Part C. Demystifying Salvage. Capt. Nicholas Sloane

Transcription

1 Part C Demystifying Salvage Capt. Nicholas Sloane

2 01/02/2016 DEMYSTIFYING SALVAGE WHY - THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF A MEGA-SHIP SALVAGE?? THE SHIPS OWN CREW ARE THE BEST DEFENCE WHEN AN INCIDENT OCCURS ON BOARD. BUT - ARE THEY TRAINED FOR THE MEGA-SHIP INCIDENTS? ONCE THE SHIPS CREW NEED OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE - THEN THE SALVAGE INDUSTRY IS READY TO COME TO THEIR AID. 1

3 01/02/2016 THE NEW MEGA-SHIPS NEW CONTAINERS SHIPS 16,000 > 20,000 Teu s ULTRA LARGE BULK CARRIERS > 400,000DWT 2

4 ti...(flhrlhol... "'.,...,.I~ _ ~/11._"'_.h_ ~lilof IOIII(IWIfnI_ ThTl", n:.... t'~_; ~""".. Q;.I1!I~CIli'lclr;onspmt 1101'fl11dlP*JIon 01/02/2016 The growt h of containe r ship s TEU TeU TeU ipanam3x~ TEU,po$t"P~n3m~x 'feu (Po~t Pan3ma x pju$) reu TBESBAPE orcbanb E FoIlcm the Tnpte-Ebuild and allltsstofiesasweias upooml~evm.tsat theslllp's officialwebstre: Designed for lower speeds ~... - _ -.. -".. = ,,..... The cargo '''>h.n" ''''''''~bfjl'it,~,,,... ~,otdo(li"''.. ~~b'~lft,qflm"""''''mcn A recyclable ship An~nIO:r\IJ:Ir}'.. I~~,_,'.. toaiuo&_.bs1fi~_ ~ fu ~ i < II r t t i W IlD II. I. ". ".. "Jṯ.I...,...~IbI" _...'1I.. ~_thiri~ TW.QI7 (oot Equl.."I.Qt Ullfl (TI!U) Standard urut forcwc:r1t:tn.8:iih1i' ca. caj*l!;y TnpIe ECUlcarry l&oooteucontamen. The Asia - Europe Route ~ _.hfmlm diiiii..,.. -'... '-- M " Less polluting transport " 18~OOOlE U (fripl E e class) At 398 meters long, no longer than the It EM MA MAERS Kit, but considerably fatter and 'chunkier' with fuel efficiency. economic and environmental design considerations taking preference over speed 3

5 01/02/2016 MEGA CONTAINER SHIPS MEGA CONTAINER SHIPS 4

6 01/02/2016 TO DATE - SALVORS HAVE ONLY DEALT WITH RELATIVELY SMALL GROUNDINGS & WRECK REMOVALS OF CONTAINER SHIPS CP VALOUR - AZORES S50 MILLION FOR SALVAGE & WRECK REMOVAL 5

7 01/02/2016 6

8 01/02/2016 m.v.napoli HOW MANY BARGES DO YOU NEED FOR A WRECK REMOVAL - WHERE DO YOU GET THEM FROM?? 7

9 01/02/2016 WHEN INITIAL SALVAGE IS UNSUCCESSFUL 8

10 01/02/2016 II II II.1 I. I I " WRECK REMOVAL COSTS > $100 MILLION 9

11 01/02/2016 WHEN HUMAN ERROR TAKES PRECEDENT MSC RENA - ASTROLAB REEF - NZ 10

12 01/02/2016 WHEN INITIAL SALVAGE FAILS - WRECK REMOVAL BECOMES FAR MORE DIFFICULT & EXPENSIVE 11

13 01/02/2016 COSTS - > $350 MILLION 12

14 01/02/2016 HAZARDOUS CARGO IN STORAGE ASHORE..OOPS - WHAT HAPPENED MIS-DECLARED CARGO HYNDAI FORTUNE - OFF YEMEN 13

15 01/02/2016 THE CRATER - AFTER TIANJIN BLAST IMAGINE THIS - ON THE NEW MEGA CONTAINER SHIPS!! 14

16 01/02/2016 Heavyweig,h ts of the Sea, Vale's new Valemax ship is the world's biggest 'iron-ore vessel. A comparison with other classes of dry..bullk cargo, ships by and length capacity VALEMA X 1,181.1 FEET ~ -380.,000 deadweight tons and above -Speclallzed for iron ore CAPESI ZE.G,_~ F PANAMA X 1,049~9FEET -Between 170,000 and deadwejgh tons t through the Cape of - For Good.I -~---(( voyage FEET -----i deadweight tons -The largest size able to go throuoh the Panama Canal Hop e 15

17 01/02/2016 STRUCTURAL FAILURE - REQUIRES TRANSHIPMENT MEGA BULK CARRIERS - THE VALE-MAX 16

18 01/02/2016 TO DATE - NO WRECK REMOVAL HAS OCCURRED ON THE VERY LARGE BULK CARRIER - THEY NORMALLY SINK IN DEEPER WATER - OR HAVE BEEN SAVED INSHORE ALONG THE BERTH.. OIL POLLUTION? 10,000 T > 20,000T OF BUNKER OILS ON THESE MEGA SHIPS. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THIS? BUT OIL POLLUTION HAS OCCURRED 17

19 01/02/2016 COMPARING COSTS OIL CLEAN UP & RECOVERY in 2000 Sea Empress (UK): 70,000 tonne Cost: $82,500,000 ($1,178 per tonne) Exxon Valdez (Alaska): 37,000 tonne Cost: $1,485,000,000 ($40,135 per tonne) Prestige (Spain): 64,000 tonne Cost: $3,000,000,000 ($46,875 per tonne) Recovery: $125,000,000 ($9,615 per tonne) HOW MUCH - JUST FOR THE BUNKERS MEGA-SHIPS? ON THESE In Conclusion HUMAN ERROR AND CUTTING CORNERS.. As long as rates for shipping remain low - owners shall have to reduce costs, focusing on spares and crew costings - shippers shall have to cut-corners to offer attractive rates for support services and the risks to global shipping on the high seas shall remain. The exceptions may be: LNG / LPG, Oil and the Cruise Industry - they are not seeing these tight margins - allowing their ship operators to maintain the high standards necessary to minimise their risks - and to attract passengers! 18

20 01/02/2016 With the oil price predicted to remain low for the foreseeable future - at least the next two years and commodity prices for raw materials & minerals dependant on the Chinese market - which itself is in a slowdown. the necessity shall remain to have outside assistance available - for when the ships stand into trouble - or have mis-declared cargoes placed on board their container ships! The salvage industry shall remain active - and able to render support where & when necessary. Thank You. But - depending on where in the world the casualty occurs - solutions shall differ - and need to be developed once salvors are on site 19

21 Part D Why is LOF seen as expensive? Richard Gunn

22 Why is LOF seen as expensive and an analysis of possible alternative funding methods LSLC, 2 February 2016 It is well recognised that there is a general view that LOF salvage is an expensive undertaking. Certainly, the statistics indicate that there have been fewer LOFs and that the decline continues. Conversely, the cost of wreck removal has increased and the natural assumption must be that there are a number of casualties which in prior years would have been performed on LOF services, but more latterly, are pursued under some form of modified wreck hire, probably with adjusted SCOPIC rates. However, the idea that salvage is expensive reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the awards for services and what they are for. In the first instance it is as well to consider what is the basis of payment. Certainly it is not a commercially negotiated fee. No one party can exert commercial pressure over the other, rather it is left to an independent assessor to determine the sum payable. It is not a question of one party seeking to exert market influence over the other, rather the idea is that it is a contract in its purest form, namely if I carry out the services to your satisfaction and save something, then you will pay me, but if I fail, then you will not. Arguably a more reasonable form of contract could not be found. Having decided that the Arbitrator should determine quantum, what is it that he is required to do? You will all be familiar with the factors set out in Article 13 of the Salvage Convention, and these are of course the prime factual issues that the Arbitrators must consider. However, over-arching all of those is the admonition that: The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations Thus Arbitrators are bound at law to be encouraging. That is reflected in the common law whereby Sir John Nicholl held that after taking into account what are in effect now the Article 13 factors, the Arbitrator must go on to consider: EME_ACTIVE RMGUNN 02/03/ :20 PM

23 another principle to encourage enterprise, reward exertion and to be liberal in all that is due to the general interests of commerce and the general benefit of owners and underwriters, even though the reward may fall upon the individual owner with some severity. 1 There are two main points to consider, the first is that the concept of encouragement has got little to do with the service that has just been provided. Encouragement is not about encouraging somebody to do something they have already done. That is an oxymoron. Rather it is to make them much more likely to do it again. A definition is that it is persuasion to do or to continue something alternatively, the act of trying to stimulate the development of an activity. Thus the purpose is both to say thank you for the services carried out, but also to make it worthwhile for the salvor to go out and do it again. Indeed it is an encouragement for others to go out at different times and in different places in the future and do the same as this particular salvor has done. Furthermore, and this is the second, it is recognised that such encouragement may not be to the benefit of the particular ship owner who has just had his ship saved. No, that is why it will fall on that individual owner with some severity. It follows that it is axiomatic that the reward may appear disproportionate with respect to the particular service because the express intention is to encourage services of the shipping industry at large. It also follows that an analysis of any particular service in relation to the particular ship and value is misleading. A Salvage Award awarded at 35% of a US$70 million fund may seem excessive in respect of that fund, but that is because the encouragement has fallen with some severity on the individual owner. Thus it is much more useful to consider salvage as an industrial concept giving rise to an industrial reward. An estimate of the value of goods shipped in 2013 gave rise to a rough figure of US$5 trillion. 2 Similarly, the value of ships at sea was estimated at US$29 billion. Therefore, the total value of the shipping industry in 2013 was around US$5.03 trillion. These are estimates and as we will see it matters not whether they are a little out. What is important is to recognise that there is a high value worth of goods being transported per year. 1 The INDUSTRY [1835] 3 Hag. Adm Extrapolated from figures in 2007 from Worldtrade.Org

24 It is that value of goods and vessels that the salvage industry is there to protect and it is to that property that the awards are to be encouraging. The ISU report that around US$202 million was paid in LOF or other settlements in Of course, these figures relate in the main to prior services, but it is nevertheless a useful figure on which to make comparisons. Therefore if the value to the industry was US$5 trillion, and the encouraging rewards to salvors amounts to US$200 million, then this equates to 0.004% of the value of the shipping industry. This is a far cry from the 35% or higher awards which can be achieved. Put another way, if that entire US$5 trillion was stuffed into the containers of a 20,000 teu container ship which sets sail from Australia to Europe, and along the way got into difficulty, and the entire world s salvage industry poured forth in order to rescue her, then, at the end of that operation, the Arbitrator s Award would have amounted to less than the value of one container on that ship! In those circumstances, I would suggest that salvage is neither excessive or expensive, but is actually rather cheap. I am sure that no underwriter would turn his nose up at paying the average value of less than one container the next time there is salvage of a container vessel. Therefore it follows that if the severity principle causes concern in the modern insurance world, it is necessary to consider other alternatives such that the severity of the reward does not fall disproportionately on an individual, but on the industry at large. Recently there have been a number of initiatives relating to salvage and casualties generally. Landmark is one well known example. This of course is intended to deal with large container casualties and the GA elements arising from that. Other suggestions have been for a levy on containers shipped. Again, this essentially addresses large container casualties. Another suggestion has been in relation to environmental salvage with the proposal for a salvors environmental protection trust 3 ; this was initially proposed in relation to the now rejected environmental salvage issues, in the main these initiatives require global agreement. 3 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard Modern Maritime law, page

