Ice Clause (Voyage Charter)

What it does

A voyage-charter ice clause deals with the situation where ice prevents or threatens to prevent the vessel from safely reaching, entering, staying at, or leaving the agreed loading or discharging port. It sets out the master's options when ice is encountered, which typically include waiting for conditions to improve, requiring the charterer to nominate a safe alternative port, or proceeding to such a port to load or discharge.

The clause allocates the risk and cost of ice-related delay and diversion between the parties. Because ice is a navigational hazard that can trap or damage the ship, it usually gives the owner protection by allowing the master not to take the vessel into danger, while addressing how the resulting time, additional voyage, and any extra freight are dealt with, and how it interacts with the laytime and safe-port provisions.

Commercial effect

The ice clause assigns the consequences of a seasonal, location-specific risk that can be severe for the ship. By giving the master the right to refuse to enter ice-bound waters and to seek a safe alternative, it protects the vessel from being trapped or damaged, while the cost consequences, additional steaming, extra freight, and the treatment of delay, determine which party bears the financial impact of the ice.

How the clause handles delay and diversion is commercially important in ice-prone trades. If the vessel must wait or divert, the question of whose time and money is spent connects to the laytime regime and to any agreed extra freight for an alternative port. The clause is therefore read alongside the safe-port warranty and the laytime provisions, since ice delay can engage all three.

Owner's perspective

The owner wants a clear ice clause that lets the master keep the ship out of danger, refusing to enter or remain in ice-bound waters that could trap or damage the vessel. It relies on the clause to avoid being forced by the charterer's port choice into a hazardous situation, and it wants the right to seek a safe alternative port preserved without the owner bearing the whole cost of doing so.

The owner also wants the financial consequences allocated fairly, so that additional steaming to a substitute port, extra time, and any added freight are recoverable rather than absorbed by the owner. It treats ice as a risk that should largely fall on the charterer's port choice, and it negotiates the clause so that protecting the ship from ice does not come at the owner's sole expense.

Charterer's perspective

The charterer wants the ice clause workable so that, where ice affects the nominated port, there is a clear and not unduly costly route to completing the cargo operation, whether by waiting or by using an alternative port. It is conscious that ice can disrupt its loading or discharging plans and its sale obligations, and it wants the options and their cost consequences defined.

The charterer also wants to limit its exposure to extra freight and delay where the ice risk was foreseeable and priced into the trade, and to ensure the master's right to refuse a port is exercised reasonably rather than used to avoid a port that is in fact navigable. It negotiates the clause alongside the safe-port and laytime provisions so that ice risk is shared on a basis that matches the trade.

Negotiation points

• The master's options when ice is encountered — wait, divert, or require a safe alternative port.
• Who bears the cost of additional steaming, delay, and any extra freight for a substitute port.
• How ice-related delay is treated under the laytime provisions.
• The threshold of ice severity at which the master may refuse the nominated port.

Common variations

• A clause allowing the master to wait or to proceed to a safe alternative port if ice-bound.
• A clause requiring the charterer to nominate a safe alternative port on ice.
• An ice clause providing for extra freight on diversion to a substitute port.
• A clause tied to a recognised standard ice provision for the trade.