Hydrocarbon Processing 02 2016 PDF

HARNESS THE POWER
OF ADVANCED HRSG TECHNOLOGY
The industry leader in Heat Recovery Steam Generators for gas

turbines up to 30 MW, RENTECH offers a full range of HRSG systems
to meet your toughest project requirements. We custom engineer our
crossflow two-drum and waterwall designs to perform superbly in the
most demanding applications and operating conditions. We master every
detail to deliver elemental power for clients worldwide.
HARNESS THE POWER WITH RENTECH.
HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS

WASTE HEAT BOILERS
FIRED PACKAGED WATERTUBE BOILERS
SPECIALTY BOILERS
WWW.RENTECHBOILERS.COM
FEBRUARY 2016 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
PROCESS OPTIMIZATION
Troubleshoot multistage vacuum systems
to avoid unit fouling and shutdown
MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY

Prevent overfilling of storage tanks
and hazardous materials leakage
INDUSTRY LEADERS FORECASTS

Continuing viewpoints from key industry
executives on 2016 markets and technologies
CLEAN FUELS AND

THE ENVIRONMENT
Improve gasoline quality with FCC optimization
Control technology for GHGs in modified plants
HELLO,
HERE WE ARE!
THE NEW BRAND OF
HEAT EXCHANGE:
KELVION
We are Kelvion formerly GEA Heat Exchangers global experts in industrial heat exchange. A new
name but with proven expertise, unique competence and a large product portfolio. We have the
range and quality to compete for the toughest projects, in the harshest environments. But were not
too big to care. Thats why were proud to represent Kelvion, the new challenger in heat exchange.
www.kelvion.com
Select 79 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
FEBRUARY 2016|Volume 95 Number 2

HydrocarbonProcessing.com
28
8
SPECIAL REPORT: CLEAN FUELS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
29 Maximize petrochemicals in the FCCU to increase
refinery margins and improve gasoline pool quality
C. Chau, R. Schiller and M. Ziebarth
37
Add power to environmental real-time data through analytics

P. Black
41
Build a solid GHG BACT cost-effectiveness calculation

to avoid CCS costs
R. Crum
OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY LEADERS VIEWPOINTS

49 2016 Industry Leaders ViewpointsPart 2
L. Nichols
PROCESS ENGINEERING AND OPTIMIZATION

55 Use discrete event simulation as decision support
DEPARTMENTS
4
8
19
21
81
83
84
85
86
59
Troubleshoot operation of a steam ejector vacuum system

N. Lieberman and R. Cardoso
MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY

65 Prevent the overfilling of storage tanks
A. Dokhkan
PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION

69 Utilize APC solutions to resolve hydrocracker conversion
optimization challenges
G. Oleszczuk and M. Boek
75
Enhance PSM design with metrics-driven best practices

M. Marshall
GAS PROCESSING SUPPLEMENT

GP-1 Technology and Business Information for the Global Gas Processing Industry
Cover Image: Gazprom Nefts 12.15-metric-MMtpy refinery in Moscow, Russia produces high-octane gasoline
and diesel, servicing approximately 40% of petroleum demand in the Moscow area.
Business Trends
Industry Metrics
Global Project Data
Innovations
Marketplace
Advertiser Index
Events
People
COLUMNS
7 Editorial Comment
A low-sulfur world
23
Reliability
25
Global
for storage and shippingPart 2

J. Vazquez-Esparragoza and J. Chen
Industry Perspectives
Combine metallurgical, structural

and physics know-how
Reforms will shape future
of Nigerias refining industry
www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Industry Perspectives
Downstream disputes breaking the
10% blend wall for US ethanol
US refiners are set to break the 10% blend wall for using
ethanol in gasoline, but downstream professionals are certainly
not happy about it.
Poll findings. In a recent poll conducted on Hydrocarbon
Processing.com, 81% of respondents said they did not agree

with the US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) decision to break the 10% blend wall for ethanol. The other 19%
said they agreed.
Many in the US refining sector believe the 10% threshold is
dangerous to exceed because of potential damage to automobile
engines and catalytic converters.
Its unclear how the EPA can simultaneously recognize the
E10 blend wall and yet establish requirements that exceed those
constraints, said Chet Thompson, president of the American
Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). This decision
is hard to view as anything other than an attempt by the EPA to
placate the biofuels lobby.
Similarly, the American Petroleum Institute (API) had asked
the EPA to set the biofuel mandate at no more than 9.7% of
gasoline demand to help avoid the 10% ethanol blend wall while
meeting strong consumer demand for ethanol-free gasoline.
Rules issued retroactively. The new mandate for biofuel volumes in refining processes was issued in late November 2015
for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016.
The oil and biofuels industries have sparred for years over
whether the US government should mandate higher blends of
the fuelso much so that the EPA took the unprecedented step
of delaying the issuance of its annual targets in an effort to reexamine the program.
For starters, that the EPA is just nowon the last day of
Novemberestablishing standards for calendar years 2014 and
2015 is indicative of just how dysfunctional the program has become, Thompson said.
Specifics of new mandate. Under the new set of rules, the
EPA ordered US refiners to blend a record 14.5 Bgal of ethanol

into gasoline in 2016. For the first time ever, this means ethanol
will make up more than 10% of the total US fuel mix.
However, those targets are still about 500 MMgal short of
statutory benchmarks laid out when Congress first passed the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2007.
We applaud the EPA for recognizing that the E10 blend wall
is real and for using its waiver authority to reduce the volume
requirements, Thompson said. But, the fact that the EPA has
had to invoke its waiver authority year after year demonstrates
that the program is not functioning as Congress intended and
that change is desperately needed.
Visit HydrocarbonProcessing.com today to vote on additional industry polls and to comment on related news.
4FEBRUARY 2016|HydrocarbonProcessing.com
P. O. Box 2608
Houston, Texas 77252-2608, USA
Phone: +1 (713) 529-4301
Fax: +1 (713) 520-4433
HPEditorial@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
Lee Nichols
Lee.Nichols@GulfPub.com
EDITORIAL
Executive Editor
Managing Editor
Technical Editor
Digital Editor
Reliability/Equipment Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Adrienne Blume
Mike Rhodes
Bob Andrew
Ben DuBose
Heinz P. Bloch
Alissa Leeton
Loraine A. Huchler
William M. Goble
ARC Advisory Group
MAGAZINE PRODUCTION / +1 (713) 525-4633

Vice President, Production
Manager, Editorial Production
Artist/Illustrator
Senior Graphic Designer
Manager, Advertising Production
Sheryl Stone
Angela Bathe Dietrich
David Weeks
Amanda McLendon-Bass
Cheryl Willis
ADVERTISING SALES
See Sales Offices, page 84.
CIRCULATION / +1 (713) 520-4440 / Circulation@GulfPub.com

Manager, Circulation
Alice Murrell
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscription price (includes both print and digital versions): PrintOne year $239,
two years $419, three years $539. Digital formatOne year $239. Airmail rate
outside North America $175 additional a year. Single copies $35, prepaid.
Because Hydrocarbon Processing is edited specifically to be of greatest value to
people working in this specialized business, subscriptions are restricted to those
engaged in the hydrocarbon processing industry, or service and supply company
personnel connected thereto.
Hydrocarbon Processing is indexed by Applied Science & Technology Index, by
Chemical Abstracts and by Engineering Index Inc. Microfilm copies available through
University Microfilms, International, Ann Arbor, Mich. The full text of Hydrocarbon
Processing is also available in electronic versions of the Business Periodicals Index.
ARTICLE REPRINTS
If you would like to have a recent article reprinted for an upcoming conference or
for use as a marketing tool, contact Foster Printing Company for a price quote.
Articles are reprinted on quality stock with advertisements removed; options are
available for covers and turnaround times. Our minimum order is a quantity of 100.
For more information about article reprints, call Rhonda Brown with
Foster Printing Company at +1 (866) 879-9144 ext. 194 or e-mail
rhondab@FosterPrinting.com.
Hydrocarbon Processing (ISSN 0018-8190) is published monthly by Gulf Publishing
Company, 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020, Houston, Texas 77046. Periodicals postage paid at Houston, Texas, and at additional mailing office. POSTMASTER: Send
address changes to Hydrocarbon Processing, P.O. Box 2608, Houston, Texas 77252.
Copyright 2016 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Permission is granted by the copyright owner to libraries and others registered with the
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy any articles herein for the base fee
of $3 per copy per page. Payment should be sent directly to the CCC, 21 Congress St.,
Salem, Mass. 01970. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without
express permission is prohibited. Requests for special permission or bulk orders should
be addressed to the Editor. ISSN 0018-8190/01.
EUROMONEY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR PLC

Chairman: Andrew Rashbass
Directors: Sir Patrick Sergeant, The Viscount Rothermere, Christopher Fordham
(managing director), Neil Osborn, John Botts, Colin Jones, Diane Alfano, Jane Wilkinson,
Martin Morgan, David Pritchard, Bashar AL-Rehany, Andrew Ballingal, Tristan Hillgarth
Part of Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. Other energy group titles include:
World Oil and Petroleum Economist.
President/CEO
Vice President, Downstream and Midstream
Vice President
Business Finance Manager
Publication Agreement Number 40034765
John Royall
Bret Ronk
Ron Higgins
Sheryl Stone
Pamela Harvey
Printed in USA
ENVision
THE BRAINS BEHIND AIR QUALITY EXCELLENCE

Advanced environmental suite with analytics to help you achieve air quality excellence:
Manages millions of integrated emissions calculations and CEMS data quality
requirements in real-time
Generates timely alerts before incidents occur
Maximizes operational efficiency by delivering information for robust KPI management
Integrates seamlessly with all leading EMIS packages
www.mustangeng.com/ENVision
Editorial
Comment
LEE NICHOLS, EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER

Lee.Nichols@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
A low-sulfur world
As the world continues to welcome
more vehicles on the road, and as emerging economies invest in civil, industrial
and energy projects, global fuels demand
is forecast to increase through the end of
the decade.
More vehicles on the road equates to
higher emissions rates and, in turn, more
airborne pollutants. To combat these effects, legislation mandating decreased
emissions and lower levels of airborne
pollutants is coming into effect. In response, refiners are implementing operational and processing changes to reduce
sulfur levels in transportation fuels.
The refining industry has already

made incredible strides in reducing sulfur
in transportation fuels. As shown in FIG. 1,
sulfur levels in diesel fuel have been cut
dramatically around the globe within the
past decade. Refiners have invested, and
continue to invest, billions of dollars in
new units, upgrades/retrofits and expansions to meet new sulfur and emissions
regulations. These investments promote
the reduction of airborne pollutants in
both diesel and gasoline passenger vehicles, help produce higher-quality transportation fuels and continue to move the
industry toward a low-sulfur world.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
8 Business Trends.
Nations around the world

are implementing stringent emissions
standards and low-sulfur transportation
fuel specifications. These regulations
are an effort to curb airborne pollutants
and provide cleaner fuels for
consumers. HP examines major clean
fuel projects and initiatives being
implemented around the world.
41 Special Report.
With the right tools and

experienced personnel, a real-time
environmental data management
system with advanced analytics can
assist in developing in-house metrics
for operations, and foster a necessary
dialogue between plant operators and
plant environmental specialists.
49 Outlook.
15 and below*
>15 - 50
>50 - 500
>500 - 2,000
>2,000 - 5,000
>5,000 and bbove
Conflicting/missing data
In Part 2 of
HPs Industry Leaders
Viewpoints, industry leaders and
esteemed colleagues in the industry
provide HP with their insights
into growing regions of activity,
technological advances and how the
downstream industry can innovate
in 2016 and beyond.
59 Process Optimization.
15 and below*
>15 - 50
>50 - 500
>500 - 2,000
>2,000 - 5,000
>5,000 and above
Conflicting/missing data
* Information in parts per million (ppm)
FIG. 1. Sulfur levels in diesel fuel: global status 2005 (top) vs. 2015 (bottom). Source: United
Nations Environment Program, PCFV Secretariat.
A case study, wherein the

operation of a vacuum tower was
corrected, highlights the importance
of understanding the entire vacuum
system, of field observation and of
the interpretation of operating
vs. design data. Basic concepts to
help understand and troubleshoot
a steam ejector system are presented.
69 Instrumentation.
Honeywell Advanced
Solutions and PKN ORLEN discuss
utilizing advanced process control
solutions to resolve hydrocracker
conversion optimization challenges.
Hydrocarbon Processing|FEBRUARY 20167
| Business Trends
Over the past decade, the refining industry has taken
incredible steps to reduce sulfur levels in transportation
fuels. Refiners have invested billions of dollars in new units,
upgrades/retrofits and expansions to meet new sulfur and
emissions regulations. These investments promote the
reduction of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons
and particulate matter in both diesel and gasoline vehicles.
New technologies are moving the refining industry toward
a low-sulfur world. New regulations and fuel standards are
acting as catalysts for additional clean fuels projects to
develop higher-quality transportation fuels.
Photo: Essar Oils 20-MMtpy refinery is located in Vadinar, Gujarat,
India. The facility concluded a planned maintenance turnaround in
4Q 2015 that included the completion of the D-Max Project. Part of
Essars Optima Plus program, the project included the conversion of
the vacuum gasoil hydrotreater unit into a mild hydrocracking unit, as
well as the addition of new installations in the diesel hydrotreating
unit. Photo courtesy of Essar Oil.

Business Trends
Clean fuelsa global shift toward a low-sulfur world
Around the world, legislation mandating decreased emissions and lower levels of
airborne pollutants is coming into effect.
In response, refiners are implementing operational and processing changes to reduce
sulfur levels in transportation fuels. New
technologies are moving the downstream
hydrocarbon processing industry toward
cleaner, lower-sulfur transportation fuels.
A low-sulfur world doesnt come
cheap, though. Refiners are investing billions of dollars in new units, upgrades/retrofits and expansions to meet new sulfur
and emissions regulations. These investments will help produce high-quality fuels
that meet Euro 4, Euro 5 and Euro 6 specifications. Many refiners around the globe
have adopted European standards for fuel
quality, as Europe has been the frontrunner on regulations for low-sulfur, clean
transportation fuels. European passenger
vehicle emission standards for Euro 4,
Euro 5 and Euro 6 are detailed in TABLE 1
and TABLE 2. These standards promote the
reduction of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx ), hydrocarbons (HCs)
and particulate matter (PM) in both diesel
and gasoline passenger vehicles. As shown
in FIG. 1, many nations around the world
already produce transportation fuels that
meet Euro-4 specifications. Other regions, such as the Middle East, are investing heavily to increase the production of
Euro 4 and Euro 5 standard fuels.
The following is an overview of major clean fuels projects and trends being
implemented around the world. Each region is investing in the implementation of
new technologies to meet cleaner fuel requirements. These new processing units
will help produce higher-quality transportation fuels.
US/Canada. The US transportation fuel
market is the worlds largest. The country's government will begin to enforce
the new Tier 3 program starting in 2017.
This program will set new vehicle emis-
sions standards and lower the sulfur content in gasoline. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
sulfur content in gasoline will be limited
to 10 parts per million (ppm). This is a
reduction from Tier 2 standards, which
limited the sulfur content in gasoline to
30 ppm. The program maintains the current refinery gate per-gallon content of
80 ppm and the 95-ppm downstream distribution cap. The EPA forecasts that the
new rule will significantly reduce vehicle
pollutants into the atmosphere. For example, the EPA forecasts that NOx emissions will be reduced by about 260,000
tons in 2018 alone.
Large US refineries (those producing
greater than 75 Mbpd) must comply with
Tier 3 standards by 2017. Refiners producing below 75 Mbpd must meet Tier 3
regulation standards by 2020. To comply
with new regulations, US refiners have
invested in additional units, such as hydrotreaters, to reduce the sulfur content
in transportation fuels.
In Canada, petroleum fuels constitute 95% of Canadas transportation energy needs. The country has aligned itself closely with US fuel standards and is
making strides to continually reduce sulfur levels in transportation fuels. This includes the introduction of stringent Tier
3 fuel regulations for passenger vehicles
and light-duty trucks. These fuel stan-
dards will begin in 2017, which coincides

with the startup of US Tier 3 regulations.
Canadian refiners have already invested
over $8 B over the past decade to reduce
sulfur levels in gasoline and diesel fuels.
Since 2005, sulfur levels in gasoline and
diesel have decreased by more than 90%
and 97%, respectively. New Tier 3 standards would be instrumental in continuing to reduce sulfur in transportation fuels, as well as reducing vehicle emissions
to nearly zero over the life of the vehicle.
China. To help curb air pollution, the
country has set aggressive fuel economy

standards through 2020. China is implementing its National V fuel quality standard, which equates to Euro 5 standard
transportation fuels. Euro 5 caps sulfur
content in gasoline and diesel at 10 ppm.
Recent regulations required refiners to
produce Euro 4 standard transportation
fuels nationwide by the end of 2015. Euro
5 standard transportation fuels will be
required for the automotive industry by
2017. These new regulations are being
implemented one year ahead of schedule.
The implementation of National V fuel
quality standards for non-automotive diesel has been pushed back one year to January 2018. This includes general diesel
used in agriculture and industry. General
diesel will need to meet Euro 5 standard
requirements within this time frame. Up-
TABLE 1. EU emissions standards for passenger vehicles (gasoline)

CO, g/km
HC, g/km
NOx, g/km
PM, g/km
Euro 4
1.0
0.10
0.08
Euro 5
1.0
0.10
0.06
Euro 6
1.0
0.10
0.06
0.005
TABLE 2. EU emissions standards for passenger vehicles (diesel)

CO, g/km
HC + NOx, g/km
NOx, g/km
PM, g/km
Euro 4
0.50
0.30
0.25
0.025
Euro 5
0.50
0.23
0.18
0.005
Euro 6
0.50
0.17
0.08
0.005
Business Trends
grading the nations fuel quality could cost
Chinese refiners over $7 B.
India. The country has 22 major refineries in operation, with a total throughput
capacity of 4.3 MMbpd. To satisfy increasing demand for transportation fuels, India
is investing upward of $30 B in additional
refining projects through 2020. Capital expenditures are expected to be even higher
due to new regulations to curb air pollution

and produce Euro 4 and Euro 5 standard
fuels by 2020. In January, Road Transport
Minister Nitin Gadkari announced that
Indian refiners will need to invest $4.5 B
to produce Bharat Stage 6 (BS-6) standard
fuels by 2Q 2020. BS-6 fuels are equivalent to Euro 6 fuel specifications. These
new regulations are being imposed four
years ahead of schedule and call for a 68%
reduction in NOx emissions. Cars sold in

the country are subject to BS-4 standards.
Indias new regulations will bypass the
BS-5 stage and move directly to BS-6.
The proposed clean fuels bill was in
response to a World Health Organization
study that found that 13 of the worlds
dirtiest cities were in India. The installation of secondary units to comply with
new fuel standards could cost Indian refiners over $17 B.
Indonesia. Southeast Asias biggest
FIG. 1. Vehicle emissions standards: global status as of February 2015. Source: United Nations
Environment Program, PCFV Secretariat.
economy is the world leader in the production of palm oil, and is promoting its
use as a biofuel. The country boosted the
mandated amount of blending in diesel
in 2014 from 7.5% to 10%, and subsequently to 15% in 2015. Indonesia raised
the blending requirement to 20% this year
and plans to increase it to 30% in 2020.
According to the Indonesian Biofuel Producers Association, Indonesias biodiesel
consumption will increase from 1.1 kiloliters in 2015 to 7.9 kiloliters in 2016. The
additional usage of biofuels is expected to
decrease vehicle emissions substantially.
Difficult sites with soft soils?

Tensar Geogrids have you covered.
Tensar Geogrids can help stabilize soft soils and improve and expedite access road, well pad and staging
area construction. This ensures you maintain uninterrupted access to, from, and around the vital parts of
your operation. For more information, visit tensarcorp.com/HCP or call 866.472.3004.
THE FUTURE OF
JET FUEL TREATING

HAS ARRIVED
MERICAT J is an advanced liquid treating technology that removes

heavy mercaptans in jet fuel and middle distillate streams without
using caustic or carbon beds. MERICAT J utilizes Merichems FIBER
FILM Contactor as the mass transfer mixing device in combination
with the proprietary JeSOL-9 treating reagent to oxidize heavy
mercaptans. Since there is no fixed carbon bed, operators experience
no downtime for water or caustic wash maintenance or carbon bed
change outs. This significantly increases the on-stream performance
and eliminates a refinery waste stream. Additionally, the
non-dispersive FIBER FILM Contactor reduces capital expenditures
and overall plant space requirements, making MERICAT J the
technology of choice.
www.merichem.com/mericat-j
Business Trends
Africa. Few countries have adopted lowsulfur fuel regulations, but multiple countries in southern Africa have announced a
commitment to produce cleaner fuels by
the end of the decade. The African Refiners Association has developed AFRI specifications as a guideline for the production
of cleaner fuels. The region aims to produce fuels with AFRI-4 specifications by
2020. This would constitute maximum
sulfur content in diesel and gasoline of 50
ppm and 150 ppm, respectively. To meet

these goals, African refiners would need to
invest over $7 B in additional units.
The most notable clean fuels initiative
has been put forth by South Africa. The
countrys Clean Fuels Program 2 (CF2)
is an effort to develop Euro 5 specification
fuels. This would entail developing fuels
to contain 10 ppm or less of sulfur, a lowering of benzene from 5% to 1%, and the
reduction of aromatics from 50% to 35%.
PRODUCED WATER.
IMPROVE IT.
COMPACT, FLEXIBLE, ROBUST
PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT
Minimal operational intervention
Sustained effluent quality
Aids in preventing environmental discharge upsets
Stops the occlusion of disposal and producing
formations from injection of contaminated water
Offshore. Onshore. Salt Water Disposal.
Meet spec, save time & save money.
Call us today.
OIL & GAS SEPARATIONS

(936) 788-1000
www.pentairseparations.com
12
The CF2 program was initially designed to begin in 2017, but it has been
pushed back to 2020 or beyond. The extended deadline provides South African
refiners with time to make the necessary
upgrades to produce cleaner fuels and is a
more realistic timetable for the programs
implementationone that could cost
South African refiners billions in upgrade
costs. The countrys refiners are hesitant
to make the necessary upgrades due to the
low return on investment.
The country is also in talks with Iran
to build a new clean fuels refinery in the
country. The plan could replace the $10-B
Project Mthombo, in the industrial port of
Coega, which has been in limbo for some
time. The new refinery, fed with Iranian
crude, would produce Euro 5 specified
fuels, meeting the governments mandate.
Other countries, such as Egypt and Algeria, are planning projects to improve local fuel quality. With ultra-modern refineries being built in Asia and the Middle East,
Africa may continue importing refined
products to meet demand, in lieu of investing heavily in capital-intensive projects.
Middle East. The region continues to
increase refining capacity to diversify exports and provide higher-quality refined
products to the global market. Traditionally, Middle East refineries have had simple configurations and high fuel oil yields,
partly due to strong power generation requirements. This condition is changing. A
new generation of highly complex plants,
combined with upgrades and expansions
at existing plants, is radically altering the
product mix. New unit configurations
include hydrocracking, catalytic cracking
and hydrotreating capacities designed to
minimize fuel oil output and maximize
low-sulfur middle distillate, diesel and
gasoline production.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are leading
the charge in new clean fuels projects in
the region. To comply with mandatory sulfur specifications for gasoline and diesel,
Saudi Arabia is spending billions of dollars
to construct multiple clean fuels projects.
The country is seeking to reduce sulfur
content in diesel and gasoline to 10 ppm
and to lower benzene content in gasoline
to 1%. This represents a dramatic shift in
sulfur levels from 2012, when Saudi Arabias maximum sulfur level for diesel was
greater than 500 ppm. The country plans
to commission its 400-Mbpd Jazan refin-
DONT LET JUST ANY SUPPORT

MEDIA IN YOUR BED
Keep your catalyst safe and supported with Denstone media

For more than 60 years, Denstone has been the industry standard in catalyst bed support
media, and with good reason. Denstone offers consistent, reliable quality and performance
that no other support media can match.
Dont compromise the integrity of your reactor. Put your concerns to rest with Denstone
spherical and Denstone deltaP shaped support media.
Discover more about Denstone
support media at
www.Denstone.com
Business Trends
ery by 2018. The refinery will produce
higher-grade transportation fuels, including ultra-low-sulfur diesel. Along with its
JVs, Saudi Aramco will upgrade all of its domestic refineries to produce lower-sulfur
transportation fuels. Several projectsthe
Ras Tanura Refinery Clean Fuels and Aromatics project (which was on hold, but was
reinstated in mid-2015), the Riyadh Refinery Clean Transportation Fuel project, the
Saudi Aramco Mobil Refinery Co. Clean
Fuels project (completed in 2014) and the
PetroRabigh Clean Fuels projectare designed to accomplish the Kingdoms goal
of producing near-zero-sulfur fuels.
Kuwait is investing over $30 B on ambitious plans to overhaul its refining sector and become the regions clean fuels
leader. The plan focuses on modernizing
and integrating the countrys Mina Abdullah and Mina Al-Ahmadi refineries, as well
as on building the regions largest refinery,
the Al-Zour plant. Once completed, the
reconfigured and integrated Mina Abdullah and Mina Al-Ahmadi refineries will
decrease the sulfur in gasoline production
from 500 ppm to less than 10 ppm. Ben-
zene and aromatics concentrations will

also decrease. Bunker fuel oil sulfur content will decrease from 4.5 ppm to 1 ppm,
and maximum sulfur content of full-range
naphtha will drop from 700 ppm to 500
ppm. With the construction of Al-Zour
and the upgrading and integration of its
domestic refineries, Kuwait is set to become the largest producer of clean fuels in
the Middle East by 2019.
Other countries in the region are also
making sizable investments to produce
higher-quality transportation fuels. Efforts
include the Ruwais refinery expansion
(completed in 2015), the Jebel Ali and Fujairah projects in the UAE, the Sohar refinery upgrade and Duqm refinery projects
in Oman, the Sitra refinery modernization
project in Bahrain, and the SOCAR Turkey Aegean Refinery project in Turkey.
Latin America. Due to the growth in
the regions middle class, Latin America

has seen tremendous petroleum product
demand growth over the past decade. Demand has been shifting to more middle
and light distillates, as opposed to fuel oil.
Multiple refinery upgrades, expansions

and greenfield facilities have been delayed
or canceled due to the drop in oil prices.
Latin American countries, which rely
heavily on oil export revenues, have been
hit hard by the drop in oil prices. In turn,
this has left little money to fund capacity expansions and upgrades to produce
higher-grade transportation fuels. New
clean fuels initiatives are taking place in
the region, however.
In late 2014, Brazil increased its ethanol
blending mandate in gasoline from 5% to
7% and in diesel from 25% to 27%. These
new blend requirements, along with the
startup of new refining capacity, are forecast to help mitigate a substantial portion
of refined fuel imports. Additional refinery plans have been announced, but massive debt, corruption and cost overruns
have put projects on the back burner.
In late 2015, Mexicos state-owned oil
company, Pemex, announced plans to
reinstate its domestic refinery upgrade
program. The $23-B investment will upgrade Pemexs refining system to increase
production of cleaner-burning diesel and
IT ALL STARTS WITH
API STANDARDS.
No matter where you go around the world, the oil and natural gas
industry relies on API Standards to meet the highest level of safety.
Show the world your commitment to safety. Start with API.
877.562.5187 (Toll-free U.S. & Canada) | +1.202.682.8041 (Local & International) | sales@api.org | www.api.org
2016 American Petroleum Institute, all rights reserved. API and the API logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of API in the United States and/or other countries.
2016_HP_StartsWithStandards.indd 1
14
FEBRUARY 2016|HydrocarbonProcessing.com
12/29/15 2:52 PM
Zyme-Flow tough. Refinery and petrochem process unit decontamination.
FASTER. SAFER.
PREPARE PLANT
EQUIPMENT FOR
ENTRY IN
8-12 HOURS
Shorten your turnaround using Zyme-Flow chemistry.

Proven in the toughest projects around the world, Zyme-Flow has been
the most trusted solution for vessel entry for over 20 years. From full
plant turnarounds to single units, the Zyme-Flow Process delivers the
strength needed to eliminate H2S, LEL, Benzene, and pyrophorics. Compared to steaming or chemical cleaning, the Zyme-Flow process allows
units to be turned over to maintenance in a fraction of the time, safe for
hot work or inspection. Yet as tough as it is, Zyme-Flow chemistry is
non-hazardous, biodegradable and wastewater friendly, meeting the
most stringent environmental and personnel safety standards.
Save Time. Increase Safety. Choose Zyme-Flow.
Tel: +1 281.443.0300
info@zymeflow.com | www.zymeflow.com
2015. United Laboratories International, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A Tristar Global Energy Solutions Company
Business Trends
gasoline. The plans goal is to more than
double the production of ultra-low-sulfur
gasoline and increase the production of
ultra-low-sulfur diesel.
Colombia is also investing heavily in
the production of higher-grade transportation fuels. State-owned Ecopetrol plans to
complete the full ramp-up of its Cartagena
refinery in 2Q 2016. The $7-B expansion
project more than doubled capacity to 165
Mbpd, which included the modernization
of the existing refinery to take advantage
of the new complex and improve efficiencies. The project will help reduce regional
refining constraints; produce ultra-lowsulfur gasoline and diesel from heavy,
high-sulfur crudes; adhere to the latest
emissions protocols and requirements;
increase the refinerys conversion capacity
from 76% to 95%; and meet international
standards for transportation fuels.
Russia. The country produces more than
enough refined products to meet domestic demand, but it lacks advanced facilities
to produce higher-grade transportation
fuels, such as Euro 4 and Euro 5 fuels. In
response, Russia launched a $55-B program in 2011 to modernize its existing

plants and encourage exports of highquality products. The plan called for the
installation of 130 new units by 2020. The
program saw delays in 2015 due to falling
oil prices and Western sanctions, which
have limited the ability for Russian companies to secure financing.
The peak of Russias modernization
program is forecast for 20162018. The
countrys two largest refiners, Rosneft and
Lukoil, have led the charge on refinery upgrades to produce Euro 4 and Euro 5 fuels.
Smaller Russian refiners are also upgrading their refineries to reduce sulfur content in transportation fuels. Russia's modernization program will continue to focus
on increasing its light products yields,
with a key focus on meeting demand for
gasoline and jet fuel, increasing fuel standards to Euro 5 specifications, and replacing old units to decrease residual product
yields and maximize utilization.
Bunker fuels. A major change for European Union (EU) refineries is the required
sulfur content reductions for marine fuels.

Marine fuels constitute about 7% of EU
refining output, according to Concawe.
New regulations kicked into effect in 2015
that require shippers to switch from marine residual fuels to lower-sulfur marine
fuels in designated emission control areas
(ECAs). These areas include the Baltic
and North Sea, coastal areas off of the US
and Canada, and the US Caribbean Sea.
Sulfur content in marine fuels consumed in ECAs was capped at 0.1%, the
same quality as lower-sulfur distillate materials. The International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) directive also sets limits on
marine fuels in non-ECAs. Beginning in
2020, the sulfur content of marine fuels
used in non-ECAs will be reduced from
3.5% to 0.5%. Although the initial start
date of this new regulation is January 1,
2020, the plan will be reviewed in 2018
to check the availability of the required
fuel oil. Depending on the outcome of the
review, the startup date of new non-ECA
sulfur regulations could be postponed until at least 2025.
Drier Steam Means Higher Profits

Steam drum design is critical to maintain steam dryness
and water quality for optimum performance of your boiler.
If water is allowed to carryover, then damage can occur
and energy is lost. Carryover is your boilers enemy.
Dyna-Therms high performance steam drums
have been protecting downstream equipment
including superheater tubes and turbines for
decades.
We offer proven designs for the following:
High pressure
Intermediate pressure
Low pressure
Retrofitting of existing drum internals
No steam production rates are too high and no carryover
problems are too difficult for us to solvesteam qualities
of 99.995% with .001 PPM/TDS are possible!
Let us design the steam drum that best fits your system.
Performance is what we guarantee!
High efficiency steam

drums and separators!
281-987-0726
www.dyna-therm.com
SEPARATION AND STEAM DRUM SOLUTIONS SINCE 1961
KALDAIR
This water wash injector uses

an offset flange and a WhirlJet
hollow cone nozzle. A CFD study
determined that this design provides
the best coverage without heavy
wall impingement.
SUPERIOR SPRAY. SERIOUS RESULTS.

Whether you need to cool gas, dissolve salts in an overhead line or inject chemicals to prevent corrosion,
we can help optimize injector performance. Here's how:
Assistance with nozzle selection, spray direction and injector placement. There are dozens
of factors to consider before choosing a spray nozzle, determining whether to spray co- or counter-current
and identifying the proper placement of an injector in a vessel. We can help you evaluate your process
conditions and then design an injector to provide optimal performance
Design validation using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI).
We use powerful modeling tools to simulate your environment, confirm the injector will provide the
expected spray performance and withstand process conditions such as thermal stresses, heat transfer,
vortex shedding and more
Proven track record. Companies like Technip, Mustang Engineering, Bechtel, Shell and many others
rely on us to manufacture B31.1 and B31.3 code-compliant injectors and conduct radiographic,
hydrostatic, ferrite tests and more
Learn More. Call 1.800.95.SPRAY or visit spray.com/injectors
CFD MODEL ILLUSTRATES

PERFORMANCE BASED ON
INJECTOR PLACEMENT
WIDE RANGE OF HYDRAULIC & GAS

ATOMIZING NOZZLES INCLUDING
UDING
CLOG-RESISTANT
STANT STYLE
STYLES
SLURRY RECYCLE INJECTOR.

DOZENS OF OTHER TYPES
ALSO AVAILABLE
Unmatched Global Engineering, Manufacturing & Technical Support

Nozzles | Control Systems | Headers & Injectors | Research & Testing
1.800.95.SPRAY
MIKE RHODES, MANAGING EDITOR

Mike.Rhodes@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Industry Metrics
Cracking spread, US$/bbl
10
0
Dec.-15
Nov.-15
Oct.-15
Sept.-15
July-15
May-15
June-15
Dec.-15
Nov.-15
Oct.-15
Sept.-15
Aug.-15
July-15
June-15
Dec.-15
Nov.-15
Oct.-15
Sept.-15
Aug.-15
July-15
June-15
May-15
Prem. gasoline unl. 98, 10 ppm S

Jet/kero
Gasoil, 10 ppm S
Fuel oil, 1% S
Dec.-15
Nov.-15
Oct.-15
Sept.-15
Aug.-15
July-15
June-15
May-15
April-15
Mar.-15
Feb.-15
-10
-20
Singapore cracking spread vs. Dubai, 20142015*
Brent dated vs. sour grades

(Urals and Dubai) spread, 2015*
Dec.-15
Nov.-15
Oct.-15
Aug.-15
July-15
June-15
May-15
April-15
Gasoil, 50 ppm S
Fuel oil, 180 cSt, 2% S
Sept.-15
July-31
Aug.-07
Aug.-14
Aug.-21
Aug.-28
Sept.-04
Sept.-11
Sept.-18
Sept.-25
Oct.-02
Oct.-09
Oct.-16
Oct.-23
Oct.-30
Nov.-06
Nov.-13
Nov.-20
Nov.-27
Dec.-04
Dec.-11
Dec.-18
Dec.-25
Jan.-01
Jan.-08
Dubai
Urals
Prem. gasoline unl. 92

Jet/kero
Mar.-15
-10
-20
Feb.-15
10
Dec.-14
20
Jan.-15
30
6
Light sweet/medium sour
crude spread, US$/bbl
April-15
20
Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, January 2016.
-2
-4
April-15
Mar.-15
40
30
Dec.-14
2017-Q1
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Stock change and balance, MMbpd
Supply and demand, MMbpd
2016-Q1
Mar.-15
Rotterdam cracking spread vs. Brent, 20142015*
World liquid fuel supply and demand, MMbpd

