Connect with us

Business

Singapore: Industry players weigh in on debunking MFM bunkering flowrate reduction myth

Variety of shipowners and bunker suppliers, including Metcore International and Endress+Hauser, tell Manifold Times if bunkering flowrate has been an issue since introduction into the Singapore bunkering sector.

Admin

Published

on

EH dual MFM setup

A recent survey conducted by independent Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times has found the introduction of coriolis mass flowmeters (MFMs) to have minimally affected the bunkering flowrate of equipped bunker tankers, especially when taken into the context of shipowners’ delivery requirements.

Since 1 January 2017, the local bunkering sector has been conducting MFM bunkering operations for all marine fuel oil deliveries; the programme was extended to include distillate deliveries from 1 July 2019.

Shipowner’s perspective

Major shipowners and operators were keen to share their bunkering experiences at Singapore port with Manifold Times. From the overall survey with shipowners and bunker suppliers, it seems the ideal flowrate for receiving marine fuel was around 500 metric tonnes per hour (t/h) – a standard readily met by Singapore bunker tankers.

“We conduct between 10 to 16 bunkering operations per month at Singapore port and have not experienced any significant reduction of flow rate during bunkering,” a Singapore-based top 10 international ship management source told Manifold Times.

The Director of a dry bulk shipping firm which conducts more than 80 bunkering operations at the republic per month pointed out any delays in bunkering was likely “caused more by inflexible ex-wharf supply and short supplies and congestion [at Singapore port]”.

“The flow rate is fine because within the dry bulk sector we require max rate of up to 500 t/h due to the flange/connection etc,” he stated.

A source from amongst the world’s largest container shipping lines noticed MFMs produced “no negative impact” in delivery flowrates.

“The current MFM flowrate is acceptable for bunker delivery to be completed within the vessel port stay under normal circumstance,” he said. “While having a higher flowrate may sound attractive, the corresponding higher pressure may have safety concerns.”

Bunker supplier’s perspective

Local suppliers experienced with the technical operation of MFM-equipped bunker tankers had more to add when asked if MFMs severely reduced the delivery flowrate of their barges.

A terminal source shared MFMs, including those from manufacturer Endress+Hauser, could perform at up to 1,000 t/h. However, vessel safety would be more of a concern at such a high output.

“On average, delivery throughput of 400 – 500 t/h can be easily achieved with MFMs. In any case, it’s the receiving vessel that has restrictions and they ask us to reduce our flow rate due to the arrangement of their vessel piping system,” he explained.

“Most of the time the receiving vessel cannot take the maximum flow rate given by the bunker tanker. There is nothing to do with restrictions, if any, from MFMs.”

The Director of a bunkering firm noted the importance of getting a correctly sized MFM and pipeline configuration for the bunker tanker to ensure optimal flow.

“The installation of an MFM system onboard a bunker tanker typically introduces between half to one bar of pressure into the piping system which results in a 5-10% drop in flowrate on level ground,” he noted.

“During actual operations, variables affecting flow rates include viscosity, temperature, back pressure from head, whether receiving vessels are restricting the receiving rate, and more.

“At sea, we typically encounter freeboard of between 5 to 20 metres for receiving vessels. In general, we encounter a drop of 1 bar of pressure for every 10 metres but this doesn’t stop us from ensuring throughput of between 400 – 600 t/h for clients.

“This is especially so as a good number of bunker vessels in Singapore have dual cargo pumps rated at 1,000 m3/hr driven by main engines or electric motors which ensure the flowrate of 400 – 600 t/h is easily achievable.”

The owner of another bunker supplier, on the other hand, claimed a 5-10% decrease in flowrate after installation of an MFM onboard a bunker tanker as already a “safe estimation”.

“There is no logical reason for any big drops in flowrate after installing an MFM onboard. Even if there were any drops, this could be easy compensated by increasing pressure from the pump side.”

Other bunker suppliers approached by Manifold Times highlighted their marine fuel delivery vessels had to meet SS 648:2019 – Code of practice for bunker mass flow metering; a locally developed standard which bunker tankers pass before engaging in commercial operations.

SS 648:2019 covers the requirements of bunker quantity measurement using a coriolis MFM system including governs metering system qualification, installation, testing, procedures, and documentation for bunker custody transfer.

“Suggesting the installation of coriolis MFMs onboard to have affected the bunkering flowrate of equipped bunker tankers is not entirely accurate and without context,” noted the Director of a top Singapore bunkering firm.

