Call us at +65 6323 7732 (24 hours)
operations@seasia-group.com

Ship Collisions: why and what’s the answer? SEA Watch July 2014

July 7, 2014
Header
Issue 11 - July 2014

Welcome to the July 2014 edition of SEA Watch with more updates and commentary on what’s happening in the world of shipping and marine insurance.

The summer solstice has passed (winter for those of us south of the equator) and we now – unbelievably - start the headlong rush towards Xmas and the end of another year. Before doing so, please be reminded that SEAsia’s old 24/7 mail address of operations@seasia-pandi .com and all associated e-mail addresses will soon be cancelled.  Please delete our old address from your system and insert operations@seasia-group.com to ensure you receive SEAsia’s immediate reply.

During a period of two weeks in January and February of this year, three serious collisions occurred off the port of Singapore. Our lead article this month looks at the on-going problem of ship collisions which, despite the IMO mandated installation of multiple anti-collision bridge devices, still continue to occur with alarming regularity. Why is this happening and what can be done to stop it? In your editor’s view, the answer lies in the urgent implementation of objective and on-going assessment of work place/ship board crew competence in a similar manner to the airline industry.

Our next article, written by SEAsia’s Director Capt Kunal and a shipping industry colleague, Capt Kartik Vaidya, Marine Manager at Eagle Bulk in Singapore, provides a topical update on the ECDIS system. ECDIS is now mandatory under SOLAS for all passenger vessels over 500 GT and this obligation will extend to tankers and cargo ships over the next few years. Don't know what ECDIS is? Haven’t thought about the implementation aspects and cost? There’s something for everyone here, including the impact on ship collision investigation, claims resolution and associated costs.

Oliver, our Transport Claims specialist, has provided Part 2 of his two part article on Incoterms and their impact on the international sale of goods and the associated transport chain. What will be explained is an interesting scenario in which the separate but related concepts of transfer of risk, transfer of title and title to sue are illustrated. A bit legalistic perhaps? Well please also consider Oliver’s views on the negative impact to you and your insurers of not understanding how and when these important events take place.

Next on offer is a short piece on the Day of the Seafarer that was celebrated on 25 June. We often forget about the importance of seafarers to our daily lives and the world economy in the maritime industry scramble to keep ship operating costs low. Perhaps we should take a moment to think about what would happen if the ships just all stopped one day.

Our final slot provides a snapshot of long serving SEAsia Network members, SEAsia Korea/KOSAC. We are very proud to have been provided with the friendship and support of Capt GC Song and his team for many years. Both SEAsia and our clients have benefited from their quick and proficient response to a wide variety of incidents from cargo damage to ship collision and pollution. Our update tells you a bit more about what SEAsia can help you with in Korea.

Read on and don’t forget we would like to hear from you as well. Is there a marine industry issue out there that’s puzzling or annoying you? Would you like to contribute an article for our now over 15,000 readers? Tell us about it by sending a note to robert@seasia-group.com

Ancient Mariner

Ship Collisions: why and what’s the answer?

Over a period of just 12 days at the beginning of this year (29 Jan to 10 Feb), three ship collisions occurred off the port of Singapore. All of them caused not only serious vessel damage but oil pollution as well.  Added together the total cost of these three incidents, inclusive of repair costs, loss of charter revenue, pollution clean up and legal expenses will no doubt be astronomic.

SEAsia, together with our strategic alliance partner, C Solutions, were engaged by one of the International Group P&I Clubs involved in one of these incidents. This provided a first hand view of the nature of the liability exposure and losses that fell on all of the P&I Clubs who responded to all three incidents.  So what went wrong? And can such exposure and losses be prevented?

Given that multiple collision scenarios occurred in Singapore waters within a very short time frame, the MPA were sensibly quick to launch a special investigation to establish the cause of the three incidents and whether there were any possible causative links between them.

The MPA’s official findings were that in all three cases, there was a lack of situational awareness by the bridge teams, including the PSA pilots, even though the MPA’s Port Operations Control Centre (POCC) had provided advisories and warnings of the traffic situation to the bridge teams. The MPA went on to say that bridge teams also did not make use of the Automatic Identification System (AIS), Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA), Radar, and Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) to avoid the collisions.

The further findings of the MPA’s Safety Review Committee were essentially that there was no systemic problem with the MPA’s POCC and that the sudden surge of collisions was not indicative of a causal connection between the surge and the growth of vessel traffic in Singapore waters. Politically correct, but not very helpful in providing a focus on the underlying problems identified, including the precise manner and extent to which they contributed. More importantly, there were no recommendations made on the steps necessary to prevent recurrence.

