Connect with us

Mass Flowmeter

VPS Quick Screen Service summarises top issues during MFM bunkering ops in 2018

‘It is important to gain a deeper understanding over TR 48:2015 non-conformances as not all cases mean we have a big problem,’ says Managing Director, AMEA.

Admin

Published

on

5c36ae86a1d07 1547087494

Data from international fuel testing and inspection company Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS) mass flowmeter (MFM) Quick Screen Service detected several instances of operators not managing MFMs to the Technical Reference for Bunker Mass Flow Metering (TR 48:2015) during bunkering operations at Singapore port in 2018.

The MFM Quick Screen service for shipowners evaluates the performance of MFM during bunker deliveries in accordance to the Technical Reference for Bunker Mass Flow Metering (TR 48:2015) at Singapore.

“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and Working Group on mass flow metering have done an excellent job to develop TR 48:2015,” Rahul Choudhuri, Managing Director, AMEA, told Manifold Times.

“However, these guidelines are not always followed by bunkering crew during operations on the waterfront.

“Based from collated data of the VPS MFM Quick Screen Service we were able to summarise and get a good idea of the key points stakeholders should look out for during a MFM bunker delivery process.

“These areas are the ones with a higher risk of non-conformance.”

The most reported cases of operators not complying to TR 48:2015 practices in 2018 were over line clearing practices, deliveries under the minimum mass flow rate (Qmin), MFM drive gain/damping, and the flow rate going beneath the low flow cut off value.

These problems, on the surface, may suggest violations during MFM bunkering but this is not always the case, clarifies Choudhuri who used the case of line clearing as an example.

Section 10.5.2.10 of TR 48:2015 states line clearing should not be repeated more than twice after completion of the pumping operation.

“We find it to be mistakes made by the bunker operator in most cases when line clearing is done more than twice, however, we are also aware that some vessels specifically request line clearing to be conducted for an extended period of time after the bunker operation thereby not conforming to TR 48:2015 practises,” he says.

“In light of this, we need to state that extended line clearing creates aeration and therefore affects the final MFM reading. A good line clearing & stripping should be around 10 minutes, and the maximum we have seen is up to 30 minutes.”

Choudhuri next points out the operation of MFM units beneath the Qmin to be the second most common TR 48:2015 issue detected by the VPS MFM Quick Screen Service.

“Mass flowmeters are designed to operate within certain tolerances and delivering bunker fuel beneath the Qmin over a period of time will certainly affect the device’s measurement uncertainty,” he explains.

“The delivery of bunker fuel below Qmin will affect the measurement uncertainty of the MFM.”

However, Qmin caused by e.g. the momentary changing of tanks or low pumping rate, and consistent Qmin over a period of time are two different operations.

“Specifically, shipowners will need to take notice of consistent Qmin over a period of time as this affects the total reading and measurement uncertainty of the MFM,” Choudhuri highlights.

The indication of excessive drive gain or damping where more deflection occurs in the flow tube, and aeration within the MFM system, are among the top TR 48:2015 non-conformances recorded; the scenario occurs when the MFM system detects entrained air, also known as aeration, introduced during the bunkering process.

The transfer of bunker material beneath the low flow cut off value was also within the list of top TR 48:2015 non-conformances registered by the VPS MFM Quick Screen Service.

"The low flow cut off value for fuel oil bunkering operations is usually set to around 10 metric tonnes (mt) per hour or less subject to pipe diameter and this is the lowest level that a MFM can measure to deliver fluid; anything below this value and the whole unit stops measuring which can be bad for the bunker supplier," says Choudhuri.

“But registering a transfer rate beneath the low flow cut off value does not necessary mean the equipment is not functioning well as it can happen when a supplier is conducting a tank to tank change operation while bunkering.”

He concludes: “As discussed in the above scenarios, the results themselves show how diverse the reasons are for TR 48:2015 non-conformances; a deeper understanding is important as not all cases mean we have a big problem.”

“This is also where trained personnel, such as the role of the bunker surveyor, comes in to tell the difference and will continue to exist.

“The surveyor’s role is still very important and these are just some of the issues which may or may not be the supplier's fault; which is why we want these operations to be well managed.

“Today, the bunker surveyor is more relevant than before as we have gone beyond the traditional surveying scope on just check on bunker quantity. 

“Many practises in TR 48 are currently under review to upgrade it to a Singapore Standard (SS) and this includes the extended role of the bunker surveyor as well.”

