These days a news reported that four new companies obtained bunker license in Zhoushan. It reminds me to rethink status of Zhoushan in shipping market.

　　I was operator and shipping manager in ship-owner company during the passed ten years. We normally would arrange bunker supply by passing Hong Kong, Busan or Singapore.

　　I find three negative realities.

　　Firstly, as we know, China mainland has plenty of ports rather than Hong Kong area and Busan area. In fact, there is no any other port to permit foreign vessel to supply bunker in China mainland sea route without deviation before Zhoushan port. Secondly, even for those vessel bunker supply when loading or discharging in China mainland ports, some bad operation experiences and rumour circulated under the table gives shipping participators a false impression, that bunker supply in China mainland has no value than in Hong Kong, Busan and Singapore etc. Thirdly, bunker price is higher than Hong Kong, Busan and Singapore in most of China mainland ports.

　　Looking back to Zhoushan bunkering, this may be a solver.

　　As the first and unique outer anchorage bunker supply position for foreign vessels, under government policy support, with abundant experience of state-owned supplier enterprise and flexibility of new private supplier’s operation, Zhoushan would develop to be a mature bunker supply position easily and quickly in the near future.

　　I shall analyse in some way to support my above view. Based on my chartering experience, I made voyage estimation in different sea routes.


　　From above image, it shows that Zhoushan port is located inintersection of several sea routes geographically. I am trying to findadvantages and disadvantages of Zhoushan bunkering, compared to Hong Kong andSingapore via different type of vessels, trade and sea routes.

　　First sea route: Vietnam/Thailand-China

　　For this route, it is allowed charterer to rent one Supramax vesselfrom Ho Chin Minh port when DOP on delivery, to load Iron Ore in Kuantan port,passing Hong Kong or Zhoushan for bunkering and redeliver vessel to owner whenDOP in Rizhao Port.

　　In this case, bunker price in Hong Kong is lower than in Zhoushanbut it seems there is a little deviation. I made voyage estimation twice whenbunkering in Hong Kong and Zhoushan port respectively in portdistance.com ascharterer’s point of view and results are as following:

　　In the following screenshot, a supramax vessel would load about52000mt Iron ore with ocean freight USD 6.2 including address and brokerage3.75% totally in Kuantan port and discharge in Rizhao port. Performing vesseleco speed is 12kt with IFO 380 consumption 25MT daily in ballast and 11kt withIFO 380 consumption 24MT daily in laden. Idle consumption is 0.1MT MGO as thesame as extra consumption 0.1MT MGO when sailing for auxiliary generator.

　　Pda is calculated as USD 23,000.00 inKuantan, USD 2,000.00 in Hong Kong and USD 25,000.00 in Rizhao port

　　

　　Main data in below tables:

　　

Distance	Sailing time	Voyage Time	Bunkering time	IFO price	MGO price	TCE
2912.6 nm	10.87 days	20.37 days	0.5 days	314 USD	476.5 USD	8202.41 USD

　　For the same trade, bunkering port is revised to Zhoushan under Pda USD 1,500.00 quotation:

　　

　　Main data in below tables:

　　

Distance	Sailing time	Voyage Time	Bunkering time	IFO price	MGO price	TCE
2853.8 nm	10.64 days	20.14 days	0.5 days	326 USD	595 USD	8186.34 USD

　　In the comparison of Hong Kong and Zhoushan Port for bunkering, the TCE is 16.07 USD less when calling Zhoushan than Hong Kong.

　　Although there is no advantages in Zhoushan bunkering than in Hong Kong, we still could consider Zhoushan port as alternatives definitely. That is , after we involve weather factor into whole voyage performance, Zhoushan bunkering becomes valuable.

　　In typhoon season, especially from end of August to mid of October, typhoon which normally is generated in eastern sea of Philippine, would go across islands of Philippine , into South Sea of China and land on Hainan province or Guangdong Province. During the period, subtropical hgih belt would keep steady over Philippine-Taiwan-Fujian area. Track of typhoon is easily to be forecasted and give more time to master of vessel to adjust speed and sea route. The reason is that bad weather would make Speed and Consumption term failed in Charter Party and charterer could not claim over-consumption and loss of time in voyage performance. In this condition, best plan is to steam to Zhoushan directly for bunkering instead of Hong Kong.

　　Finally, in this trade and sea route, Zhoushan port is suitable for bunkering as alternatives. Whilst, some other similar trade could try above consideration logically, such as tapioca exported from Thailand and Vietnam to Yangtse River port or Lianyungang or Rizhao Port when passing Zhoushan.

　　Second sea route: Philippine-China

　　For this route, it is allowed charterer to rent one Supramax vessel from Manila port when DOP on delivery, to load Nickel Ore in Tubay anchorage, passing Kaohsiung or Zhoushan for bunkering and redeliver vessel to owner when DOP in Jingtang Port.