Ships’ bridges are today equipped with a large array of electronic navigational devices many of which, including ARPA, AIS and ECDIS, can all be used  - within the bridge team management process – as effective anti-collision devices. The problem is that such devices and the bridge team concept of clearly defined responsibilities and interaction do not work to prevent collisions if the ship’s Master and his officers are not competent within their workplace/ship board environment.

So what can be done? The P&I Clubs have long recognised the shortcomings of Flag State inspection, Class surveys and Port State Control as an effective method of assessing P&I risk in terms of ship condition, operation and crew capabilities. SEAsia, as both P&I correspondents and surveyors, have long experience of providing such P&I risk assessment services. However, your editor’s observation is that although the P&I survey checklists used by the IG Clubs and other insurers are invariably long and detailed, they do not provide a sufficient focus on establishing crew competence in that more than 80% of the checklist questions relate to ship condition and not crew competence.

Why is this in a world where almost every one knows that over 80% of all accident are caused by human error? There are of course many reasons, the first of which is that ships are required by law to be operated by people who have evidence of sea going experience and been examined and issued with a Flag State Certificate of Competence (COC). So how is a competence assessment to be made and objective judgement passed on a person who is officially deemed to be competent?

There are a number of ways in which this can be done and the airline industry provides some analogous examples. The airlines have long recognised that a pilot’s COC is essentially only the starting point in assessing on-going competence in the work place. They therefore utilise a process of pre-employment simulator checks, unannounced in-flight cockpit audits conducted by senior pilot instructors, along with regular simulator flight crew checks, to ensure skills competence and adherence to regulations and standard safety procedures. They no doubt also download and audit post flight ‘black box’ data to ensure that ‘near misses’ are reported and procedures amended to prevent recurrence,

So could the maritime industry replicate similar loss prevention processes? Yes, and to some degree – as experienced by SEAsia’s Capt Kunal - this is already happening inside well managed and safety conscious shipping companies by way of post voyage checks conducted by compliance superintendents on downloaded ECDIS recordings and VDR data (the marine equivalent of the ‘black box’).  However, such recorded data hazard checks are not compulsory and probably now extend to only a very small percentage of the ships and crews currently at sea.

As for regular and unannounced audits on Master’s, ships officer’s and bridge team  work place/shipboard competence, this is not a specific part of the current ISM Code or internal audit requirements. It therefore seems unlikely that such a process is a routine part of today’s ‘bottom line cost’ ship management routine. Also, as noted above, it is certainly not a part of the ‘ship static’ checklist inspection job assigned to a P&I ship condition surveyor.

As SEAsia sees it, the number of collisions, groundings and other very expensive navigational incidents could be significantly reduced if the maritime industry were prepared to look more closely at the airline industry for inspiration and technical guidance. In particular, this would be with respect to the assessment of not just the validity of a seafarer’s COC and number of years of experience, but his actual demonstrated work place/shipboard competence in a non-static situation as well.

Yes, this would all require the investment of time, money and determination to implement. Positively labeled as a competence ‘strengths and weaknesses’ assessment process for ship’s crew, it could be accomplished in combination with targeted skills upgrading. This would fix the problem instead of relying on “well the Master had a valid COC” excuses after a collision.

Our bet is that the liability costs of the three collisions off Singapore earlier this year have already amounted to much more than the price of initiating a positive fix. And what’s the payoff for the workplace competence audit process suggested above?  Instead of receiving a politically correct enquiry report, the maritime industry and their insurers would undoubtedly be provided with a long term and significant financial return. So is there anyone brave enough to try it? Or should we just wait for more incidents like the one on 10 Feb 2014 between the “Harmonium Thracium” and the “Zoey” shown in the attached video?

ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System):  what it is, what it does and what it’s not

ECDIS implementation for existing vessels starts this year with existing Passenger Vessels being the first that need to comply no later than their first survey after 1st July 2014.  Existing Tankers over 3,000 DWT will similarly have to fall into line by 1st July 2015, followed by Cargo Vessels in the following years. By 1st July 2018 it will be mandatory for all Passenger Vessels, Tankers and Cargo Ships over 10,000 GT to install an approved ECDIS on board together with appropriate back up facilities. Shipowners need to be ready and in this article we will discuss some important issues which relate to the mandatory requirements for ECDIS installation.