“Each MFM has a QMax (i.e., the maximum flow rate) which will depend on meter selection, the bunker tanker’s piping system, amongst other variables. Meeting this requirement and more ensures proper delivery.”

Bunker deliveries conducted within the specified minimum (Qmin), maximum (Qmax), and minimum measured quantity (MMQ) flow rates under SS 648:2019 ensures best practice for marine fuel delivery operations, added management personnel of another bunker supplier.

Metcore International

Darrick Pang, Managing Director of Singapore-based MFM system measurement solutions provider Metcore International Pte Ltd (Metcore), shared further technical details with Manifold Times.

“Introduction of any extra instrument such as a MFM within the pipeline of a bunker tanker will definitely affect flowrate but this also depends on how the system has been setup and the way the MFM is installed,” he stated.

“Any pressure drop is normal, and this can be mitigated with correct sizing of the MFM and working with meter vendors to calculate the flowrate before installation.

“Though coriolis MFMs have no mechanical parts, it is typical to experience up to a 1.0 bar pressure drop in a normal cell.

“Flowrate is very very subjective and there are many possibilities affecting it.”

Other areas affecting flowrate after installation of a MFM onboard a bunker tanker include design of its pipe system, type of pumps used, height of the receiving vessel, and more, he added.

Endress+Hauser

In summary, the situation could be best explained by Mohamed Abdenbi, Business Process Consultant, of Endress+Hauser (S.E.A.) Pte. Ltd., the Singapore branch of Swiss-based MFM manufacturer Endress+Hauser.

“We have not heard of MFM systems affecting flowrate of bunker tankers. Reason is that MFMs are sized in a way to achieve optimum condition between pressure drop and accuracy. In addition to that, the availability of different MFM sizes allows us to select the best possible meter without reducing the flow rate during bunker operation.”

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 18 July, 2023

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

Yang Ming orders six LNG dual-fuel, ammonia-ready containerships from Hanwha Ocean

Each of the six new vessels will have a capacity of up to 13,650 TEU and feature LNG dual-fuel propulsion and Ammonia Fuel Ready specifications.

Admin

Published

on

By

Yang Ming orders six LNG dual-fuel, ammonia-ready containerships from Hanwha Ocean

Taiwanese shipping firm Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation (Yang Ming) and South Korean shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean on Wednesday (2 September) signed a shipbuilding contract for six 13,000 TEU class LNG dual-fuel container vessels. 

The contract was signed by Dr. Chuck Tsai, Chairman of Yang Ming, and Mr. Charles Kim, CEO of Hanwha Ocean. The vessels are scheduled for delivery between 2028 and 2029. 

They will complement Yang Ming’s existing fleet of 10,000+ TEU vessels and serve as key vessels on East-West services, with deployment flexibility across trade lanes connecting Asia with the East and West Coasts of North America, South America, and the Mediterranean. 

Each of the six new vessels will have a capacity of up to 13,650 TEU and feature LNG dual-fuel propulsion and Ammonia Fuel Ready specifications.

“As Yang Ming transitions toward net-zero emissions, LNG provides a relatively mature and economically viable alternative fuel solution, capable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 20%,” the company said. 

“At the same time, ammonia can serve as a carbon-free fuel by utilising converted LNG storage facilities, while offering relatively lower conversion costs and comparatively well-developed supply chains and infrastructure. The Ammonia Fuel Ready design will therefore provide Yang Ming with greater flexibility in responding to increasingly stringent international regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.”

In addition, the vessels will be equipped with Type B LNG fuel tanks with a design pressure of 1.0 bar to enhance the safety and efficiency of LNG operations, together with a range of energy-saving technologies, including Wind Shields, Rudder Bulbs, Pre-Swirl Stators, and Shore Power Systems. Smart ship technologies and cybersecurity protection features will also be incorporated to enhance operational efficiency, safety, and reliability while effectively reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Deliveries under Yang Ming’s next-generation fleet optimization plan commenced earlier this year. By 2030, a total of 24 new vessels are expected to enter service. 

This includes 18 LNG dual-fuel vessels—comprising five 15,500 TEU, seven 16,000 TEU, and the six 13,000 TEU vessels under this contract—alongside six 8,000 TEU methanol dual-fuel-ready ships. 

 

Photo credit: Yang Ming Marine Transport
Published: 4 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

LR, China’s MARIC unveil tanker concept ready for three future bunker fuels

Both secured AiP for a new 114,000 DWT product and crude oil tanker designed to accommodate future conversion to LNG, methanol or ammonia.

Admin

Published

on

By

LR, China’s MARIC unveil tanker concept ready for three future bunker fuels

Lloyd’s Register (LR) and the Marine Design and Research Institute of China (MARIC) on Thursday (3 September) have secured Approval in Principle (AiP) for a new 114,000 DWT product and crude oil tanker designed to accommodate future conversion to LNG, methanol or ammonia.

Announced at SMM 2026, the concept addresses one of the biggest investment challenges facing shipping today: the need to develop vessels and capabilities that can support a range of alternative fuel options and pathways as technologies, infrastructure and regulations evolve.

While LNG is already a mature fuel pathway, methanol and ammonia remain at an earlier stage of development, with questions around global fuel availability, infrastructure development, economics and long-term adoption.

The 114,000 DWT tanker concept has been designed as a product and crude oil carrier that can accommodate future conversion to LNG, methanol or ammonia as technologies, regulations and fuel supply chains mature. By incorporating conversion readiness at the design stage, the concept aims to reduce future retrofit complexity and provide owners with greater confidence when planning long-term fleet investments.

The design concept was reviewed against LR’s July 2026 class rules and regulations, including requirements relating to ships using gases and other low-flashpoint fuels, alongside relevant IACS Common Structural Rules for oil tankers. Final classification and statutory approval remain subject to full compliance with all applicable rules and regulations.

Theo Kourmpelis, Global Business Director for Tankers, Lloyd’s Register, said: “Shipowners are being asked to make major investment decisions today despite continued uncertainty around which fuels will dominate in the decades ahead. Alternative fuel solutions each offer potential pathways to compliance, but fuel infrastructure, regulation and economics continue to evolve at different speeds around the world.

“Designs that preserve flexibility will be critical in helping owners manage risk while preparing for multiple future scenarios.”

Si Nan, Marine & Offshore Marketing Department Vice Director, MARIC, said: “As the industry explores different decarbonisation pathways, shipowners need vessel designs that can adapt alongside technological and regulatory developments. This concept was developed specifically to provide greater fuel flexibility and long-term resilience, allowing owners to respond to changing market requirements without being locked into a single fuel strategy.

“Receiving Approval in Principle from Lloyd’s Register is an important milestone that validates the design concept and supports its future development.”

 

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 4 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

DNV: Alternative-fuelled vessel orders hit highest monthly level since October 2024

LNG-fuelled vessels accounted for the vast majority of August activity while the strong summer performance marked a significant acceleration in ordering activity after a relatively slow start to the year.

Admin

Published

on

By

DNV: Alternative-fuelled vessel orders hit highest monthly level since October 2024

Latest data from classification society DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insight (AFI) platform alternative-fuelled vessel ordering was strong in August, with 52 new vessels added to the platform.

This is the highest monthly total since October 2024 and follows another active month in July, when 47 vessels were added to the database.

LNG-fuelled vessels accounted for the vast majority of August activity, with 46 orders recorded. The container segment led the way with 30 orders, while the car carrier segment contributed a further 12 LNG-fuelled vessels. In addition, four ethanol-fuelled bulk carriers and two hydrogen-powered bulk carriers were added during the month, as well as one LNG bunker vessel.

The strong summer performance marked a significant acceleration in ordering activity after a relatively slow start to the year. In total, 242 alternative-fuelled vessel orders have been placed in the first eight months of 2026, representing a 27% increase compared with the same period in 2025.

LNG remains the dominant fuel choice, accounting for 63% of all alternative-fuelled vessel orders registered so far this year. Container vessels represent the largest share of these LNG orders (59%), followed by car carriers (30%).

Jason Stefanatos, Global Decarbonization Director at DNV Maritime, said: “The past two months have been particularly strong for alternative-fuelled vessel ordering, with August recording the highest monthly total we’ve seen since October 2024. This has helped lift year-to-date orders to a level well above the same period last year.

“LNG remains the leading fuel choice, driven largely by activity in the container and car carrier segments. These sectors have been among the earliest adopters of alternative fuels, supported by predictable liner operations and increasing demand from cargo owners to reduce emissions across supply chains. 

“For many owners, LNG offers a combination of emissions reductions, fuel availability and future flexibility while the longer-term fuel landscape continues to evolve. 

“At the same time, the latest figures include orders for ethanol- and hydrogen-fuelled vessels, highlighting that owners continue to explore a range of decarbonization pathways. Different segments are making different fuel choices, but the overall level of activity demonstrates continued investment in lower-emission shipping.”

Screenshot 2026 09 04 at 12.29.26 PM Screenshot 2026 09 04 at 12.29.36 PM

 

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 4 September, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending