Speed, consumption and deviation claims
Clause-led voyage reconstruction and technical voyage performance analysis for owners, charterers and operators. We establish what the data and the charterparty actually support.
Fictional vessel, voyage and figures, created to show the structure of the report.
View the full sample reportEvery analysis begins with the charterparty, not a template
We do not apply one generic performance formula. The speed and consumption warranties are read as agreed, and the analysis is configured to that wording before any conclusion is reached: the warranted figures, the about allowances, the Beaufort and Douglas limits, how sea and swell are treated, and whether currents are adjusted for in one direction or both.
The same applies to the rules that decide how the result may be calculated at all: how long a good-weather period must run, whether it must be measured noon to noon, how ECA and non-ECA consumption are separated, and whether the clause permits extrapolation across the voyage or restricts the result to the qualifying periods.
The report shows how the agreed definition was translated into the analysis, so the basis of the result can be checked rather than taken on trust.
The situations this usually starts from
Post-fixture claims work is rarely planned. It arrives with a deduction, a report or a disagreement about what the weather actually was.
A deduction has landed
A speed or consumption claim has been received on a completed voyage and a response is needed.
A counterparty report to review
The claim arrives with a weather-routing or performance report, and the methodology behind it has to be assessed.
Good weather is disputed
The parties agree on the clause but not on which periods of the voyage actually qualify under it.
Currents, swell or extrapolation
The disagreement sits in the technical detail: hourly currents, favourable currents, swell height and direction, or a result extended beyond the qualifying periods.
A deviation or bunker loss
The voyage has to be reconstructed before the loss can be described, quantified and discussed.
A clause to review before fixture
A performance warranty is checked before it is agreed, so what it will mean in practice is understood in advance.
From the clause to a quantified result
Five steps, in this order. Nothing is calculated before the basis for calculating it has been established.
Review the charterparty
The agreed warranties, allowances, weather limits, duration requirements, current treatment and calculation rules are identified and written down.
Reconstruct the voyage
The sailed route, vessel reports, AIS positions, hindcast wind, sea, swell and currents are aligned hour by hour along the track.
Test the performance
Qualifying periods are identified under the agreed definition, and actual performance in those periods is compared with the warranty.
Quantify the result
Time lost or gained and fuel over-consumption or under-consumption are calculated, with the allowances applied and every step shown.
Support the response
We explain the findings, comment on counterparty calculations and stay available through correspondence, negotiation, Club review or arbitration.
The voyage, the weather and the evidence behind both
Four areas come together in every analysis. Each is only as useful as the others: contractual wording without reconstructed conditions proves nothing, and reconstructed conditions without the wording answer the wrong question.
Charterparty terms
Warranted speed and consumption, about allowances, good-weather definitions, duration and consecutive-period requirements, current clauses, ECA treatment and whether extrapolation is permitted.
Voyage performance
Distance and time, speed over ground and through water, propeller slip, engine load and RPM, fuel consumption by consumer, ECA operation and the reported voyage events.
Weather and ocean conditions
Hindcast wind, sea state, swell height and direction, combined wave height, and the hourly effect of ocean and tidal currents along the sailed route.
Supporting evidence
Noon reports, deck and engine logs, AIS history, existing routing reports, bunker and ROB records, surveys and the counterparty calculations themselves.
Definitions decide outcomes. The Douglas scale separates sea state from swell, and swell is described by height, direction and length, so which of these the clause actually refers to can determine whether a period qualifies at all.
The same voyage, three different answers
Performance clauses range from standard wording to highly restrictive drafting, and the difference is not cosmetic. Each element added narrows the periods that qualify and the adjustments allowed, so the same voyage data can support a claim under one clause and none at all under another.
