[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Singapore has made it compulsory this month for bunker suppliers to use mass flow meters when making their fuel oil deliveries, hoping to end years of disputes over buyers receiving less fuel than they paid for. But few expect other port authorities to follow the example of the world’s largest bunkering hub.
MFMs are systems that measure fuel deliveries more accurately than other methods — often bunker deliveries are monitored using a measuring tape dipped into the fuel tank to calculate the volume, a method open to mistakes and abuse. The meters can counter the so-called “cappuccino effect” where fuel is delivered with large amounts of air artificially raising its volume, leaving customers with less product than they thought they had bought.
Singapore chose to make the use of MFMs compulsory for fuel oil bunkering as of the start of this year. But it remains unclear whether any other authorities are prepared to take the same stance.
“It’s definitely something we’re looking into,” Ronald Backers, a liquid bulk business intelligence adviser at the Port of Rotterdam, told S&P Global Platts. “But the most important thing in comparison to Singapore is that we as the port authority are not the competent authority to make this mandatory.”
“We also feel that if you would do something here, that other ports in the area should do the same,” he added.
The concern is that, were Rotterdam or a similar port to make MFM use mandatory, the port might suffer as demand shifted to a location with less strict regulation. In a closely knit hub like the one in northwest Europe, any individual authority would be wary of imposing new regulations without a wider regional agreement to impose the rules in unison.
Hong Kong and Fujairah have been ports talked about in the past as possibly introducing an MFM mandate one day, but it looks unlikely to happen without a strong support and monitoring system like that offered by Singapore’s Maritime and Ports Authority, an executive at a global bunkering firm said.
“There’s a lot of talk, but there’s still a long way to go for the mandatory implementation of MFMs elsewhere,” he said. “I doubt if other ports have the appetite or infrastructure to do this in the short run.”
Another source suggested Gibraltar as a candidate for following Singapore’s example, but the authorities there currently have no plans to require suppliers to use MFMs.
“At the moment we’re keeping an open mind on it,” John Ghio, senior port officer at the Gibraltar Port Authority, said. “There are key differences between Singapore and Gibraltar, notably the size of the port, its physical characteristics, and how close we are to competing ports and competing jurisdictions, and I think that has a bearing on how we approach the whole issue.”
“At the moment we do not feel that there is a growing demand or pressure from customer vessels seeking mass flow meters,” he added. “Given the current shipping climate, what we are reluctant to do is jump in without giving it full consideration and increase the burden and the overhead for our bunker suppliers, when there might not be a commercial imperative on them to take that step.”
But another option would be to provide incentives for bunker suppliers to use MFMs, without going as far as making the systems mandatory. Offering reduced port fees to companies using MFMs, for example, could encourage more to invest in the meters.
The Port of Rotterdam is currently working with terminal owners and energy companies to see what support can be given to incentivize MFM take-up, Backers said.
“It’s definitely a subject that is of interest to us, and that we feel we should do something with, but the support is not decided yet,” he said. “It’s something that we’ll probably look into this year, what this support would look like.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
