Chariot Tide (IMO 9323376) after Alexandria: what her AIS did next, and a PSC question

Maritime News
, ,
1

Following up on the Chariot Tide, IMO 9323376. PSC and insurance come up here a lot and nobody’s said what happened after that Alexandria report.

A shadow-fleet watcher on Bluesky posted on 12 August that port inspectors at Alexandria couldn’t get a CLC certificate out of her ( @maikmarahrens.bsky.social on Bluesky ). I can’t confirm that myself, though it would fit: Lloyd’s List had a Spanish rescue tug escorting her off Gibraltar earlier this year (https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1156192/Spanish-rescue-tug-sent-to-escort-sanctioned-tanker) and Windward has written her up as falsely flagged under the fraudulent Mozambique registry, which voids any insurance. What her AIS did next is on the record. On 14 August her broadcast draught dropped from 11.3 m to 8.0 m and her destination changed from EG EDK to FOR ORDER in the same minute. She then lay stopped about 50 miles north of Port Said from 25 August until the morning of 12 September, when she got under way. Early on the 15th she was in the central Aegean off Psara at about 9 knots, heading north with Istanbul set as her destination, and that’s where our record stops as of the morning of the 16th. Draught is typed in by the crew though, not measured, so I wouldn’t call that a discharge on its own.

The identity side is the odd bit. She used to alternate between a Myanmar MMSI and a Mozambique one, never both on the same day, though the Mozambique number has been quiet since 9 August. Five of the six lists that name her still say MARABELLA SUN. And for about six hours on 4 September she broadcast MARABELLA SUN herself before switching back to CHARIOT TIDE. Happy to post the positions on either side if anyone wants them.

What I genuinely don’t know is what a port does with a tanker that turns up without a CLC, if that’s what happened. Detain her, or note it and let her sail?

2

According to Baliticshipping.com she was built as MT PILTENE in 2007 under Latvian ownership and Marshall Island flag:
BalticShipping.com

From the record on Vesselfinder she changed name to MT MARABELLA SUN and Cook Island flag in Aug. 2023.
Under Panama flag from Nov. 2024, changed toTanzania flag in Jan. 2025, Comoros flag in May 2025. (Same name)

In Nov. 2025 she changed name to MT CHARIOT TIDE (under unknown flag from Dec. 2025)

In March 2026 she was registered under the flag of Myanmar under same name.
Source : CHARIOT TIDE, Chemical/Oil Products Tanker - Details and current position - IMO 9323376 - VesselFinder

3

Thanks, that lines up with what the lists say and fills in the pre-2023 part I didn’t have. The broadcast side doesn’t quite agree with the registry though, which is the bit I find interesting. VesselFinder has her under Myanmar from March and never Mozambique, but from 27 June to 9 August she was transmitting on a Mozambique number as well as the Myanmar one, and for two weeks in July the Mozambique number was calling itself MARABELLA SUN, so the six hours on 4 September wasn’t the first time the old name came back. The Mozambique registry is the one Windward calls fraudulent, so I read that number as a flag she was using rather than one she held.

Small update since I posted: she came up through the Dardanelles today and as of 20:32 UTC is stopped at the anchorage west of Istanbul, destination still Istanbul.

4

Maybe Mozambique is the “unknown flag” from Dec. 2025 to March 2026?

5

Could well be, though I can’t see back that far: our record of her only starts in late June, and by then both numbers were already in use. What I can say is the Mozambique number stayed live alongside the Myanmar one right through July, months after VesselFinder has her on Myanmar, so whatever the flag was in the winter she kept the old number in her pocket for a while after.

6

" What I genuinely don’t know is what a port state control does with a tanker that turns up without a CLC, if that’s what happened. Detain her, or note it and let her sail? pls advise. "

The Port State Control (PSC) in Egipt should absolutely detain the tanker. They shall not simply note it and let her sail.

Under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), carrying a valid CLC certificate is a strict statutory requirement for any tanker carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil in bulk as cargo.

Here is exactly how a PSC officer (PSCO) should handle this situation:

Immediate Detention:

Arriving without a mandatory statutory certificate is flagged as a major environmental and financial risk. Because a missing CLC means the vessel has no verified financial security or P&I (Protection & Indemnity) insurance to cover a catastrophic oil spill, the PSCO will issue a formal detention order.

Pls note that the term seaworthinness goes well beyond technical condition of the vessel. It includes crew competencies( certificates) and all other certificates required by all international conventions. Papewise seawortiness one may call it.

Hence the vsl w/o required by int. Conventions certificates is considered as not seaworthy. Strange but true.

On the issue of “Rectify at Next Port” allowance: While PSC officers can allow minor technical defects to be fixed at the next port, they will never allow a laden tanker to sail into international waters without pollution liability insurance. The risk to the coastal states is considered an “unreasonable risk to the environment”.

As to the resolution / solving of the problem = standard PSC procedure : The tanker should remain stuck at the berth or at anchorage. The shipowner should face heavy daily commercial losses and potential administrative fines.

The detention should only be lifted once the ship’s flag State (or an authorized administration/ body ) issues a valid CLC certificate, and a copy is physically or electronically verified on board by the PSC. .

Pls consult PSC role , duties , procedures , priviliges and obligations regarding above available in the web.

On the issue of Egipt.

It’ s PSC is part of MED MOU ,hence parties interested in shadow fleet activities of said vessel should address their questions rather to Egiptian PSC . On what grounds have they released the vsl lacking basic documentation. ?

It should be incumbent on relevant MOU to issue such inquiry too.

Peeking into Egiptian PSC record of inspection should be a good idea and a starting point of investigation.

Pleased to note the Author knows what data is input manually in to AIS unit . But there is more: port of destination, nav status.

REM : NAV status is frequently abused by ignorant crew declaring drifting vessel as " NOT UNDER COMMAND"

see pls definitions and meaning of what not under command means.

For exact info pls look up msc res. on technical and other requirements re AIS.

To be continued time allowing on the content of Lloyd’s List article later.

7

Thanks, that’s the answer I was after, and it turns out the paper trail is public. THETIS-Med has one inspection for her: 11 August 2026, El Dekheila, a more detailed PSC inspection. Two deficiencies, both under ship certificates: continuous synopsis record missing, and civil liability for oil pollution damage certificate missing. Zero grounds for detention, not detained. Screenshot below. So the Bluesky report was right and Egypt logged the missing CLC as an ordinary deficiency and released her. Two other things in the record. The voyage charterer is listed as Vitol, London. And the certificate table shows a Myanmar CLC issued 4 May 2026 expiring 9 September 2026, three days before she got under way from Port Said on the 12th, so whatever the flag says it issued, it had lapsed by the time she sailed for Istanbul. Everything else, class and all the statutory certificates, is RMRS and dated 28 to 29 July, two weeks before the inspection.

Source: THETIS-MED - Inspections (no permalink; enter IMO 9323376 and a period from 01/01/2025, then Details on the one row).

chariot_tide_thetis_med_deficiencies
chariot_tide_thetis_med_deficiencies998×739 57.4 KB

8

Very well.

EGIPT !!!

It is well known fact that in Egipt masters of all ships were pressed always for baksheesh what translated mostly into a huge numbers of Marlboro cigarettes.

Obviously such terminology as not detainable defficiency require a hell of a lot more the 100 boxes and not Malboro. I would immagine a huge box of change to grease the greedy hands.

Question by whom?

Owners , managers, or cargo interest if there was cargo o/b or other actors in the game, what i have not checked or verified.

While EGYPT has always had this peculiar systemic quality called baksheesh I find it difficult to understand how Gibraltar allowed to sail the vessel, that had machinery problems and no steering.

" Escorted by tugs " is a spooky term and susceptible to different interpretations. Towed out to sea would be more precise.

And it raised my eyebrows at least.

And here is my problem with the littoral state admin. - namely Gibraltar or Spain. ( Algeciras)

Machinery problem and no steering gear is a VERY SERIOUS DEFFICIENCY and detainable one.

The vessel was not in seaworrhy condition if what Lloyd’s list claims is true.

One gets tug escorts when there is suspicion of defficiency reported by master.

Have experienced such in USA ( sailing out of Savannah ) ordered by USCG and once in Suez Canal on suspicion of steering gear failure ,that resulted in random steering failures while in autopilot mode - all reported by master.

As a result I got in both cases Tug escorts paid by managers.

How come she was allowed to sail freely beats me.

Relying on " not under command " manuall input ,while drifting and and thus claiming she had an engine problem seems silly to me without further verification of such claim.

Most ships do so while drifting and waiting for orders or instructions .

On tramp vessels ( dry or wet) , loaded or not , masters receive orders , instruction to sail into unknown with only general direction

For example: Rotterdam - Hamburg range or Marmara- Black Sea range.

The exact destination is given once such range is reached and reported by master to Owners/Managers & Charterers.

Same system functions with time charter vessel deliveries or redeliveries.

Hence crew declaration on AIS may be misleading . Best is to declare FOR ORDERS.

Final destination for loading discharge may change several times in a short time span prior port call due to volatile market situations.

9

Gibraltar is before our record starts, so nothing to add there. On your last point, her AIS fits what you describe: at anchor and FOR ORDER for the whole 18 days off Port Said, then TR IST set the night she got under way. What it can’t say is why she waited or what she was carrying.