Balikpapan → Manila coal freight planning
Direct planning answer: start with the exact cargo quantity, canonical load and discharge ports, laycan and a vessel class that fits the parcel. CharterPulse then calculates the route and voyage economics using the current model instead of publishing a frozen market rate.
50,000 MT coal · Balikpapan (IDBPN) → Manila (PHMNL) · Ultramax planning basis · $640/MT bunker · 7 port days · $95,000 port costs. The live calculator recalculates distance, sea time and modeled freight whenever the scenario opens.
This longer regional planning route is 1664.9 nm with 5.59 days modeled sea time. On the stated assumptions, the current modeled scenario is $10.16–$11.88/MT. With 7 planned port days, port time is about 1.3× the modeled sea time, so port productivity and waiting deserve explicit sensitivity testing.
Model snapshot 22 September 2026 · refreshed live when this page loads. Not a fixture or owner idea.
Why this route is different inside the current cluster
On the common 50,000 MT Ultramax assumptions used across CharterPulse’s 15 Indonesia→Philippines coal scenarios, Balikpapan → Manila is #14 of 15 from shortest to longest at about 1664.9 nm. That is 595.7 nm above the current cluster median of 1,069.2 nm. The modeled midpoint is about $11.02/MT; this is a planning comparison, not a market quote.
Balikpapan shows the widest distance spread among the three load-port groups in the current cluster: its Davao scenario is the shortest of all 15 while Cebu sits at the longest end. That makes discharge-port choice especially material for sea-time exposure. Keep IDBPN as the canonical identity, but confirm the actual loading facility and operating assumptions before comparing owner ideas.
UNECE lists Manila as PHMNL. For commercial work, the broad Manila label should be narrowed to the actual discharge terminal and handling terms before vessel suitability or port-time assumptions are treated as firm.
Canonical location evidence: UNECE UN/LOCODE Indonesia for Balikpapan (IDBPN) and UNECE UN/LOCODE Philippines for Manila (PHMNL). CharterPulse uses these identities for reproducible scenario handoff; exact terminal/anchorage details still need commercial confirmation.
- Which Manila terminal or harbour facility is actually intended under the PHMNL umbrella?
- What berth window, draft and vessel-size constraints apply at that exact terminal?
- What cargo-handling arrangement and discharge rate should be used instead of the default port-time assumption?
- Are there terminal-specific scheduling, storage or receiving constraints that could increase waiting time?
What should you confirm first?
Confirm the exact loading terminal or anchorage, cargo readiness, draft, gear expectations and port-time assumption before a market approach. Confirm the exact Manila discharge terminal, berth window, draft, discharge rate and cargo-handling requirements.
Which vessel classes should you compare?
For a 50,000 MT planning parcel, compare Supramax and Ultramax first. The estimator also lets you test Handysize, Panamax and larger classes, but actual suitability depends on vessel particulars, draft, gear, intake, terminal restrictions and cargo terms.
Run sensitivity before asking the market
Test bunker price, port time and optional delay allowance rather than relying on a single point estimate. Port productivity and waiting time can materially change voyage economics even when the ports and cargo quantity stay the same.
When this becomes a real enquiry
Use Check current owner ideas, Check vessel availability or Talk to a broker after calculating. CharterPulse stores the shipment requirement separately from the planning estimate so live commercial information is not confused with model output.
Planning guide updated 22 September 2026. Model outputs are not fixtures, owner ideas or live market quotes. Any live market action remains subject to broker review and the exact shipment terms.
Related guides
Indonesia–Philippines route directory · Indonesian thermal coal · Ultramax planning guide · Model vs market