By Shashi Dhanatunge –
A former Chairman of Ceylon Shipping Corporation, Director of Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and Vice Chairman of Civil Aviation Authority. Currently holding Board positions in several local and overseas companies
Overview
Strategy |
Description |
Objective |
Deep Water Bunkering + Fresh Water Bundling |
Develop a deep water bunkering terminal with rapid access, competitive fuel prices, and near-cost fresh water |
Make Colombo the most affordable, efficient, and attractive bunkering hub in the Indian Ocean |
Colombo’s Water Tariffs: The National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) sets a standard tariff of Rs. 750 per cubic meter for supplying water to ships (Category 72: “Shipping”) (2398-19_E-water.pdf). Under current practice, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) charges about US$8 per 1,000 liters (1 m³) for fresh water delivered by barge, with a minimum charge of US$75 per delivery. This roughly equates to LKR ~2,400–2,500 per m³ at recent exchange rates – 3 to 4 times higher than the NWSDB base tariff. The proposal is to instead offer water to vessels at the NWSDB’s tariff (Rs. 750/m³) plus only a minimal logistics margin. In practice, this could bring the effective price down to roughly Rs. 800–850 per m³ (≈US$2.3–2.5), a dramatic reduction from current port pricing and very close to the local cost of supply.
Singapore’s Water Pricing: In Singapore – one of the world’s top bunkering ports – fresh water is considerably more expensive, and is billed on a steeply tiered scale. Water supplied to ships from the PUB (Public Utilities Board) mains is charged S$7.35 per 1,000 liters (~US$7.35) for the first 50 m³, then rising to S$8.35 for the next 50 m³, and progressively up to S$21.35 (US$21.35) per m³ for usage above 400 m³. There is also a 20 m³ minimum order (i.e. a minimum charge of ~US$147 per supply) and an added water conservation tax on all sales. These rates reflect Singapore’s scarce freshwater – the port’s pricing incorporates costly desalinated/recycled water and import fees, plus taxes to curb heavy usage.
Other Major Ports: Other key bunkering hubs similarly have higher water costs. For example, Middle Eastern ports like Fujairah or Dubai rely on desalination for potable water, so their ship water prices tend to be on par with or above Colombo’s current US$8/m³ rate (often in the $8–15 per ton range, with minimum delivery fees). European ports (e.g. Rotterdam) may have lower raw water costs than Singapore due to abundant supply, but still charge for delivery and infrastructure, typically a few dollars per ton. In India, ports have decent freshwater availability but historically haven’t leveraged ultra-cheap water as a competitive tool. In summary, Colombo’s proposed Rs. 750+ minimal margin pricing – equivalent to roughly US$2.5–3 per m³ – would make it an outlier low-cost provider of fresh water among major ports.
Figure 1: Comparison of fresh water tariffs for vessels at Colombo vs. Singapore and Fujairah along with bunker prices and port charges. Colombo’s current port price (~US$8/m³) is already similar to Singapore’s base rate (~US$7.3 for first 50 m³) ( Supply of Water | Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) ). The proposed Colombo rate (~US$2.5) is dramatically lower. Singapore’s tariffs escalate with volume (up to US$21+ for high consumption) due to its scarce water resources and added conservation taxes ( Supply of Water | Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) ).
Port |
Bunker Fuel Price (USD/MT) |
Fresh Water Price (USD/m³) |
Combined Cost (USD) |
Avg. Berthing Wait Time |
Port Charges (USD/GT) |
Singapore |
650 |
7.85 |
657.85 |
6–12 hours |
5–7 |
Fujairah |
660 |
8.50 |
668.50 |
8–14 hours |
4–5 |
Colombo (Current) |
670 |
8.00 |
678.00 |
10–20 hours |
4.5–6 |
Colombo (Future – Deep Port Bunker + Water Bundle) |
660 |
2.50 |
662.50 |
2–6 hours |
4.5–6 |
Figure 1
Offering competitively priced (or even nominal-cost) fresh water bundled with bunker fuel can make Colombo more attractive to ship operators, even if Colombo’s fuel prices carry a slight premium. Typically, ship owners are highly sensitive to bunker fuel prices – historically, Colombo’s bunker fuel has been pricier than regional alternatives because Sri Lanka imports most of its fuel from hubs like Singapore/Fujairah (Sri Lanka sees positive bunker prospects on pricing economics ...). This has sometimes made ships bypass Colombo for cheaper fuel in India or Singapore. By bundling, Colombo can shift the decision criterion from just “fuel price” to “total cost of refueling stop.” Key points include:
In short, bundling turns fresh water into a strategic loss-leader or value-add: Colombo sacrifices the high margin it could charge on water in order to make the overall bunker stop cost competitive. This can attract ships that would otherwise refuel elsewhere. The net gain for Colombo is in higher volume of bunker sales (and port fees), which likely outweighs the “loss” of not marking up water.
