no, you take your samples right on the coupling right where it mates, you have these little glass bottles you take from a sample valve.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/10-67-2/fm10-67-2_ch9.pdf
“On-Line Sample.” = “An on-line sample is
taken from a flowing pipeline by opening the valve
and collecting the sample during the flow of the
product. These samples are used mostly for the
water separometer index and particulate contaminant tests.”
The sampling procedure you described for bunkering is a grab sample. Samples collected for any grab are a snapshot. It's what's in the tank or pipeline in that exact moment.
The “magic pipeline” can defeat a grab sample. Occasionally, they are discovered in ocean vessels, usually associated with oily bilge water, ballast water, around the oil water separators and treatment equipment for the sanitary wastewater.
More on a magic pipe. This would typically be an obscure, camouflaged or hidden pipe connection that allows an illegal or at least unethical introduction of a contaminant into a properly on specification liquid.
In shipping, magic pipelines were not uncommon several decades ago but are rare now. Occasionally, these are discovered in port inspections and when this happens, masters and mates are in typically in legal trouble, owners are hammered with big time $$$ fines, ships are arrested and port bans imposed.
In the mid-1990s, international regs on oily water discharges from ships hit the ocean shipping world. This cost ship owners big $$$ to comply with. My company sent me to the US West Coast to evaluate setting up a bilge water treating business at one of the major ports where we already had a bulk fuel storage facility. The message from ship owners was wink wink, nod nod we don't have any discharges to the ocean. Conclusion…. It's magic, poof the contaminated water disappears.
It took a hammer from Coast Guards and port authorities worldwide before effective compliance was achieved. My company did not go into this bilge water treatment business. We had better options for capital investment. The technology aspect of it was easy. The business aspect sucked at the time. Thanks for your time my friend. This has been interesting. I’m going to pop over to www.gcaptain.com to see if they have any reporting on this. Cheers….
I checked www.gcaptain.com and also the two sources that the OP article used as a basis for their article. Their Splash source was pretty good as is gcaptain.
The OP article omitted a few details that are useful for geeks like me. In addition, the only ships affected are those purchasing high sulfur fuel oil. These ships are equipped with sulfur scrubbers for exhaust scrubbing.
The HSFO met the standard ISO specification for HSFO. It took higher level analysis to ID the problem with abrasive solids causing damage to pumps and other moving parts that led to engine shutdowns. I think what they are saying is that it is not an excessive amounts of solids but instead their unusually abrasive properties.
The chlorinated hydrocarbons were mentioned but apparently are not a contributing to the reported engine shutdowns. I think the HCLs are a concern more for longer term engine damage. If this is right then I suspect it is a corrosion or perhaps embrittlement issue. 2000 parts per million chlorinated HCLs is wicked high for the kinds of things I worked with (which were not fuel oils like bunker).
The exact cause of the unusual HSFO (but ISO compliant) is in the process of being tracked through the supply chain to ID the point source. Maybe it's nefarious, which was my knee jerk reaction or maybe it's random. More details likely to come out.