Introduction:
The purpose of this technical bulletin is to provide information and commentary to IFIA Member Companies
and their clients.
In August, 1996 the American Petroleum Institute published Chapter 12,
Section 1, Part 1 of its Manual of
Petroleum Measurement Standards.
This document is titled, “Calculation
of Static Petroleum Quantities - Upright Cylindrical Tanks and Marine
Vessels”. While static calculations
have been sited in other prior API
MPMS documents, this is the first
time that they have been compiled
into one stand-alone document.
It might be assumed that as there has
been little significant change in static
petroleum measurement for many
years, this document would not have
much impact on the industry in general. However, this is not the case.
By the introduction of a new correction for the effect of temperature on
the steel shell of a tank [CTSh], this
standard has introduced a significant
change in how shore tank quantities
are calculated. While not the only
change required by this new standard,
it is the only one that involves a significant departure from previous
methods of calculation.
The New Correction
Upright cylindrical tanks have capacity tables based upon a specific tank
shell temperature. In the U.S.A. this
is usually 60°F. If the actual tank shell
temperature differs from the capacity table tank shell temperature, the
volumes extracted from that table will
need to be corrected, accordingly.
There are three items to be considered in making this correction; calculate the temperature of the tank
shell, determine the correction and
apply the correction.
Note: The new correction is only
applicable to upright cylindrical tanks. It does not apply to spherical, horizontal
cylindrical, square or rectangular tanks.
Calculate the Temperature of
the Tank Shell:
On a non-insulated tank this is done
by adding 7/8 [0.875] of the product
temperature to 1/8 [0.125] of the ambient air temperature.
For example, what is the tank shell
temperature if the temperature of the
product in the tank is 135°F and the
ambient air temperature is 88°F?
135 x 0.875 = 118.13
88 x 0.125 = 11.00
Tk Shell Temp = 129.13
Rounding to the nearest degree, the
tank shell temperature is recorded as
129°F.
The new standard does not provide
any instruction or advice on how or
where to take the ambient air temperature. IFIA Member Companies
recommend if the terminal has a
weather station, it should be used. Alternatively, leave a cup-case thermometer in a shady area for at least
fifteen minutes or use a portable electronic thermometer that has stabilized
to the surrounding air. Ambient air
temperatures should not be taken in
direct sunlight or enclosed areas.
On insulated tanks, the temperature
of the tank shell is considered to be
the same temperature as the product
in the tank.
Determine the Correction:
For mild steel tanks that were calculated using a tank shell temperature
of 60°F, this can be easily achieved
by entering the table in Appendix
“B1” of the new standard with the
temperature of the tank shell. The
factor can be read directly from the
table. In our example, the correction
for a tank shell temperature of 129°F
is 1.00086.
The “Appendix B” table of correction factors will apply in most situations; however, tanks that contain
heated products often have capacity
tables that were calculated using a
tank shell temperature other than
60°F. Alternately, tanks containing
specialty products such as corrosive
chemicals may be constructed from
something other than mild steel, such
as stainless steel. In this case it will
be necessary to use the formula found
in section 9.1.3 of the new standard,to calculate the correction factor. This
formula is:
CTSh = 1 + 2α∆T + α
2
∆T2
Where:
α = Linear coefficient of expansion
of the tank shell material [see
note 4]
∆T = Tank Shell Temperature (TSh)
minus Base Temperature (T
B
(
The Base Temperature (T
B
) is the
tank shell temperature for which the
capacity table volumes were calculated to. In the US, this is usually
60°F. The base temperature is usually stated on the capacity table. If
this is not the case, contact the company that generated the table. Some
capacity tables make reference to an
operating product temperature; this
should not be confused with the base
temperature, which is a tank shell
temperature. If the tank capacity
tables only reference a product operating temperature, it will be necessary to obtain the actual base tank
shell temperature that was used to
compute the capacity table volumes.
If the tank is insulated, it can be assumed that the base tank shell temperature is the same as the product
operating temperature. If the tank is
not insulated, the user should contact
the company that generated the capacity table to determine what base
tank shell temperature was used.
Some capacity tables state both the
operating product temperature and
the ambient air temperature. In this
case it is possible to calculate the tank
shell temperature; however, caution
must be exercised. Prior to the publication of API MPMS Chapter 2.2A,
in February 1995, the 7/8ths product
and 1/8th ambient temperature rule
for calculating tank shell temperatures did not apply. In earlier documents, tank shell temperature was
calculated by averaging (50/50) the
product temperature and the ambient
air temperature. If this sounds confusing, it is because it is confusing;
and, for this reason we recommend
contacting the company that produced the capacity table, just to be
on the safe side.
When calculating ∆T it is important
to maintain the arithmetic sign as this
value can be positive or negative and
must be applied as such in the CTSh
formula. Table B2 in Appendix B
lists linear expansion coefficients of
various metals.
How to apply the factor
The correction must be applied to the
table volume after it has been corrected for free
water; and, before any correction is made
for the floating
roof, if applicable. The
floating roof
correction is a
function of the
weight of the
roof and the
observed density [API Gravity] of the liquid it floats in;
therefore, it is
essential that
the CTSh is applied before
the floating
roof correction. This gives
the gross observed volume
[GOV] which
is corrected to
gross standard
volume [GSV] in the usual manner,
by applying the VCF.
TABLE VOLUME
GROSS
OBSERVED
VOLUME
GROSS
STANDARD
VOLUME
Volume Correct ion
Factor
[Multiply]
Minus Free
Water
Multiply by CTSh
Plus or Minus
Floating Roof Adjustment
History
As previously mentioned, API
MPMS Chapter 12, Section 1, Part 1
was published in August 1996 and
became effective when it was published. The introduction of the new
correction factor caused both confusion and consternation within the industry and its implementation by oil
companies and terminals has been
extremely varied. Some facilities
implemented it as soon as they could
reprogram their computers while others have yet to implement it.
The position of IFIA Member Companies to this new API standard was
the same as that of any API standard,
which is to implement it fully, unless
another procedure is agreed to by all
parties. It must be borne in mind,
however, that the U.S. Customs may
be one of those parties. When conducting an inspection that falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Customs [this includes all imports and
both foreign and domestic merchandise entering and exiting foreign trade
zones, bonded warehouses and
bonded tank farms] independent inspection companies are required to
carry out their inspection activities
according to the latest API standards,
as specified in 19CFR151.13(g)(2).
According to “Houston Service Port
Trade Bulletin 97-15” issued by the
U.S. Customs Service on April 8th,
1997, the Customs will begin man dating the requirements of API
MPMS Chapter 12.1.1 on June 1st,
1997.
No sooner had the industry gotten
used to the idea of a new calculation
standard, than it was discovered that
there were a number of errors in it.
Most of these were typographical in
nature or situations where a formula
had been modified but the associated
IFIA NAC - Technical Bulletin 97-1Page 3
text had not. However, the equation
that was used to calculate the tank
shell correction was taken from API
MPMS Chapter 2.2A and this was
subsequently found to be incorrect.
This also impacted most of the data
in “Appendix B” including Table B1.
On April 24th, 1997 an errata to API
MPMS Chapter 12.1.1 was issued.
Any references made herein to the
standard include any changes incorporated in the errata.
When working cargoes that are not
subject to Customs jurisdiction, the
application of this standard is a commercial issue and may be used or not,
subject to the agreement of the parties concerned.
Other Requirements
There are additional changes that this
standard imposes, which while not as
significant as the tank shell temperature correction, are nevertheless important.
One of the aims of API MPMS Chapter 12.1.1 was to produce a strict performance standard whereby different
individuals with the same base data
would arrive at exactly the same
number. While coming most of the
way to achieving this aim, it falls a
little short in the area of Volume Correction Factors [VCF], also referred
to as the Correction for the Temperature of the Liquid [CTL].
Table 1of API MPMS Chapter
12.1.1, which details the number of
significant digits (i.e. decimal places)
to use with various measurement
units, shows four decimal places for
the volume correction factor or CTL.
There is also a notation attached
which states that the standard for producing volume correction factors is
the computer subroutine implemenIFIA NAC - Technical Bulletin 97-1
tation procedures of API MPMS
Chapter 11.1, Volume X; which,
when fully implemented generates a
factor of five significant places. The
use of the printed table is acknowledged as a matter of practical necessity but the notation goes on to staate
that this only produces volume correction factors with four decimal
places, in addition to limiting table
entry discrimination levels. It further
states that in the event of a dispute,
the computer generated volume correction factor should take preference.
The procedure for calculating Net
Standard Volume [NSV] from Gross
Standard Volume [GSV] requires the
sediment and water percentage
[S&W] to be converted into a correction factor which is applied to the
GSV. If the volumetric value of the
S&W is required, the NSV is subtracted from the GSV.
There are many other requirements
of API MPMS Chapter 12.1.1 which
are not referenced in this technical
bulletin and it is in no way intended
for this to be a substitute for the standard. The Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, of which Chapter 12.1.1 is a part, is published by
the American Petroleum Institute,
1220 L Street Northwest, Washington D.C. 20005-4070. Copies of the
standard are available from API Publications and Distribution (202) 682-
8000, Order No. H12011.
BUILDING SHIPS
SHIPYARD AT EUROPE
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
TEST OBSERVATION AT THIRD PARTY LABORATORIES (Previously “Witnessing of Analysis”)
IFIA Guidelines recommend that Member Companies carry out testing in their own laboratories. An IFIA
member company that draws samples and conducts its own laboratory analysis can be certain of the
provenance of the samples tested and can vouch for the analysis results. When engaged only to do Test
Observation, however, an inspection company:
• Cannot guarantee the origin of samples they did not participate in drawing,
• Cannot guarantee that when samples are split to allow multiple tests to be conducted on subsamples at different testing stations, such samples are tested without alteration,
• Cannot observe multiple tests being conducted at multiple test stations at the same time,
• Cannot vouch for the accuracy, calibration and maintenance of testing equipment that it does not
own and operate, and
• May not, at every location, ordinarily engage an observer with qualifications sufficient to judge
whether the laboratory techniques employed for specific tests are appropriate and properly
executed.
Where Members are contracted to observe tests carried out by designated third party laboratories this is
on the basis that the Member bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the results but simply that a
suitable representative (an inspector or laboratory technician) will attend during the testing and ascertain
by observation that in his/her opinion the tests were carried out on the correct sample.
Recent discussions have been held with client organisations in order to reinforce the above position,
particularly with regard to responsibility. The position has not changed but the following outline scope of
work has been suggested to form the basis of a service that will provide some additional value for the
client while at the same time avoiding unreasonable responsibilities for the Member.
• Check the test slate.
•
•
•
Enquire whether the designated laboratory can perform the required tests. If not, advise the client,
possibly suggesting that some tests are performed at the Member’s laboratory.
Prepare a Check List for the agreed test slate.
This should be a simple sheet listing the tests to be carried out with results to be noted for each
test.
If agreed, draw samples, deliver to the laboratory and observe compositing
Where samples are from an auto-sampler available performance data should be noted in
accordance with normal procedures. Where samples are ‘supplied’ this should be clearly noted.
Confirm that the correct sample is used for each test.
Alternatively state that this cannot be confirmed, eg not present, missing seal, etc.
Obtain copies of result print outs where available.
Report/record whether results are within or outside the agreed specification, if available.
Countersign the Test Report issued by the designated laboratory adding a suitable disclaimer, eg
‘Observed Only and without Responsibility for Results’. A similar disclaimer should be included on the
Check List.
Attach the Observation Report and completed Check List to the designated laboratory’s Test Report.
Results are to be issued only on the designated laboratory paperwork and NOT transcribed on to
Member Company letterhead. The Member Company should never represent as its own, results from
tests conducted by others or tests carried out on samples of unknown or uncertain provenance.
This bulletin is for information and guidance and addresses the limitations upon the process of Test
Observation and the risks inherent in relying upon it. IFIA strongly recommends that attention is given to
comments regarding responsibility for analyses and disclaimers and, particularly recommends that third
party results, whether observed or not, should be reported only on the document prepared by the
designated laboratory and must NOT be transcribed.
Parties to Letter of Credit transactions where an independent Certificate of Analysis is required ordinarily
should not expect to receive such a certificate based solely upon Test Observation. Attention is drawn to
the IFIA Technical Bulletin relating to Letters of Credit, TB 06-02.
If an IFIA Member is contracted to observe testing in a third-party (e.g. terminal) laboratory, which is operated
by that same IFIA Member, the IFIA Member Company will advise the Principal immediately of the situation.
Note: 'Test Report' in this bulletin refers to any document issued by a third party laboratory containing test results. Such documents may also be referred to as Laboratory Reports, Certificates of Quality, Certificates of Analysis etc., depending on the location.
member company that draws samples and conducts its own laboratory analysis can be certain of the
provenance of the samples tested and can vouch for the analysis results. When engaged only to do Test
Observation, however, an inspection company:
• Cannot guarantee the origin of samples they did not participate in drawing,
• Cannot guarantee that when samples are split to allow multiple tests to be conducted on subsamples at different testing stations, such samples are tested without alteration,
• Cannot observe multiple tests being conducted at multiple test stations at the same time,
• Cannot vouch for the accuracy, calibration and maintenance of testing equipment that it does not
own and operate, and
• May not, at every location, ordinarily engage an observer with qualifications sufficient to judge
whether the laboratory techniques employed for specific tests are appropriate and properly
executed.
Where Members are contracted to observe tests carried out by designated third party laboratories this is
on the basis that the Member bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the results but simply that a
suitable representative (an inspector or laboratory technician) will attend during the testing and ascertain
by observation that in his/her opinion the tests were carried out on the correct sample.
Recent discussions have been held with client organisations in order to reinforce the above position,
particularly with regard to responsibility. The position has not changed but the following outline scope of
work has been suggested to form the basis of a service that will provide some additional value for the
client while at the same time avoiding unreasonable responsibilities for the Member.
• Check the test slate.
•
•
•
Enquire whether the designated laboratory can perform the required tests. If not, advise the client,
possibly suggesting that some tests are performed at the Member’s laboratory.
Prepare a Check List for the agreed test slate.
This should be a simple sheet listing the tests to be carried out with results to be noted for each
test.
If agreed, draw samples, deliver to the laboratory and observe compositing
Where samples are from an auto-sampler available performance data should be noted in
accordance with normal procedures. Where samples are ‘supplied’ this should be clearly noted.
Confirm that the correct sample is used for each test.
Alternatively state that this cannot be confirmed, eg not present, missing seal, etc.
Obtain copies of result print outs where available.
Report/record whether results are within or outside the agreed specification, if available.
Countersign the Test Report issued by the designated laboratory adding a suitable disclaimer, eg
‘Observed Only and without Responsibility for Results’. A similar disclaimer should be included on the
Check List.
Attach the Observation Report and completed Check List to the designated laboratory’s Test Report.
Results are to be issued only on the designated laboratory paperwork and NOT transcribed on to
Member Company letterhead. The Member Company should never represent as its own, results from
tests conducted by others or tests carried out on samples of unknown or uncertain provenance.
This bulletin is for information and guidance and addresses the limitations upon the process of Test
Observation and the risks inherent in relying upon it. IFIA strongly recommends that attention is given to
comments regarding responsibility for analyses and disclaimers and, particularly recommends that third
party results, whether observed or not, should be reported only on the document prepared by the
designated laboratory and must NOT be transcribed.
Parties to Letter of Credit transactions where an independent Certificate of Analysis is required ordinarily
should not expect to receive such a certificate based solely upon Test Observation. Attention is drawn to
the IFIA Technical Bulletin relating to Letters of Credit, TB 06-02.
If an IFIA Member is contracted to observe testing in a third-party (e.g. terminal) laboratory, which is operated
by that same IFIA Member, the IFIA Member Company will advise the Principal immediately of the situation.
Note: 'Test Report' in this bulletin refers to any document issued by a third party laboratory containing test results. Such documents may also be referred to as Laboratory Reports, Certificates of Quality, Certificates of Analysis etc., depending on the location.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
SAFETY ACCESS ON INSPECTION LOCATIONS
Safe Access and Lighting on Board Vessels and in Terminals
IFIA Member Companies wish to make known their position with regard to safe access. Our field personnel perform tasks in Refineries, Terminals, and on board Marine Vessels and we regard the safety of our personnel to be our highest priority.
Clear guidelines have been established by regulations and by good practice for the provision of safe access in the workplace and specifically to vessels and barges.
Safe access to vessels is defined as either a gangway, properly trimmed and in good repair, a straight ladder in good repair that, if portable, extends at least three feet above the landing point, or a Pilot’s ladder in good repair that has been rigged to hang without slack from its lashings. A number of publications from around the world contain requirements for access to vessels (SOLAS, ISM, ISGOTT, U.K. Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 1637, US 29 CFR Part 1918.21 through 1918.26). These documents all make essentially the same point about vessel access; personnel must be able to board and disembark without risking injury in the course of their duties.
In addition, minimum lighting requirements for the hours of darkness are defined by ISGOTT and some of the other organizations noted above. These requirements should be applied to all areas where our personnel are required to work.
Our personnel are encouraged to report any unsafe situations to vessel/installation representatives and it is the IFIA members’ position that any risks identified must be either corrected or an alternate safe solution must be sought and implemented before work can proceed. The following list provides basic safety check items for access to typical work locations.
We recommend that our personnel be escorted by facility staff at all times during field operations. At a minimum our personnel should report in and out with facility staff at each operating area.
Location
Safety Check Items
1. Adequate lighting must be provided between sunset and sunrise
All Areas
2. Slip hazards due to product spillage or bad weather should be removed/avoided
1. Confined space risks should be assessed and avoided
2. Roof should be in good condition (no damaged / weak areas)
3. Guardrails should be present and in good condition
4. Walk / slip hazards to adjoining tanks should be removed or avoided
Shore Tank Roofs
5. Checks must be made for pressure build up before sampling / gauging
1. Equipment must be in good condition
2. Proper tie off points must be provided for fall protection if there are no railings
3. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access must be removed
Gangways / Boarding Ladders
4. Handrails must be in good condition
1. Steps must be in good condition
2. Steps must be of equal height
3. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access must be removed
Stairways
4. Handrails must be present and in good condition
1. Jacob’s ladders should not be used
2. Pilot ladders must be in good condition
2. Proper tie off points must be provided
Lighterings – Harbor / Offshore
4. Transfers should not take place during bad weather conditions or heavy seas
Technical Bulletin 06-05 International Federation of Inspection Agencies
Petroleum and Petrochemical Committee
Location
Safety Check Items
1. Walkways must be provided where required
2. Ladders may not be used as walkways
Barges
3. Planks/scaffold boards may not be utilized as walkways
1. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access should be removed
Docks/Wharfs
2. Falling objects – hazardous locations should be avoided
1. Blue flag requirements should be in operation
2. Ladders must be in good condition
3. Dome/hatch/valve operation
Railcars
4. Guide rails must be in good condition
1. Wheels must be chocked
2. Ladders must be in good condition
3. Dome/hatch/valve operation
4. Guide rails must be in good condition
Tank Truck / ISO Containers
5. Gantry access to be provided and used wherever possible
1. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access should be removed
2. Excessive water/mud hazards around tanks should be avoided
3. Dedicated walkways must be used and should be in good condition
4. Moving vehicles – awareness - hazardous locations should be avoided
Tank Farms
5. Falling objects – awareness - hazardous locations should be avoided
Reference Information:
1. SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea), ISM (International safety management), ISGOTT (International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals.
2. IFIA (International Federation of Inspection Agencies) Guidelines - section 2.5 Health and safety Regulations
3. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Regulations
4. Reference should also be made to any local or national regulations which may apply in the region concerned.
IFIA Member Companies wish to make known their position with regard to safe access. Our field personnel perform tasks in Refineries, Terminals, and on board Marine Vessels and we regard the safety of our personnel to be our highest priority.
Clear guidelines have been established by regulations and by good practice for the provision of safe access in the workplace and specifically to vessels and barges.
Safe access to vessels is defined as either a gangway, properly trimmed and in good repair, a straight ladder in good repair that, if portable, extends at least three feet above the landing point, or a Pilot’s ladder in good repair that has been rigged to hang without slack from its lashings. A number of publications from around the world contain requirements for access to vessels (SOLAS, ISM, ISGOTT, U.K. Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 1637, US 29 CFR Part 1918.21 through 1918.26). These documents all make essentially the same point about vessel access; personnel must be able to board and disembark without risking injury in the course of their duties.
In addition, minimum lighting requirements for the hours of darkness are defined by ISGOTT and some of the other organizations noted above. These requirements should be applied to all areas where our personnel are required to work.
Our personnel are encouraged to report any unsafe situations to vessel/installation representatives and it is the IFIA members’ position that any risks identified must be either corrected or an alternate safe solution must be sought and implemented before work can proceed. The following list provides basic safety check items for access to typical work locations.
We recommend that our personnel be escorted by facility staff at all times during field operations. At a minimum our personnel should report in and out with facility staff at each operating area.
Location
Safety Check Items
1. Adequate lighting must be provided between sunset and sunrise
All Areas
2. Slip hazards due to product spillage or bad weather should be removed/avoided
1. Confined space risks should be assessed and avoided
2. Roof should be in good condition (no damaged / weak areas)
3. Guardrails should be present and in good condition
4. Walk / slip hazards to adjoining tanks should be removed or avoided
Shore Tank Roofs
5. Checks must be made for pressure build up before sampling / gauging
1. Equipment must be in good condition
2. Proper tie off points must be provided for fall protection if there are no railings
3. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access must be removed
Gangways / Boarding Ladders
4. Handrails must be in good condition
1. Steps must be in good condition
2. Steps must be of equal height
3. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access must be removed
Stairways
4. Handrails must be present and in good condition
1. Jacob’s ladders should not be used
2. Pilot ladders must be in good condition
2. Proper tie off points must be provided
Lighterings – Harbor / Offshore
4. Transfers should not take place during bad weather conditions or heavy seas
Technical Bulletin 06-05 International Federation of Inspection Agencies
Petroleum and Petrochemical Committee
Location
Safety Check Items
1. Walkways must be provided where required
2. Ladders may not be used as walkways
Barges
3. Planks/scaffold boards may not be utilized as walkways
1. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access should be removed
Docks/Wharfs
2. Falling objects – hazardous locations should be avoided
1. Blue flag requirements should be in operation
2. Ladders must be in good condition
3. Dome/hatch/valve operation
Railcars
4. Guide rails must be in good condition
1. Wheels must be chocked
2. Ladders must be in good condition
3. Dome/hatch/valve operation
4. Guide rails must be in good condition
Tank Truck / ISO Containers
5. Gantry access to be provided and used wherever possible
1. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access should be removed
2. Excessive water/mud hazards around tanks should be avoided
3. Dedicated walkways must be used and should be in good condition
4. Moving vehicles – awareness - hazardous locations should be avoided
Tank Farms
5. Falling objects – awareness - hazardous locations should be avoided
Reference Information:
1. SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea), ISM (International safety management), ISGOTT (International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals.
2. IFIA (International Federation of Inspection Agencies) Guidelines - section 2.5 Health and safety Regulations
3. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Regulations
4. Reference should also be made to any local or national regulations which may apply in the region concerned.
SAMPLING UNDER RESTRICTED OR CLOSED CONDITIONS
International standards recommend that a number of samples are required to prepare a “representative”
sample suitable for the determination of quality. Current API standards recommend Flow Proportional Inline
sampling equipment as the preferred method for obtaining samples. However, such equipment is
not widely available at the majority of locations and most samples are drawn manually from vessels and
shore tanks.
As more environmental and safety regulations are introduced, the ability to draw samples through open
tank lids is being prevented, resulting in samples being drawn through vapour lock systems. This
requires specialised equipment which can restrict the types of sample that may be drawn and may not
allow samples to be drawn in accordance with current manual sampling standards.
Gauging and sampling under restricted or closed conditions is to be the subject of a new API/EI (IP)
standard, which should be published in 2008. Development of equipment is ongoing and some already
exists which can be effective but is subject to operational constraints.
The problems experienced by our members in working with this equipment are already impacting on
operations, particularly where the cargo is non-homogeneous, or is of variable quality and/or viscosity,
such as residual fuels. Some of the more commonly experienced problems are:
1. Significant additional time is required for sampling, particularly of ships’ tanks, to allow repeated
fitting, operation and removal of the equipment.
2. The diameter of most vapour lock systems dictates that samples can only be of a limited
volume, normally less than 400 ml.
3. The design of most sample containers is such that the level of the sample inside the container
cannot be determined. This limits the ability to draw “All Level” or “Running” samples in
accordance with the standards.
4. The design of the equipment often allows only zone or spot sampling. Additionally, most
systems are limited to one sample container which must be used repeatedly, leading to potential
contamination during the sampling process.
5. The cleanliness of the vapour lock system is usually unknown and it cannot be cleaned while in
use. This can result in contamination of the sample.
6. Though the majority of restricted or closed equipment originates from two manufacturers, the
absence of an international standard regarding the type of vapour lock fitting has resulted in
many different types and sizes in operation on vessels, sometimes preventing the use of the
inspection company’s own equipment. Where vessel equipment has to be used it may not be
clean or in a serviceable condition.
sample suitable for the determination of quality. Current API standards recommend Flow Proportional Inline
sampling equipment as the preferred method for obtaining samples. However, such equipment is
not widely available at the majority of locations and most samples are drawn manually from vessels and
shore tanks.
As more environmental and safety regulations are introduced, the ability to draw samples through open
tank lids is being prevented, resulting in samples being drawn through vapour lock systems. This
requires specialised equipment which can restrict the types of sample that may be drawn and may not
allow samples to be drawn in accordance with current manual sampling standards.
Gauging and sampling under restricted or closed conditions is to be the subject of a new API/EI (IP)
standard, which should be published in 2008. Development of equipment is ongoing and some already
exists which can be effective but is subject to operational constraints.
The problems experienced by our members in working with this equipment are already impacting on
operations, particularly where the cargo is non-homogeneous, or is of variable quality and/or viscosity,
such as residual fuels. Some of the more commonly experienced problems are:
1. Significant additional time is required for sampling, particularly of ships’ tanks, to allow repeated
fitting, operation and removal of the equipment.
2. The diameter of most vapour lock systems dictates that samples can only be of a limited
volume, normally less than 400 ml.
3. The design of most sample containers is such that the level of the sample inside the container
cannot be determined. This limits the ability to draw “All Level” or “Running” samples in
accordance with the standards.
4. The design of the equipment often allows only zone or spot sampling. Additionally, most
systems are limited to one sample container which must be used repeatedly, leading to potential
contamination during the sampling process.
5. The cleanliness of the vapour lock system is usually unknown and it cannot be cleaned while in
use. This can result in contamination of the sample.
6. Though the majority of restricted or closed equipment originates from two manufacturers, the
absence of an international standard regarding the type of vapour lock fitting has resulted in
many different types and sizes in operation on vessels, sometimes preventing the use of the
inspection company’s own equipment. Where vessel equipment has to be used it may not be
clean or in a serviceable condition.
UIA PARA LA PRESENCIA DE ANALISIS EN LABORATORIOS DE TERCERA PARTES
TEST OBSERVATION AT THIRD PARTY LABORATORIES
(Previously “Witnessing of Analysis”)
IFIA Guidelines recommend that Member Companies carry out testing in their own laboratories. An IFIA member company that draws samples and conducts its own laboratory analysis can be certain of the provenance of the samples tested and can vouch for the analysis results. When engaged only to do Test Observation, however, an inspection company:
• Cannot guarantee the origin of samples they did not participate in drawing,
• Cannot guarantee that when samples are split to allow multiple tests to be conducted on sub-samples at different testing stations, such samples are tested without alteration,
• Cannot observe multiple tests being conducted at multiple test stations at the same time,
• Cannot vouch for the accuracy, calibration and maintenance of testing equipment that it does not own and operate, and
• May not, at every location, ordinarily engage an observer with qualifications sufficient to judge whether the laboratory techniques employed for specific tests are appropriate and properly executed.
Where Members are contracted to observe tests carried out by designated third party laboratories this is on the basis that the Member bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the results but simply that a suitable representative (an inspector or laboratory technician) will attend during the testing and ascertain by observation that in his/her opinion the tests were carried out on the correct sample.
Recent discussions have been held with client organisations in order to reinforce the above position, particularly with regard to responsibility. The position has not changed but the following outline scope of work has been suggested to form the basis of a service that will provide some additional value for the client while at the same time avoiding unreasonable responsibilities for the Member.
Check the test slate. •
•
•
•
Enquire whether the designated laboratory can perform the required tests. If not, advise the client, possibly suggesting that some tests are performed at the Member’s laboratory.
Prepare a Check List for the agreed test slate.
This should be a simple sheet listing the tests to be carried out with results to be noted for each test.
If agreed, draw samples, deliver to the laboratory and observe compositing.
Where samples are from an auto-sampler available performance data should be noted in accordance with normal procedures. Where samples are ‘supplied’ this should be clearly noted.
Confirm that the correct sample is used for each test.
Alternatively state that this cannot be confirmed, eg not present, missing seal, etc.
Page 1 of 2
Obtain copies of result print outs where available. •
•
•
•
Report/record whether results are within or outside the agreed specification, if available.
Countersign the Test Report issued by the designated laboratory adding a suitable disclaimer, eg ‘Observed Only and without Responsibility for Results’. A similar disclaimer should be included on the Check List.
Attach the Observation Report and completed Check List to the designated laboratory’s Test Report. Results are to be issued only on the designated laboratory paperwork and NOT transcribed on to Member Company letterhead. The Member Company should never represent as its own, results from tests conducted by others or tests carried out on samples of unknown or uncertain provenance.
This bulletin is for information and guidance and addresses the limitations upon the process of Test Observation and the risks inherent in relying upon it. IFIA strongly recommends that attention is given to comments regarding responsibility for analyses and disclaimers and, particularly recommends that third party results, whether observed or not, should be reported only on the document prepared by the designated laboratory and must NOT be transcribed.