SEA Watch Readers from a non-marine background may be unsure as to what ECDIS actually is. As suggested by its full name, an Electronic Chart Display and Information System is first a computer based Electronic Navigational Chart (ENC) replacement for current paper charts. Second, it’s a system that displays the ENC information together with integrated own ship position information from GPS, own ship's compass heading and speed data.  Other data that can be interfaced with an ECDIS display are Radar, Navtex, AIS (Automatic Identification System), Sailing Directions and Depth Sounder.

The design purpose of ECDIS is to display, on one single and integrated screen, all navigational chart information together with real time dynamic data from the separate positional, speed, water depth, radar and anti-collision devices installed on the ship’s bridge. This consolidation of critical information is designed to assist the mariner in making important navigational decisions, especially when navigating in heavy traffic in constrained waters such as the Singapore and Malacca Straits.

ECDIS has been available for a number of years and thousands of such units are already installed on ships worldwide, particularly on board intrinsically high risk vessels such as cruise ships and large  tankers.  However, as noted above, ECDIS installation is now compulsory under SOLAS and will extend to virtually all commercial vessels within the next few years.  It is therefore necessary for ship-owners and ship managers to make early and informed decisions about the choice of ECDIS units most suitable for their fleets as well as the essential training of their crews in accordance with IMO Model Course 1.27 on Operational Use of Electronic Chart Display and Information System.

An important aspect of choosing an ECDIS unit is the level and scope of the manufacturer’s integrated backup services.  Look for a manufacturer who can not only provide the equipment but also a high level of worldwide repair services.  Future hardware and software upgrade support, including Admiralty Chart digital products like AVCS, are also important.  Other critical considerations include ensuring that the very detailed IMO Performance Standards for ECDIS are met in full.  Finally, to save on retrofit costs, it is essential to ensure the compatibility of the selected ECDIS unit with the pre-existing bridge equipment including GPS, Gyro, Radar, AIS etc.

After conducting their initial assessment on ECDIS unit compatibility, IMO approval and of course price, ship owners/managers will need to assess the most cost effective arrangements and timing for installation and payment terms. Bearing in mind the on-going poor chartering market, many ship owners will no doubt wish to delay installation until closer to the deadline date for mandatory ECDIS application to their fleet.However, if this ‘delay until the last minute’ option is selected, consideration should be given to the loss of bargaining power and short supply which may arise in a scenario where orders are being placed in a ‘sellers market’ filled with many other owners doing the same thing. Not a good position to be in, with potential price hikes and equipment compromises then being forced on owners, along with installation delays and associated costs.

So what’s the sensible option? Plan to implement ECDIS into your fleet in stages, well ahead of the deadline, so as to optimise unit choice, competitive price and installation time as well as essential crew training and familiarisation. Some ECDIS manufacturers will assist this process by offering a “pay as you go” leasing option which provides cost spreading assistance to help smooth a ship owner’s operating budget. As an example, the monthly payment would then extend to 5 years (much like a photo copier contract) after which a new hardware will be supplied to your vessel. So look at the figures, discuss with your managers and accountant and then decide.

Once an ECDIS system is up and running, it of course needs to be provided with the necessary charts along with regular Notices to Mariners updates. Many chart suppliers are now offering Admiralty Vector Chart Services (AVCS) service for a fixed fee for a period of one year. Part of this process includes “permit optimization” such that, based on the ship’s declared regular trading area, unnecessary permit cells are not delivered to the vessel. The requisite ENC’s are available in various forms including Berthing, Harbour, Approach, Coastal, General and Overview. The optimization process removes charts for ports that the vessel will not normally call at.  It is therefore important that the Master and deck officers are aware of the optimization process so as to allow  an electronic request for any necessary additional permits to be be made at the pre-voyage passage planning stage.

As with all electronic navigational aids, mariners must exercise caution when using the ECDIS as the equipment is designed to enhance but not supplant the knowledge or decision making process of the navigating officer.  Based on current experience, the following risk issues seem to be common and must be addressed by the navigating officer and the entire bridge team.

  • Officer of the Watch (OOW) not using an alternate and independent means to double check the position of the vessel.
  • OOW not familiar with manual plotting or use of position lines to plot radar range and bearings.
  • OOW not familiar with the updating process for electronic charts.
  • Function of Admiralty Information Overlay (AIO) not available or not understood.
  • ‘No Go’ areas, parallel indexing parameters & precautionary areas not marked on electronic charts.
  • OOW not familiar with safety settings such as Safety and Shallow Contours.
  • Sensor failure emergency procedures not understood e.g. if the GPS unit fails, the OOW must go to settings and manually select the second GPS input.

