Key takeaways
- Treat advertised capacity as screening information.
- Keep weight, usable space and distribution review distinct.
- Obtain the owner’s supported intake for the actual itinerary.
- Investigate the reason for a limitation before proposing a remedy.
Give the owner one coherent parcel
Provide the shipper’s cargo description, intended quantity and representative stowage information. Identify the source and uncertainty of each input. If the material is assembled from several lots, explain whether it can be treated as one parcel or requires separation.
State who controls final quantity. A seller’s available stock, buyer’s preferred intake and charter tolerance can describe different amounts. Reconcile the commercial expectations before asking the owner to confirm the lift.
Baltic’s Capesize specification is a benchmark vessel description, not an intake approval. Baltic Exchange: standard vessel assumptions
The actual assessment should use the nominated ship and voyage. Do not convert a market reference into a promise about an individual vessel’s cargo capacity.
Distinguish the capacity questions
Weight review asks what mass the ship can carry under the relevant voyage conditions. Space review asks whether the cargo fits in usable compartments. Distribution review concerns the acceptable shipboard arrangement. The responsible vessel team should answer the technical questions.
Commercial staff should ask how the answers affect the intended shipment. If a proposed quantity is lower than requested, determine whether the limitation belongs to the parcel, a port condition or another assumption. That information directs the next commercial choice.
| Question | Evidence to provide | Answer needed |
|---|---|---|
| Weight | Parcel mass and intended itinerary | Supported voyage-specific lift |
| Space | Representative stowage information | Adequacy of usable cargo space |
| Separation | Grade or receiver requirements | Workable compartment allocation |
| Port sequence | Complete loading and discharge plan | Accepted conditions throughout the voyage |
| Uncertainty | Inputs still provisional | Qualification and closure evidence |
Do not assume a smaller parcel solves every issue. It may address one limitation while leaving a cargo acceptance or equipment question unchanged. Ask the reviewer to identify the relationship between the proposed remedy and the actual constraint.
Turn alternatives into complete options
If the owner offers alternative intakes, preserve the conditions attached to each. A higher quantity at another destination is not directly comparable with the original route until the buyer confirms that destination is commercially usable.
Likewise, a different vessel proposal should be checked against the same cargo inputs. Otherwise, a seemingly larger intake may simply reflect a more favorable assumption about stowage or port conditions.
For each option, record what the seller and receiver must change. Additional storage, revised lot allocation or a different intake sequence may be relevant. Keep those consequences visible alongside the owner’s figure rather than maximizing quantity in isolation.
Maintain a confirmed intake record
For a current transaction, the owner-confirmed intake basis is not provided; obtain current verified information.
The record should name the vessel, cargo description, itinerary version and qualifications. A provisional estimate must remain labelled provisional. If the owner has not completed the review, do not fill the field with advertised deadweight.
Revisit the record after changes in quantity, cargo information, terminal or sequence. Ask which earlier conclusions remain valid and which need a new response. A targeted change review avoids both unnecessary repetition and unsupported carryover.
Fictional case: searching for a larger ship unnecessarily
A fictional cargo principal receives an intake proposal below its target and immediately asks brokers for larger vessels. The owner later explains that the proposal depends on the nominated discharge arrangement rather than only the ship’s headline size.
The receiver confirms that another arrangement might be possible but requires separate review. The principal compares a smaller parcel under the original plan with the revised option. It asks each owner to assess the same alternatives.
The search becomes more useful once the team understands the controlling assumption. A larger ship remains one possibility, but it is no longer treated as the automatic solution to a problem that may belong elsewhere in the voyage.
Common mistakes
Do not remove qualifications when transferring an intake figure into a sales spreadsheet. The number and its assumptions belong together.
Avoid mixing cargo information from one stockpile with quantity expectations for another. Ask the shipper to identify the actual parcel supporting the review.
Do not treat remaining hold space as available for an additional sale without review. Separation, access and the accepted arrangement may explain why the space is unused.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.
Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Is deadweight sufficient for preliminary selection?
It is one screening input, but the shortlist should also consider cargo space, ports and the actual parcel. Final intake needs the owner’s voyage-specific assessment.
What is the controlling constraint?
It is the assumption or requirement that currently limits the proposed lift. Ask the owner to identify it so the commercial team can evaluate a remedy that addresses the real issue.
Can the final quantity change within a tolerance?
A commercial tolerance does not replace vessel confirmation. Reconcile the proposed amount with the accepted cargo and voyage arrangement before exercising the quantity option.
Who determines the loading arrangement?
The master and responsible vessel team determine the technically acceptable arrangement. Cargo interests provide accurate requirements and decide whether the resulting proposal meets their commercial needs.