Parties to Letter of Credit transactions where an independent Certificate of Analysis is required ordinarily should not expect to receive such a certificate based solely upon Test Observation. Attention is drawn to the IFIA Technical Bulletin relating to Letters of Credit, TB 06-02.
If an IFIA Member is contracted to observe testing in a third-party (e.g. terminal) laboratory, which is operated by that same IFIA Member, the IFIA Member Company will advise the Principal immediately of the situation.
Note: 'Test Report' in this bulletin refers to any document issued by a third party laboratory containing test results. Such documents may also be referred to as Laboratory Reports, Certificates of Quality, Certificates of Analysis etc., depending on the location.
(Previously “Witnessing of Analysis”)
IFIA Guidelines recommend that Member Companies carry out testing in their own laboratories. An IFIA member company that draws samples and conducts its own laboratory analysis can be certain of the provenance of the samples tested and can vouch for the analysis results. When engaged only to do Test Observation, however, an inspection company:
• Cannot guarantee the origin of samples they did not participate in drawing,
• Cannot guarantee that when samples are split to allow multiple tests to be conducted on sub-samples at different testing stations, such samples are tested without alteration,
• Cannot observe multiple tests being conducted at multiple test stations at the same time,
• Cannot vouch for the accuracy, calibration and maintenance of testing equipment that it does not own and operate, and
• May not, at every location, ordinarily engage an observer with qualifications sufficient to judge whether the laboratory techniques employed for specific tests are appropriate and properly executed.
Where Members are contracted to observe tests carried out by designated third party laboratories this is on the basis that the Member bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the results but simply that a suitable representative (an inspector or laboratory technician) will attend during the testing and ascertain by observation that in his/her opinion the tests were carried out on the correct sample.
Recent discussions have been held with client organisations in order to reinforce the above position, particularly with regard to responsibility. The position has not changed but the following outline scope of work has been suggested to form the basis of a service that will provide some additional value for the client while at the same time avoiding unreasonable responsibilities for the Member.
Check the test slate. •
•
•
•
Enquire whether the designated laboratory can perform the required tests. If not, advise the client, possibly suggesting that some tests are performed at the Member’s laboratory.
Prepare a Check List for the agreed test slate.
This should be a simple sheet listing the tests to be carried out with results to be noted for each test.
If agreed, draw samples, deliver to the laboratory and observe compositing.
Where samples are from an auto-sampler available performance data should be noted in accordance with normal procedures. Where samples are ‘supplied’ this should be clearly noted.
Confirm that the correct sample is used for each test.
Alternatively state that this cannot be confirmed, eg not present, missing seal, etc.
Page 1 of 2
Obtain copies of result print outs where available. •
•
•
•
Report/record whether results are within or outside the agreed specification, if available.
Countersign the Test Report issued by the designated laboratory adding a suitable disclaimer, eg ‘Observed Only and without Responsibility for Results’. A similar disclaimer should be included on the Check List.
Attach the Observation Report and completed Check List to the designated laboratory’s Test Report. Results are to be issued only on the designated laboratory paperwork and NOT transcribed on to Member Company letterhead. The Member Company should never represent as its own, results from tests conducted by others or tests carried out on samples of unknown or uncertain provenance.
This bulletin is for information and guidance and addresses the limitations upon the process of Test Observation and the risks inherent in relying upon it. IFIA strongly recommends that attention is given to comments regarding responsibility for analyses and disclaimers and, particularly recommends that third party results, whether observed or not, should be reported only on the document prepared by the designated laboratory and must NOT be transcribed.
Parties to Letter of Credit transactions where an independent Certificate of Analysis is required ordinarily should not expect to receive such a certificate based solely upon Test Observation. Attention is drawn to the IFIA Technical Bulletin relating to Letters of Credit, TB 06-02.
If an IFIA Member is contracted to observe testing in a third-party (e.g. terminal) laboratory, which is operated by that same IFIA Member, the IFIA Member Company will advise the Principal immediately of the situation.
Note: 'Test Report' in this bulletin refers to any document issued by a third party laboratory containing test results. Such documents may also be referred to as Laboratory Reports, Certificates of Quality, Certificates of Analysis etc., depending on the location.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
FREE WATER MEASUMENTS
Petroleum and Petrochemical Bulletin
The member companies of the International Federation of Inspection Agencies wish to clarify their
position regarding the determination of the amount of free water in an oil cargo.
Increasingly, IFIA member companies are receiving instructions from clients (or their loss control
representatives) specifying the water determination method to be used, electronic or manual, and their
preferences for the type and brand of water finding paste. Often, these preferences are unilaterally
stated, without the agreement of all concerned parties.
There are many types of water finding paste on the market and no standards organization has
designated “approved” water pastes. The inspection company is therefore required to select the most
appropriate paste to be used based upon the following considerations from existing API standards;
1. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.5 - There are many brands of
water indicating pastes available that change color on contact with free water. It has been
found that, although all pastes react to free water, they may differ. This difference is
caused by the adhesion of the oil to the paste, which causes some pastes to give low or
spotted readings.
2. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.6 - The following qualities
should be known before using water pastes, since there are differences between brands:
a. Clarity of color change.
b. Ability to “shed” oil in which the paste is used.
c. Shelf life (some tend to harden shortly after opening).
d. Ease of application to the bar and ability to “grip” the bar.
e. Dense enough not to scrub off during the trip through oil.
f. Effectiveness equally in slightly alkaline, salt, fresh, or acidic water.
3. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.7 - It is recommended that at all
locations the gauger apply two different pastes on the bar for each innage gauge at the
beginning of gauging.
After it has been established which paste works best for the given product, the other can
be discontinued.
FREE WATER DETERMINATION
Bulletin 09-01
Rev. 0
Page 2 of 2
4. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3 - Vessel tanks should
be gauged for free water using water indicating paste or other equipment agreed upon by
the parties involved.
5. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3.1 - Note 2: It is
recommended that two different pastes be applied on the bar for each free water innage
gauge at the beginning of gauging. After it has been established which paste yields the
highest, continuous clear water cut, the other can be discontinued.
It is the position of IFIA member companies that when nomination instructions received from clients
contain instructions as to the free water method, and/or water finding paste, that is to be used the
member company will, where possible, obtain confirmation from other concerned parties to the
nomination. If this cannot be achieved, the member company will be obliged to proceed in strict
accordance with the standards quoted above, under the conditions of a) and b) below.
a) Where the manual method is used, on the first tank gauged two different pastes will be added to the
bob (or probe). In the absence of agreement of all parties, the selection of the brand of paste will be
made by the member company’s representative.
b) The highest continuous clear water cut obtained, be it by either of the two pastes, or steady
interface indication from the electronic device, will be used as the indicator of the oil/ water interface
level.
The member companies of the International Federation of Inspection Agencies wish to clarify their
position regarding the determination of the amount of free water in an oil cargo.
Increasingly, IFIA member companies are receiving instructions from clients (or their loss control
representatives) specifying the water determination method to be used, electronic or manual, and their
preferences for the type and brand of water finding paste. Often, these preferences are unilaterally
stated, without the agreement of all concerned parties.
There are many types of water finding paste on the market and no standards organization has
designated “approved” water pastes. The inspection company is therefore required to select the most
appropriate paste to be used based upon the following considerations from existing API standards;
1. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.5 - There are many brands of
water indicating pastes available that change color on contact with free water. It has been
found that, although all pastes react to free water, they may differ. This difference is
caused by the adhesion of the oil to the paste, which causes some pastes to give low or
spotted readings.
2. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.6 - The following qualities
should be known before using water pastes, since there are differences between brands:
a. Clarity of color change.
b. Ability to “shed” oil in which the paste is used.
c. Shelf life (some tend to harden shortly after opening).
d. Ease of application to the bar and ability to “grip” the bar.
e. Dense enough not to scrub off during the trip through oil.
f. Effectiveness equally in slightly alkaline, salt, fresh, or acidic water.
3. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.7 - It is recommended that at all
locations the gauger apply two different pastes on the bar for each innage gauge at the
beginning of gauging.
After it has been established which paste works best for the given product, the other can
be discontinued.
FREE WATER DETERMINATION
Bulletin 09-01
Rev. 0
Page 2 of 2
4. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3 - Vessel tanks should
be gauged for free water using water indicating paste or other equipment agreed upon by
the parties involved.
5. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3.1 - Note 2: It is
recommended that two different pastes be applied on the bar for each free water innage
gauge at the beginning of gauging. After it has been established which paste yields the
highest, continuous clear water cut, the other can be discontinued.
It is the position of IFIA member companies that when nomination instructions received from clients
contain instructions as to the free water method, and/or water finding paste, that is to be used the
member company will, where possible, obtain confirmation from other concerned parties to the
nomination. If this cannot be achieved, the member company will be obliged to proceed in strict
accordance with the standards quoted above, under the conditions of a) and b) below.
a) Where the manual method is used, on the first tank gauged two different pastes will be added to the
bob (or probe). In the absence of agreement of all parties, the selection of the brand of paste will be
made by the member company’s representative.
b) The highest continuous clear water cut obtained, be it by either of the two pastes, or steady
interface indication from the electronic device, will be used as the indicator of the oil/ water interface
level.
VESSEL'S EXPERIENCE FACTORS
Petroleum and Petrochemical Bulletin
The purpose of this bulletin is to clarify the position of IFIA member companies regarding the use and
application of VEFs (Vessel Experience Factors).
IFIA member companies are frequently asked to apply VEFs to vessel figures for the purpose of
Custody Transfer where measurements determined by shore tank or meter are not available.
Following the first issue of this bulletin in March 2002 the new standard, API MPMS Chapter 17.9/EI
HM 49 Vessel Experience Factor (VEF) was issued in November 2005, “the Standard”. Appendix C in
API MPMS Chapter 17.1 was withdrawn in March 2008.
The VEF is primarily a loss control tool to help assess the validity of quantities derived from shore side
(tanks, meters, etc.), off-shore installations or from other vessels. It should be recognized that
quantities derived using vessel figures and the VEF will never have the measurement rigor of those
from traditional static shore tank or meter measurements. For these reasons the Standard states that
VEF adjusted vessel figures may be used for custody transfer where traditional measurements are
either "not available, or are known to be inadequate". Although not well defined, "known to be
inadequate" implies a general acceptance by all parties that due to poor design or obvious malfunction
a shore tank or meter measurement cannot be relied upon.
While in many situations when traditional measurements are questioned, a VEF adjusted vessel
quantity may be the only available alternate measurement, the lack of statistics for precision and
uncertainty cannot be overcome. Therefore, in these situations, it should not be automatically
assumed that VEF adjusted vessel figures will provide any greater accuracy than the traditional
measurements which they might replace.
Limitations of the Vessel Experience Factor
There are a number of factors which limit the overall accuracy of quantity calculations based on
application of a VEF to vessel measurements. These factors are recognized in the Standard but a
number of issues remain:
• The voyage data used to compile a VEF must, by necessity, come from information supplied
by the vessel. The inspector is rarely able to verify the accuracy of this data.
• Most vessels only maintain records of load port data. Therefore, most vessel experience
factors are load port experience factors (VEFL), even though they are frequently applied to
discharge measurements. The Standard requires that data necessary for calculation of both
load and discharge VEFs should be maintained by vessels. As vessels are commonly not
aware of the shore outturn this data is not normally available. Data and information may be
available from other reliable sources but not necessarily in sequential order.
• Barge towing companies often do not maintain load or discharge records. Data may be
available from other reliable sources, and which would include inspection companies and/or oil
companies, but, again, not necessarily in sequential order.
VESSEL EXPERIENCE FACTORS
Bulletin 02-01
Rev. 1
Page 2 of 2
• There is considerable debate about whether VEFs calculated from “full” cargoes should be
applied to part cargoes. The Standard allows for development of partial VEFs for “a specific
set of compartments, or amount less than 75% of a vessel capacity”. However, this requires
regular operation of the vessel in the same condition and it is extremely rare for there to be
sufficient data to compile a partial VEF. The Standard states “if data to determine a partial
cargo VEF is not available it is recommended to apply the full cargo VEF to each partial
cargo”. Although the recommendation is clear the application of VEFs to part cargoes remains
a contentious issue.
As a consequence of the known limitations, the use of vessels figures adjusted by VEF to determine a
Custody Transfer quantity (Bill of Lading or Outturn) is a commercial decision and can only be made
with the agreement of the interested parties. This is clearly noted in the Standard. However it should
be recognized that some regulatory authorities impose the use of a “correction” factor to vessel
measurements that is not in keeping with the Standard and outside the control of inspection
companies and their principals.
Application of the Vessel Experience Factor
Noting the above, it is recommended that IFIA member companies should calculate Custody Transfer
figures by applying a VEF to vessel measurements as follows:
• In accordance with the Standard, vessel experience factors will be applied for purposes of
determining Custody Transfer quantities only “when agreed by interested parties”.
• A full-vessel VEF will only be used for partial cargoes, as recommended in the Standard,
where i) a partial VEF is not available or ii) the interested parties instruct that a full-vessel
VEF is to be applied.
• When data to determine a discharge VEF (VEFD) in accordance with the Standard is not
available the Standard states that “a VEFL may be used”. However, in these circumstances,
IFIA member companies may, with agreement of all interested parties, use data from other
reliable sources to calculate a discharge VEF. Such data may not be sequential.
• Where no agreement is obtained from interested parties with regard to application of a VEF for
purposes of determining a Custody Transfer quantity, IFIA member companies should issue
vessel figures with no factor applied.
The purpose of this bulletin is to clarify the position of IFIA member companies regarding the use and
application of VEFs (Vessel Experience Factors).
IFIA member companies are frequently asked to apply VEFs to vessel figures for the purpose of
Custody Transfer where measurements determined by shore tank or meter are not available.
Following the first issue of this bulletin in March 2002 the new standard, API MPMS Chapter 17.9/EI
HM 49 Vessel Experience Factor (VEF) was issued in November 2005, “the Standard”. Appendix C in
API MPMS Chapter 17.1 was withdrawn in March 2008.
The VEF is primarily a loss control tool to help assess the validity of quantities derived from shore side
(tanks, meters, etc.), off-shore installations or from other vessels. It should be recognized that
quantities derived using vessel figures and the VEF will never have the measurement rigor of those
from traditional static shore tank or meter measurements. For these reasons the Standard states that
VEF adjusted vessel figures may be used for custody transfer where traditional measurements are
either "not available, or are known to be inadequate". Although not well defined, "known to be
inadequate" implies a general acceptance by all parties that due to poor design or obvious malfunction
a shore tank or meter measurement cannot be relied upon.
While in many situations when traditional measurements are questioned, a VEF adjusted vessel
quantity may be the only available alternate measurement, the lack of statistics for precision and
uncertainty cannot be overcome. Therefore, in these situations, it should not be automatically
assumed that VEF adjusted vessel figures will provide any greater accuracy than the traditional
measurements which they might replace.
Limitations of the Vessel Experience Factor
There are a number of factors which limit the overall accuracy of quantity calculations based on
application of a VEF to vessel measurements. These factors are recognized in the Standard but a
number of issues remain:
• The voyage data used to compile a VEF must, by necessity, come from information supplied
by the vessel. The inspector is rarely able to verify the accuracy of this data.
• Most vessels only maintain records of load port data. Therefore, most vessel experience
factors are load port experience factors (VEFL), even though they are frequently applied to
discharge measurements. The Standard requires that data necessary for calculation of both
load and discharge VEFs should be maintained by vessels. As vessels are commonly not
aware of the shore outturn this data is not normally available. Data and information may be
available from other reliable sources but not necessarily in sequential order.
• Barge towing companies often do not maintain load or discharge records. Data may be
available from other reliable sources, and which would include inspection companies and/or oil
companies, but, again, not necessarily in sequential order.
VESSEL EXPERIENCE FACTORS
Bulletin 02-01
Rev. 1
Page 2 of 2
• There is considerable debate about whether VEFs calculated from “full” cargoes should be
applied to part cargoes. The Standard allows for development of partial VEFs for “a specific
set of compartments, or amount less than 75% of a vessel capacity”. However, this requires
regular operation of the vessel in the same condition and it is extremely rare for there to be
sufficient data to compile a partial VEF. The Standard states “if data to determine a partial
cargo VEF is not available it is recommended to apply the full cargo VEF to each partial
cargo”. Although the recommendation is clear the application of VEFs to part cargoes remains
a contentious issue.
As a consequence of the known limitations, the use of vessels figures adjusted by VEF to determine a
Custody Transfer quantity (Bill of Lading or Outturn) is a commercial decision and can only be made
with the agreement of the interested parties. This is clearly noted in the Standard. However it should
be recognized that some regulatory authorities impose the use of a “correction” factor to vessel
measurements that is not in keeping with the Standard and outside the control of inspection
companies and their principals.
Application of the Vessel Experience Factor
Noting the above, it is recommended that IFIA member companies should calculate Custody Transfer
figures by applying a VEF to vessel measurements as follows:
• In accordance with the Standard, vessel experience factors will be applied for purposes of
determining Custody Transfer quantities only “when agreed by interested parties”.
• A full-vessel VEF will only be used for partial cargoes, as recommended in the Standard,
where i) a partial VEF is not available or ii) the interested parties instruct that a full-vessel
VEF is to be applied.
• When data to determine a discharge VEF (VEFD) in accordance with the Standard is not
available the Standard states that “a VEFL may be used”. However, in these circumstances,
IFIA member companies may, with agreement of all interested parties, use data from other
reliable sources to calculate a discharge VEF. Such data may not be sequential.
• Where no agreement is obtained from interested parties with regard to application of a VEF for
purposes of determining a Custody Transfer quantity, IFIA member companies should issue
vessel figures with no factor applied.
TANK GAUGING AND SAMPLING THROUGH UNPERFORATED STILL PIPES (STAND PIPES)
Petroleum and Petrochemical Bulletin
The risks and problems associated with the use of un-perforated still pipes for gauging and sampling
are well known within the industry. The use of this apparatus can result in significant measurement
errors and/or samples that subsequently prove to be unrepresentative.
For many years, the use of un-perforated still pipes has not been recommended for custody transfer
measurements due to the possibility of serious errors.
The most recent revision to API MPMS Chapter 3.1A now specifically prohibits the use of unperforated
or un-slotted still pipes for tank gauging. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A, Section 8.2.4 (h) states,
“Tank gauging shall not be carried out from un-perforated or un-slotted still pipes (which are referred
to as “guide poles” or “stand pipes”), since the liquid level measured inside the un-perforated or unslotted
still pipes is usually not the same the liquid level outside the still pipe. Tank gauging shall only
be taken from still pipes that have perforations or slots that allow free flow of liquid into and out the still
pipe. In certain locations, still pipes without slots are used to comply with local air pollution regulations.
These “solid” still pipes can lead to serious liquid height measurement, temperature determination,
and sampling errors.”
Where IFIA members are requested to take measurements or samples from un-perforated still pipes
they should advise their principals immediately and seek instruction. Such measurements and
samples shall not be used for custody transfer or other purposes without the approval of all concerned
parties. Appropriate qualifying statements should be used on any documents or reports where such
measurements or samples are involved.
The risks and problems associated with the use of un-perforated still pipes for gauging and sampling
are well known within the industry. The use of this apparatus can result in significant measurement
errors and/or samples that subsequently prove to be unrepresentative.
For many years, the use of un-perforated still pipes has not been recommended for custody transfer
measurements due to the possibility of serious errors.
The most recent revision to API MPMS Chapter 3.1A now specifically prohibits the use of unperforated
or un-slotted still pipes for tank gauging. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A, Section 8.2.4 (h) states,
“Tank gauging shall not be carried out from un-perforated or un-slotted still pipes (which are referred
to as “guide poles” or “stand pipes”), since the liquid level measured inside the un-perforated or unslotted
still pipes is usually not the same the liquid level outside the still pipe. Tank gauging shall only
be taken from still pipes that have perforations or slots that allow free flow of liquid into and out the still
pipe. In certain locations, still pipes without slots are used to comply with local air pollution regulations.