Moreover, providing both fuel and water together means ships can avoid an extra stop purely for water. In some cases, vessels might top up fuel at one port and then get water at another (especially if water quality or cost is an issue). If Colombo offers both at once, a ship can save time and scheduling complexity. This enhanced convenience and cost-efficiency strengthens Colombo’s value proposition despite any fuel price premium.
Strategic Fuel Transition Plan (Years 1–10)
Time and Operational Savings
Location |
Average Turnaround (Hrs) |
Post-Upgrade Colombo |
Time Saved |
Singapore |
6–12 |
2–6 |
~4 hours |
Fujairah |
8–14 |
2–6 |
~6 hours |
Current Colombo |
10–20 |
2–6 |
~10 hours |
Figure 2
Benefits: Lower anchorage costs, faster turnaround, improved scheduling.
To position Colombo as the most cost-effective and service-complete refueling stop in the region, a coordinated marketing and pricing strategy should be executed. Below are strategic recommendations:
Pros and Cons Comparison
Factor |
Singapore |
Fujairah |
Colombo (Post-Upgrade) |
Fuel Price |
Mid-range (High Volume) |
Mid-range |
Competitive due to volume |
Fresh Water Price |
High ($7.85/m³) |
Very High ($8.50/m³) |
Low ($2.50/m³) |
Berthing Time |
Moderate |
Longer |
Short (2–6 hrs) |
Port Charges |
Moderate (5–7 USD/GT) |
Low |
Competitive (4.5–6 USD/GT) |
Fuel Innovation Readiness |
LNG/Methanol Ready |
Conventional |
VLSFO/Biofuel/Methanol (Planned) |
Infrastructure Growth |
Saturated |
Limited |
High |
Figure 3
Key Takeaways
Developing deep water bunkering infrastructure at the Port of Colombo is not only feasible but also economically compelling. Although the required upgrades are capital-intensive, they are grounded in proven models from successful international port projects. An investment of around $125+ million could be recouped through steady growth in bunker sales, especially given Colombo’s strategic location on global shipping lanes. Over a 10-year horizon, the project has the potential to transform Colombo from being purely a container hub into a dual hub for both container handling and bunkering services, unlocking millions of dollars in new revenue streams and significantly strengthening Sri Lanka’s competitive maritime position.
Crucially, the comparison of scenarios shows that not pursuing this project carries a high opportunity cost. With regional competitors like Singapore, Fujairah, and even Hambantota actively capturing bunker markets, Colombo cannot afford to lag if it aspires to be a leading maritime center in the Indian Ocean. By investing in a state-of-the-art bunkering facility — potentially via public-private partnerships to ease the financial burden on the state — Sri Lanka stands to secure long-term economic dividends and enhance national energy security. The Port City development offers an ideal platform to integrate this new oil terminal, complementing and expanding Colombo’s role as a critical logistics and trade hub.
Especially with the new condition introduced by the IMF to its ongoing loan program with Sri Lanka, calling for the abolition of tax concessions currently offered to the investors in the China-backed Port City project, the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) shall need to re-strategies its investment promotion programs and also to review how to use the Port City lands productively. Otherwise, the available option is to look at a Single Point Mooring Buoy (SPMB) installed off shore in the Northern end of the Port of Colombo.
Moreover, by adopting smart pricing strategies — particularly using fresh water as a tactical loss-leader and maintaining tight bunker margins — and aggressively marketing its distinct advantages, Colombo can elevate itself as the go-to cost-effective refueling hub in the region. This will require not only visionary initial steps but also an ongoing commitment to customer engagement, operational excellence, and service innovation. With phased execution, strategic partnerships, and continuous refinement, Colombo can realistically emerge as a dominant regional bunkering and maritime services hub, turning what was once a secondary port-of-call into a primary destination of choice for global shipping lines. In doing so, Colombo will not only diversify its port economy but also reinforce Sri Lanka’s broader position in global maritime trade.
Leave Comments