Overview
The comparison should help the buyer choose between usable commercial packages. It should not create a ranking from figures that assume different cargoes, ports, or decision deadlines.
Key takeaways
- Build the reference parcel before calculating comparable freight.
- Identify who controls quantity changes and when they can occur.
- Keep additional discharge scope separate from the base voyage.
- Explain which conditions could invalidate the recommendation.
Begin with the seller's quantity position
A Suezmax enquiry can remain commercially unsettled when the seller has not finalised the parcel. Clarify whether the buyer expects a fixed quantity, a stated range, or a quantity conditional on loading arrangements. Identify the unit used in both the cargo transaction and the freight proposal.
The chartering worksheet should show the commercial quantity basis without claiming to establish technical loadability. The owner and relevant specialists must assess the nominated vessel and intended places. Do not assume that a vessel category alone resolves the parcel question.
Ask who can exercise a quantity option and by what point. An offer that accommodates the buyer's late nomination may have different practical value from one that requires early commitment. This is not merely a mathematical adjustment: it affects whether the freight arrangement fits the upstream sale.
Before comparing price, mark any mismatch between the seller's expected flexibility and the owner's proposed terms. If the mismatch is material, seek clarification. Otherwise the team may select an offer that is inexpensive only for a quantity it cannot confidently supply.
Preserve the original rate expression
Record whether an offer uses Worldscale, a lump sum, or another agreed basis. Keep the original expression next to the normalized comparison, together with the relevant voyage and quantity assumptions. This makes the calculation auditable when someone questions the result later.
Worldscale's published explanation distinguishes the nominal reference rate from the market percentage applied to it. The comparison therefore needs the appropriate reference basis, not just the quoted percentage. See the official Worldscale explanation.
A lump sum also needs interpretation. Confirm whether the sum covers the intended quantity range and whether additional delivery places are included. Avoid assuming that a fixed total automatically provides unlimited commercial flexibility.
Where the team produces a comparison in another currency, label it as an internal reporting view. Retain the payment currency and proposed payment timing so finance can assess the actual exposure. The spreadsheet should not imply that a reporting conversion changes the contract.
Compare the delivery programme, not only the first port
A Suezmax parcel may serve a main receiver with an additional delivery under consideration. Set out the intended sequence and the status of each receiver. If a second location remains optional, ask each owner to explain the scope and pricing treatment of that option.
The comparison should distinguish a quoted alternative from an alternative requiring later negotiation. The latter may still be useful, but it does not offer the same commercial certainty. Record any nomination deadline that limits the buyer's ability to use the option.
Where a receiver has not completed its own acceptance process, show that separately from the freight terms. A priced discharge option is not evidence that the location will receive the vessel. Conversely, terminal readiness does not establish that the owner has included the additional employment in its offer.
A concise comparison narrative can explain these distinctions more effectively than a dense totals sheet. The approver should understand what each offer enables the cargo desk to do and what it leaves dependent on future agreement.
Use a unit-consistent comparison worksheet
The following worksheet focuses on the quantity and delivery decisions typical of a parcel still being finalised. Complete it with actual offer evidence, not assumptions drawn from a previous fixture.
| Worksheet field | Offer evidence required | Decision supported |
|---|---|---|
| Parcel basis | Quantity, unit, and tolerance | Like-for-like base comparison |
| Quantity decision rights | Who nominates and when | Fit with seller confirmation |
| Original freight expression | Exact rate or sum and reference | Traceable normalization |
| Main discharge | Included place and scope | Delivery to primary receiver |
| Additional delivery | Included, priced option, or fresh agreement | Ability to split the programme |
| Time-related terms | Proposed wording for review | Exposure under a changed sequence |
| Payment basis | Currency and timing | Finance review |
| Remaining subjects | Responsible party and expiry | Executability of the offer |
Avoid turning an unanswered field into an assumed inclusion. Highlight it as a clarification item and explain whether the gap prevents selection or simply requires confirmation before the next step.
Where quantity uncertainty remains, prepare separate qualitative scenarios. For example, describe which offer still fits if the seller confirms the lower end of the proposed range, and which one needs renegotiation if the additional receiver is removed. No invented probability is necessary to make those differences visible.
Fictional case: the second delivery disappears
A fictional buyer seeks a Suezmax for a crude parcel intended for a main refinery and a smaller delivery to another receiver. The second receiver is still negotiating its purchase. One owner quotes the combined programme, while another quotes only the main refinery and says the other delivery can be discussed later.
The initial spreadsheet places both headline figures in one column. The chartering manager revises it into a base-main-receiver comparison and a combined-delivery comparison. The team also asks how the first offer would be treated if the second delivery disappears.
The cargo desk can now see that the second offer is incomplete for the combined business, while the first needs clarification for the reduced programme. It does not select an owner until the relevant response is obtained or management consciously accepts the unresolved condition.
This approach avoids buying flexibility that is not defined and avoids assuming that removing part of a voyage automatically produces a particular freight adjustment.
Write a recommendation that survives a parcel change
The recommendation should state which quantity and delivery plan it covers. Name the preferred offer, the principal reason, and the assumptions that would require reassessment. This is especially important when the cargo desk expects a final seller or receiver decision after the freight discussion begins.
Include a clear change-control instruction for the internal team: if the parcel or sequence changes, return to the comparison before treating the original selection as still optimal. The point is to preserve commercial logic, not to reopen every minor administrative detail.
Keep the owner's clarification and the final proposed wording available to the contracting team. A spreadsheet interpretation should never silently replace the actual negotiated terms. Resolve material differences before presenting the package as agreed.
Common mistakes
Comparing a combined-delivery offer with a single-discharge offer can make the narrower package look artificially attractive. Another mistake is using the seller's maximum quantity for one offer and the expected quantity for another.
Avoid assuming that a quantity tolerance has the same commercial meaning in every document. Identify the decision maker and the treatment in the proposed freight terms.
Do not treat a promise to discuss an option later as a priced right to exercise it. Preserve that distinction in both the worksheet and recommendation.
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
Should the comparison use the maximum cargo quantity?
Use the quantity basis relevant to the decision and show alternatives where needed. A maximum-only comparison can mislead when the likely parcel or the owner's pricing treatment changes within the proposed range.
How should a second discharge be valued?
First establish whether it is included, separately priced, or subject to later agreement. Then assess whether the option fits a real receiver decision and its timetable rather than assigning value merely because it exists.
Is a lower Worldscale quotation always preferable?
No. The reference voyage, quantity, applicable basis, and additional terms must match before the headline expressions are meaningfully comparable. A lower expression can cover a narrower or different employment.
What if the seller changes the quantity after selection?
Check whether the selected offer already accommodates the change and whether other assumptions are affected. Obtain the necessary reconfirmation and update the recommendation before relying on the earlier comparison.