Photo credit: Veritas Petroleum Services
Published: 10 January, 2019

 

Continue Reading

Mass Flowmeter

TFG Marine advances global MFM rollout with two US Gulf bunker barges

“Buffalo B414” and “Buffalo B304”, were recently fitted with the equipment, with both supply barges receiving ISO 22192 certification for their newly installed MFMs last month.

Admin

Published

on

By

TFG Marine advances global MFM rollout with two US Gulf bunker barges

Global marine fuel supply and procurement firm TFG Marine on Wednesday (2 September) said it continued to expand mass flow meter (MFM) technology across its US Gulf Coast bunker fleet.

The company said two more vessels, Buffalo B414 and Buffalo B304, were recently fitted with the equipment.

“Both supply barges received ISO 22192 certification for their newly installed MFMs last month, giving customers greater confidence in bunker quantity measurement while supporting a more accurate, transparent and efficient delivery process,” TFG Marine said in a social media post. 

“This marks the latest step in TFG Marine’s ongoing investment in technology and best practice across its global bunkering operations, and forms part of a broader push by our North America team to help drive progress across the region’s bunkering industry.”

Last year, TFG Marine announced it reached a key milestone in its global digitalisation programme with the installation of an ISO 22192-compliant MFM on the Buffalo 404, a barge on time charter from American bunker barge company Buffalo Marine Service Inc.

This was the first ISO-certified MFM-equipped bunkering barge operating in the US Gulf.

The installation was part of TFG Marine’s wider strategy to equip close to 90% of its global bunkering fleet with MFMs by 2026 as a commitment towards improving data integrity, streamlining operations and strengthening trust in marine fuel transactions.

Related: TFG Marine installs first ISO-certified mass flow meter on US Gulf bunkering barge

 

Photo credit: TFG Marine
Published: 4 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Biofuel

Report: GCMD outlines practical approach to quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains

GCMD releases a new report, highlighting a practical approach to help shipowners verify that they receive both the total quantity of fuel and the renewable content contracted.

Admin

Published

on

By

Report: GCMD outlines practical approach to quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains

The Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) on Thursday (27 August) released its report, Quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains, outlining a practical approach to help shipowners verify that they receive both the total quantity of fuel and the renewable content contracted. 

The approach draws on evidence from GCMD’s end-to-end marine biofuel supply chain trials conducted under commercial operating conditions.

Biofuels are purchased not only for their energy content, but also for the renewable content and emissions reductions they represent. The renewable fraction determines the green premium and underpins GHG accounting and regulatory compliance, yet blend ratios, such as B24 or B30, are typically supplier-declared rather than independently verified. Closing this verification gap will strengthen confidence in marine biofuel transactions.

Ensuring reliable measurement of total quantity transferred

Mass flow meters (MFMs) have become the preferred method for custody transfer, as they provide a transparent and auditable basis for determining the quantity of fuel transferred.

However, adding fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) to conventional marine fuels, such as Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) or High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO), can reduce the final blend’s viscosity, potentially pushing it outside the validated operating range of the MFM installed on the bunker barge. To maintain measurement integrity, the viscosity of the final blend should therefore be assessed under the actual transfer conditions against the applicable MFM operating range. This can be managed through appropriate transfer-temperature control or by using MFMs that have been validated for broader ranges.

Verifying the renewable fraction in biofuel blends

Verifying the renewable fraction requires appropriate analytical methods. FAME-based blends can be verified through compositional analysis, while hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO)-based blends require radiocarbon analysis because renewable and fossil hydrocarbons cannot be distinguished through compositional testing. 

Interpreting analytical measurements, however, is not straightforward. Neat FAME may contain up to 3.5% non-ester material, so the measurable FAME content of a finished BXX blend may not exactly match its declared blend ratio.

Laboratory methods also have finite measurement precision. A difference between a measured result and a declared blend ratio therefore does not necessarily indicate incorrect blending or under-delivery.

Together, the three pillars of GCMD’s quality, quantity, and GHG emissions abatement assurance framework address whether the fuel is fit for use, delivers the claimed emissions reductions, and contains the contracted fuel quantity and renewable content. 

Professor Lynn Loo, CEO of GCMD, said: “Buyers need confidence that they have received both the fuel and the renewable content they paid for. This report provides a practical, evidence-backed basis for verifying renewable fuel claims, protecting commercial value and supporting credible GHG accounting as marine biofuel use scales.” 

