CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 3/16/2010 

Claim Number : N08057-033

Claimant : MUR Shipping B.V. 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Loss of Profits and Earning Capacity 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $119,026.66

I. Facts

On the morning of July 23, 2008, the tank barge DM 932 sank as a result of a collision and 

discharged oil into the Mississippi River, a navigable waterway of the United States. 

Approximately 282,828 gallons oil1 were released into the Mississippi River and the resulting 

spill response, coordinated by the FOSC Unified Command, initially closed the river to vessel 

traffic and later, when reopened, managed traffic. 

II. Responsible Party

American Commercial Lines LLC (ACL), the Responsible Party (RP), owned the barge at the 

time of the incident and is a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act. 

III. The Claimant and the Claim

Murphy, Rogers, Sloss and Gambel (Murphy et al) has submitted a claim into the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for their client, MUR Shipping BV, Amsterdam (MUR). At the 

time of the collision, the M/V Siam Jade was being chartered by MUR2

under a New York 

Produce Exchange Time Charter. At the time of the spill, the M/V Siam Jade was at Southwest 

Pass, with a scheduled intended berth at Global Plex Terminal at 0900 hours on July 24, 2008. 

The captain of the Siam Jade confirmed that the berth was vacant and ready to accept the vessel 

at this time; however, as a direct result of the oil spill, the vessel was unable to berth until July 

28, 2008, at 1512 hours.3 

The charter agreement between the two parties (MUR and Siam Jewels Maritime Limited (Siam 

Jewels)) was set at $26,269.40 per day (although, according to the Hire Statement provided by 

MUR, they were charged $26,663.44 per day4), including overtime, payable fifteen days in 

advance.5 The M/V Siam Jade was delayed at Southwest Pass for a total of 4.1806 days. MUR 

is claiming a direct income loss of $111,469.18 for this time period. Additionally, during these 

4.1806 days, MUR claims the vessel consumed one metric ton of MDO fuel and one metric ton 

of IFO, increasing costs by $7,557.48. When the income loss and increased bunker expenses are 

combined, MUR’s claim totals $119,026.66. 

IV. APPLICABLE LAW

 

1

 See House Subcommittee Hearing on DM 932 Oil Spill, dated 9/15/2008 

2

 See Time Charter between Siam Jewels Maritime Limited and MUR, submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the 

NPFC on 6/04/2009 

3

 See Statement of Facts, submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the NPFC on 6/04/2009 

4

 See Hire Statement, dated July 15, 2008, submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the NPFC on 6/04/2009 

5

See Clause 75, “Hire Details,” of the charter between MUR and Siam Jewels, submitted with the claim by Murphy 

et al for MUR to the NPFC on 6/04/2009 
In general, claims for the removal costs or damages must first be presented to the RP per 33 USC 

2713(a). If the RP denies the claim or does not settle the claim within ninety days, the claimant 

may commence an action in court against the RP or present the claim to the Fund. 33 USC 

2713(c)

The uses of the OSTLF are described at 33 USC 2712(a). It provides in relevant part that:

“The Fund shall be available to the President for the payment of claims in accordance with 

section 2713 of this title for uncompensated removal costs determined by the President to 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan or uncompensated damages.”

Damages include damages for loss of profits or earnings capacity as a result of loss or 

destruction or real or personal property or natural resources. 33 USC 2702(b)(E) Damages are 

further defined to include the costs of assessing the damages. 33 USC 2701(5)

Damage claims must be presented within 3 years after the date on which the injury and its 

connection with the discharge in question were reasonably discoverable with the exercise of due 

care. 33 USC 2717 (h)(2)

In any case in which the president has paid an amount from the Fund for any removal costs or 

damages specified under subsection (a), no other claim may be paid from the Fund for the same 

removal costs or damages. 33 USC 2712 (i)

Congress directed the President to promulgate regulations “for the presentation, filing, 

processing, settlement, and adjudication of claims...” 33 USC 2713 (e) Those regulations are 

found at 33 CFR part 136.

Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) & 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing all 

evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support 

the claim. Further, a claim presented to the Fund should include, as applicable:

“the reasonable costs incurred by the claimant in assessing the damages claimed. This 

includes the reasonable costs of estimating the damages claimed, but not attorney’s fees 

or other administrative costs associated with the preparation of the claim.” 33 CFR 

136.105(e)(8).”

With regard to claims for loss profits and impairment of earning capacity, the NPFC must 

independently determine that the proof criteria in OPA and the implementing regulations, at 33 

CFR part 136 are met, including the general provisions of 33 CFR 136.105, and the specific 

requirements for loss of profits and earning capacity claims in Subpart C, 33 CFR 136.231, et 

seq.

Pursuant to the provisions of 33 CFR 136.231, claims for the loss of profits or impairment of 

earning capacity due to injury to, destruction or, or loss or real or personal property or natural 

resources may be presented to the Fund by the claimant sustaining the loss or impairment.

