Subject: Re: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:12:00 -0800 (PST)

Dear all,

Please find herewith a recap of my observations relating to Mitsubishi's 
demurrage claim, which does not take the outcome of the liability question 
i.c.w. the rejection of the cargo by receivers at Batangas into account:

1. Claim is time barred (ECTS clause 43)
Owners/owners' brokers did not return signed original of charterparty within 
90 days from completion of discharge ("cod"), notwithstanding that the 
original and duplicate were sent to them on 16.08.00, which is 21 days after 
cod (case law: Commercial Court 1999 - "Obo Venture").  

2. Start laytime at Elang (ECTS clauses 1(e) and 10)
Notice of Readiness ("NOR") shall not be tendered before 06h00 on first day 
of laydays.  In addition, Enron is entitled to a complete 6 hours notice 
time, as the notice-time entitlement is unqualified (contrary to clause 6 of 
the Asbatankvoy C/P).  Deduction: 5h 59m.

3. Slow loading Elang (ECTS clause 11(b))
Shore lodged Letter of Protest stating that Terminal loading rate is 
4200m3/hr and vessel was unable to load at a rate greater than 3600m3/hr.  
However, we do not know what the max. receiving rate of the vessel is.  
Moreover, vessel has 3 manifolds and shore only connected 1x 16" arm.

4. Start laytime at Koh Sichang (ECTS clauses 1(e) and 10)
As per point 2 above.  Deduction: 3h 39m.

5. Excess pumping time at Koh Sichang (ECTS clause 16)
Vessel neither discharged this part cargo in 15h 58m (based on 24 hours for 
entire cargo as warranted) nor did she maintain a pressure of 100psi at 
manifold.  The vessel discharged this part of cargo in 36h 5m.  However, 
shore had imposed pressure and rate restrictions on vessel.  Taking these 
restrictions into consideration, the vessel in breach of owners' pumping 
warranty used 8h 32m in excess of what she should have used.  Deduction: 8h 
32m.

6. Bad weather related port closure at Batangas (ECTS clause 10(h) and 10(f))
Agents reported that all terminals in Batangas were closed for berthing due 
high winds during the first 112.5h (from arrival on 04.07.00 to 08.07.00).  
According to clause 10(h), the delay in berthing resulting from weather 
conditions counts at one-half of such time.  Deduction: 53h 15m (=(112.5h - 
6h)/2).  In the alternative, we may be able to fully deduct the 112.5h delay 
pursuant to clause 10(f), if there is a local law or regulation we can rely 
on to except this delay (Eric Tan has requested a copy of the port 
regulations).

7. Start laytime at Yosu (clause 6 of Asbatankvoy C/P)
a) NOR was allegedly tendered on 23.07.00 at 19h00.  However, NOR attached to 
claim shows that it was received on 25.07.00 at 12h45 (when vessel all fast 
in berth).  Moreover, the NOR is dated 25.07.00.  As per clause 6 laytime 
shall only start 6 hours after receipt of notice by charterers/their agents.  
I do not believe that Enron Spore received an NOR by telex.  They only 
received a telex from their nominated agents (Samsun) on 24.07.00 at 08h40 
with the vessel's arrival times including the EOSP and NOR tendered time 
(23.07.00 at 18h42).  
b) Alternatively, vessel anchored at waiting place on 23.07.00 at 20h15, but 
tendered NOR at EOSP (18h42) or on arrival pilot station (19h00).  As per 
clause 6 the NOR has to be tendered on arrival at customary anchorage.  As a 
result, the NOR tendered by master was given prematurely and at the wrong 
place.  This renders the NOR invalid.  As the master did not retender a fresh 
NOR when the vessel arrived at customary anchorage, laytime shall not 
commence, if at all, until the commencement of discharge (case law: High 
Court 1997 - "Agamemnon").

8. Excess pumping time at Yosu (ECTS clause 16)
Vessel neither discharged this part cargo in 9h 2m (based on 24 hours for 
entire cargo) nor did she maintain the max. allowable shore pressure of 
4.9kg/cm2 (= less than 100psi) at manifold.  The vessel discharged this part 
of cargo in 11h 15m.  Deduction: 2h 13m.

Please let me know, if you have any questions.

B regards,
Wietze.

   
	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
	
	From:  Paul Henking                           01/12/2000 03:09

To: Wietze Dingeldein/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M 
Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT, 
Eric Tan/SIN/ECT@ECT, [email-masked]@ENRON, [email-masked]@ENRON, 
Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Britt Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO  

wietze,

sorry to come back to you on this matter but appreciate your input once again.

from your msg of 17 nov, seems worse case is we owe about $222,652.78 but 
could be better. would appreciate if you could put together a "recap" of the 
various positions for britt/david, including possibiliy of the time bar 
whereby it could be zero, so they can determine best position.

if, as you say, we may have a strong arguement at the time bar, my suggestion 
would be that david discuss this possibility with mitsubishi's lawyers to try 
to determine a reaction, if possible, to that position. we can always agree 
to pay a lower amount later.

as usual, thanks to copy us on whatever is sent so we have a copy for the 
files. also, thanks again for your help.

best regards

From: Britt Davis@ENRON on 11/30/2000 04:46 PM CST
To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M 
Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT, 
Paul Henking/SIN/ECT@ECT, Eric Tan/SIN/ECT@ECT, [email-masked], 
[email-masked]
cc: Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@ENRON 
Subject: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO 

Mitsubishi has just agreed to have Mr. Hamblen, one of the arbitrators that 
we proposed, appointed in this matter.  David Best will follow up with Mr. 
Hamblen with this.  

David will also go forward with negotiating the without-prejudice payment of 
Mitsubishi's freight and demurrage claim (the latter payment being based on 
what our demurrage department thinks it is really worth--Paul, I need to get 
with you on this), as I had previously authorized him to do.

Mitsubishi has been advised of the shelf-life issue and is being pressed by 
its solicitors for a reply to our suggestion that the joint survey take place 
in the U.K.  Mitsubishi advises their solicitors that they will revert as 
soon as possible regarding this. 

I will continue to keep you advised.

Britt