These “solid” still pipes can lead to serious liquid height measurement, temperature determination,
and sampling errors.”
Where IFIA members are requested to take measurements or samples from un-perforated still pipes
they should advise their principals immediately and seek instruction. Such measurements and
samples shall not be used for custody transfer or other purposes without the approval of all concerned
parties. Appropriate qualifying statements should be used on any documents or reports where such
measurements or samples are involved.
SAFETY OPERATIONS.
Good evening to all my dear colleagues, in this opportunity I'm writing in order to express something that make think and really it is an important matter for all of us who are working on the inspection business, and it is the fact of the resting after operations or the same of being working during prolonged time, during the las weeks I've been experience a extreme number of job's orders for inspection, which at his time had been suction all my free time and rest, shift of more than 20 hrs straight which is affecting my capacity of reaction and at the mean time my social life.
It is really imperative that inspectors mus ask to their supervisors for shift changes no more than 16 hrs of continuous working, studies had realize that when the human been works more than 16 hrs a day it is the equivalent that been drunk, the time of reflects of the body minimize and the coordination is lost, this situation becomes in a danger for ourselves and the peoples who surround us and the safety of the operations.
My recommendation for my colleagues is, ask to the management of the operations to coordinate and schedule with time the necessary shift in order to guarantee 8 hrs of rest as minimum per shift.
Our health and safety is the priority before any job and responsibility, remember we are the main source in our job and making the proper way is doing it with safe.
Best Regards.
Abelardo Eijesser
Oil, gas and Chemical Inspector
Montreal, Quebec.
Canada
It is really imperative that inspectors mus ask to their supervisors for shift changes no more than 16 hrs of continuous working, studies had realize that when the human been works more than 16 hrs a day it is the equivalent that been drunk, the time of reflects of the body minimize and the coordination is lost, this situation becomes in a danger for ourselves and the peoples who surround us and the safety of the operations.
My recommendation for my colleagues is, ask to the management of the operations to coordinate and schedule with time the necessary shift in order to guarantee 8 hrs of rest as minimum per shift.
Our health and safety is the priority before any job and responsibility, remember we are the main source in our job and making the proper way is doing it with safe.
Best Regards.
Abelardo Eijesser
Oil, gas and Chemical Inspector
Montreal, Quebec.
Canada
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
WALL WASHING!!!
THE WALL WASH TEST IS A PROCEDURE FOR WASHING SELECTED AREAS SUCH AS THE INTERIOR BULKHEADS, TANK BOTTOMS WITH AN APPROPRIATE WASH LIQUID; AND; SUBSEQUENTLY TESTING THE WASH A LIQUID FOR THE PRESENCE OF MATERIAL WHICH MIGHT CONTAMINATE THE CARGO TO BE LOADED.
WALL WASH TEST PROCEDURES CAN BE FOUND IN API MPMS CHAPTER 17, SEC 8, GUIDELINES FOR PRE-LOADING INSPECTION OF MARINE VESSEL CARGO TANKS.
EQUIPMENT:
PLASTIC GLOVES (FOR SKIN PROTECTION AND TO PREVENT CHLORIDE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLE); EXPLOSION PROOF FLASHLIGHT, LABORATORY WASH BOTTLE, WALL WASH FUNNEL, WALL WASH COLLECTION BOTTLES, WITH POLY SEAL CAPS, SMALL, CLEAN PLASTIC BAGS, FOR RUST SAMPLES, SUFFICIENT WASH LIQUID (USUALLY REAGENT GRADE METHANOL), CLEAN WIPING RAGS.
THE MINIMUM AREAS TO BE WASHED ARE DETERMINATE BY THE FOLLOWING:
TANKS <3000 BBLS OR 500 M3 MUST BE MINIMUM 5 HRS; FROM 3000-6300 BBLS (500-1000M3) MINIMUM 7 AREAS AND > 6300 BBLS OR 1000 M3 AM MINIMUM OF SPOT AREAS OF 9 PLACES.
RECOMENDATIONS:
1.-DO NOT PERFORM WALL WASHES ON WET TANKS. REQUEST VESSEL'S PERSONNEL TO DRY TANKS.
2.-EACH WASHED AREA SHOULD BE ABOUT 3 FEET WIDE AND 6 FEET HIGH FROM THE BOTTOM OF EACH TANK. HIGHER AREAS THAT CAN BE SAFELY ACCESSED MAY ALSO BE WASHED.
3.-DISCOLORED PATCHES, TANK COATING BREAKS, OR EXPOSED SECTIONS ALL OTHER NON-TYPICAL AREAS ON THE TANKS WALLS OF TANKS FLOORS MUST BE NOTED ON THE REPORT AND TESTED AS FOLLOWS:
IN ANY AREA WHERE THE NON-TYPICAL AREA IS LESS THAN ABOUT 20% OF THE TOTAL SURFACE OF THE TANK, INCLUDE THE WALL WASHING WITH THOSE FROM THE REST OF THE TANK.
WHEN THE NON-TYPICAL AREA EXCEEDS 20% OF THE TANK SURFACE AREA, KEEP WALL WASHINGS FROM THESE AREAS IN A SEPARATE BOTTLE AND PERFORM SEPARATE ANALYSIS.
TANK BOTTOMS OFTEN DO NOT REQUIRE WASH TESTING. HOWEVER, IF WASH TESTING IS REQUIRED, USE BLOTTER METHOD OR FILTER METHOD.
FUNNEL METHOD:
POT ON PLASTIC GLOVES PRIOR TO STARTING TEST; RINSE WASH BOTTLE, FUNNEL, AND SAMPLE BOTTLE WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASHING LIQUID; PLACE THE SPOUT OF THE FUNNEL INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE AND HOLD THE FLAT SIDE OF THE FUNNEL FIRMLY AGAINST THE SURFACE TO BE TESTED (CAUTION: TO AVOID POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES WITH SUSPENDED MATTER, CARE MUST BE TAKEN NOT TO SCRAPE ZINC TANK COATINGS WITH THE EDGE OF THE FUNNEL); USING THE WASH BOTTLE, SPRAY A STEADY STREAM OF THE WASHING LIQUID ON THE SURFACE OF THE TANK WALL, ABOUT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FUNNEL, WITH THE WASH BOTTLE HELD ABOUT 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE WALL. ALLOW THE WASH LIQUID TO RUN DOWN THE WALL INTO DE FUNNEL AND INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE; CONTINUE SPRAYING UNTIL ABOUT 50 ML OF WASH LIQUID HAS BEEN USED; REPEAT THE STEPS UNTIL A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF WALL WASHING LIQUID HAS BEEN RECEIVED INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE FRO THE ENTIRE TANK. SAMPLES MUST ALSO BE TAKEN FROM HORIZONTAL PIPELINES, BAFFLES, DIVIDERS AND SUPERSTRUCTURES, RINSE THE INSIDE OF THE BOTTLE CAP WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASH LIQUID AND PLACED SECURELY ONTO THE BOTTLE; PREPARE A BLANK SAMPLE; TAG EACH WALL WASH SAMPLE AND THE BLANK SAMPLE IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID LOSING THE IDENTITY OF THE SAMPLES; SUBMIT TO THE LAB FOR REQUIRED ANALYSIS; WALL WASH REPORTS SHOULD SPECIFY WHERE EACH WASH SAMPLE WAS TAKEN IN THE TANK.
AND REMEMBER THE MOST PRINCIPAL THING "NEVER ENTER ANY TANK W/O HAVING RECEIVED CONFINED SPACE ENTRY TRAINING.
SEE YOU!!!
WALL WASH TEST PROCEDURES CAN BE FOUND IN API MPMS CHAPTER 17, SEC 8, GUIDELINES FOR PRE-LOADING INSPECTION OF MARINE VESSEL CARGO TANKS.
EQUIPMENT:
PLASTIC GLOVES (FOR SKIN PROTECTION AND TO PREVENT CHLORIDE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLE); EXPLOSION PROOF FLASHLIGHT, LABORATORY WASH BOTTLE, WALL WASH FUNNEL, WALL WASH COLLECTION BOTTLES, WITH POLY SEAL CAPS, SMALL, CLEAN PLASTIC BAGS, FOR RUST SAMPLES, SUFFICIENT WASH LIQUID (USUALLY REAGENT GRADE METHANOL), CLEAN WIPING RAGS.
THE MINIMUM AREAS TO BE WASHED ARE DETERMINATE BY THE FOLLOWING:
TANKS <3000 BBLS OR 500 M3 MUST BE MINIMUM 5 HRS; FROM 3000-6300 BBLS (500-1000M3) MINIMUM 7 AREAS AND > 6300 BBLS OR 1000 M3 AM MINIMUM OF SPOT AREAS OF 9 PLACES.
RECOMENDATIONS:
1.-DO NOT PERFORM WALL WASHES ON WET TANKS. REQUEST VESSEL'S PERSONNEL TO DRY TANKS.
2.-EACH WASHED AREA SHOULD BE ABOUT 3 FEET WIDE AND 6 FEET HIGH FROM THE BOTTOM OF EACH TANK. HIGHER AREAS THAT CAN BE SAFELY ACCESSED MAY ALSO BE WASHED.
3.-DISCOLORED PATCHES, TANK COATING BREAKS, OR EXPOSED SECTIONS ALL OTHER NON-TYPICAL AREAS ON THE TANKS WALLS OF TANKS FLOORS MUST BE NOTED ON THE REPORT AND TESTED AS FOLLOWS:
IN ANY AREA WHERE THE NON-TYPICAL AREA IS LESS THAN ABOUT 20% OF THE TOTAL SURFACE OF THE TANK, INCLUDE THE WALL WASHING WITH THOSE FROM THE REST OF THE TANK.
WHEN THE NON-TYPICAL AREA EXCEEDS 20% OF THE TANK SURFACE AREA, KEEP WALL WASHINGS FROM THESE AREAS IN A SEPARATE BOTTLE AND PERFORM SEPARATE ANALYSIS.
TANK BOTTOMS OFTEN DO NOT REQUIRE WASH TESTING. HOWEVER, IF WASH TESTING IS REQUIRED, USE BLOTTER METHOD OR FILTER METHOD.
FUNNEL METHOD:
POT ON PLASTIC GLOVES PRIOR TO STARTING TEST; RINSE WASH BOTTLE, FUNNEL, AND SAMPLE BOTTLE WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASHING LIQUID; PLACE THE SPOUT OF THE FUNNEL INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE AND HOLD THE FLAT SIDE OF THE FUNNEL FIRMLY AGAINST THE SURFACE TO BE TESTED (CAUTION: TO AVOID POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES WITH SUSPENDED MATTER, CARE MUST BE TAKEN NOT TO SCRAPE ZINC TANK COATINGS WITH THE EDGE OF THE FUNNEL); USING THE WASH BOTTLE, SPRAY A STEADY STREAM OF THE WASHING LIQUID ON THE SURFACE OF THE TANK WALL, ABOUT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FUNNEL, WITH THE WASH BOTTLE HELD ABOUT 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE WALL. ALLOW THE WASH LIQUID TO RUN DOWN THE WALL INTO DE FUNNEL AND INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE; CONTINUE SPRAYING UNTIL ABOUT 50 ML OF WASH LIQUID HAS BEEN USED; REPEAT THE STEPS UNTIL A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF WALL WASHING LIQUID HAS BEEN RECEIVED INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE FRO THE ENTIRE TANK. SAMPLES MUST ALSO BE TAKEN FROM HORIZONTAL PIPELINES, BAFFLES, DIVIDERS AND SUPERSTRUCTURES, RINSE THE INSIDE OF THE BOTTLE CAP WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASH LIQUID AND PLACED SECURELY ONTO THE BOTTLE; PREPARE A BLANK SAMPLE; TAG EACH WALL WASH SAMPLE AND THE BLANK SAMPLE IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID LOSING THE IDENTITY OF THE SAMPLES; SUBMIT TO THE LAB FOR REQUIRED ANALYSIS; WALL WASH REPORTS SHOULD SPECIFY WHERE EACH WASH SAMPLE WAS TAKEN IN THE TANK.
AND REMEMBER THE MOST PRINCIPAL THING "NEVER ENTER ANY TANK W/O HAVING RECEIVED CONFINED SPACE ENTRY TRAINING.
SEE YOU!!!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
WALL WASH TEST
I USED TO REMEMBER THOSE DAYS WHEN I WAS WORKING ON VENEZUELA AS CARGO SURVEYOR AND THE TEAM OF THE TWO COMPANIES I'D BEING WORKING ON METHANOL CARGOES!! MOST OF THE TIME WE USED TO DO A PROCEDURE WHICH WAS WALL WASH TEST, THIS TEST HAS THE FUNCTION TO SEE DEEPLY HOW WAS THE CONDITION ON THE TANKS TO LOAD THOSE CARGOES THAT COULD BE CONTAMINATED PREVIOUS PREVIOUS CARGOES'S TRACES.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW OF MY PARTNERS CAN TELL ME WHICH IS THE PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW FOR WALL WASH TEST IN CARGO TANKS!!!
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW OF MY PARTNERS CAN TELL ME WHICH IS THE PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW FOR WALL WASH TEST IN CARGO TANKS!!!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
PELIGROS DENTRO DE NUESTRO MUNDO DE INSPECCION
AQUI QUIERO COMENTAR LA EXPERIENCIA DE NUESTRO COLEGA Y AMIGO FRANKLIN MARITNEZ, QUIERO HACERLO PUBLICO POR Q ESTO ES UNA REALIDAD QUE NOS AFECTA A TODOS NOSOTROS Y DE VERDAD DEBEMOS UNIRNOS Y PONER CARTAS EN EL ASUNTO PARA EVITAR ESTOS ABUSOS QUE VIVIMOS DIA A DIA, UN ABRAZO A FRANKLN Y NUESTRAS CONDOLENCIAS A LA FAMILIA DE ESE EX-COMPANERO:
DE FRANKLIN MARTINEZ:
Saludos, el día viernes asistí a las honras funebres de un buen amigo Luis Migue García Barranquillero que vivió muchos años en Venezuela y Panamá donde falleció. surveyor por muchos años que falleció víctima de un cancer, ver a su familia despindiendole me hizo estar por un momento en su lugar pero a la vez me hizo reflexionar sobre los muchos casos de muerte por esta causa en nuestro sector en el que el comun es el maltrato del personal por las empresas de inspección y de loss control vivi en carne propia por ejemplo el año pasado caer desde un buque en escala de piloto desde unos 3 metros de altura dañandome la columna y la empresa General Maritime se hizo la vista gorda tuve que pagar yo mismo mi cirugía de aprox 60.000 Dolares americanos porque la empresa se nego a hacerlo y de paso me exigieron trabajar al mes de la cirugía bajo amenaza de despido mi caso está en proceso de Juicio en la Cortede Harris County en Houston, Texas, USA a pesar de haber ocurrido en Panamá existen vías legales para poder demandar en tribunales de USA, esta semana SGS en Panama ha sido demandada por 1.000.000 de Dolares por un surveyor que estuvo a punto de morir por inhalación de vapores de Ethanol y que una vez dejo el hospital fue despedido poara tapar la falta de su gerente general de no darle una mascara full face para ahorar costos, esto me han determinado a comenzar una investigación al respecto, esto quizás tomará años pero aprecio su ayuda en que podamos recabar casos que quizás nos ayuden a documentar un precedente histórico para nuestras labores en el futuro estoy seguro que hay muchos Luis García en nuestro gremio le pondre a esta investigación "Proyecto Luis García" me ayudan???
ENGLISH
COMMENT HERE WANT THE EXPERIENCE OF FRANKLIN MARITNEZ colleague and friend, I WANT TO DO IT FOR PUBLIC Q THIS IS A REALITY THAT AFFECTS U.S. ALL TRUTH AND LETTERS We should unite and PUT IN THE SUBJECT TO AVOID THESE ABUSES TO LIVE DAY BY DAY, A HUG A FRANKLN and our condolences to the family of that former partner:
FRANKLIN MARTINEZ:
Greetings, on Friday attended the funeral of a good friend Luis Migue García Barranquillero who lived many years in Venezuela and Panama where he died. surveyor for many years, died of a cancer, see your family despindiendole made me feel for a moment in place yet made me think about the many deaths from this cause in our sector in which the common is abuse of staff by companies control inspection and loss she experienced last year such as fall from a ship at pilot scale from about 3 meters high column dañandome General Maritime and the company was turning a blind eye had I myself pay my surgery about U.S. $ 60,000 because the company refused to do so and step required me to work one month after surgery under threat of dismissal my case is under trial in the shortness Harris County in Houston, Texas, USA despite having occurred in Panama there are legal avenues to sue in U.S. courts this week in Panama SGS has been sued for $ 1,000,000 by a surveyor who was to die by inhaling and Ethanol leave the hospital after he was fired poara cover the lack of general manager not to give a full face mask for costs now, this I have determined to begin an inquiry, this may take years but I appreciate your help in cases that we may that may help us to document a historical precedent for our work in the future I'm sure there are many in our guild Luis Garcia will put you to this investigation, "Luis Garcia Project" help me??
API MPMS 17.6 Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 17 - Marine Measurement Section 6
API MPMS 17.6 Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 17 - Marine Measurement Section 6 - Guidelines for Determining the Fullness of Pipelines between Vessels and Shore Tanks
API MPMS 17.6 Document Information:
Title
Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 17 - Marine Measurement Section 6 - Guidelines for Determining the Fullness of Pipelines between Vessels and Shore Tanks
American Petroleum Institute
Publication Date:
Aug 1, 1994
Scope:
This section of API MPMS 17 is intended to cover crude oil and petroleum products that are liquid at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature. They apply at both loadings and discharges of cargos, before and after transfers. They include recommendations on how pipeline fullness should be determined. They include descriptions of methods, procedures, calculations, and examples.
While this section of API MPMS 17 is intended to describe the methods and procedures available for determining the fill condition of pipeline systems, the procedures described do not necessarily determine the precise volume of liquids in the designated pipeline systems.
This section of API MPMS 17 is not meant to recommend equipment or to describe equipment in detail. The guideline is only intended to describe the expected end result of using properly installed and functioning equipment. While this section of API MPMS 17 includes descriptions of common line fill verification methods, it does not recommend any one method as preferred. The responsibility for documenting the effectiveness of any of the methods described belongs to those responsible for the terminal or installation where it is applied.
SPANISH:
API MPMS 17,6 Manual de Directrices de Medición de Petróleo Capítulo 17 - Marina medida de la sección 6 - para determinar la Plenitud de los Oleoductos entre buques y tanques en tierra
API MPMS 17,6 Documento de Información:
Título
Manual de Directrices de Medición de Petróleo Capítulo 17 - Marina medida de la sección 6 - para determinar la Plenitud de los Oleoductos entre buques y tanques en tierra
Instituto Americano del Petróleo
Fecha de publicación:
1 de agosto 1994
Ámbito de aplicación:
Esta sección del API MPMS 17 se destina a cubrir el petróleo crudo y productos derivados del petróleo que son líquidos a presión atmosférica y temperatura ambiente. Se aplican tanto a las cargas y descargas de cargos, antes y después de las transferencias. Se incluyen recomendaciones sobre la forma en como la plenitud de tuberías debe ser determinada. Se incluyen descripciones de los métodos, procedimientos, cálculos y ejemplos.
Si bien esta sección de API MPMS 17 tiene por objeto describir los métodos y procedimientos disponibles para determinar el estado de llenado de sistemas de tuberías, los procedimientos descritos no determinan necesariamente la cantidad exacta de líquidos en los sistemas de tuberías designado.