This is why the analysis is configured from your clause before anything is calculated. We identify which elements your charterparty actually contains, apply those and no others, and state in the report which definition was used.
| Element | Standard | Restrictive | Highly restrictive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good weather definition | |||
| Beaufort 4 | ● | ● | ● |
| Douglas sea state 3 | ● | ● | ● |
| No adverse current | ● | ● | ● |
| No negative influence of swell | – | ● | ● |
| Significant wave height up to 1.25 m | – | ● | ● |
| Combined wave height up to 1.25 m | – | ● | ● |
| Sea plus swell, maximum wave height | – | – | ● |
| Sea water temperature 28 °C | – | – | ● |
| Performance analysis | |||
| About definition, speed | ● | ● | ● |
| About definition, consumption | ● | ● | ● |
| Noon to noon | ● | ● | ● |
| 24 hours consecutive good weather | – | ● | ● |
| Minimum good weather for the voyage | – | ● | ● |
| Even keel | – | – | ● |
| No adjustment for favourable currents | – | – | ● |
| Summer draft | – | – | ● |
| No extrapolation allowed | – | – | ● |
Indicative tiering. The elements that apply are read from the charterparty in each case, and clauses regularly combine them in ways that do not follow these three columns.
A claim arrived with a report. Is the method sound?
For most operators the immediate question is not "please produce a report". It is that a claim has been received, a supporting analysis came with it, and someone has to judge whether the method behind it holds and how to respond.
We review the counterparty analysis against the charterparty and against the reconstructed conditions, and set out what stands, what does not, and what would need to be shown before the figure could be accepted.
Was the contractual weather definition applied, or a general good-weather standard that the parties never agreed?
Was a consecutive-period requirement respected, or replaced by averages across periods that never qualified?
Were currents assessed hourly, and were favourable currents included where the clause excludes them?
Was swell assessed by height, direction and length, or reduced to a single sea-state figure?
Was the result extrapolated across the voyage where the charterparty does not provide for it, and is the underlying data actually there to support the conclusion?
Where a report moves from technical analysis into advocacy, or leaves out information the conclusion depends on, we say so plainly and show what the data supports instead.
What you receive
A claims summary you can send on, and the full analysis behind it: the charterparty definition applied, the reconstructed voyage, the qualifying periods, the weather and current analysis, and every calculation set out step by step, together with the assumptions and limitations. After delivery we stay involved, commenting on counterparty responses and supporting the correspondence.
Fictional vessel, voyage and figures, created to show the structure of the report.
View the full sample reportThe answer is not decided in advance
Three illustrative outcomes. We are not here to defend or to press claims; we establish what the data and the charterparty support, and that cuts in every direction.
Underperformance established
Three qualifying periods over 42.5 hours showed a performance speed 0.39 knots below the permitted figure, giving 1.3 hours of time lost and 1.4 mt of VLSFO over-consumption within those periods.
No qualifying period
The voyage contained no consecutive good-weather period of the required length, so the claimed figure, extrapolated across the whole passage, had no basis in the clause.
No deduction supported
The qualifying periods showed the vessel at 13.1 knots against 13.0 warranted, with consumption inside the about allowance, and the analysis was used to answer the claim.
Illustrative examples with fictional figures. No client, vessel, route or commercial dispute is represented.
Evidence-led, not outcome-led
The work is done by people who have run voyages and handled claims, using the same voyage data, weather and models that our optimization service runs on every day. We act for owners, charterers, operators and managers, and the method does not change with the side of the table.
We work alongside your P&I Club, legal counsel and appointed experts, providing the technical layer they need: a reconstruction that holds up, calculations that can be followed, and a clear account of what the data does and does not show.
We provide the voyage reconstruction, technical analysis and documented calculations needed to evaluate and respond to a claim. Legal interpretation, advocacy and dispute strategy remain with the client, its Club, legal counsel and other appointed experts. Methodologies differ in performance disputes and a tribunal is not obliged to accept any routing report as a default standard; additional technical data may be required, and the reliability of any conclusion depends on the underlying data, assumptions and methodology.
What to send us
Send what you have. The charterparty recap and the relevant clauses matter most, followed by the claim itself and the voyage data. We will tell you quickly whether there is a case to make or answer, and what else would be needed.
Send us the recap, the claim and the voyage data, and we will tell you what the analysis supports.
Submit a claim for review