Maritime Maisie Incident a 'Test Case' for IMO Guidelines
The collision of the Maritime Maisie off the coast of Busan last December has brought to surface issues related to jurisdiction and port of refuge, as addressed in the following article.
Maritime Maisie continues to navigate a sea of uncertainty
Tanker must discharge cargo but Japanese waters ‘do not exist’, says coastguard
MARITIME Maisie , the Hong Kong-flagged 44,404 dwt chemical tanker damaged in a collision on December 29 and owned by Singapore’s Aurora Tankers, remains under tow at sea, in limbo between two nations that want nothing to do with it.
The vessel burned for 19 days until salvors put the fire out on January 16.
Since then, on the advice of salvors and specialists, the owner has been seeking port of refuge either in Japan or South Korea, seeking a safe harbour in which to transfer hazardous chemicals off the ship.
Salvors say it is too dangerous to attempt this on the high seas.
Maritime Maisie’s plight exposes a weakness in the nations’ respect for the spirit of IMO Resolution A949 (23), hammered out 10 years ago in response to the Prestige casualty.
In the IMO’s words, the resolution addressed: “What to do when a ship finds itself in serious difficulty or in need of assistance without, however, presenting a risk to safety of life of persons involved. Should the ship be brought into shelter near the coast or into a port or, conversely, should it be taken out to sea?”
So far, both nations have stood by latter option.
Japan has refused the ship a port of refuge, the Japan Coast Guard issuing its latest statement to that effect on January 24.
Since them, Aurora, the beneficial owner in turn owned by Singapore’s IMC, has focused its attention on South Korea, which is still negotiating with the owners, albeit reluctantly.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the South Korean negotiator, a representative of the nation’s Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, said there was pressure from both the Korea Coast Guard and the government not to allow the vessel to enter South Korean waters.
Discussions were under way before the lunar new year holiday in Asia, which ended last week. But although discussions have resumed, the source said that “nothing’s changed”.
South Korea’s wariness has been amplified by the oil spill that followed an incident involving a vessel operated by Singapore-based Ocean Tankers at the port of Yeosu.
A crack developed on January 31 in a pipeline belonging to the oil and gas giant Caltex as 318,445 dwt Wu Yi San , a very large crude carrier, was preparing to berth.
By the time the sea spill from the pipeline was cleaned on Monday, some 164,000 litres of oil had leaked into the sea off South Korea’s southern coast.
That incident has made it even more difficult in South Korea to accept a ship for STS transfer of hazardous chemicals, having claimed one political victim.
Oceans and Fisheries Minister Yoon Jin-sook was relieved of her duties on Friday by President Park Geun-hye after she described Caltex as the primary victim of the spill, implying that residents and fisherman were of a secondary concern.
Yeosu was one port that might have accepted Maritime Maisie, a option that now looks increasingly difficult.
However, the incident occurred off South Korea and the nation has the reputation for being the Asian centre for STS transfers for chemicals.
Advice from salvors and specialists that ship-to-ship transfer of the chemical cargo is too dangerous to be carried out on the high seas has been endorsed by Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association managing director Arthur Bowring.
“Ship-to-ship is normally difficult,” Mr Bowring said. “The dangers of doing this on the open seas would be immense. The ship needs a refuge, somewhere sheltered.”
Political worries associated with allowing a damaged vessel to port of refuge are understandable; what politician wants to make such a decision that could hurt his or her reputation?
But in the case of Maritime Maisie, the governments involved — including China, which is also reported to have refused to shelter Maritime Maisie — face what Tim Wilkins, Asia managing director for Intertanko, has dubbed a “test case” for the guidelines set out in IMO Resolution A949 (23) and are handling that test with tongs.
In a request for confirmation of the January 24 refusal, the Japan Coast Guard told Lloyd’s List that it was unhappy with a phrase used in an article of January 20, describing Maritime Maisie’s passage from the Korean coast following the December 29 collision as having “since drifted into Japanese waters”.
“Japanese waters does not exist [sic] as a definition in [the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea], not even in laws and regulations in Japan,” the coastguard wrote in an email to Lloyd’s List.
That view is apparently not shared by the South Korea Coast Guard, which declined to comment on any negotiations between the shipowner or the Hong Kong Marine Department, which has applied to Korean authorities on behalf of the owner.
The Korea Coast Guard said: “Since the drifting into Japanese territorial waters at 1930 [hrs] KST December 29, 2013, we have been safety monitoring the ship in long distance on Korean territorial waters.”
The OGSR will continue to provide updates on this story.
