BP Anounces New HFO Metering Technology
-
TxMarEng
- Officer of the Watch
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:48 am
- Currently located: Albuquerque New Mexico
- Contact:
BP Anounces New HFO Metering Technology
Seems BP in a joint venture has come up with a reportedly reliable meter for HFO deliveries. Sure will make the 2nd's life easier and put a scare into the hearts of the bunker barge operators. Will be interesting to see the cost and how many barges will be fitted with the system. Quite a few operators are doing Bunker Quantity Surveys to combat shortages. More info on Marinelink.com
-
ArkSeaJumper
- Engineering Mentor
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:02 am
- Currently located: Ireland
-
Madzng
- Officer of the Watch
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:01 pm
- Currently located: London
- Contact:
Micro Motion Coriolis flowmeter
New metering technology from Emerson Process Management
Whether for liquid, gases or slurries, Micro Motion Coriolis flowmeter technology offers many advantages over traditional volumetric technologies.
•Lower capital expenditures by using a multi-variable measurement device that provides precision measurement of:
◦Mass flow rate
◦Volumetric flow rate
◦Density
◦Temperature
•Improve process uptime, product quality and reduce waste, rework and scrap by using a highly accurate (+/-0.05%) and repeatable measurement technology
•Lower the cost of installation as there are no special mounting, flow conditioning, or straight pipe runs required and no need to adjust the factory zero.
•Reduce maintenance and costs as there are no moving parts and no calibration drift, and the device can be cleaned in place without dismantling.
Too good to be true??
http://www.emersonprocess.com/micromoti ... riolis.htm
Whether for liquid, gases or slurries, Micro Motion Coriolis flowmeter technology offers many advantages over traditional volumetric technologies.
•Lower capital expenditures by using a multi-variable measurement device that provides precision measurement of:
◦Mass flow rate
◦Volumetric flow rate
◦Density
◦Temperature
•Improve process uptime, product quality and reduce waste, rework and scrap by using a highly accurate (+/-0.05%) and repeatable measurement technology
•Lower the cost of installation as there are no special mounting, flow conditioning, or straight pipe runs required and no need to adjust the factory zero.
•Reduce maintenance and costs as there are no moving parts and no calibration drift, and the device can be cleaned in place without dismantling.
Too good to be true??
http://www.emersonprocess.com/micromoti ... riolis.htm
Re: BP Anounces New HFO Metering Technology
This follows on from trials conducted on a fuel barge by BP in Singapore.
It is also worth noting that Maersk has decided on this as a policy on its vessels and Buffalo Marine also reports success with coriolis meters.
However, the choice of coriolis meters is not necessarily the final answer.
There is an article in World Bunkering that is intended to stir up the argument.
( http://www.worldbunkering.com/news/wint ... black.html)
The issue with bunker quantity accounting isn't coriolis Vs tank dipping but flow measurement Vs tank dipping.
That ought to be a no-brainer given the vulnerability of tank dipping to innocent error and deliberate fraud, but the assumption that coriolis is the only answer is apparently based on the ability of coriolis meters to handle air.
The article points out that there are other ways to handle fuel with entrained air but it also asks if air should be accepted at all since if theree is air then the off-line measurements of density and viscosity are in error (perhaps some of the other tests?). If there is air in the fuel then the coriolis meter density will tell you nothing about the density of the fuel.
In all probability coriolis will be a solution but not the only solution.
The real question to ask is "How many fuels have entrained air during bunkering?" Is it easier and better to reject entrained air bunkers?
Note that one reason for entrained air is because it enables false accounting. Once entrained air is going to be detected and the bunkers rejected or if entrained air coriolis meters will negate the effect of entrained air by accurately recording the mass, to want extent will the incidence of "cappuccino effect" bunkers decline? Will it then become a problem to be managed by rejecting any bunkers with entrained air?
How do you know how much water is in the fuel?
Just measuring the density won't tell you unless you know what the density should be. Reports from some test houses suggest that in over 50% of cases where HFO samples are analysed the density differs from the BDN value and in around 25% of MGO samples analysed.
|Simply installing coriolis meters only addresses the question of the amount delivered, not the quality. Online quality depends on air free fuels.
It is also worth noting that Maersk has decided on this as a policy on its vessels and Buffalo Marine also reports success with coriolis meters.
However, the choice of coriolis meters is not necessarily the final answer.
There is an article in World Bunkering that is intended to stir up the argument.
( http://www.worldbunkering.com/news/wint ... black.html)
The issue with bunker quantity accounting isn't coriolis Vs tank dipping but flow measurement Vs tank dipping.
That ought to be a no-brainer given the vulnerability of tank dipping to innocent error and deliberate fraud, but the assumption that coriolis is the only answer is apparently based on the ability of coriolis meters to handle air.
The article points out that there are other ways to handle fuel with entrained air but it also asks if air should be accepted at all since if theree is air then the off-line measurements of density and viscosity are in error (perhaps some of the other tests?). If there is air in the fuel then the coriolis meter density will tell you nothing about the density of the fuel.
In all probability coriolis will be a solution but not the only solution.
The real question to ask is "How many fuels have entrained air during bunkering?" Is it easier and better to reject entrained air bunkers?
Note that one reason for entrained air is because it enables false accounting. Once entrained air is going to be detected and the bunkers rejected or if entrained air coriolis meters will negate the effect of entrained air by accurately recording the mass, to want extent will the incidence of "cappuccino effect" bunkers decline? Will it then become a problem to be managed by rejecting any bunkers with entrained air?
How do you know how much water is in the fuel?
Just measuring the density won't tell you unless you know what the density should be. Reports from some test houses suggest that in over 50% of cases where HFO samples are analysed the density differs from the BDN value and in around 25% of MGO samples analysed.
|Simply installing coriolis meters only addresses the question of the amount delivered, not the quality. Online quality depends on air free fuels.