Case Study: Automating a Two-Station Fuel Operation in Georgia
End-to-end automation from pump to tank and island to center in a two-station fuel operation in Georgia. We tell the story of a setup that puts ~49,500 liters and ~900 fills a day on record.
Fuel automation is a critical control and transparency tool not only for businesses that consume their own fuel, but also for fuel-station operations. This case study covers the end-to-end automation — from pump to tank and island to center — of a two-station fuel operation in Georgia. The Caucasus is one of the regions where PetroDATA's export references are strong; this project is a concrete example of field experience in the region.
Project profile
The operation consists of two stations, each to the same hardware standard:
| Component | Per station | Both stations |
|---|---|---|
| Station | 1 | 2 |
| Fuel tank | 4 | 8 |
| Dispenser island | 2 | 4 |
| Control unit (CPU) | 2 | 4 |
| Display | 4 | 8 |
| Pump (Mepsan, 8 nozzles) | 8 nozzles | 16 nozzles |
In short, at each station 4 tanks, 2 islands, 2 CPUs, 4 displays and 8-nozzle Mepsan pumps were integrated into the automation.
The operation's scale, in numbers
To grasp the value of automation, you first have to see the scale. The daily average fills per station and the average amount per fill:
- Average fills per day:
450 per station (900 across both) - Average amount per fill: ~55 liters
The volumes derived from these two values:
| Period | Per station | Both stations |
|---|---|---|
| Daily | ~24,750 liters | ~49,500 liters |
| Monthly (30 days) | ~742,500 liters | ~1,485,000 liters |
| Yearly (365 days) | ~9.03 million liters | ~18.07 million liters |
| Yearly fills | ~164,250 | ~328,500 |
So the automation operates at a scale that puts roughly 18 million liters and each of 328,500 fills a year on record. At this scale, even a small recording gap per fill turns into a large uncertainty by year-end.
Challenges before automation
At this scale, without automation, the typical challenges are:
- Per-fill traceability: Reliably recording each of hundreds of daily fills (amount, product, island, nozzle, time) by hand is impossible.
- Tank stock reconciliation: Real-time tracking of 4 tanks per station and reconciling them with sales is difficult.
- Shift handover: Reconciling start/end stock, sales and collection at shift change is both slow and error-prone by hand.
- Theft and manipulation risk: When pump, tank and sales data stay separate, inconsistencies grow unnoticed.
The solution deployed
Pump integration
The 8-nozzle Mepsan pumps at each station were integrated into the automation; every fill is recorded automatically with island, nozzle, product, amount and time. Transactions are managed at the island level via the control units (CPUs) and displays.
Tank automation
The 4 tanks per station were placed under level monitoring. Tank level, volume and movements are tracked in real time; inflow (receipt) and outflow (sales) are reconciled, and an alert is raised at critical levels.
Sales-stock reconciliation
The sales passing through the pump are continuously compared with the drop in tank level. This is the core control for both stock accuracy and possible leakage/inconsistency.
Central monitoring
The two stations are monitored from a single center. Each station's sales, stock and reconciliation are visible separately, while the operation as a whole is gathered on one panel.
The value delivered
At this scale, the concrete value of automation is "every fill and every liter on record":
- Per-fill recording of ~900 fills a day and ~18 million liters a year,
- Real-time stock visibility for 4 tanks per station and reconciliation with sales,
- Automatic generation of shift-based sales, stock and reconciliation reports,
- Early visibility of pump-tank inconsistencies,
- Central and comparative monitoring of the two stations.
Note: this case was prepared with verified data such as the project's hardware profile and operation scale. Additional metrics such as savings/efficiency percentages will be added as they are confirmed with the customer.
Conclusion
This two-station operation in Georgia is a concrete example of how fuel-station automation is built end to end — from pump to tank and island to center. Four tanks per station, 2 islands, 8-nozzle Mepsan pumps and central monitoring make an operation of ~49,500 liters and ~900 fills a day transparent, reconciled and auditable. This field experience in the Caucasus is also a solid reference for similar projects in the region.