Note: GCMD’s report can be found here

 

Photo credit: Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation
Published: 27 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Interview

Exclusive: Caroline Yang takes helm on future of IBIA Asia

The newly appointed Chair of IBIA’s Regional Board – Asia, shares her plans to strengthen bunkering standards while promoting transparency and industry collaboration across key Asian maritime hubs.

Admin

Published

on

By

Exclusive: Caroline Yang takes helm on future of IBIA Asia

Caroline Yang, CEO of Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd, outlines her plans for IBIA Asia in her first interview with Manifold Times since becoming Chair of the Regional Board – Asia:

MT: Why is IBIA important to the bunkering market in Asia?

IBIA Asia is amongst five regional boards operating under the umbrella of London-based IBIA Global. Its presence in Asia is vital because the region, excluding the Middle East, accounts for more than 50% of global bunkering volume.

While Singapore continues to maintain its strong lead as the world’s busiest bunkering port with almost 56 million mt of marine fuel delivered in 2025, several ports in China are showing to be strong bunkering ports as well; these developments take place on the back of a forecast for China to be amongst the leading suppliers of green fuels such as methanol.

Based on this alone, IBIA Asia has to play an important role in raising and addressing issues of suppliers and shipowners and the other parties in the regional bunkering eco-system.

MT: What is the overall state of bunkering standards at major Asian ports and how can IBIA elevate this?

Singapore is the clear leader in standards, acting as a “flag bearer” with established protocols including SS 600 for bunkering, SS 648 for bunker mass flow metering, SS 524 for quality management of bunker supply chain, TR 56 for LNG bunkering, and TR 80 for meter verification using master MFM.

While other Asian ports are adopting mass flow meters – a positive step – IBIA Asia’s role is to disseminate these best practices while maintaining deep respect for local operational realities and regulatory environments.

MT: As Chair of the Regional Board – Asia, what are your plans to make this happen? Are there any topics you will be focusing on?

The IBIA Asia regional board of 10 members from comes from a diverse group of suppliers, shipowners, bunker buyers, fuels testers and bunker tanker owners. Backed by a strong secretariat, we are committed to move the needle for bunkering in Asia.

Our initial strategy is outreach-driven, progressing beyond a Singapore-centric approach. For starters, the board will be concentrating on Hong Kong, Zhoushan, and Shanghai, with potential expansion to Japan and South Korea.

The core objective is to promote the quality, transparency, and integrity of bunkers lifted in Asia. This includes building on existing MOUs such as the collaboration with Hong Kong Shipowners Association (HKSOA) to explore alternative bunker fuels, and participation in regional maritime week programmes.

MT: Do you expect to encounter any challenges? What do you think are the solutions?

Challenges, without a doubt; these include macro-level standards and topical quality issues, such as those highlighted in a recent FOBAS report.

We are aware most solutions will not have instant results, but produce short-term, mid-term and long-term responses.

The solution lies in structured communication and feedback loops involving industry, regulators, and experts. Success requires an altruistic approach where stakeholders prioritise the health of the bunkering ecosystem to achieve win-win outcomes, even at the compromise of individual sectors.

MT: Is participation of local/regional IBIA members included within your plan? How will they be involved?

Member participation is the foundation of an association’s strength. The plan involves active outreach – meeting members where they operate and integrating them into meetings to ensure the board’s positions reflect representative industry views. We must push out credible, strong messages to encourage active engagement. If there is anyone in the maritime bunkering in these areas and reading this interview, reach out to us so we can start our conversations!

The Secretariat and some board members have scheduled to visit and attend bunkering events in Hong Kong and China. In November 2026, IBIA will participate in the Hong Kong Maritime Week by organising a one-day conference. We hope to be also participating in the Shanghai Pudong Maritime Conference and the 9th International Petroleum and Natural Gas Enterprises Conference (IPEC 2026), also known as the “Zhoushan Bunker Oil conference”, in late October.

MT: How will previous experience gained at SSA, ICS, MPA, SMF, and Hong Lam Marine contribute to your role at IBIA?

As CEO of Hong Lam Marine, our bunker tankers supply about 10% of bunkering volume in Singapore, so we are an involved and relevant stakeholder. My experiences in the above-mentioned organisations have taught me how to crystallise and articulate important issues, engage effectively with diverse stakeholders, and leverage on pre-existing professional connections to engage more effectively for IBIA Asia.

Related: IBIA announces Caroline Yang as new Regional Board Chair for Asia
Related: IBIA and Hong Kong Shipowners Association to collaborate on alternative bunker fuels
Related: FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 6 August 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending