Samarinda → Subic 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 · Samarinda (IDSRI) → Subic (PHSFS) · 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 short-to-medium regional planning route is 1010.2 nm with 3.39 days modeled sea time. On the stated assumptions, the current modeled scenario is $8.48–$9.92/MT. With 7 planned port days, port time is about 2.1× 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, Samarinda → Subic is #5 of 15 from shortest to longest at about 1010.2 nm. That is 59.0 nm below the current cluster median of 1,069.2 nm. The modeled midpoint is about $9.20/MT; this is a planning comparison, not a market quote.
For a Samarinda-origin stem, keep the canonical IDSRI identity separate from the exact commercial loading point. If the real load point is a mine jetty, anchorage or terminal outside the named port position, resolve that point before circulating the cargo so the route and ETA assumptions do not inherit a city-level shortcut.
UNECE lists Subic Bay as PHSFS. A real market check should still confirm the exact discharge facility, berth restrictions, draft and discharge terms rather than treating the broad port identity as the terminal specification.
Canonical location evidence: UNECE UN/LOCODE Indonesia for Samarinda (IDSRI) and UNECE UN/LOCODE Philippines for Subic (PHSFS). CharterPulse uses these identities for reproducible scenario handoff; exact terminal/anchorage details still need commercial confirmation.
- Which exact Subic Bay facility or anchorage is nominated, rather than only the PHSFS port identity?
- What berth, draft and vessel-dimension limits apply to the nominated receiving point?
- Is discharge expected with ship’s gear, shore gear, grabs or another handling arrangement?
- What discharge productivity and receiving-window assumptions should replace the generic 7-day port-time input?
What should you confirm first?
Confirm the exact loading place, loading method, draft constraints and whether any anchorage or transshipment assumptions apply before treating the model as executable. Confirm the exact discharge facility, berth restrictions, draft, discharge rate and any gear or grab 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