Esta sección del API MPMS 17 no pretende recomendar equipos o para designar un equipo en detalle. La directiva sólo se diseñó para describir el resultado final esperado de un bien instalado y funcionando el equipo. Si bien esta sección de API MPMS 17 incluye descripciones de línea común llenar los métodos de verificación, no recomienda ningún método según se prefiera. La responsabilidad de documentar la eficacia de cualquiera de los métodos descritos pertenece a los responsables de la terminal o la instalación donde se aplica.
API MPMS 17.6 Document Information:
Title
Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 17 - Marine Measurement Section 6 - Guidelines for Determining the Fullness of Pipelines between Vessels and Shore Tanks
American Petroleum Institute
Publication Date:
Aug 1, 1994
Scope:
This section of API MPMS 17 is intended to cover crude oil and petroleum products that are liquid at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature. They apply at both loadings and discharges of cargos, before and after transfers. They include recommendations on how pipeline fullness should be determined. They include descriptions of methods, procedures, calculations, and examples.
While this section of API MPMS 17 is intended to describe the methods and procedures available for determining the fill condition of pipeline systems, the procedures described do not necessarily determine the precise volume of liquids in the designated pipeline systems.
This section of API MPMS 17 is not meant to recommend equipment or to describe equipment in detail. The guideline is only intended to describe the expected end result of using properly installed and functioning equipment. While this section of API MPMS 17 includes descriptions of common line fill verification methods, it does not recommend any one method as preferred. The responsibility for documenting the effectiveness of any of the methods described belongs to those responsible for the terminal or installation where it is applied.
SPANISH:
API MPMS 17,6 Manual de Directrices de Medición de Petróleo Capítulo 17 - Marina medida de la sección 6 - para determinar la Plenitud de los Oleoductos entre buques y tanques en tierra
API MPMS 17,6 Documento de Información:
Título
Manual de Directrices de Medición de Petróleo Capítulo 17 - Marina medida de la sección 6 - para determinar la Plenitud de los Oleoductos entre buques y tanques en tierra
Instituto Americano del Petróleo
Fecha de publicación:
1 de agosto 1994
Ámbito de aplicación:
Esta sección del API MPMS 17 se destina a cubrir el petróleo crudo y productos derivados del petróleo que son líquidos a presión atmosférica y temperatura ambiente. Se aplican tanto a las cargas y descargas de cargos, antes y después de las transferencias. Se incluyen recomendaciones sobre la forma en como la plenitud de tuberías debe ser determinada. Se incluyen descripciones de los métodos, procedimientos, cálculos y ejemplos.
Si bien esta sección de API MPMS 17 tiene por objeto describir los métodos y procedimientos disponibles para determinar el estado de llenado de sistemas de tuberías, los procedimientos descritos no determinan necesariamente la cantidad exacta de líquidos en los sistemas de tuberías designado.
Esta sección del API MPMS 17 no pretende recomendar equipos o para designar un equipo en detalle. La directiva sólo se diseñó para describir el resultado final esperado de un bien instalado y funcionando el equipo. Si bien esta sección de API MPMS 17 incluye descripciones de línea común llenar los métodos de verificación, no recomienda ningún método según se prefiera. La responsabilidad de documentar la eficacia de cualquiera de los métodos descritos pertenece a los responsables de la terminal o la instalación donde se aplica.
WHY CARGO TANKS HAS COATINGS?
Corrosion to the internal surfaces of cargo tanks is a fact of life on oil tankers, as the steel plates and supports are subjected to corrosive gases, crude oil acids, and seawater along with temperature fluctuations and structural flexing. The effect of the corrosion is to reduce the thickness of the steel plates and supports, leading eventually over a period of time to failure of the structure.
In an effort to prevent this, anticorrosion coatings are applied to the tank internals and regular internal inspections of the tanks carried out to ensure any deterioration is dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner
SPANISH
La corrosión de las superficies internas de los tanques de carga es un hecho de la vida en los petroleros, ya que las placas de acero y soportes son sometidos a gases corrosivos, ácidos crudos de petróleo y agua de mar junto con las fluctuaciones de temperatura y flexión estructural. El efecto de la corrosión reducE el espesor de las planchas de acero y sus apoyos, llevando en un período de tiempo hasta el fallo de la estructura.
En un esfuerzo por evitar esto, recubrimientos anticorrosión se aplican a la zona interna del tanque e inspecciones internas de los tanques se llevan a cabo regularmente para asegurar que cualquier deterioro se trata en forma adecuada y oportuna
In an effort to prevent this, anticorrosion coatings are applied to the tank internals and regular internal inspections of the tanks carried out to ensure any deterioration is dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner
SPANISH
La corrosión de las superficies internas de los tanques de carga es un hecho de la vida en los petroleros, ya que las placas de acero y soportes son sometidos a gases corrosivos, ácidos crudos de petróleo y agua de mar junto con las fluctuaciones de temperatura y flexión estructural. El efecto de la corrosión reducE el espesor de las planchas de acero y sus apoyos, llevando en un período de tiempo hasta el fallo de la estructura.
En un esfuerzo por evitar esto, recubrimientos anticorrosión se aplican a la zona interna del tanque e inspecciones internas de los tanques se llevan a cabo regularmente para asegurar que cualquier deterioro se trata en forma adecuada y oportuna
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Inspection on MT Esta Desganes
For the July 25th, 2010 Me and my good Bulgarian colleague Zhivko Zhekov, must do the Surveying on MT Esta Desgagnes she will be loading Heavy Fuel Oil for Kildair Industries located at Sorel, Really what I like of working with Zhivko is that he is my little apprentice (jajajaja), always he's asking me for questions and it's s really fun, the bad thing is that he is always smoking and we share a lot of cigarettes. This Ship is a small carrier, she will carry the quantity of 60,000 Bbls @ 60f, and as usual this amounts will be loaded on board the ship like in 24 hours.
The reason why it's takes so long because the Ship's tanks are design with an Epoxy Coating which cannot support temperatures higher than 120 F 0r 70 C, so the product stored in the shore Tank 1506 at Suncor refinery (Ex-Petrocanada) is stored with a temperature of 78 C, so the suncor personnel must pass the product during the pumping by a heather exchanger in order to cool down the product and avoid any damage on board the ship.
Tomorrow I will tell you more about what we did during the inspections including the conversations and funny parts.
Spanish
Para el 25 de julio 2010 Yo y mi buen colega búlgaro Zhivko Zhekov, debemos hacer la inspeccion a bordo del MT Esta Desgagnes que carga fuelóleo pesado para las Industrias Kildair situado en Sorel, realmente lo que me gusta de trabajar con Zhivko es que él es mi pequeno aprendiz (jajajaja), siempre me está haciendo preguntas raras y es muy divertido , lo malo es que siempre está fumando y compartimos un montón de cigarrillos. Este barco es pequeño, que llevará a la cantidad de 60.000 barriles @ 60F, y como siempre esto equivale que serán cargados a bordo del barco en un periodo 24 horas.
La razón por la que toma tanto tiempo es porque los tanques de la nave son de diseño con una capa de epoxy que no puede soportar temperaturas superiores a los 120 F 0 70 C, por lo que el producto almacenado en el tanque de tierra 1506 en la refinería de Suncor (Ex-Petrocanadá) se almacena con un temperatura de 78 C, por lo que el personal de Suncor debe pasar el producto durante el bombeo a través de un intercambiador de calor con el fin de enfriar el producto y evitar daños a bordo del buque.
Mañana os contaré más acerca de lo que hicimos durante las inspecciones-incluidas las conversaciones y las partes divertidas.
THE STARTING
Hello everybody, I hope that you like my blog, what I want to share with you is a complex business line that exist inside of the Petroleum Industry, it is a really important side because we Inspect all the commercialization of the crude oil and petrochemicals, when the importation of oil and exportation takes places we are there for certify that the quantity and quality loaded on board tankers or transfered using pipelines are the correct and comply with the international standards established by the ASTM AND API, institutes that rules all the procedures and normative for all what concerns crude oil and products handling.
Here we will share about daily experiences, comments, new procedures and rules, so I invite you all to share with me, pics, comments, anecdotes, and what ever you want to share, feel free to write and be welcome to my blog created for you how loves this business.
SPANISH
Hola a todos, espero que les guste mi blog, lo que quiero compartir con ustedes es una línea de negocios compleja que existen dentro de la industria petrolera, es una parte muy importante porque Inspeccionamos todas la comercialización del petróleo crudo y productos petroquímicos, cuando la importación y exportación de petróleo tiene lugar estamos allí para certificar que la cantidad y calidad de estos productos que se carga en buques tanques o transferida a traves de oleoductos son los correctos y cumplen con los estándares internacionales establecidos por la norma ASTM y API, los institutos que fijan todas normas, procedimientos y normativa para todo lo que se refiere a petróleo crudo y el manejo de productos.
Aquí vamos a compartir experiencias en torno a diario, comentarios, nuevos procedimientos y normas, así que invitamos a todos a compartir conmigo, fotos, comentarios, anécdotas, y lo que quieras compartir, no dude en escribir y sean bienvenidos a mi blog creado para usted cómo le gusta este negocio.
Here we will share about daily experiences, comments, new procedures and rules, so I invite you all to share with me, pics, comments, anecdotes, and what ever you want to share, feel free to write and be welcome to my blog created for you how loves this business.
SPANISH
Hola a todos, espero que les guste mi blog, lo que quiero compartir con ustedes es una línea de negocios compleja que existen dentro de la industria petrolera, es una parte muy importante porque Inspeccionamos todas la comercialización del petróleo crudo y productos petroquímicos, cuando la importación y exportación de petróleo tiene lugar estamos allí para certificar que la cantidad y calidad de estos productos que se carga en buques tanques o transferida a traves de oleoductos son los correctos y cumplen con los estándares internacionales establecidos por la norma ASTM y API, los institutos que fijan todas normas, procedimientos y normativa para todo lo que se refiere a petróleo crudo y el manejo de productos.
Aquí vamos a compartir experiencias en torno a diario, comentarios, nuevos procedimientos y normas, así que invitamos a todos a compartir conmigo, fotos, comentarios, anécdotas, y lo que quieras compartir, no dude en escribir y sean bienvenidos a mi blog creado para usted cómo le gusta este negocio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)