⚠️ Cargo liquefaction doesn’t forgive assumptions.
In bulk shipping, liquefaction remains one of the most underestimated — and catastrophic — risks.
As clearly stated by the London P&I Club, rain is not required: excessive inherent moisture and inadequate checks are enough.
Key operational truths:
- The Can Test is indicative, never determinative
- TML compliance is an operational duty, not paperwork
- Stability is lost quietly — until it is too late
The Master remains the final authority. Stopping loading, issuing a protest, or calling the P&I Club is not weakness — it is command responsibility.
👉 Full guidance available here:
reducing-the-risk-of-liquefacti…
Open question
Which warning signs during loading are still too often underestimated in practice?
#MaritimeSafety #Liquefaction #IMSBC #BulkShipping #RiskManagement #Pandi
Knowledge, precision, responsibility — every day in shipping and beyond.
Reducing the Risk of Liquefaction: why compliance alone is not enough
Liquefaction continues to claim vessels and lives despite being a well-documented phenomenon under the IMSBC Code.
The guidance issued by the London P&I Club reinforces a critical message: most casualties are preventable.
The problem is not lack of regulation, but erosion of discipline:
- Over-reliance on certificates
- Misuse of the Can Test
- Commercial pressure during loading
- Insufficient challenge to shore-side declarations
From an operational and P&I perspective, liquefaction is a predictable stability failure.
Once the cargo behaves like a fluid, GM collapses, free surface effect dominates, and recovery options narrow rapidly.
The Master’s authority is therefore central.
Stopping loading, demanding retesting, or escalating to Owners and P&I Clubs is not disruptive — it is the last effective barrier before loss.
Risk management at sea is not theoretical. It is exercised, or it fails.
