Confirm she arrived EMT Fawley at 16.02 on 15th from Rotterdam with 13.5m draft, and sailed 07.44 on 18th at 11m draft for Southwold anchorage
Allan
Edit comment
Pieter - you started an interesting conversation which has also served to stimulate the addition of further images of this rarely-seen tanker. Thanks.
Edit comment
Thanks David, I now realise that I made a stupid mistake, the fully loaded shot I took was indeed on the 13th of June, but she had just started discharging at the TEAM Terminal. See the shot of her taken on the 14th. She indeed may have left for Fawley, and after departing there, she may have been reloaded by two Russian crude carriers while at sea. She might have taken some bunkers when back in Rotterdam, which could explain her slightly increased draft on departure yesterday. Most VLCC's return empty to Rdam when having discharged elsewhere in Europe to pick up a full load of return cargo. That got me wrongfooted.
Apologies for causing the confusion.
Edit comment
Looking further at the voyage data it becomes a little clearer. The following sequence seems to indicate a two-port discharge of Gulf crude at Europoort then Fawley, followed by a loading of Russian crude for the Far East.
What is strange, as she looks fully loaded in Pieter's photo on the day before she sailed for Fawley
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2688213 But she left Europoort with only 13.5m draught, so I suppose there was either considerable further discharge or she had been ballasted down.
13-15/5 at Ras Tanura. sld 21m
27-28/5 lightened for Suez transit at Ain Sukhna Terminal to 12.6m
31/5-1/6 topped up at Sidi Kerir Terminal to 21m for Rotterdam
13-14/6 part discharge Europoort to 13.5m
15-18/6 discharge Fawley, sailed at 11.1m
Then she was off Southwold for some days transhipping from LITEYNY PROSPECT (ex-Primorsk) and NS ARCTIC (ex-Ust-Luga) and arrived Europoort 25/6 at 20.4m and then left the following day at same draught [or slightly greater as reported by by Pilot Frans].
So perhaps this second Europoort call was for regulatory/certification reasons (or a further exchange of cargo for ballast).
But I am sure that there are members here who can analyse this more professionally than I can.
Edit comment
Vessel came in yesterday with 20.4 meters draft departed to day with 20.8 meters
Edit comment
Fawley cannot handle this size tanker fully laden. Max depth of dredged channel 13.3m. Generally they lighten at Antifer but this tanker came via north of Russia so would have lightened part cargo in Rotterdam.
Edit comment
Presumably spot sale of some or all of her cargo to Fawley and return for top-up/reload?
Edit comment
The vessel has left again, now with destination China. strange ways...
Edit comment
Many thanks, Jim
Regards, Kenneth
Edit comment
Superb Kenneth
Edit comment
Interesting, I shot her on 13/06/2017 fully loaded and ready to depart for Singapore,a common trade for VLCC's. According to Marine Traffic her previous port of call before the arrival today back in Rotterdam, was Fawley. The strange ways of the international oil trade?
COMMENT THIS PHOTO(11)
Allan
Edit
comment
Edit
comment
Apologies for causing the confusion.
Edit
comment
What is strange, as she looks fully loaded in Pieter's photo on the day before she sailed for Fawley
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2688213
But she left Europoort with only 13.5m draught, so I suppose there was either considerable further discharge or she had been ballasted down.
13-15/5 at Ras Tanura. sld 21m
27-28/5 lightened for Suez transit at Ain Sukhna Terminal to 12.6m
31/5-1/6 topped up at Sidi Kerir Terminal to 21m for Rotterdam
13-14/6 part discharge Europoort to 13.5m
15-18/6 discharge Fawley, sailed at 11.1m
Then she was off Southwold for some days transhipping from LITEYNY PROSPECT (ex-Primorsk) and NS ARCTIC (ex-Ust-Luga) and arrived Europoort 25/6 at 20.4m and then left the following day at same draught [or slightly greater as reported by by Pilot Frans].
So perhaps this second Europoort call was for regulatory/certification reasons (or a further exchange of cargo for ballast).
But I am sure that there are members here who can analyse this more professionally than I can.
Edit
comment
Edit
comment
Edit
comment
Edit
comment
Edit
comment
Regards, Kenneth
Edit
comment
Edit
comment
Edit
comment