RE: OBS4 May 2020 14:48
That's some very good points. Though I don't think "as to quote CFR/CIF we'd have to increase the selling price per tonne price to accommodate the increased cost or suffer the costs in our sales margins which would be very unpalatable." would be sufficient reason why it couldn't be CFR/CIF - that decision will presumably be part of the negotiation, the outcome of which will likely depend on what is most beneficial to the party that holds the upper hand whilst ideally minimising the overall costs to both parties.
I do wonder if you might be on to something with: "& I'd like to think of a size that would make our supplies only part of their feed requirements". We are shipping 45kt at a time, and 4 of these fill a typical capesize (180kt), so I'm wondering if the plan is for us to handymax out of the Amazon, along the coast to one of the larger North Brazilian ports, at which point our customer takes ownership, transferring the ore to a capesize vessel loaded with other dry cargo, possibly iron ore, from other suppliers across Brazil, destined to China.
This scenario could potentially indicate we own the ore until the handymax to capesize transfer. Potentially indicated with: "DEV plans to ship directly to customers via 45,000-tonne bulk carriers". i.e. the customer(s) are conceptually the capesize vessel. Though even in this scenario FOB to the capesize is also possible. I took that phrase to mean that we will be shipping directly from our port to the final destination port of our customer. I think I still do. But no harm in thinking out loud I trust.
Interestingly @tomcat deduced we'd likely be shipping four 45kt loads, which perhaps not so coincidentally is 1 capesize?
Ob.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
