SHELLVOY Preparation Checklist: Reconcile the Tanker Voyage Package

Key takeaways

• Identify the version instead of treating SHELLVOY as a complete contract description.
• Map attachments and amendments to the commercial issues they affect.
• Preserve the difference between a proposed instruction, a technical response and an agreed change.

Establish a dependable document hierarchy

SHELLVOY appears among the tanker voyage forms covered by BIMCO's tanker charter workshop, which specifically distinguishes versions of the form. That distinction is a useful starting point for preparation: obtain the exact form used in your negotiation. BIMCO tanker workshop programme.

Create a document index listing the recap, form, amendments, questionnaires, cargo specifications and referenced attachments. Record whether each document is agreed, proposed, informational or awaiting review. Avoid giving every attachment the same status merely because it arrived in the fixture email chain.

Ask the authorised contractual reviewer to resolve inconsistencies between documents. A coordinator can identify that two passages describe different notice recipients or different cargo options, but should not invent a hierarchy to settle the conflict. The approved resolution should be traceable to a message or revised contract document.

Keep a clean operational copy and a comparison copy. The first supports daily use; the second explains how the final package differs from the proposed form. Both should identify the same revision and be stored where the duty operator can retrieve them.

Translate the cargo programme into decision points

Prepare a cargo programme describing the intended products, parcels, loading locations and discharge options. State which details are firm and which remain subject to nomination. An unresolved option should have a decision owner and an expected information date, not an empty field that disappears from attention.

Send the programme and relevant specifications for technical assessment through established channels. Ask reviewers to identify conditions attached to their response. The commercial file should preserve those conditions alongside the response, particularly where a later cargo or port change might require reconsideration.

Track the difference between the commercial cargo name and the technical information supplied. If a revised specification arrives, record it as a revision even when the headline product name remains unchanged. This prevents an old approval from being reused for a different underlying proposal.

Where several parcels are involved, identify their document contacts separately. A single voyage may involve different shippers, surveyors or receivers whose paperwork arrives through different channels. Assigning responsibility before loading reduces the risk that one parcel's documents are mistaken for the complete voyage record.

Reconcile terminal instructions with the fixture

Terminal information often develops after the commercial outline has been agreed. Prepare a change log for new restrictions, revised arrival instructions, acceptance conditions and requested documents. Include the source and the date received so the vessel team can distinguish current instructions from superseded planning advice.

For each material change, ask two questions: has the appropriate technical team reviewed it, and does the commercial agreement need attention? A terminal request can be operationally manageable while still changing cost or time assumptions. Conversely, commercial willingness does not answer a technical suitability question.

Keep the master's and technical team's decisions within their proper authority. The coordinator's role is to make sure the right information reaches them and their response reaches the authorised commercial contact. Avoid compressing a conditional response into “all approved” in a status email.

Use a package reconciliation table

Review the table at each material nomination change. It should not become a full renegotiation exercise every time an estimated arrival changes, but changes affecting suitability, document identity or agreed commercial assumptions need explicit attention.

Give each unresolved issue a concise question. “Please check documents” is unlikely to obtain a useful answer. “Does this revised terminal condition alter the approved discharge proposal?” directs the reviewer to the decision that matters and leaves a clearer audit trail.

Prepare the evidence pathway before cargo operations

Identify where the statement of facts, terminal reports, relevant vessel records and cargo documents will come from. Record the intended distribution and the person who will chase missing material. A contract clause referring to supporting documents is difficult to administer if no one has been tasked with collecting them.

Create a record of notices and instructions with their transmission evidence. Preserve original messages where practical rather than only forwarding excerpts into a new conversation. The surrounding context can explain whether a message was a request, acknowledgement, rejection or revised proposal.

Keep a neutral event chronology during the call. Labels such as “terminal delay” may be convenient operational shorthand but can conceal several distinct events. Break the chronology into observable occurrences and link each to the available records. Later commercial review can then address the contract without asking the agent to rewrite history around a preferred result.

Fictional case: optional discharge ports and a late attachment

In this fictional case, a tanker voyage is negotiated on an identified SHELLVOY version with alternative discharge ports. After the receiver selects a terminal, a new operational attachment arrives. Its cargo-document instructions differ from the voyage orders already circulated.

The operator pauses the document instruction release and asks the responsible parties to reconcile the discrepancy. Technical personnel review the terminal information within their remit, while the chartering desk checks the commercial effect of the changed arrangement. The final instruction references the approved attachment revision.

The team also updates the parcel contact list and confirms who will provide the terminal records. This is a practical document-control result, not a declaration that the revised arrangement changes legal rights. Any such assessment remains tied to the actual agreement and the authorised review.

Common mistakes

A frequent error is treating a file attached late in negotiations as automatically agreed. Another is deleting conditions when summarising a technical response. Both can create a false impression of alignment while the underlying records show unresolved questions.

Avoid letting several “final” voyage instruction files circulate at once. Use a clear revision identifier and tell recipients what changed. Finally, do not let the form name substitute for checking notice, document and claims procedures in the actual fixture package.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.

Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.

Explore Zeaclub

Explore Zeaclub