25 An alternative non-mandatory proposal is the establishment of a salvage fund. Those that contribute to the fund get the benefit of it, those that do not contribute, rely upon their hull insurance in the usual way. The essence of such a fund is that it removes standard insurance from the equation and spreads the risk amongst its participants a throwback to the original concept that there is benefit to the industry in salvors providing such services. Thinking further on how that might be funded, the insurance premia for ships and cargo in 2013 amounted to just under US$28 billion 4. It follows that 1% of that would create a fund of US$280 million. This would be more than necessary to pay for all the salvage in that year as we have seen. However, it would be inappropriate to ask underwriters simply to pay over 1% of their insurance premia into a separate fund as that is not the way that life is. Nevertheless, it seems to me that owners could decide to opt into the fund by paying ostensibly an extra 1% of their premia independently of the insurance aspect. That 1% would then go direct to the fund. Now it will be said that owners won t pay as they would be seen to be paying twice and to a certain extent that may be correct. However, hull insurance would still cover salvage, just not fund salvage, i.e. any salvage services outside of the fund, e.g. lump sum contents on common law. However, it is also possible that through negotiation, whilst there might be some additional payment by owners, but this could be offset by a reduced risk for hull underwriters. But should the owner opt into the salvage fund and his ship then get into difficulty requiring salvage, it is inevitable that an LOF would be signed both because owners have paid but also because underwriters would not want to take responsibility themselves when they don t have to. Should that ship, or a ship with cargo who have similarly paid into the fund, get into difficulty, then the fund would pay the salvage reward for those contributing parties in full in the usual way. Such payment would not form part of the assureds record, and should not affect its underwriter s premium thereafter. Such a fund does not require global agreement, it simply requires some agreement with some parties. 4 IUM1 website, excluding P&I risk - 4 -

26 It is not suggested that salvage claims would be paid on demand. Rather the fund would act as security in the first instance in the sense that salvors would not need to obtain separate security elsewhere, for those participants in the fund. It also means that the fund must have the right and duty to settle Salvage Awards, appoint lawyers to advise them on levels as appropriate, send to arbitration in the usual way if settlement is not possible, and even to challenge the validity of a Salvage Contract if necessary. In short, all the rights that currently reside with property interests. In this sense, the fund changes nothing of the existing procedure, its just that underwriters would no longer be a part of it. Of course the success of the initiative depends entirely upon market perceptions both within the brokerage market, and with owners and cargo interests. Indeed if underwriters are against it, then it is unlikely to gain any traction. However, as it removes the bone of contention that underwriters feel about salvage, it would seem slightly odd were they to be actively against such proposals. Even so, there are difficult issues to deal with, and one such issue of course relates to the possibility (or and indeed likelihood) that there would be insufficient monies in the fund to cover the particular Salvage Award. This has been investigated and in such circumstances, it should be possible to purchase a Guarantee for the fund for any shortfall that there may be. Furthermore, the fund at least initially would not cover all salvage, common law or contractual, but would be limited to LOF salvage. The management structure needs to be considered and this has been put to various industry individuals for comment. There is a fairly long lead time before it could be properly up and running to take account of establishment of the management organisations, and also policy documentation. Nevertheless, the benefits are clear in that it spreads the load removing the severity from the individual ship owner or insurer, and similarly, would likely lead to an increase in LOF which would assist the salvage industry in general. A possible benefit could be that if a particular ship owner and his particular cargo were to find themselves both in the fund (which is possible for a bulk carrier, but unlikely for a container vessel), then the fund would be paying the whole salvage reward settled or agreed due to salvors. In other circumstances, cargo underwriters would then seek to recover the money paid in salvage from the P&I Club who would defend the case and/or end up paying cargo accordingly if there was breach of the Contract of Carriage. That payment would then - 5 -