Forecast
Fuel oil, 180c
Prem. gasoline unl. 93

Jet/kero
Gasoil/diesel, 0.05% S
Feb.-15
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Dec.-14
Oil prices, $/bbl
115
105
95
85
75
W. Texas Inter.
65
Brent Blend
55
Dubai Fateh
45 Source: DOE
35
D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
2013
2014
2015
2015-Q1
Feb.-15
US Gulf cracking spread vs. WTI, 20142015*
Selected world oil prices, $/bbl
100
Stock change and balance
98
World supply
96
World demand
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
2011-Q1
2012-Q1
2013-Q1 2014-Q1
May-15
Production equals U.S. marketed production, wet gas. Source: EIA.
Japan
Singapore
April-15
60
US
EU 16
Mar.-15
2013
2014
2015
70
Jan.-15
80
Jan.-15
20
2
1
0
Feb.-15
Monthly price (Henry Hub)

12-month price avg.
Production
Jan.-15
40
90
Utilization rates, %
Dec.-14
60
100
Gas prices, $/Mcf
Production, Bcfd
Brent, Rotterdam
Global refining utilization rates, 20142015*
80
Jan.-15
US gas production (Bcfd) and prices ($/Mcf)

100
Arab Heavy, US Gulf

LLS, US Gulf
WTI, US Gulf
Dubai, Singapore
Aug.-15
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Dec.-14
An expanded version of Industry Metrics can be found

online at HydrocarbonProcessing.com.
Global refining margins, 20142015*

Margins, US$/bbl
US product markets weakened despite unseasonably strong gasoline

demand, and the gasoil crack spread hit the lowest level seen in more
than five years, under pressure from increasing supplies amid thin demand due to warmer winter weather. Asian margins remained relatively
healthy due to stronger regional demand for gasoline and naphtha. European markets exhibited mixed performance.
* Material published permission of the OPEC Secretariat; copyright 2016;

all rights reserved; OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report, January 2016.

Global Project Data

At present, Hydrocarbon Processings Construction Boxscore
Database is tracking over 2,100 projects around the world. At the
time of this publication, approximately 60% of active projects are
in the preconstruction stage. The Asia-Pacific region continues to
dominate in total active projects in all sectors of the downstream
hydrocarbon processing industry. The closest contender is

the Middle East, which has witnessed a significant number of
downstream projects over the past several years. The region
continues to increase refining, petrochemical and lube operations
to provide value addition and portfolio diversification.
39
16
119
16
Canada
115
106
88
35
95
55
Europe
26
162
142
75
US
63
32
42
28
105
63
Refining
Petrochemical
Gas processing/LNG
Other
51
Middle East
189 205
112
71
Africa
46 39
Asia-Pacific
Latin America
Total active projects by region and sector, 2016

30
24
21
26
25
27
22
17
17
18
26
20
27% Planning
18
13
Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
Boxscore new project announcements,

December 2014present
40% Under construction

6% Study
10% FEED
17% Engineering
Breakdown of downstream HPI projects
by activity level
Detailed and up-to-date information for active construction projects in the refining,
gas processing and petrochemical industries across the globe|ConstructionBoxscore.com
COMPLETE SOLUTIONS FOR

YOUR REFINERY CHALLENGES
Todays Refinery Challenges
Processing tight oil
Managing stringent sulfur limits
Monetizing orphan streams
Upgrading residuals
CB&Is Comprehensive Solutions
We are with you through every stage of the process plant life cycle, from feasibility
studies through technology selection, full-scope EPC, commissioning and start-up,
to plant optimization and upgrades.
CB&Is broad portfolio of both refining and petrochemical technologies, combined
with our execution expertise, will help you maximize processing flexibility and
achieve margin benefits in the widest range of scenarios.
PROCESS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
LICENSED TECHNOLOGIES AND CATALYSTS
FULL-SCOPE EPFC SERVICES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING
AFTERMARKET SERVICES
2015 MEDAL RECIPIENT
A World of Solutions
Visit www.CBI.com
02M012016H
Reliability
HEINZ P. BLOCH, RELIABILITY/EQUIPMENT EDITOR

Heinz.Bloch@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Combine metallurgical, structural and

physics know-how
We recently received an update on the capabilities of a modern professional entity that combines metallurgical, structural
and practical applied physics know-how in a US Gulf Coast location (see www.knighthawk.com).
Combining these areas of expertise is taking on increasing importance to the petrochemical and oil refining industries. In years
past, it was customary for these industries to send failed parts to
stand-alone laboratories. These laboratories then subjected the
components to one or more types of metallurgical analyses.
Their findings were typically reported in a language understood only by other trained metallurgists. If the client was fortunate, the report would attribute the failure to, for example, high
cycle fatigue. The equipment owner would then be tasked to
determine what vibrated, why it vibrated and how the problem
should be cured.
Combining knowledge areas in specialized laboratories.
Fortunately, today, users have access to metallurgical labs that
take into account all of the above knowledge areas. As an example, Knighthawk often begins an investigation by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to find failure mechanisms. Its
detailed reports then comment on contributing issues, such as
environmentally assisted cracking.
The company uses energy-dispersive spectroscopy in
making corrosion assessments of certain nickel alloys found
in the hydrocarbon processing industry. Here, too, suitable
techniques make microscopic fatigue failures visible and distinguish surface flaws from subsurface flaws. Measuring the
length of striationswhich usually occur once per cycleis
well within the capabilities of a modern metallurgical laboratory, as is optical microscopy.
Established as an advanced laboratory, Knighthawk can conduct field metallography to determine, among many other items
of interest, boiler tube heat excursions and stages of creep. This
laboratory moves on to determine and quantify fitness for service based on measuring the depth of decarburization. As an example, its reports have squarely (and without hedging bets) attributed root-cause reasons to flawed post-weld heat treatment.
Design reviews in parallel with investigations. Time is of
the essence in failure investigations. Accordingly, we were impressed with the initiatives advocated and pursued by Knighthawk. These concentrated on a review of the entire system.
Secondary modes of failure were occasionally identified,
and long-term monitoring was mapped out, in some instances.
Process parameters were closely examined, and process dynamics were reviewed with modern computer tools. In many
Length of spline engagement
Spline straight
Spline twisted
Torque
Twist plane
Torque
FIG. 1. Ductile twisted spline.
instances, Knighthawk initiated the development of a computational fluid dynamics model and surprised the client with unanticipated findings.
Our advice is to work with practical experts and conduct
several types of investigations in parallel. Recall the Deepwater
Horizon disaster. When aspersions were cast on many kinds
of equipment, Knighthawk carried out metallurgical investigations on a suppliers product and establishedauthoritatively
and conclusivelythat the supplier had provided flawless
products. Here is proof that it pays to work with experts.
Never overlook practical knowledge. However, we do not
want to leave the impression that one should only work with laboratories. Many times, a plant or facility will greatly benefit from
calling in an expert with decades of practical work experience
in the exact industry where a particular failure has taken place.
The answer can be found on p. 271 of Analytical Troubleshooting of Process Machinery and Pressure Vessels by Anthony Sofronas, where an expert looks at fretting and wear (FIG. 1). Both are
usually associated with misalignment or lubrication issues. Fatigue failures can result from cyclic torques, such as those occurring from torsional vibration or from bending fatigue originating
with defective shaft couplings. A twisted spline is the signature of
bulk yielding of the shaft due to excessive torque; fatigue is ruled
out here. The question, then, becomes: What torque is required
to produce such permanent deformation? Rest assured that the
practical expert knows your machine and will explain it!
HEINZ P. BLOCH resides in Westminster, Colorado.
His professional career commenced in 1962 and
included long-term assignments as Exxon Chemicals
regional machinery specialist for the US. He has
authored over 650 publications, among them
19 comprehensive books on practical machinery
management, failure analysis, failure avoidance,
compressors, steam turbines, pumps, oil mist lubrication
and practical lubrication for industry. Mr. Bloch holds
BS and MS degrees in mechanical engineering. He is
an ASME life fellow and maintains registration as a
professional engineer in New Jersey and Texas.
Shell Global Solutions
STRIVE FOR A CLEANER WORLD

