B.S.I Explains Throughput Fees

Shawn Chavarria

The B.S.C.F.A. is also upset over what it says are unjust throughput charges proposed by A.S.R/B.S.I. in the temporary open agreement.  The association claims that it does not include the charges, neither did the one-year agreement that existed last year between them. According to the B.S.C.F.A., the throughput charges are new and unjust.

Shawn Chavarria, Director of Finance, A.S.R/B.S.I

“The same commercial agreement that we’re proposing with the B.S.C.F.A., which included the clarification of the terminology for to put fee on the terminal handling charge. Port charges have always been a core part of the commercial agreement and as a shared cost. So that was not something new. What, in our view, would have allowed this to go through very easily is because we were able to demonstrate that we were saving significantly by moving the operations to Big Creek, so it was a win-win for everyone. So that agreement was signed with the three associations, but the media may recall that the B.S.C.F.A did not want to sign the existing commercial agreement. They wanted a new agreement that moved to gross value, 60-40. Perhaps indeed that that might be the point of contention that it wasn’t very clear in the commercial agreement, although we have done all the presentations and shared all the information and certainly in the key in price estimates that we were providing the associations that it was stipulated there, that explicitness was something that perhaps in the rush to sign an agreement, was that made absolutely clear. Well, certainly going forward, that’s what we want to seek to ensure, that it’s clear to to all the parties, what now constitutes the shipping costs, of which throughput fees is one of them.”