Member Info for observer842

I don't think it's going to be relevant @tomcat, as: "DEV plans to ship directly to customers via 45,000-tonne bulk carriers at a rate of 2-3 loads every two months, dependent on port berth availability.". Note the s on carriers :-)

Nice calculations by the way @tomcat. Quite feasible IMHO based on the current spot.

Lunar months? What are you? A werecat? lol

Although having said that, I suspect the rail will need more attention than half a million will provide. Although the exchange rate is particularly good at the moment. But time wise? Could possibly be done in a month or two? I suspect we'll barge it to the public port.

Good thought @MLQ! Load it from our port onto rail to the public port. Makes more sense than road for sure!

By the way, although our port has been substantially repaired it still needs significant work before it's shipshape again :-)

@MLQ, the reason I was suggesting the first load might be from our port is to fit in with the timetable - perhaps it's the quickest route to start production, but subsequently the quickest/cheapest is to get it moved (how? road or barges?) to the public port.

But as you say @Dallas, perhaps there is some historical iron ore at the public port? I don't remember anything about using the public port subsequent to the disaster, but it's possible. I suppose we could go satellite hopping. :-)

Perhaps the first shipment (in June?) is expected to be from our port, with subsequent shipments from the public port?

Scratch that question @dallas. I now see the inconsistency you are trying to address:

"Shipping of first iron ore is on target for late Q2 2020 / early Q3 2020"

Does not match with:

"Movement of the stockpile to public port is expected in July 2020"

How odd!

Could you elaborate @Dallas? As far as we have been told, all of the iron ore is currently located at our private port - none of it is located at the public port.

Nice illustrations in that dhl document @tomcat!

I miss talking Lithium. lol. The industry is expecting batteries to move towards solid state for the increased energy density and safety this brings. This meas that although the kg of lithium per watt-hour isn't expected to change much (voltages will remain largely unchanged), the amount of lithium in an individual battery relative to other materials increases for various reasons, increasing the relative cost of lithium for an individual battery. This makes it more attractive, though unlikely in my opinion, to make the shift to say sodium.

Have you been following the Li price of late? Bit of a downward trend:

https://www.lme.com/Metals/Minor-metals/Lithium-prices

from 8.75 to 8.00 over the past month. My long term views on lithium prices (assuming batteries don't shift to e.g. sodium!) is that demand will significantly outstrip supply (once again), leading to increased prices. Markets are cyclical in nature. We rocketed on the leading edge of that first cycle. Will we rocket again on the next? ;-)

Don't sell Sonora for peanuts @Kiran!

Ob.

I suspect we'll be in a fairly unique situation for the first year or two @tomcat. And as such it's possible we'll be operating under

"FCA – Free Carrier (named place of delivery)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms#FCA_%E2%80%93_Free_Carrier_(named_place_of_delivery)

or

"FAS – Free Alongside Ship (named port of shipment)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms#FAS_%E2%80%93_Free_Alongside_Ship_(named_port_of_shipment)

arrangements.

If Tesla doesn't fall flat on its face it's going to need seemingly unfathomable amounts of Lithium, which will likely become apparent in the upcoming battery day - unless they've managed to abandon lithium in favour of something more abundant and cheaper for them...

I was starting to wonder the same too @tomcat! :-)

Whilst on the topic I thought it worth pointing out that long term the JRP mentions exploring the possibility of value aggregation in the state of Amapa. This may help isolate the project a little from fluctuating freight costs.

@TJ_MAC - I took it that you were trying to help, and you did - I learnt a lot, and even more from @Bannor! :-)

For what it's worth this points to the Amapa project historically being FOB at port:

"Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2010 Results" (February 16, 2011)
http://www.clevelandcliffs.com/English/news-center/news-releases/news-releases-details/2011/Cliffs-Natural-Resources-Inc-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2010-Results/default.aspx
===[
Outlook for Sonoma Coal and the Amapa Iron Ore Project (Metric tons f.o.b the port)
]===

Also, I wonder if we will be using e-Lading? It is 2020 after all. Lol.

"Vale completes first trade using CargoDocs" (06/03/2015)
https://www.essdocs.com/blog/vale-completes-first-trade-using-cargodocs
===[
Vale is the world’s largest iron ore miner by volume and the 2nd of the major mining companies to adopt CargoDocs electronic Bills of Lading for iron ore trade, amid increasing uptake of eDocs in the metals & minerals markets.
]===

Great post @Bannor. Sounds like you know more about shipping than you've been letting on! ;-). Presumably you've been following the impact the falling oil price has had and is expected to have on the dry Baltic index for the various vessel sizes - in particular the Handymax size which (I presume!) is of most importance to us at this time: "DEV plans to ship directly to customers via 45,000-tonne bulk carriers".

@tomcat - it would be conceptually odd, but not unheard of if DEV borrowed more than they needed solely so they could part repay it (with interest) on a defined schedule before income unlocked by the loan was received. Stranger things have happened at sea - but to our benefit? which what this suggest would be, not that often, if ever even! ;-)

@TJ_MAC - good point! FOB origin and FOB destination are North American colloquialisms in use today, but are not part of the international INCO standard - so I slap my hand for using them. Lol.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOB_(shipping)#North_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms

Common usage:

"Cost and Freight—CFR vs. Free on Board—FOB: What's the Difference?" (Feb 17, 2020)
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-difference-between-cost-and-freight-cfr-and-free-board-fob.asp
===[
FOB destination is another form of this contract type. In this case, it indicates the onus for the goods remains with the seller until the product reaches the specified port.
]===

and more relevantly:

"Shippers Urged To Take Another Look At Cargo Insurance" (24/12/2019)
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/shippers-urged-to-take-another-look-at-cargo-insurance/
===[
There are also two types of FOBs: FOB Destination and FOB Origin. Shippers are responsible for coverage if the buyer takes out FOB Destination, but in many cases, are unaware of this responsibility.

Even if the freight is moved under cost, insurance and freight (CIF) terms, where the seller is required to arrange for carriage of goods by sea to a port of destination, goods are only insured to the first destination port and do not cover any damages or losses incurred after that point.
]===

@tomcat - I presume we are yet to know the INCO term which will be closest to that used in the contract for the sale of the iron ore at the port, and that you were just guessing at FOB based on presumed repayment schedules and (likely) destination port distances and at sea duration?

Ob.