27 sit on their Member s record and deplete their reserves. However, where both ship and cargo are in the fund, then I see no reason why the fund should seek to recover from the owner who was also in the fund, the monies paid by way of salvage. Thus there is a direct benefit to Club reserves and a direct benefit to the particular ship owner as his record remains unaffected. This is a very clear benefit outside of the traditional underwriting sector. Conversely, if cargo was in the fund and ship was not, then I see no reason why the fund should not seek to recover from the particular ship. This would act as an encouragement to vessel owners to participate in the fund. Of course not everything is straightforward, and there are still some hurdles to clear. The first of these is a natural conservatism in the industry and reluctance to change. A separate and important consideration is capitalisation of the start-up. Two new companies would need to be formed, systems aligned and ultimately managed. Who would pay for this? Finally, the elephant in the room, which is would it actually be attractive to ship and cargo owners? I suspect the answer to that is that it would be to some and may be not to others. However, 1% of a hull premium for a fleet of US$2 million is only US$20,000. Even in these straitened times, such an extra payment may not be unachievable particularly with the potential benefits. Watch this space! Richard Gunn - Reed Smith LLP LSLC, Demystifying salvage changing perceptions in a changing world 2 February

28 02/02/2016 Why is LOF seen as expensive? Richard Gunn Partner / Master Mariner LSLC, February 2016 Market Murmurings Expensive Way too much Excessive What?! Too high So much? You must be joking?! Eh? 1

29 02/02/2016 What is the basis of payment? Not determined by either party No debate No commercial advantage (equally no dis-advantage) Left to independent assessor How does the Arbitrator decide? Article 13 factors Article 13.1 Salvage Convention The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations [my emphasis] 2

30 02/02/2016 Encouragement Another principle, to encourage enterprise, reward exertion, and to be liberal in all that is due to the general interests of commerce, and the general benefit of owners and underwriters, even though the reward may fall upon the individual owner with some severity. (The Industry, 1835) Encouragement Not about the job that s just been done It is about future jobs; the next service Not this salvor; another potential salvor An industry service => An industry award 3

31 02/02/2016 Salvage as an industry concept US$5,000,000,000,000 (- value of goods shipped; estimated 2013) US$29,000,000,000 (- value of ships 2013) Salvage as an industry concept Value of the shipping industry 2013 US$5.03 trillion Salvage paid in 2013 US$202 million Percentage of industry fund 0.004% 4

32 02/02/2016 Salvage as an industry concept Alternatives Landmark - large container based casualty management concept Container levy Salvage Fund 5

33 02/02/2016 Salvage Fund Remove insurers/insurance Separate payment Insurance premia 2013: US$27.75 billion 1% of premia establishes fund How would it work? Owners pay 1% of their hull premia into separate fund Cargo pay 1% of their insurance premia into separate fund If that owner or cargo interest is required to pay salvage fund pays in full subject to usual rules 6

34 02/02/2016 Safeguards Only applies to those that have paid (if haven t paid, then claim on insurance in usual way) Fund has the duty to consider salvage claim, challenge LOF, appoint lawyers, settle or proceed to arbitration in the usual way (no change to process) Salvage Fund where we are Possibility of obtaining guarantee/insurance for any shortfall in the fund established Objections to initial limit to LOF salvage removed Management structure under consideration, e.g. fund management financial management data/contributor management documentary issues Lead time 3 years + 7

35 02/02/2016 Benefits Removes severity from the individual shipowner/insurer Possible Club/Owner benefits (if no claim for indemnity from cargo) Probable increase in use of LOF Further considerations Conservatism of industry Capitalisation of project start up Take up 8

36 02/02/2016 QUESTIONS? 9

37 Part E Curricula Vitae

38 THE CHAIRMAN SIMON KVERNDAL QC Simon Kverndal QC is a leading maritime barrister and a member of Quadrant Chambers in London, specialising in charterparty, collision, salvage, offshore and shipbuilding/sale/finance disputes. He comes from a family, originally from Norway, which has been involved for many generations in the shipping industry and in particular in maritime claims; he was educated at Haileybury and Sidney Sussex College Cambridge. As well as his principal practice as an advocate, he is frequently appointed as arbitrator (including Lloyds Open Form salvage, where he has been one of the five panel arbitrators since 2006, and LMAA) and is a popular choice as mediator. He was appointed Queen s Counsel in 2002 and has for many years been ranked as a 'Leading Silk' in both Chambers UK and The Legal 500 directories. He is a supporting member of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, a member of COMBAR and of the LCLCBA, Bencher of Middle Temple, on the Council of the London Shipping Law Centre and a senior Member of the Court of Assistants of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights (the shipping industry s livery company). Remarkably happily married with two teenage sons, his other passions include hitting rackets balls, drinking fine wine, lunching at the Garrick Club and going to the opera. Contact: simon.kverndal@quadrantchambers.com Website:

39 THE SPEAKERS ANDREW CHAMBERLAIN Partner Andrew is a former Royal Navy officer and specialises in "wet" shipping cases, including salvage (acting for salvors, as well owners and their underwriters), collisions, fire and explosion, total loss and wreck removal. He also advises on both civil and criminal pollution liabilities, marine insurance coverage disputes and the full range of other shipping-related commercial and contractual disputes. Andrew served at sea with the Royal Navy and also had a stint with the Hong Kong Squadron. He left the Royal Navy in 1990 and joined HFW in 1994, having trained at Richards Butler (now Reed Smith). He was promoted to partner in 2003 and has been heavily involved in many of the largest casualties of recent years, including "PELICAN 1" (2003), "BP THUNDERHORSE" (2005), "MSC NAPOLI" (2007), "MSC CHITRA" (2010), "Costa Concordia" (2012), "FLASH" (2012), "KULLUK" (2012), "SMART" (2013), "NORMAN ATLANTIC" (2014), "EASTERN AMBER" and MAERSK SEOUL (2015). Andrew lectures regularly on salvage, wreck removal and casualty response and is an acknowledged expert in the field. He was chairman of the Lloyds Informa Salvage and Wreck Removal Cnference in Andrew is recommended in Chambers 2015 for his work on salvage matters with sources commenting He is superb. He is very focussed, he can see the wood for the trees, and he has a very commanding way about him. Others highlight his experience as a key strength, noting that he always knows what is going on in the market. Andrew is qualified in England and Wales. T: +44 (0) E: andrew.chamberlain@hfw.com

40 Chris Adams Director Head of European Syndicate and Loss Prevention Steamship Insurance Management Services Limited (direct) (mobile) For further information please see Chris Adams joined the Claims Department of Steamship Mutual in 1979, after service at sea as a navigating officer with Ellerman City Liners of London. He holds a BSc (Hons) degree in Nautical Studies from the University of Southampton, and is a Fellow of the Nautical Institute, a Member of the Royal Institute of Navigation, Freeman of the City of London, Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, and Trustee of the Maritime London Officer Cadet Scholarship Scheme. He became a partner of the Club s management company, Alfred Stocken & Co., (now Steamship P&I Management LLP) in 1998 and is a Director of Steamship Insurance Management Services Limited, the London representatives of the Managers, where his current responsibilities are as Head of the European Syndicate and Head of Loss Prevention. In the latter role he has worked in association with Videotel Marine International in the production of more than 90 shipboard safety training programmes which draw extensively on lessons that can be learned from the Club's claims experience in order to promote safe practice and avoid unnecessary loss. In addition, he has conceived and developed with Callisto Productions Ltd., the Club's series of loss prevention DVDs - "A Team Effort", "Collision Course", "The Ship Safety Trust - Safer Ships, Preventing Loss", "Piracy - The Menace at Sea", "Groundings - Shallow Waters, Deep Trouble", and Fit for Life. The Piracy and Groundings programmes were winner and runner-up respectively in the Safety at Sea category of the 2012 and 2014 Seatrade Awards. STEAMSHIP INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority AQUATICAL HOUSE 39 BELL LANE LONDON E1 7LU Tel: Website: (Registered in England and Wales Registration number FCA registration number )

41 Captain Nicholas Sloane Nick was born in Zambia - and completed his high schooling at Kearsney College outside Durban. After matric, he was a Rotary Exchange Student to upstate New York. Nick Sloane first went to sea with Safmarine in 1980, and after four years transferred into their salvage division - SAFTUG - serving on the super tugs John Ross & Wolraad Woltemade - the two largest, most powerful & fastest tugs in the world at the time. He was promoted to master in 1989, and as salvage master in 1991on the Rio Assu salvage operation. During his career Captain Sloane has been involved as salvage master in many high-profile and interesting salvage operations around the world (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, the US, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Mexico, Africa & Hong Kong) and dealt with many cases where political, environmental and public pressure were intense such as the AD-19, the Tasman Spirit, the Jolly Rubino the Ikan Tanda, the Treasure the Sealand Express, the CP Valour, the Kota Kado, the Jupiter-1 Oil Rig, the Brillante Virtuoso off Yemen, the Rena casualty off Astrolab Reef in New Zealand, and the wreck removal of the cruiseship Costa Concordia, the largest single wreck removal project in history, off Isola del Giglio, Italy. He was involved in the SAA flight 295 HELDERBURG Boeing 747 aircraft search & recovery off Mauritius in late 1987, in water depths of 4,900m, and has been involved in several other aircraft recovery operations - both military and civil UNIT 6445 ERINVALE ESTATE, SOMERSET WEST, CAPE, SOUTH AFRICA NSLOANE@IAFRICA.COM PHONE ADDRESS URL

42 Nick was involved in Mossgas Shore-Crossing Pipeline in 1989; inshore Mossel Bay pipeline pull & Imodco SBM installation 1991/2; Mossgas EBT Offshore Field Calm Buoy installation and FSO operations in 1997/8; Natal Pipeline Projects with LAMA - Sappi-Saiccor & SAPREF pipeline installations 1998/9 ; Mossel Bay LAD pipeline installation in 2000 ; CPC (Chevron) - SOLL Start up project manager in Russia (3 pipelines and 2 SBM s - 11 vessels, 36 divers and 6 MM s); Mossel Bay offshore Gravity Base & Control Buoy installation in 2002 ; Angola LNG (Chevron) Marine Services contract leader for Svitzer s 30-year marine services contract. Nick has consulted with Suez-Gas du France on regassification offshore installations, EEC on greenfield refinery projects, and CNOC of greenfield platform / riser installations. Education: Master Mariner 215 CoC UCT Graduate School of Business EMD 1999 Erasmus University - Project management 2004 Oxford Said School of Business - AMLP 2015 Awards/ Citations: Fellow of the Nautical institute GeoMar "German Ocean Award" 2015 Cavaliere del Lavoro della Repubblica Italia, (Italian Knighthood). Ambassador of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce for 2015

43 Richard Gunn Partner/Master Mariner Reed Smith LLP Richard is the Head of the Reed Smith Casualty and Admiralty practice and has been involved in most of the firm s casualty work particularly collisions, groundings, explosion and salvage and their subsequent contractual disputes. As well as acting for salvors, owners and underwriters he also acts for various owners and Clubs in Charterparty disputes, focusing on those of a technical nature such as General Average, unsafe port and P&I claims. His work has included a number of claims involving Shelltime 4, bunker disputes and speed and performance issues. He has undertaken reviews of various contracts relating to provision of Port Services, STS and Emergency Towage Services, Wreck Removal, Towhire and Towcon. He is a qualified mediator; a supporting member of the LMAA; the firm representative on the ASG; and the ASG representative on Lloyds Salvage Working Ctee. Prior to legal practice, Richard qualified as a Master Mariner, spending 12 years on a variety of vessel types. He then spent five years ashore operating a fleet of time chartered bulk carriers. Employment History Reed Smith Richards Butler (combined with Reed Smith in 2007) o Has been a partner since Operated Furness Withy Chartering s time chartered fleet of handymax bulk carriers until Merchant Navy, various flags and vessel types Listed as a Top 10 Lawyer in Lloyds List s 100 Most Influential People in the Shipping Industry 2013; Featured in Best Lawyers UK; Recommended as a leading individual in Legal 500, where he has been described as having a "deep level of knowledge" and in Chambers where has been described as "knowledgeable" rgunn@reedsmith.com Dir: Mob: