0632 final report delivery xfl auriga j august 2014

Balboa, Panam Tel: 507 232-6791 Mobile: 507 667-20253. AMP-00423

0632 FINAL REPORT DELIVERY XFL AURIGA J 2014 Page 1 of 38

Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Date: 30 July, 2014

Your Ref: AURIGA J / delivery/ X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd./ Jungerhans Maritime Services. Time nomenclature: LT- local time GMT- Greenwich Mean Time

This report has been produced and issued without prejudice.

SURVEY REPORT OF SHIP DELIVERY TIME CHARTER PHASE IN

AURIGA J safely berthed at CCT, Colon, Panama



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

1. Introduction

1.1 Background information

On the 30 August, 2014, I opened a case file for a delivery survey to be carried out regarding

the AURIGA J, with confirmation of a single surveyor to represent the time charterers of the

ship, X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd.. I began tracking the arrival of the ship to within range of

delivery. The delivery survey was scheduled for visit in range CCT and Manzanillo International Terminal, Coco Solo, Panama.

1.2 Intentions, survey scope, reason

This is to certify that I Captain CESAR VICENTE of British Maritime Surveys, S.A. was appointed

by messrs, X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd. as new time charterers, to perform the delivery survey

regarding ship AURIGA J whilst berthed at CCT & Manzanillo International Terminal, Coco Solo,

Panama.

The main reason for this delivery survey and report is to safeguard the new time charterers

against any potential owners claims regarding damage/s caused during the time charter

period by cargo or any other part of operation. And regarding quantum of claims, if justified

for time charterers account. Information from this delivery survey report can be used as tool in

possible mitigation of litigation.

The purpose of this survey was to inspect the full cargo spaces, any other areas related to the

carriage of cargo and structural items regarding the seaworthiness and preparedness of ship

that could possibly affect the trading capacity during the continuation of the time charter to

which the ship has been employed.

As well, I was to note any previous remaining open stevedore damage reports (SDR) caused by

negligent acts from stevedores previous within the past charter that may well be carried

through to the current X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd. time charter.

Additionally, to report on pragmatic basis, the above items from a condition, risk and loss

prevention point of view if subject admits.

During the delivery survey I was to effect an appraisal (not direct count) of the ships

operational lashing gear regarding ships lashing inventory with respect to condition, adequacy

and if sufficient lashing gear to lash cargo in view of the cargo securing manual (CSM).



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

It was beyond the scope of this survey to begin opening tanks for inspection of the structural

condition and to closely inspect the ships machinery such as reviewing maintenance and class

condition records.

Also within the bounds of this survey, BMS can attest whether or not the ship AURIGA J was

said to have been delivered within ship owners time charter party obligations as in good order,

ready to receive cargo, with clean and swept holds or not as the case may be, and in general

good condition to allow safe sustainable trading. Notwithstanding normal fair wear and tear.

If there is anything that is felt to be inaccurate or unfair, BMS will be pleased to discuss further.

1.3 Directives

1.3.1. Survey requested by: X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd.

1.3.2. On behalf of: X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd.

1.3.3. Time and place of ship arrival and survey of ship delivery:

1.3.3.1. AFSPS CCT: 05:40 Hrs LT/30.08.2014

1.3.3.2. NOR sent by master: 05:40 Hrs LT/30.08.2014

1.3.3.3. All fast CCT, finished with engines: 07:30 Hrs LT 30.08.2014

1.3.3.4. Date / time of delivery survey: 07:00 Hrs LT/30.08.2014

1.3.3.5. Date/ time delivery survey completion: 14:45 Hrs LT/ 30.08.2014

1.3.3.6. Place COLON CONTAINER TERMINAL, Coco

Solo , Panama

1.3.3.7. Vessel will be bound from CCT: 30.08.2014 previous port of call before MIT.

1.4 Persons in attendance during survey

1.4.1. Master of Ship: Capt. Max Greil

1.4.2. Chief engineer: Mr. Valeriy Shykhalyov

1.4.3. Chief officer: Mr. Cezar Gerondiano

1.4.4. 1.4.4. BMS Surveyor: Mr. CESAR VICENTE on behalf,

X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd.

1.5. Documents revised/ introduced during survey

1.5.1. Ships delivery lashing gear inventory

1.5.2. Ships statutory trading certificates



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

1.5.3. Cargo Securing Manual and lashing gear quota data

1.5.4. Ship tank tables

2. The Ship/ Background information

2.1. Name: AURIGA J

2.2. IMO N: 9242302

2.3. Year built/ delivered/ Yard: 2000 / Detlef Hegeman Rolandwerf Berne

Germany

2.4. Type: Container Ship

2.5. GRT / NRT / DW. 14,602/ 4,958/17,250 tons

2.6. LOA / Beam / Draft: 155.60m/24.69m/ 14.20m

2.7. Holds/ hatches: 04 holds / 31 TEU hold bays

2.8. Cargo Particulars: Capacity 1,157 TEU/Reefer plugs 250

2.9. Loading instrument: Yes and anti heeling system

2.10. Class: DNV.GL

2.11. Owner: AURIGA J, Shipping Co. Ltd. Antigua

2.12. Management: Carsten Rehder Reederei GmbH & Co. KG

2.13. Port Of Registry / Flag: St Johns/Antigua, Barbuda

2.14. Cargo Cranes: Two Cargo Cranes, Liebherr / S.W.L 45 t

2.15. Main engine: MAN B&W Diesel, 11,060 kW

2.16. Generators: Four, 780 kW

2.17. Bowthruster: Yes, 700kW

3. Information regarding carried through remaining open stevedore damage reports (SDR) from

previous charter

3.1. There was none open stevedore damage reports remaining from the previous time charters.

4. Statement of Facts

4.1. In accordance with the time charter party, the AURIGA J in areas, Manzanillo anchorage, was

delivery by X-Press Feedeer Lines Ltd. to agreed port area.

4.2. Vessel arrival time, please refer to point 1.3.3.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

4.3. Ship arrived with cargo hold empties, with prospects of surveying, after conclude discharge

operation, all decks, cranes, holds, tanks tops, cell guides, lashing gear in the bounds of the

delivery scope in a usual timely fashion.

4.4. Attending surveyor met the captain, chief mate and chief engineer of the ship to explain survey

scope. The captain and marine surveyor discussed the delivery directives, to which all agreed,

notwithstanding Owners instructions.

4.5. It was planned that the survey would take on the following schedule; survey of the holds, hatch

covers, all cargo loading, discharging and carrying items, decks, super structure, review of

lashing gear as best as possible, accommodation, engine room, bow thrusters room, bridge,

safety items, ships trading certificates and external hull with paint work as best as possible.

4.6. During the delivery survey, an appraisal was carried out as best as possible, of lashing gear with

respect to adequate and sufficient numbers regarding the cargo securing manual CSM and

being able to lash containers safely. As well general review of engine space housekeeping

cleanliness, fire and safety gear was performed.

4.7. Regarding HFO and MDO bunker recordings, these were recorded for 12:00 hours LT, 30 August,

2014 and used basis for delivery time quantities, range Manzanillo, Panama, 30 August, 2014.

4.8. The machinery consumptions were applied to the onboard bunker results found during the

bunker survey to give quantities at delivery time/date, 12:00 hours LT, on the 30 August, 2014.

4.9. I issued the delivery certificate regarding agreed delivery point.

5. Description of the ship

5.1. The ship AURIGA J is a geared cellular container ship equipped for the carriage of TEU and FEU

containers (capacity described in point 2.8).

5.2. Much of the ships descriptive information is contained in section 2.0 of this report.

5.3. The charter party description should be the same. Section 2.0 can be used as verification to

charter party information.

5.4. The ships hull was painted with blue protective coating that was in acceptable condition,

notwithstanding wear and tear. The ships profile featured a raked stem to the waterline and a

bulbous bow, raised forecastle and a transom stern. The ship had a bow thruster.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

5.5. The accommodation was made up of eight decks from the main deck to funnel stack which was

located aft. Cargo bay was situated forward of the accommodation. Two main decks ran

continuous from the forecastle to the aft accommodation.

5.6. The hatch coamings were raised and fitted to hatch pontoon covers that lift off by means of a

crane and four point lift spreader. There was a range of bays from numbers one to 33 TEU in

hold four. Cargo bays were located main deck forward of accommodation. The holds did not

have tween decks. All four holds had staunch cell guides.

5.7. The cell guides were termed with odd numbers on the starboard side and even numbers on the

port side as per convention. Hold number one had a staggered configuration mainly for the

stowage of 20 containers, along the sides and forward end.

5.8. The ship has two centre located cargo cranes and hence the termgeared.

6. Details covered during the survey

6.1. I surveyed all the holds and associated structures such as cell guides, container fittings, pontoon

hatch covers, locking devices, coamings, decks, hold venting, tank vents, platforms, entrances,

tank tops, hydraulics, anti heeling pumps, tanks and general light inspection regarding main

engine and generators. A note was made to general housekeeping. The following comments

were made supported by photographs taken at the same time in order to illustrate significance.

7. Hull

7.1. Within the bounds of this type of light delivery condition survey, the structural water integrity of

class accordance with conditions of assignment and markings was observed and seemingly

intact.

7.2. I surveyed for any aggressive areas of rust and sharp indents from past impacts that maybe un-

due and out of fair wear and tear conditions. The inside shell plating within the areas looked at,

such as the bow, under the main engine beds and shaft tunnel area, was found in good

condition.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

AURIGA J; starboard side hull plating had normal wear and tear. The hull was coated with the

appropriate blue paint and in reasonably good condition. The areas around the anchors were showing

signs of general wear and tear. There were no significant areas of active rusting.

Starboard quarter



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

7.3. There were some wear and tear scratches from normal berthing operations.

7.4. There were no concerns at the time of survey with plating wastage. The hull plating above the

water line, was in good condition.

7.5. The stern transom was in good condition as well the upper part of the rudder and rudder horn.

8. Forecastle

Forecastle was in reasonably good condition with adequate mooring equipment. Staunch wave

breaker

8.1. The forecastle extends to where the hold number one begins. The two anchor windlass and

bases were in good condition. The exposed forepart (ganger) of anchor chains was in good

condition.

8.2. The brake linings were in good condition, which is very important for holding sustainability. The

mooring gear and lines were in good condition.

8.3. The foremast structurally speaking was sound however the appendages were in fair condition

with bends to them. The forecastle is covered by a steel structure, which is good. The wave



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

breaker forward, was structurally in sound good condition, notwithstanding areas of wear and

tear.

8.4. The bulwarks, decking, anchor winch bases were in good condition. Mooring lines and gear was

in adequate condition.

8.5. The watertight accesses with their seals and locks were in good condition. The overall condition

was well kept and clean.

9. Four holds with bays, one to 31. Cell guides and other structures.

Example of bulkheads and heeling/fuel tanks throughout holds

9.1. In this section, for the general hold condition I will discuss holds together as the condition was

reasonably good throughout, at time of delivery survey.

9.2. Within all holds regarding previous time charters, there was no open SDRs carried through

into the X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd. time charter.

9.3. During the survey, I came across some hidden un-reported cell guide deformations. The

deformations were not severe in nature and extent. However, requires being aware of.

9.4. The cell guides had main staunch brackets for support and good thickness of steel material.

There were some areas of surface rusting and wear and tear marks.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

9.5. The hold tank top container fittings were in good condition with no significant areas of rusting

and or wastage. The tank tops throughout the holds were in reasonably good condition with

some surface rusting.

9.6. The clean swept status regarding the time charter party clause had been fulfilled at time of

survey.

9.7. Throughout holds, the general steel plating structure to lower, upper heeling/ ballast and fuel

tank tops with sides was intact with reasonably good paint coating condition.

9.8. The paint coating on tank bulkheads and hatch coamings, had some small dings and marks from

general wear and tear made from discharging and loading of containers. There was some

rusting evident and evidence of rubber seal damages regarding hatch covers.

9.9. The hold lighting and venting arrangements was in working condition. Hold railings were intact,

notwithstanding wear and tear.

9.10. Throughout holds, the strengthened container posts were in good condition and ready for

receiving containers, notwithstanding wear and tear.

9.11. The holds bilges were in reasonable condition with working pumps available.

Condition throughout holds, acceptable wear and tear, no significant hidden deformations



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Clean tank top

Bay 13, row 02/01, T02 Bay 15, row 05, T04



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 17, row 05/07, T10

Bay 13, row 02/01, T02



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 23, row 06/08, T02 & 04

Bay 25, row 00, 01, 03, 05 & 07, T82 till T90



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Hold 03. Fuel oil heating system manifold

Ballast system, anti heeling



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 31, row 02/08, T82 till T90

Bay 31 row 07, T02



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 31, row 08, 06, 04, T82

Bay 17,CEILING



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 06, row 05, T82



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 06, row 05, T04



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 16, row 6, T02

Bay 16, row 6, T02



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Bay 23, row 06, T04

Bay 25, row 05 & 07 both, T02



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

One of the 124 hold reefer units

10. The hold hatch way pontoon covers to holds, associated structures and rubber seals

10.1. There were no open stevedore damage reports regarding items damaged from previous time

charter/s.

10.2. On the whole there, there was general markings customary to normal amount of wear and tear

hatch pontoons receive during the period of cargo charter work experienced. There were no

substantial damages in nature and extent.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Good condition. Some acceptable wear and tear

Locking devices in reasonably good



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

10.3. Generally the rubber seals to pontoon covers were in fair to reasonable sealing condition,

recalling the damaged centre seals.

10.4. The locking devices were in working condition. The pontoon side vents showed working sealing

flaps with locks.

10.5. Structure of hatch covers, intact; notwithstanding fair wear and tear. There were some general

small dents customary with use. The middle top edges of the pontoon had some bends.

11. Main deck (upper most continuous deck), poop deck and super structure

11.1. The main deck, poop deck and super structure I found to be in reasonably good condition.

Most areas of the main deck had parts of rusting.

11.2. There was no remaining open stevedore damage report (SDR) regarding deck structures.

Crossbays



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Side decks , reasonably good condition regarding paint coating

11.3. The mooring equipment was sufficient, adequate and in working condition.

11.4. The side decks, coamings, container posts, side railings and general structures were in

reasonably good condition. Some areas the railings had suffered smaller impacts with

containers. Protective paint coatings were in reasonably good condition.

11.5. The cross-bay structures were in staunch condition. However had usual wear and tear markings

throughout to edges and access way tops.

11.6. The hold vent structures were found in intact condition and reportedly working properly.

11.7. The port and starboard lashing bridges for container accesses were in reasonably good

condition but showing wear and tear markings.

11.8. The 126 reefer electrical deck sockets were reportedly to be in working condition, according to

the chief engineer. The front superstructure was in reasonably good condition considering wear

and tear and condition of paint coatings. Aft and side superstructure in reasonably good

condition.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Some Chain link has middle part broken

Main deck loading bays



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Front superstructure in good condition

Aft deck with its winches, container posts and mooring equipment were in working condition



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

11.9. As previously looked at, the fore deck plating, frames, bulwarks, winches and mooring

equipment were in good working condition. I have previously commented on the fore deck

windlass brake linings and bases. Regarding the aft deck with its container posts, winches and

mooring equipment, these were also in good working condition with adequacy.

11.10. The ships deck and paint stores were clean and sufficient.

FORE CASTLE STORES TIDY and CLEAN

12. Cranes one and two

12.1 The two center turret cranes were reported to be in operational condition. Each crane was

marked on the boom with the safe weight load of 45 tons @ 26.5 m. The cranes had some wear

and tear marks to the crane pillars and booms which are expected during repeated container

operations

12.2 Ships cargo cranes. The Class society DNV.GL recently performed last five yearly crane and

lifting gear.

12.3 I could see signs of the slew bearings leaking oil.

12.4 The external parts to the two crane cabs were in reasonable condition, notwithstanding wear

and tear. There were some small areas of rusting on cranes. The lights on the booms were intact.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

The View of deck showing working cranes

12.5 access ladders were intact. The top railings intact.

12.6 I could not comment on the state of the hydraulic units as this was outside of the survey scope.

However I did take a look at the power pack in crane number one and appeared intact but with

some small leaks. The slewing gears appeared in good condition, on visual basis.

Life Saving Appliances



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

13. Life Saving Appliances (LSA) and ships fire fighting equipment (FFE)

13.1. The ships life saving appliances and fire fighting gear from my visual inspection appeared

externally to be in working condition. Cannot comment upon the level of maintenance.

13.2. All portable fire extinguishers were in their test date. Were tested recently. This Survey office

regarding Class regulatory matters, cannot comment on suitability.

Life raft in Forward

14. Accommodation and engine spaces

14.1. The bridge appeared to have adequate resources. It was clean and in good condition. The bridge

visibility was good which is very important for the conduct of bridge resources and safe

navigation that is imperative if the ship is to continue her trade to which she has been

employed. The bridge navigation publications seemed to be adequate, in order and corrected

ready for use. During my survey, the navigation instruments were reportedly healthy and ready

to use.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

The Bridge

Main Engine appeared in clean condition



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Ships generators were in clean running condition

14.2. Basis brief inspection, the accommodation and engine room spaces with associated equipment

such as the navigational equipment and engine control room, were all to my satisfaction,

recalling the limited scope of this survey regarding above matters. The limited time that I had

during the survey, the engine spaces appeared reasonably clean and from what I could see, with

acceptable housekeeping. Fire detection and suppressant gear seemed adequate and reportedly

in working condition.

14.3. From what I could see, the fire doors and watertight doors, externally, were reportedly in good

condition.

14.4. I considered the accommodation, galley, stores and workshops in reasonably good condition

and in order, with housing keeping and cleanliness to generally good practice. The thruster

spaces with thruster engines seemed to be in good clean condition. The deck and paint stores

were in intact condition. This ship does have good engine room working spaces with tools and

adequate stores.

14.5. Externally the main engine and generators appeared to be of clean working condition. It is

beyond the scope of this survey to delve internally into the main engine records and scrutinise.

However I did ask the chief engineer some brief questions relating to maintenance with the

answers to my satisfaction.

15. Holds in general



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

15.1 The holds structurally speaking considering coamings, divisions, cell guides and bulkheads were

in reasonable condition at time of survey. The tank tops were also intact condition and with the

original paint coating remaining in working condition. Tops were clean. There were a few hidden

bends/damages to cell guides.

15.2 To reiterate, there was no SDRs remaining from previous charters.

15.3 The heeling/ballast tank tops were in reasonably good condition and clean. The hatch pontoon

rubber seals were noted to be in fair to reasonable sealing condition, notwithstanding general

wear and tear. Some centre seals were missing.

15.4 The hatch covers were in working condition. There were general throughout small knocks and

markings. The top lips of the pontoons were in reasonable condition. The pontoon locking

devices were in working condition, notwithstanding general wear and tear.

15.5 The hold equipment such as the ballast/ anti heeling pumps, bilge suction and level units were

reported to have been in serviceable operational condition.

16. Condition statement

16.1. I met with the master of ship during delivery survey and he stated that the ship was in good

order and suitable for intended trade for whom it might concern.

16.2. Generally speaking considering the age of the ship, previous trading routes and port visit

frequency, I found the ship to be reasonably clean and tidy regarding good housekeeping.

16.3. The hold cleanliness we have previously mentioned and that at the time of survey.

16.4. The holds were fit to receive containers with cell guides intact and vertical.

16.5. In general I found the ships hull in apparent general good condition. The holds structure, tank

tops, internal bulkheads were of good condition, despite some surface rusting. The decks,

superstructure and lashing materials were in good working condition, notwithstanding normal

wear tear and / or except as noted in these survey findings.

16.6. Anti heeling system reported to be working well, according chief officer.

16.7. My findings were based on visual only and did not include any form of testing. This was beyond

the survey scope.

16.8. The life saving appliances were apparently all serviced and in good preparedness condition. The

nautical publications and charts were in good condition.

16.9. As previously described, the bridge equipment was in good working condition with no reported

defects.

16.10. The primary internals of the ship construction that I could see, appeared to be of good

condition with good plating in way of the welds.

17. Lashing gear statement

17.1 A general lashing verification was performed. During my attendance I reviewed as best I could,

the quantities stated reflecting the Ships Cargo Securing Manual quota of lashing gear and

ships own inventory, dated July, 2014.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Lashing bins stowage on Deck

17.2 The lashing gear was in working condition to sustain the lashing of cargo and according to the

up to date lashing inventory provided by the ship and to retain container deck cargo from any

losses.

17.3 The ships lashing gear from turnbuckles, twist locks to lashing rods appeared to be in working

condition. The ship had adequate spares. The ships actual amount around the required quotas,

as per Ships Cargo Securing Manual (CSM), was sufficient to lash TEU and FEU container cargo

and hence ready to commence the cargo operations. See addendum to this report.

17.4 Lashing bins were in reasonable condition. Some bins had bends. The racks were in suitable

condition for stowage and lifting.

17.5 My general review of up to date ships lashing gear indicated that the ship was around same as

original required full set as per Ships Cargo Securing Manual quota. See addendum to this

report.

17.7 I advise that continued normal protocol for reporting damages and losses (use of the stevedore

damage report, SDR) be used to report such exceptions regarding lashing gear. Notwithstanding

that such reporting may require written notification by the ship to the time charterer X-Press

Feeder Lines Ltd., within 48 hours of an occurrence. This should be signed by the stevedores

from relevant port where loss took place or by the chief officer upon discovery of deficiency

after departure from particular port. As well, to stress that all losses, damages or other

exceptions should be recorded in full detail with digital pictures. This seems to be the case,

which is a good thing.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

18. Ships Statutory, Class and other certificates

18.1 During the delivery survey the hard copies of ships trading certificates were appraised and all

were in order. The ships main statutory trading certificates according to the ships hard copies of

certificates and list of dates, were in date and valid. Should be fit for any port state control.

18.2 The last class attendance was on the 16.07.2014. Annual crane survey was about this date.

19. Loss Prevention

19.1 Regarding the single point failures of this ship, the most noted and important is the single drive

train MAN B&W main engine the ship has. This drive train is the lifeline of this ship, trade and

charterer, therefore owners representatives should pay particular importance to these matters.

19.2 It is beyond the scope of this survey to have begun studying accident and machinery incident

records to see any trends of failures occurring and losses to the owners and thereafter lost time

for the time charterers.

19.3 Regarding hatch covers, the ship should repair any damaged pontoon locking devices that may

occur. As well if seals and side channels that hold sealing rubbers in place become damaged,

should be repaired as soon as possible.

19.4 The owners of this ship do have onboard a full cylinder set in the event of failure. This is good as

it allows the ship to continue trading and not incur too much down time whilst cessation of the

time charter continues through procurement and repair.

20. Conclusion

20.1 During the delivery survey, various visual spot checks (not physical tests) of fire dampers,

lifeboat, emergency generator, anti-heeling, loading computer, hold ventilation, fire detection

and suppressant gear and water tight doors were noted by me and this was to my satisfaction.

20.2 Whilst onboard the AURIGA J security level was ONE under ISPS Code directives and in

conjunction with Ships Safety Plan. This gave a sustainable base in which to carry out the survey.

20.3 During the survey, I performed a general review of the lashing gear. All was found to be in good

condition. The captain assured against the Cargo Securing Manual that there was sufficient

lashing gear for lashing of container cargo regarding ship acceleration forces particularly at bow

and at high tier heights.

20.4 The actual ships manning number at delivery was 16 persons. This is not much more than the

minimum safe manning certificate, which was at 14.

20.5 Amount of time elapsed from delivery time at CCT AFSPS, to the time completed bunker survey

onboard AURIGA J, was around 00 days 12hours and 00 minutes.

20.6. According to the time charter party directives and X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd., AURIGA J was said

to have been delivered at agreed event and about date/ time of:

30 August, 2014.

00:01 hours LT

05:01 hours LT GMT, -5Hrs, 30 August, 2014



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Range anchorage Manzanillo AFSPS, Panama,

This is to certify that the ship AURIGA J under terms, conditions and obligations of the time charter party was delivered from the respective owners, Messrs: Jungerhans Maritime Services to Messrs: X-Press Feeder Lines Ltd.

20.7. With bunker consumptions applied to delivery time on 30 August, 2014, AURIGA J had:

161.85 mt of HSIFO RMG 380

17.86 mt of LSIFO RMG 380

00.00 mt of HSMGO

63.11 mt of LSMGO DMA (less than 0.10%MM Sulphur/ refer to BDN 09248)

At time of official ship delivery.

20.8. See delivery certificate as addendum to this report.

20.10. To reiterate, BMS within the bounds of this survey, in this particular case can attest that the ship

AURIGA J was said to have been delivered within the CHARTERERS obligation as in good order

(basis delivery survey scope) and ready to receive cargo.

20.11. As far as this survey could tell recalling scope of survey, the ship was delivered in adequate

working condition regarding the safe sustainable carriage of containers as cargo.

20.12. According to the captain, owners guaranteed that AURIGA J was covered by P&I Club

insurance.

20.13. To reiterate, ships statutory trading and Class certificates were all in date and did not raise any

concerns. All in good order. According to the captain, ship had no significant open Class

conditions that had been previously imposed.

20.14. The AURIGA J at time of delivery survey carried out on the 30 August, 2014 was considered

suitable for the intended trade of current time charter to which she had been employed.

21. Enclosures

21.1 BMS Delivery Certificate

21.2 Ships lashing inventory

21.3 BDNS for HSHF, LSFO and MGO

Captain Cesar Vicente

Author of this report

BMS SA Ref: 0632-1907-2014



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

22. BMS terms and conditions

1. General

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by BMS, the Acceptance Letter (1.2.) and these Terms and Conditions shall constitute the

entire Agreement between the Client and BMS.

2. Scope of Work

(a) BMS hereby agree to provide services in accordance with the Clients instructions as set out in the Acceptance Letter (the

Services) in the 1st section of this report. See 1.2.

(b) BMS will not vary the scope of the work unless instructed to do so by the Client. Where a variation in the scope of work is requested,

BMS will advise the Client what effect this variation will have on the cost and completion date of the Services.

3. Performance

(a) BMS will provide the Services to the best of its ability, exercising reasonable care and skill at all times. All reports should be provided

directly from BMMS. In the unlikely event that BMS needs to employ sub-contractors and in the event that the sub-contractors report

directly to the Client, then BMS are under no liability to the Client for anything that is said nor for any of the matters contained in the

report of the sub-contractors.

(b) BMS shall not be liable to the Client for any failure to meet any time limit agreed for supplying the Services.

4. Liability

(a) Any errors or omissions in the Services provided by BMS will be corrected as soon as practicable and if correction is reasonable provided

the errors or omissions are reported to BMS by notice in writing within 1 month of completion of the Services. Where the notice is not

given to BMS within the time allowed, BMS shall be under no duty to make any such corrections.

(b) BMS operate in an advisory capacity at all times and are not responsible for any loss or damage that may arise when such advice is

ignored, misinterpreted or incorrectly carried out by any party or person not connected with BMS.

(c) In the event that any claim is made against BMS arising out of the Services, BMS shall under no circumstances whatsoever be liable for

an amount exceeding an amount equal to 3 times the fee paid by the Client for the relevant part of the work and in any event not

exceeding US$5,000.

(d) BMS shall have no liability in any circumstances whether in contract, tort or otherwise, including but not limited to liability for

negligence, for any loss of revenue, business, anticipated savings or profits or for any loss of use or value for any indirect or

consequential loss. Such exclusion of liability shall apply regardless of whether any such losses arise by reason of matters which might

reasonably be expected to be in the contemplation of BMS or from matters which BMS have special and particular knowledge.



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

(e) Any report reproduced or services provided in accordance with the agreed Service are intended solely for the use of the Client and will

not be further distributed, circulated or published without the express agreement of BMS in writing.

(f) Where proceedings have not been commenced in accordance with Clause 12 of these Terms & Conditions, in respect of any claim

arising out of or in connection with the Services, within 12 months after the completion of the Services, all liabilities of BMS in respect of

such claims shall automatically cease and there shall thereafter be an absolute bar to proceeding with any such claim against BMS.

5. Disclaimer

In compiling any reports, BMS may have relied on information supplied by the Client and/or by third parties which has not been verified

and BMS accept no liability for any consequences whatsoever arising from the inaccuracy of such information.

6. Prices

(a) This service has been charged at quoted amount, including administration time. Any addendums to the report also charged at $85.00

per hour.

(b) National travelling time not charged.

(c) The Client will be liable for and will reimburse BMS for all fees and expenses incurred in respect of the Services provided. BMS will not

normally provide an itemized breakdown of costs, but will be pleased to do so at the request of the Client.

7. Payment

(a) Payment is generally directly after the final report is received by the Client, unless otherwise agreed.

(b) Interim invoices will be raised on a monthly basis. Final invoices will be raised on completion of the Services. All invoices will be paid in

full directly after final report received by Client.

8. Termination

BMS have the right to terminate this Agreement where:

(a) circumstances beyond the control of BMS make it unreasonable to continue with the Services.

(b) the Client is in breach of this Agreement and fails to respond within 5 working days of written notification by BMS.

9. Law

These Terms & Conditions and all matters arising out of or in connection with them and the Services shall be subject to the Laws of

Panama and be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Panama Courts.

10. Conflict of Interest



Report N: 0632-1907-

2014

Where a potential conflict of interest arises BMS will, once they become aware of the situation, immediately advise all parties and will

take whatever steps are appropriate in the circumstances.

11. Quality of Service

If the Service falls short of the Clients expectations, the matter should be referred to a Director of BMS. The Director will make every

effort to ensure that the Clients concerns are dealt with carefully and quickly.

12. Information

(a) All information supplied by the Client will be treated as confidential by BMS.

(b) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by BMS, the ownership of, and the rights to, copyright, design or intellectual property arising out of

the Services shall remain with BMS.

13. Conflict of Interest

Where a potential conflict of interest arises BMS will, once they become aware of the situation, immediately advise all parties and will

take whatever steps are appropriate in the circumstances.

14. Quality of Service

If the Service falls short of the Clients expectations, the matter should be referred to a Director of BMS. The Director will make every

effort to ensure that the Clients concerns are dealt with carefully and quickly.

15. Information

(a) All information supplied by the Client will be treated as confidential by BMS.

(b) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by BMS, the ownership of, and the rights to, copyright, design or intellectual property arising out of

the Services shall remain with BMS.