ASBATANKVOY Preparation Checklist for a Tanker Voyage

Key takeaways

• Do not assume every ASBATANKVOY fixture uses the same edition.
• Separate terminal acceptance, cargo compatibility and commercial agreement.
• Prepare the records needed to explain pumping and terminal delays without prejudging claims.

Identify the form before reviewing amendments

BIMCO and ASBA published ASBATANKVOY 2025 as an update to the earlier tanker voyage form. Their announcement explains that the revision addresses modern tanker trade and contractual practices. The preparation file should therefore state which edition is proposed rather than simply recording the code name. BIMCO and ASBA announcement.

Obtain an authorised copy together with the full rider set, recap and any incorporated specifications. Compare amendments against the actual edition. A rider created for an older form may contain cross references or assumptions that require review before reuse. Do not fix those inconsistencies by intuition; send them to the person responsible for the negotiated wording.

Prepare a short index showing where cargo description, quantity, freight, ports, readiness, pumping and claims procedures are addressed. This is more useful to operations than a long undifferentiated bundle. It also identifies provisions that appear in several documents and may need reconciliation.

Assemble a cargo package suitable for technical review

The cargo package should identify the product precisely enough for the vessel and terminal teams to assess the proposal. Obtain the relevant specifications, handling information, intended quantity basis and any segregation requirements. Record who supplied the information and whether the cargo description is final or awaiting confirmation.

Ask technical reviewers which additional information they need about the proposed cargo sequence and tank arrangements. Commercial staff should coordinate that exchange without issuing their own compatibility or cleaning instructions. A statement that a tanker has previously carried a similarly named product is not a substitute for review of the actual proposal.

Link the cargo package to the nomination process. If the product specification changes after the vessel has been considered, flag the change explicitly and seek an updated response. Keeping an old acceptance email beside a revised cargo attachment can give a misleading impression that the revised proposal was reviewed.

Distinguish acceptance channels at the terminal

Prepare a list of approvals and confirmations expected for the intended terminal. Record the vessel identity, terminal identity, cargo proposal and dates covered by each response. A commercial counterparty's acceptance of a nomination, a terminal's operational confirmation and a separate vetting decision may address different questions. Do not collapse them into one green status field.

Gather the terminal's information on the planned connection and cargo-transfer arrangements for competent review. Ask who will provide updated restrictions and how changes will reach the vessel. Keep advice attributed to its source; an agent's preliminary summary should not acquire the status of a terminal instruction through repeated forwarding.

Where discharge remains optional between terminals, prepare a gap list for each plausible option. This helps negotiators understand what remains open without requiring the operations team to pretend the options are equivalent. Technical feasibility and commercial allocation should both be resolved through their respective approval routes.

Make the pre-voyage checklist evidence based

For each item, record the person responsible for the next action. A checklist becomes useful when it distinguishes a missing document from a substantive objection. The former may need follow-up with the shipper; the latter may need a commercial change or a technical decision.

Avoid marking an item complete because an attachment exists. Confirm that it relates to the current ship, cargo and intended call. Tanker files often contain familiar questionnaires and recurring forms, so version and applicability checks are particularly valuable.

Prepare the cargo-operation record without prescribing operations

Agree how the commercial team will obtain the statement of facts, terminal records, relevant ship records and correspondence about interruptions. The precise technical reporting should be set by competent personnel. Commercial preparation should ensure the records can later be connected to the correct operation and time reference.

For a pumping-related issue, a single completion timestamp rarely explains the whole event. Preserve the sequence of terminal requests, reported restrictions, stoppages and resumptions, together with the available supporting records. Do not label a period as vessel-caused or shore-caused solely from a brief agent message.

Identify who can request missing terminal documents before the ship departs. Once personnel change shifts and the cargo call closes, obtaining a clear explanation may become harder. A named document contact and an agreed distribution list improve the chance that the commercial file reflects what participants actually recorded at the time.

Fictional case: a revised product specification

In this fictional case, an operator prepares an ASBATANKVOY voyage for a clean petroleum parcel. The chartering file contains a vessel acceptance message and an earlier product specification. Shortly before nomination closes, the shipper issues a revised specification under the same general product name.

The preparer notices that the acceptance predates the revision and keeps the nomination status open. The vessel and terminal teams review the updated package through their normal channels. Commercial staff examine whether any resulting conditions require an agreed amendment rather than quietly inserting them into voyage instructions.

The final handover links the accepted cargo revision, terminal response and contract package. It also names the people who will collect transfer and interruption records. The benefit is traceability: no one has to infer which specification was considered or assume that an earlier email covers the later change.

Common mistakes

Using the code name without the edition can send reviewers to the wrong wording. Reusing a rider without checking its references compounds that problem. Maintain an edition field in the recap index and compare the rider package before release.

Another mistake is interpreting every acceptance as approval of every operational detail. Record scope and conditions explicitly. Finally, avoid writing technical explanations into a claim file before the relevant specialists have reviewed the records. A neutral chronology is more useful than a premature conclusion that later evidence cannot support.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.

Zeaclub provides 24/7 operating systems and worldwide coverage.

Explore Zeaclub

Learn about Zeaclub