“In addition to the requirements of subparts A & B or this part, a claimant must establish the 

following-

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant’s income was reduced as a consequence or injury to, destruction of, or 

loss of the property or natural resources, and the amount of that reduction.
(c) The amount of the claimant’s profits or earnings in comparable periods and during the 

period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax 

returns, financial statements, and similar documents. In addition, comparable figures for 

profits or earnings for the same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the 

incident also must be established. 

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken and, if so, the 

amount of income received. All income that a claimant receives as a result of the incident 

must be clearly indicated and any saved overhead and other normal expenses not incurred 

as a result of the incident must be established.” 33 CFR 136.233(a-d)

If a third party claimant or RP is able to establish an entitlement to lost profits, then 

compensation may be provided from the OSLTF, but the compensable amount is limited to the 

actual net reduction or loss of earnings and profits suffered. Calculations for the net reductions or 

losses must clearly reflect adjustments for the following: all income resulting from the incident, 

all income from alternative employment or business undertaken, potential income from 

alternative employment or business not undertaken but reasonably available, and saved overhead 

or normal business expenses not incurred as a result of the incident, and state, local, and federal 

tax savings. 33 CFR 136.235(a-e)

V. DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. The incident involved the discharge and continuing substantial threat of discharge 

of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), to navigable waters.

2. Real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or 

lost; specifically oil was released into and injured the Mississippi River, a natural 

resource of the United States.

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit 

has been filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs.

4. The claim was submitted on time.

5. The claimant seeks $119,026.66 in loss of profits, as a consequence of the M/V 

Siam Jade’s additional time and fuel costs.

6. The claimant asserts that if not for the oil spill the voyage would not have resulted 

in additional time and fuel.

7. Presentment of costs to the RP was made by Murphy, Rogers, Sloss and Gambel, 

representatives for MUR Shipping BV, Amsterdam, prior to the submission of the claim. 

The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP for which the RP responded denying 

responsibility for these costs.

8. In the process of adjudicating this claim, the NPFC Claims Manager collected 

additional information from the claimant to document what took place at the time of the 

incident.

B. Causation:

The Barge DM 932 oil spill did in fact release significant amounts of oil into and causing 

damage and injury to the Mississippi River, a natural resource of the United States. The 

resulting damage, injury and removal response disrupted shipping in and out of the Mississippi 

River.6 At the time of the spill, there were many large vessels in the area that were oiled due to 

 

6

Polreps 1-18; documenting river closures and traffic management through 8 August 2008.
the DM 932 oil spill. The Siam Jade had to stay at Southwest Pass from the dirty zone awaiting 

USCG clearance to depart, which was granted on July 27, 2008.7

The Claimant provided a record of the incident by submitting a Timeline of River Closures and a 

Statement of Facts, which clearly demonstrates that the Mississippi River had closed and vessel 

traffic was redirected during the oil removal efforts.8 Additionally, the USCG provided 

POLREPS to substantiate that the Mississippi River was either closed to vessel traffic or open to 

limited traffic during the response period.

C. Vessel Delay Time: 

MUR is claiming that the oil spill directly caused them loss of profits because the Siam Jade was 

sitting idle and the voyage was increased by 4.1806 days. The Siam Jade was delayed as 

follows: 

From 7/23/2008 @ 16:40 hours until 7/27/2008 @ 21:00 hours 

The total stoppage time equals 100.33 hours (6020 minutes), or approximately 4.1806 days.9 

Per the terms of the charter agreement between MUR and Siam Jewels, MUR continued to be 

charged the hire rate of $26,663.44 per day for the 4.1806 days they were detained due to the oil 

spill. $26,663.44 per day multiplied by 4.1806 days of delay equals a claimed $111,469.18 in 

loss of revenue due to the oil spill.10

D. Increased Bunkers 

The documented delay resulted in an increase in the consumption of bunkers. In their claim 

submission, MUR shows the breakdown of the amount of bunkers consumed during the idle 

period:11

 

 Times and Dates: MDO 

 

 7/23/2008 @ 16:40 hours 58.4 mts 

 7/27/2008 @ 21:00 hours 52.8 mts 

 ---------- 

 5.6 mts 

Total: 

The top number represents the amount of oil (in tons) that were read at the time of the stoppage, subtracting the 

amount of oil read at the time that the Siam Jade resumed operations to find the difference. 

At a cost of $1349.55/mt for the MDO, the additional bunkers consumed amount to $7,557.48

($1349.55/mt X 5.60 = $7557.48).12

 

7

 See Statement of Facts submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the NPFC on 6/04/2009 

8

 See Timeline of River Closure and Statement of Facts, submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the NPFC on 

6/04/2009 

9

 See Statement of Facts, submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the NPFC on 6/04/2009 

10 See Hire Statement, dated July 15, 2008, submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the NPFC on 6/04/2009 

11 See Vessel Logs, submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the NPFC on3/11/2010, and email from Ms. 

 to Ms. , NPFC, dated 3/11/2010 

12 See Bominflot Fuel Invoice, Bominflot Bunker Delivery Receipt submitted by Murphy et al for MUR to the 

NPFC on 3/11/2010, and email from Ms. to Ms , NPFC, dated 3/11/2010