　　In this case, Kaohsiung is optional for bunkering but vessel should make entry formalities and arrange pilot on board to be shifted to inner anchorage. It would increase cost of bunkering and time loss. Meanwhile, bunker price is higher than Zhoushan. Apparently in wording comparison , Zhoushan should be chosen. Even so, I made voyage estimation twice again when bunkering in Kaohsiung and Zhoushan port respectively in portdistance.com as charterer’s point of view and results are as following:

　　In the following screenshot, a supramax vessel would load about 52000mt Nickel Ore with ocean freight USD 8.0 including address and brokerage 3.75% totally in Tubay port anchorage and discharge in Jingtang port. Performing vessel eco speed is 12kt with IFO 380 consumption 25MT daily in ballast and 11kt with IFO 380 consumption 24MT daily in laden. Idle consumption is 0.1MT MGO as the same as extra consumption 0.1MT MGO when sailing for auxiliary generator. Pda is calculated as USD 32,000.00 in Tubay, USD 3,500.00 in Kaohsiung and USD 38,000.00 in Jingtang port.

　　

　　Main data in below tables:

　　

Distance	Sailing time	Voyage Time	Bunkering time	IFO price	MGO price	TCE
2665.1 nm	9.91 days	25.41 days	0.5 days	348 USD	563 USD	8768.57 USD

　　For the same trade, bunkering port is revised to Zhoushan under Pda USD 1,500.00 quotation:

　　　　Main data in below tables:

　　

Distance	Sailing time	Voyage Time	Bunkering time	IFO price	MGO price	TCE
2568.1 nm	9.13 days	24.63 days	0.5 days	326 USD	595 USD	9682.72 USD

　　In the comparison of Kaohsiung and Zhoushan Port for bunkering, the TCE is 914.15USD higher when calling Zhoushan than Kaohsiung in Nickel Ore sea route. Refer to spot chartering market on 17TH/JUL in 2017, it means 10% at premium in daily hire rate.

　　Finally, in this trade and sea route, Zhoushan port is suitable for bunkering as alternatives. Whilst, some other similar trade could try above consideration logically, such as Raw Logs exported from PNG to Yangtse River port and Coal exported from East Australia to China.

　　Third sea route: West Australia - China

　　For this route, it is allowed charterer to rent one Capesize vessel from CJK, China when DOP on delivery, to load Iron Ore in Dampier port, passing Singapore, Hong Kong or Zhoushan for bunkering and redeliver vessel to owner when DOP in Qingdao Port.

　　（Above Capesize track is not in this case，source：hifleet.com）

　　Brief particular of performing vessel:Ballast: Speed 13KT on consumption of 34MT IFO 380Laden: Speed 12.5KT on consumption of 42.7MT IFO 380At Sea: 4.3MT IFO 380 daily consumption

　　　　

Bunkering Port	Bunkering time	Ballast Distance	Laden Distance	IFO Price	Sailing time	Consumption at sea
Singapore	0.5 days	3266.0 nm	4207.2 nm	311.5 USD	24.5 days	330345.127 USD

　　

　　

Bunkering Port	Bunkering time	Ballast Distance	Laden Distance	IFO Price	Sailing time	Consumption at sea
Hong Kong	0.5 days	3266.0 nm	3925.3 nm	314.5 USD	23.56 days	319733.319 USD

　　　　

Bunkering Port	Bunkering time	Ballast Distance	Laden Distance	IFO Price	Sailing time	Consumption at sea
Zhoushan	0.5 days	3266.0 nm	3622.8 nm	326.0 USD	22.54days	315691.222 USD

　　According to fixture reports as following：

　　'GIANT ACE' 2009 179147 DWT DELY CJK 11/12 JUL TRIP VIA AUSTRALIA REDEL SINGAPORE-JAPAN $5,950 DAILY - RGL - <FIXED 10/7>

　　In Zhoushan for bunkering , compared to Singapore, it would be saved 1.96 days( that is USD 11,662.00) in MV GIANT ACE case, and value of consumption which equates USD 14,657.905; compared to Hong Kong, it would be saved 1.02 days (that is USD 6,069.00) in MV GIANT ACE case, and value of consumption which equates USD 4,042.097.

　　Conclusion:As a result of three sea route voyage estimation comparison, I might say:Bunkering in Zhoushan shall definitely be best choice for Capesize vessel between Australia and China , and be suitable as alternatives in some certain trade and sea route.

　　Further more, we might follow above logic and check if Zhoushan would be a strategical bunkering position in North Pacific rounds, Indonesia coal back to North China and small handy vessel route in East Malaysia-Philippine.

　　(Above image is part of MV GIANT ACE tracks in Zhoushan for bunkering but over 24hours)

　　At last, I should point out that all above consideration based on voyage estimation and data from Internet resources under good faith without guarantee in the view of TCT charterer. Hopefully, these are helpful to you and it is better for owner to deliberate accordance with specific requirements of company strategy and fleet operation and make feasibility report.

　　Author: Zano, Product Manager of MarineCircle (July 18, 2017)