With reference to the reduction of P&I risk and exposure, ECDIS is not limited to providing real time information for navigational purposes. An important feature of ECDIS is the role it can play in the accuracy and objectivity of collision accident evidence collection and investigations.  The key here is that an ECDIS is able to store files containing all navigational data for a period of up to 90 days. The recording feature can then play back all the information that was available on the ECDIS display at any given moment. This will include own vessel information such as course, speed, type of display selected, own vessel track, errors in the system if any, alarms sounded, along with input data from other devices paired to ECDIS. On top of this the ECDIS will also show radar and AIS overlay, provided these inputs were pre-selected by the bridge watch keeper.

In short, it can be seen that the data stored in an ECDIS system can either prove a vessel’s innocence or guilt in any given situation. Further such data will be considered as being discoverable by opponent lawyers in common law jurisdictions such as Singapore. The upside is that ECDIS data can provide a quick and reliable assessment of how and why an incident occurred which, along with VDR (‘black box’) recordings, will simplify the often long, drawn out and invariably expensive process of collision investigation and the assessment of apportionment of blame. Oh yes, and don’t ever intentionally delete your ECDIS data or you will be faced with a negative inference of guilt which will used against you.

It can be seen that ECDIS provides a huge upgrade to electronic aids to navigation as it displays a continuous real time position of the vessel on an updated chart, along with all of the other essential data required to navigate safely on a single screen.  As such, it reduces the essential data collation and management burden on the OOW  (often the only person on the bridge), giving him more time to assess and respond in an early and positive manner to a developing danger. However, Masters and OOW’s must exercise caution in the use of ECDIS equipment and to do this they must fully understand its capabilities and limitations.

In conclusion, it is incumbent on ship owners and managers to not only make the right choices with respect to ECDIS unit selection and installation, but to also ensure that their crews know how to properly utilise ECDIS as an electronic aid. What does this mean? Simply this: ECDIS is not a replacement for navigational competence and good seamanship. If you think it is, then ECDIS could  eventually cost you and your insurers more than you ever dreamed of.

   Incoterms and International Trade – Part 2

Part 1 of this article, published in SEA Watch’s June 2014 edition, outlined the trading industry’s common language, Incoterms.  Part 2 now seeks to explain how the use of the Incoterms impacts on the sale and transport of goods with respect to the transfer of risk (which relates to custody and possession), the transfer of title (which relates to property and ownership) and, ultimately, title to sue.

Incoterms rules are actually silent on when the title to goods passes from seller to buyer. Accordingly, this issue needs to be defined separately in the sales contract. Incoterms are therefore essentially concerned with the nature of the transport arrangements, inclusive of custody and possession and the associated transfer of risk under the terms of the associated transport contract.

In the domestic trades, the risk and title to goods will typically pass from the seller to the buyer at a single moment in time, most commonly when the goods are either collected or delivered. On the other hand, in international trade, the transfer of risk and property will not usually occur at the same time. Thus, while the risk in a sale involving shipment of the goods passes when the goods are loaded on to a truck for carriage to port for loading on board a ship, the property in the goods may have already passed or may be intended to pass at a later stage, depending on the terms of the underlying sales agreement between seller and buyer.  So what is the impact of these different timings?

When using the word “risk”, we are referring to the risk of loss or damage to the goods while they are in transit. In terms of “title to goods”, we are talking about the ownership of the goods (which will change when payment has been made) and which is normally the test for whether a claimant has title to sue. Further, it would appear that there is an intrinsic link between the two concepts (one of which is regulated by Incoterms and one of which is not). For the buyer, the importance is whether he remains liable to pay the seller under the sales contract despite the goods having been damaged and or lost in transit before payment.  Reciprocally, for the seller, it refers to the question of whether he can still seek payment.

Imagine a seller/shipper contracts with an NVOC for the shipment of goods by sea from A to B. The NVOC subsequently issues a bill of lading for the ocean carriage. The goods are lost at sea. The seller/shipper may now wish to seek compensation for the loss from the NVOC. He may do so only if he has a title to sue by right of having title to the goods as well as being ‘on risk’.

