rigid. It has resulted in owners and banks having to adjust their traditional approach to LNG ship financing and agreeing to take more market exposure. Charterers, on the other hand, are being afforded increased flexibility and the ability to charter LNG vessels on terms that more closely tailored to their shipping needs. •

CONTACT /

Clare Calnanclc@wrco.co.uk

Andreas Fjærvoll-Larsenafl@wr.no

Mads Ødeskaugmad@wrco.co.uk

22UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

LNG CHARTERS

Owners are having to accept more

risk in respect of operating costs

PH

OTO

: iS

tock

Pho

to

Historically, most commercial arbitrations involving African parties have been resolved by non-African tribunals

in places far from the African continent. As commercial disputes involving African parties have become more

frequent, a new generation of arbitration institutes may result in an increase of arbitrations in Africa.

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

IN AFRICA

PH

OTO

: iS

tock

Pho

to

2524UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

ARBITRATION IN AFRICA

ARBITRATION IN AFRICA

O ver the last few decades, the African continent has experi-enced rapid economic growth.

Despite a slowdown due to the recent fall in commodity prices, the substantial increase in foreign investment in the recent years has resulted in an increase in commercial disputes, which are generally resolved through arbitration, which involve at least one African party.

To date, most disputes involving African and non-African parties, and disputes of a certain magnitude involving two African parties, are resolved by arbitral tribunals without any African members, seated in Europe, North America, and more recently in Asia. As a response to this trend, African governments, legal scholars and professionals, together with the international commer cial arbitra-tion community, have embarked on a programme to promote the increased use of African arbitrators and African arbitral institutions in commercial disputes related to Africa.

WHY CHOOSE ARBITRATION IN AFRICA-RELATED DISPUTES The usual advantages of international commercial arbitration, as opposed to litigating before national courts, apply equally to disputes relating to Africa. These advantages include party autonomy of the arbitration process and composition of the tri-bunal, fi nality of awards, confidentiality and ease of enforcement.

There are certain benefits of international commercial arbi-tration that are particularly relevant to disputes related to Africa. In some African countries, a simple commercial dispute can take many years to resolve due to a backlog in the courts. Resolving the dispute in arbitration is quicker and ultimately more cost effective for commercial parties.

A lack of trust in the independence and impartiality of national courts is another reason why arbitration is preferred to litigation by many international parties doing business in African countries. Arbitration gives the parties the ability to ensure that the tribunal consists of members with the appro-priate legal and technical skills to manage the proceedings and deliver an award of the standard expected by the parties which properly addresses and resolves all aspects of a dispute.

MAIN CHALLENGES TO ARBITRATING IN AFRICAOne reason that parties do not generally choose African coun-tries as the seat of arbitration is that they commonly suffer from the fact that the arbitration legislation is out of date. While 35 out of 56 African states have adopted the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement, only 10 African states have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. However more countries, including South Africa, are expected to adopt the Model Law in the near future. In addition, the 17 OHADA member states in Central and Western Africa have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act, which is loosely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Another reason why parties are often sceptical about selecting African states as the seat of arbitration is because there is some uncertainty as to the reliability of the national courts when it comes to striking the right balance between assisting and progressing an arbitration, without interfering with the arbitrators’ decisions. This is linked to the fact that there exists a perception among commercial stakeholders that there are few strong and well-run arbitration institutions on the African continent. This perception is not necessarily borne out by reality and in any event changes are being made to substantially improve the situation.

AFRICAN ARBITRATION INSTITUTES There are several thriving regional arbitration institutes present on the African continent. One of the oldest is the

The development of international commercial arbitration on the African

continent is a positive change

Over the last few decades, the African continent has experienced

rapid economic growth

AALCO initiated CRCICA in Cairo, Egypt, which is well run and has had a large number of cases, focusing mostly on northern Africa and the Middle East. Other active local institutes include the CCJA in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, established pursuant to the OHADA treaty, and the PCA local office in Mauritius. The locations of these institutes mean that they are well equipped to handle maritime, shipping and offshore disputes.

In addition, there are several new institutes, including the KIAC in Rwanda, the LCA in Nigeria, the NCIA in Kenya, the LCIA-MIAC in Mauritius, and the CAJAC, which will operate from both South Africa and China. These new institutes are becoming increasingly active. They commonly seek to take on as many small cases as possible, in order to position themselves to be able to administer larger arbitrations and to establish a good reputation within the international commer-cial arbitration professional community.

THE MAURITIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PROJECTA particularly interesting project has recently been started in Mauritius. The country is strategically placed between Africa and Asia, with a hybrid legal system, political and social stability, and well-functioning infrastructure. The Mauritian government has a stated policy aim of attracting foreign investment by becoming an African hub for international commercial arbitration.

As part of this strategy, Mauritius has adopted the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law. Being party to the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement, the country has a robust and modern legal framework for international commercial arbitration.

The Mauritian International Arbitration Act 2008 fea-tures several innovations. The Act grants certain powers to the PCA that would normally be assigned to local courts, including appeals on issues relating to challenges to an arbi-trator. In addition, the Mauritian Supreme Court is organised so that designated judges handle all cases related to interna-tional arbitration, and there is a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England against any final decision of the Supreme Court. These provisions are aimed at countering any concerns there might be about the impartiality of the Mauritian legal institutions.

Another Mauritian innovation has been the creation of the LCIA-MIAC, which is a joint venture between the Mauritian govern ment and the LCIA in London. Benefitting from the experi-ences and organisation of the LCIA, the hope is that LCIA-MIAC will contribute to making Mauritius the preferred seat of arbi-tration for many Africa-related commercial disputes.

The development of international commercial arbitration on the African continent is a positive change. Arbitration is essen-

tially a consensual process where the parties wish to have the dispute resolved by a tri-bunal who not only have the requisite legal skills but who also possess a commercial understanding of the dispute. Such objec-tives are generally best achieved by having thriving and robust local arbitration insti-tutes that are experienced at dealing effec-tively with a wide variety of commercial disputes. •

FACTS /

OHADA Organisation for the Harmoni-sation of Business Law in Africa

AALCO Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization

CRCICA The Cairo Regional Centre For International Commercial Arbitration

CCJA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of OHADA

PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration

KIAC Kigali International Arbitration Centre

LCA Lagos Court of Arbitration

NCIA Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration

LCIA-MIAC London Court of International Arbitration – Mauritius International Arbitration Centre

CAJAC China-Africa Joint Arbitration Centre Johannesburg

CONTACTS /

Mike Stewartmis@wrco.co.uk

Ingeborg Colletticb@wr.no

Ola Ø. Nisjaoni@wr.no

27

26UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

29

28UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

New president of YoungShipEmilie Christiansen has been elected as President of Young-Ship International – an organisation dedicated to promote competence and network development, and to bridge the gap between young professionals and the older generation in the maritime industry. The organisation was established in 2004 and has a network of more than 3000 young professionals di-vided between 17 local branches. Seven branches are located in Norway and the international branches can be found in coun-tries ranging from Italy and Cyprus to Houston and Nigeria. YoungShip works closely with the Norwegian Shipowners As-sociation and Nor-Shipping who arrange Young@NorShipping which is the Nor-Shipping programme for young professionals.  

Back in OsloAndreas Fjærvoll-Larsen is relocating after having worked in our London office for six years. He has considerable experience handling cross-border projects in vari-ous jurisdictions such as Norway, UK, US, Brazil, Mexico, Middle East, West Africa, China, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and

Australia. On his return he will continue to work with interna-tional projects both on the operations side, such as construction, sale/purchase, chartering, management and operation of ships, rigs, wind farm installation vessels, FPSOs, FSRUs, as well as the investment in and financing of such projects through bank, bond, project or alternative financing arrangements.

NEWS & VIEWS• PERSONELL NEWS • SHORT TOPICS • SECTOR NEWS •

On the move The Oslo office moves into its new offices Dronning Mauds gate 11. in June and our first reception will be the traditional Nor-Shipping reception on 30 May which we are hosting together with Vieira Rezende our Brazilian Alliance partners. We will look forward to seeing you there.

BRAZIL – CHANGE IN LOCAL CONTENT RULESOn 22 February 2017 the Brazilian government announced changes to the local content re-quirements for goods and services used in the exploration and development of oil and gas.

Local content rules require field operators to procure a certain percentage of goods and ser-vices from Brazilian sources. Non-compliance results in large fines and possible blacklisting from future projects.

For the next bid round for oil and gas con-cessions – the 14th - local content is no longer a bid criterion. The minimum local content will now be around 50% lower than that previously required and fines have also been reduced. The aim is to create more realistic objectives and greater certainty on the part of investors.

SHIPTERM – LAUNCH OF STANDARD TERM SHEETIn January, BIMCO launched its new stan-dard ship finance term sheet, marking BIM-CO’s move into the ship finance domain. SHIPTERM is a short and simple standard for use in bilateral term loans. Whilst SHIPTERM covers the essential elements of a term loan, many details necessary for a financing transaction are not addressed or have been left open for negotiation, such as syndication. Given that lenders are inclined to use their own standard term sheet, it remains to be seen how widely SHIPTERM will be used in practice. WR have participated in the industry consultation process carried out prior to the issue of SHIPTERM.

MANAGING IMO’S CAP ON SULPHUR EMISSION1 January 2020 has been set as the imple-mentation date by the IMO for the new global limit of 0.50% m/m for sulphur oxide emission, with a limit of 0.10% m/m in Emission Control Areas such as the North Sea. Ships can meet these requirements by using alternative fuel, such as low-sulphur compliant fuel or LNG, or by installation of exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers). The installation of scrubbers represents potential business for yards and suppliers but owners may face off-hire periods of up to one month to retrofit vessels. Owners will need to take this into consideration when entering into new charters and plan accordingly to limit off-hire periods to a minimum in existing contracts.

NEW LMAA TERMSThe LMAA has published new terms which will apply to English arbitration proceedings com-menced after 1 May 2017. The changes reflect a “light touch” approach, seeking to balance the existing rules with feedback received to improve speed and cost-efficiency. Key changes include obligations to actively seek to make the arbitration cost-effective and efficient and requiring parties to provide cost breakdowns. A power is now given to the LMAA President to appoint a sole arbitrator, and an arbitrator appointed by one party may become the sole arbitrator where the other party fails to appoint its own arbitrator There is also a claim limit for the Small Claims Procedure of US$100,000 unless otherwise agreed.

NORWAY – FIRST COUNTRY TO BECOME A CONTRAC TING STATE TO THE HNS CONVENTION

The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connec-tion with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010 (the HNS Convention), will, when in force, provide a regime of liability and compensation for damage caused by HNS cargoes transport-ed by sea. The HNS Convention will comple-ment existing regimes regarding pollution emanating from the transport of oil as car-go, bunker oil, and for the removal of haz-ardous wrecks.

Norwegian bare boat registration?Norway is currently considering whether to allow bareboat registrations both in and out of the Norwegian International Ship Register (NIS). If allowed, the new regulations are likely to be presented for consultation this year. An amendment to the NIS regulations will need to be adopted by Parliament, and, at the earliest, may enter into force in 2018.

Bareboat registration allow owners and financiers to take advantages of dual registrations; while one register may be attractive to financiers, the legal re-quirements imposed with respect to employment and operation of the vessel may make it less competitive or restrict the vessel’s access to certain markets. Being able to take advantage of the positive benefits of two registers gives much greater flexibility to owners and financiers alike.

<

OSLOPartnersFinn Bjørnstad fbj@wr.no / +47 415 04 481

Trond Eilertsen tei@wr.no / +47 901 99 186

Anders W. Færden awf@wr.no / +47 908 28 382

Gaute Gjelsten ggj@wr.no / +47 995 23 535

Bernhard Haukali bha@wr.no / +47 480 34 625

Morten Lund Mathisen mlm@wr.no / +47 994 57 575

Johan Rasmussen jra@wr.no / +47 918 00 933

Are Zachariassen aza@wr.no / +47 909 18 308

Specialist CounselHerman Steen hst@wr.no / +47 930 34 693

Senior LawyersEna Aarseth Barder eba@wr.no / +47 958 30 638

Andreas Fjærvoll-Larsen afl@wr.no / +44 7711 304 251

Nina M. Hanevold-Sandvik nmh@w.no / +47 911 18 200

Yannis Litinas yli@wr.no / +47 912 46 775

Senior AssociatesMaria Norum Aguilera mna@wr.no / +65 9771 9483

Emilie Christiansen aec@wr.no / +47 469 56 496

Tormod Kløve tkl@w.no / +47 936 49 664

Halvard Saue hsa@wr.no / +47 906 53 258

Sindre Slettevold sis@wr.no / +47 977 59 418

AssociatesBård Breda Bjerken bbb@wr.no / +47 984 78 344

Agnete Nummedal ann@wr.no / +47 922 47 236

BERGENPartnersØyvind Axe axe@wr.no / +47 970 55 558

Linn Hertwig Eidsheim lhe@wr.no / +47 970 55 557

Øystein Meland ome@wr.no / +47 901 42 033

Geir Ove Røberg gor@wr.no / +47 900 35 045

Senior LawyersMorten Valen Eide mei@wr.no / +47 932 20 980

Cecilie Koch Hatlebrekke ckh@wr.no / +47 416 49 158

Terje Fiskerstrand tfi@wr.no / +47 917 97 279

Senior AssociatesStian Holm Johannessen shj@wr.no / +47 917 59 272

AssociatesMattias Grieg mgr@wr.no / +47 472 84 282

Anne Celine Troye act@wr.no / +47 468 86 671

LONDONPartners Clare Calnan clc@wrco.co.uk / +44 7595 607 958

Chris Grieveson cjg@wrco.co.uk / +44 7966 448 274

Rob Jardine-Brown rjb@wrco.co.uk / +44 7785 722 147

Birgitte Karlsen bka@wrco.co.uk / +44 7525 071 742

Jonathan Page jpa@wrco.co.uk / +44 7803 515 388

Nick Shepherd njs@wrco.co.uk / +44 77 0375 6039

Mike Stewart mis@wrco.co.uk / +44 77 0375 6038

Senior LawyersShawn Kirby sdk@wrco.co.uk / +44 78 4169 7476

Eleanor Midwinterelm@wrco.co.uk/ +44 207 367 0347

Mary Lindsay mel@wrco.co.uk / +44 7703 756 038

Lesley Tan les@wrco.co.uk / +44 7889 605 529

Senior AssociatesJoanna Kinross jki@wrco.co.uk / +44 78 4148 7779

AssociatesCamilla Burton ccb@wrco.co.uk / +44 7540 760 797

Tessa Jones Huzarski tjh@wrco.co.uk / +44 73 9286 5345

Mari Berg Rindahl mrd@wrco.co.uk / +44 7545 165 373

SHANGHAIPartnersChristian James-Olsen col@wrco.com.cn / +86 185 1621 2812

Yafeng Sun yfs@wrco.com.cn / +86 139 1700 6677

Ronin Zong rlz@wrco.com.cn / +86 138 1665 0656

Senior Lawyers Chelsea Chen cch@wrco.com.cn / +86 138 1687 8480

Xiaomin Qu xqu@wrco.com.cn / +86 135 6475 3289

Senior AssociatesClaire Jiang cji@wrco.co.uk / +44 138 1676 7292

AssociatesJiahao Lu jil@wrco.com.cn / +86 137 8890 9200

Isaac Yang iya@wrco.com.cn / +86 137 7420 9316

SINGAPOREPartnersJune Ho jho@wr.com.sg / +65 9690 3391

Robert Joiner raj@wr.com.sg / +65 8518 6239

Ian Teareirt@wr.com.sg / +65 9299 9853

Siri Wennevik siw@wr.com.sg / +65 9674 4906

Senior LawyersTorgeir Willumsen twi@wr.com.sg / +65 9236 6440

Senior AssociatesStewart Munro sim@wr.com.sg / +65 9833 4410

VIEIRA REZENDE ADVOGADOS in alliance with Wikborg Rein

Wikborg Rein contactDaniela Ribeiro Daviladribeiro@vieirarezende.com.br /+55 21 2217 2893

WIKBORG REIN`S SHIPPING OFFSHORE GROUP

KEY CONTACTSMorten Lund Mathisen Chris Grieveson

Yafeng Sun Ian Teare Herman Steen

Emergency number : +47 22 82 77 00

MARITIME AND OFFSHORE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM – AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE 24/7

3130UPDATE • December 2016 Shipping Offshore

SHIPPING OFFSHORE GROUP

• Stolt Commitment c/w Thorco Cloud which sank, wreck removal, cargo claims, multi-jurisdiction liti-gation, Singapore Strait, Indonesia

• Troll Solution Leaning instability of jack-up rig; fatalities, wreck removal, Gulf of Mexico

• FPSO Cidade de Sao Mateus Explosion, fatalities, salvage, Espirito Santo Basin, Brazil

• Bareli Grounding of container ship, oil poll ution, cargo damage, wreck removal, China

• Rena Wreck removal of grounded container ship, New Zealand

• Jupiter 1 Wreck removal of capsized semisub accommodatio n rig, Gulf of Mexico

• West Atlas Wreck removal of drilling rig, blowout and fire, Timor Sea, Australia

• Server Grounding, oil pollution, wreck removal of bulk carrier, Norway

• Rocknes Refloating of grounded and capsized bulk carrier, oil pollution, casualties, Norway

• Tricolor Car carrier c/w container ship Kariba, sinking, wreck removal, cargo damage, multi-jurisdiction litigation, English Channel

• Hual Europe Grounding of car carrier, fire, oil pollution, cargo damage, wreck removal, Tokyo Bay, Japan

We have extensive experience in handling the practical and legal issues associated with casualties and maritime emergencies. Our team, led by Morten Lund Mathisen, assists insurers and owners in connection with a wide range of incidents including:

32UPDATE • May 2017 Shipping Offshore

OsloTel +47 22 82 75 00oslo@wr.no

BergenTel +47 55 21 52 00bergen@wr.no

LondonTel +44 20 7367 0300london@wr.no

SingaporeTel +65 6438 4498singapore@wr.no

ShanghaiTel +86 21 6339 0101shanghai@wr.no

www.wr.no