The resulting issue is that if the goods were sold on “shipment” terms (that transferred the risk from Shipper to Buyer upon delivery of the goods to the NVOC), the Shipper is not entitled to seek compensation. He has no loss due to the cargo being lost at sea because he still remains entitled to collect full payment from the buyer, even though he may have paid the freight. The title to sue the NVOC is instead with the consignee, who can demand compensation but still remains liable to pay the seller.

If, by mistake, the cargo insurer then indemnifies the shipper for the loss and later attempts to recover against the NVOC, the subrogated insurer inherits the same rights as the party the insurer has indemnified (i.e. the shipper). The cargo insurer would then face the same difficulty as the shipper in establishing title to sue because he was not ‘on risk’ when the loss occurred.

But why would a cargo insurer indemnify the shipper for such a loss? As mentioned, it might be by mistake of the insurers, or circumstances where the insurer agreed reimbursement because the shipper had already paid the consignee for the loss. Or the cargo policy might have had a coverage extension (sellers risk) that allows for the shipper to claim even though he was not on risk.

For an NVOC (as a contractual carrier) a significant danger arises that if he wrongly accepts notice of cargo damage from a party not actually on risk for the transit, then any subsequent recovery by the NVOC or his liability insurers against the actual ocean carrier may be significantly prejudiced. This is because Hague Visby Rules require that a notice of loss be given within 3 working days to avoid a presumption in favour of the carrier that the goods were delivered in sound condition. If this time limit is missed, then any recovery action would be similarly prejudiced. Further, the Hague Visby 1 year time limit could also present a serious barrier to recovery against the ocean carrier/offending party.

In summary, and with respect to international trade, evidence of title to goods by itself may not necessarily generate a title to sue so as to entitle a claim for loss or damage against an NVOC. Also, paying for freight does not mean that the shipper/paying party is automatically on risk for the goods in transit. An NVOC should therefore first verify the entitlement of any claimant to pursue a claim before accepting it so as to avoid compromising recovery options against the actual carrier and party at fault.

By way of practical advice, NVOC’s should therefore respond to all claims (regardless of customer relationships) by simply acknowledging receipt on a clearly stated “Without Prejudice and Without Acceptance of Liability” basis. You should then consult immediately with your liability insurers and the experienced claims team at SEAsia.  We will always be pleased to assist in analysing exposure and then actioning an appropriate and considered  response.

Day of the Seafarer: lest we forget 

For those of you who may have missed it, the IMO’s Day of the Seafarer was on 25 June. This year’s theme was to focus on what we would not have in our homes if it were not for the work of seafarers. The answer? Not much.

We have posted a Day of the Seafarer personal note from the IMO’s Secretary General on our SEAsia Facebook page You will also find copies of past SEA Watch articles as well.

Please also take a look at the Day of the Seafarer Facebook page as well. It’s a great place to see some informal photos of  the world’s 1.5 million seafarers at work moving 90% of the world’s cargo each year. The photos remind your editor of his many happy and often eventful years at sea.

So why did your editor give seafaring up and move ashore to learn another trade? For much the same reason that seafarers still do today. Primarily, the isolation from family and friends and the normalcy of life and social interaction as we all expect it should be. To paraphrase the great American writer and humourist, Mark Twain, “a life at sea is a bit like being incarcerated with the chance of drowning thrown in.” Not quite that bad, but isolation is a key factor.

Working conditions for seafarers have greatly improved since the days when your editor signed on as a Cadet with the Blue Star Line at the princely sum of GBP 4.00 per month. However, it has taken far too long to reach the current stage where well run and progressive shipping companies now treat and care for their seafarers as valuable human capital and not as cocoa nuts to be found lying in great numbers at the bottom of a 3rd world palm tree.

Regrettably, the words “well run and progressive” do not yet apply to the majority of shipping companies in the world. Accordingly, there are still daily abuses of seafarers in terms of pay, conditions of employment and the often unhygienic and unsafe condition of the ships on which they are engaged. The upside, as many of us will be aware of, is that the ILO finally got its act together to produce the Maritime Labour Convention that has been ratified by a large number of flag states and will officially enter into force next month.

The MLC is not a ‘silver bullet’ solution but it does go a long way to providing a mandatory ‘smarten up and get your act together’ process for crewing agents, ship managers and ship owners worldwide. It also has the added advantage of being enforceable by way of the global Port State Control (PSC) inspection process which cannot be avoided regardless of a ship’s flag. If owners and ship managers do not comply, then the PSC sanction is that the vessel can be detained until rectified.

The PSC detention threat has already succeeded in engaging maritime industry brains worldwide so the MLC is off to a good start. Further, its implementation should impact positively on seafarer rights and working conditions. Let’s hope so as the on-going attrition of qualified seafarers is a serious industry problem which impacts on everyone, including ship owners, managers, charterers, traders, insurers and eventually consumers. Why?  Because without ships and the people who run them, the world as we know it could not continue to run for more than just a few weeks.

So please take a moment to think about seafarers and what they do for you and your family to enjoy the kind of daily life that, due to their isolation, seafarers cannot share.

SEAsia’s network Partner in Korea: SEAsia Korea/KOSAC

This month’s network focus is on SEAsia Korea/KOSAC that operates from the major South Korean port of Seoul, with sub offices at the ports of Pyongtaek, Gunsan, Busan, Yeosu, Gwangyang and Ulsan.

KOSAC was established in 2003 by Captain GC Song. SEAsia are pleased to note that we were capably assisted by Capt Song for several years before this, when he was working with another group of marine surveyors. So our personal history and working relationship goes back over many years.

Capt Song’s company includes many senior surveyors with up to 20 years of experience behind them. This of course provides a firm technical skills base for  KOSAC’s younger team who are being mentored and trained to maintain high standards.  As an example, this month’s network team photo shows the KOSAC team attending an in house training seminar on the conduct of warranty surveys. It's a complex subject and there’s no room for error.

KOSAC offer a wide range of marine survey services covering all aspects of P&I and H&M work. These include hull damage inspection and investigation as to cause,  cargo pre-load surveys, cargo damage assessment, oil/gas/petrochemical surveys as well as pre entry surveys for P&I clubs. Indeed, one of the special skills which has impressed SEAsia is their ability to assess and control damage claims arising as a consequence of ship contact damage to floating seaweed and other aquaculture farms which are numerous and usually unlighted in Korean coastal waters.

KOSAC’s clients include many name brand insurers such as Allianz, Baominh, Lloyds and QBE as well as P&I clubs North of England, West of England and Japan Club.

As to the country in which KOSAC/SEAsia Korea must operate, the coastline is long and port facilities are numerous such that their strategically placed sub office operating concept  - with KOSAC’s hub control located in Seoul  - speeds response time and reduces travel costs significantly. Rapid response time and prompt reporting are of course both key elements in P&I work and KOSAC/SEAsia Korea have never let us or our clients down, regardless of the day or unsociable time of instruction.

Local knowledge and contacts are also an important issue, which can help to provide a reliable ‘on the ground’ situational snapshot and are often helpful in promoting site access and co-operation from officials and even claims opponents. Again, on this front, Capt Song and his team have always excelled.

As reported in June’s SEA Watch, Korea has recently experienced the unfortunate sinking of the ferry “Sewol” with the loss of many young lives. Capt Song confirms that the Korean government have viewed this incident as a major wake up call in relation to the Korean standards for the inspection of coastal vessel. This being the case, there is little doubt that sweeping changes to the official bodies considered responsible will be made to raise standards and prevent recurrence.

As to Korea’s future as a maritime nation going forward, times are still tough in the shipping industry as they are everywhere.  However, Korea is now seen as a major player in the high tech segment of the ship building industry with orders booked for deep water offshore vessels and LNG ships taking precedence over simpler ships built in China. So the future looks bright in this bustling nation which has seen a massive expansion of its economy and world influence over the past few decades. If President Park can now help to influence China and North Korea in their provision of a calmer and more pragmatic approach to current territorial disputes along maritime borders, the Asian Region and the world will be a better place for it.

From left, back row: WJ Jeong, JP Kim, YC Kim, Capt. HJ Park, SJ Kim, SC Lee, JH Lee, JH Ji (G. Manager), BG Yoon (Admin. Manager)

From left, front row: HK Park (Kwangyang Br. Manager), Capt. JJ Kim (G. Manager), Capt. OC Moon (Busan Br. Manager/Director), Capt. GC Song (M. Director), Capt. IH Chang (Director/Chief Surveyor) , YJ Lee (Ulsan/Pohang Br. Manager)

SEAsia's 24-Hour Number : +65 6323 7732

https://www.seasia-group.com

Like us on Facebook

Download SEAsia Brochure

Copyright 2014 SEAsia Claims Services. All Rights Reserved.

We'd like to receive your feedback. Please click here and write to us.

Forward SEA Watch to a friend