Work with us to create innovative refining technologies to
meet emissions targets.
Are emissions targets constraining your ambitions? How do you plan to contribute
to a cleaner world? By working together, we can help you to unlock your asset
potential in an environmentally responsible way using innovative refining
technologies to help meet current and future emission targets.
www.shell.com/globalsolutions
Global
SHEM OIRERE
Contributing Writer
Reforms will shape future of Nigerias refining industry
Crude program blamed for refinery underperformance.

A report published by the nonprofit policy advisory and advocacy organization Natural Resource Governance Institute
(NRGI) singled out the Domestic Crude Allocation (DCA)
program as the leading cause of the chronic poor performance
by Nigerian refineries. The report advocates the scrapping of the
DCA scheme to create opportunities for competition in the supply of crude oil, and also to pave the way for a possible privatization of the plants as a long-term solution to boosting crude oil
refining in Nigeria.
Under the DCA program, the government allocates 445 Mbpd
to NNPC, which transmits the crude to its subsidiary, Pipelines
and Product Marketing Co. (PPMC). PPMC then sends the
supplies to the three refineries for processing. PPMC is, in turn,
tasked with selling the refined products (including gasoline, jet
fuel, diesel, fuel oil and liquefied petroleum gas) and using the
proceeds to pay NNPC for the crude feedstock. NNPC is also
required to pay the government for the allocated 445 Mbpd of oil.
However, the NRGI report, released in August 2015, claims
that the DCA has become the main cause of waste and revenue
loss from NNPC oil sales, with the Nigerian treasury receiving
only 58% of the $16.8-B value of the oil.
According to the report, the DCA was designed to feed Nigerias refineries, although NNPC actually exports three-quar-
ters of the domestic crude oil. In practice, the refineries process

approximately 100 Mbpd (NNPC statistics peg the figure at 64
Mbpd), with NNPC ultimately rerouting most of the DCA oil
into export sales and oil-for-product swaps. The payments enter separate NNPC accounts, which NNPC officials then draw
upon freely, according to the NRGI.
The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(NEITI) had also called for the termination of the DCA plan
because the three refineries have been operating at low capacities for many years, with the extra crude being diverted to meet
the Offshore Processing Agreement (OPA).
NNPC signed the OPA at the beginning of last year with
Duke Oil Co. Inc., Aiteo Energy Resources Ltd. and Sahara
Energy Resources, under which the corporation allocated 210
Mbpd for refining at companies offshore locations in exchange
for petroleum products at a pre-agreed yield amount.
However, the contracts were revoked in August, with the
new NNPC management team claiming that they were skewed
in favor of the companies, such that the value of product delivered was significantly lower than the equivalent crude oil allocated for the program.
NNPC contract fluctuations impact crude use. NNPC
also terminated a contract for the delivery of crude oil to the
three refineries using marine vessels, claiming that the contract
cost was exorbitant and the process of engagement was inappropriate. In the short term, NNPC has mandated its subsidiary, NIDAS Marine Ltd., to deliver crude oil to the refineries
pending the establishment of a more advantageous contract.
NEITIs Zainab Ahmed told Nigerian media in August that
some of the changes by NNPC may have resulted in a lit60
KRPC
PHRC
WRPC
50
40
Oil-rich Nigerias new presidential administration has announced several changes in the countrys oil sector, as it sets
out to fulfill a pre-election campaign pledge by President Muhammadu Buhari to streamline the West African nations hydrocarbon industry. Among the administrations goals are the
eradication of corruption and mismanagement that brought the
countrys three state-run refineries to their knees.
Port Harcourt Refining Co. (PHRC), Kaduna Refining and
Petrochemical Co. (KRPC) and Warri Refining and Petrochemical Co. (WRPC) are chronically underperforming, with an average throughput of 64 Mbpd last yearor approximately 14%
of their nameplate capacity. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp.
(NNPC), the owner of the refineries, reports that PHRC has a
210-Mbpd capacity, while KRPC and WRPC have capacities of
110 Mbpd and 125 Mbpd, respectively. At present, the country
meets 70% of its fuel needs through imports.
Analysts say that these refineries have attracted little investment because the facilities are known for a high level of corruption, poor maintenance, theft and operational hiccups.
The oil sector reforms proposed by President Buhari include
identifying specific factors that hamper investment in the refineries, along with their causes; what the government can do to
address these issues; and how the private sector can be brought
on board for the revival and management of the plants.
30
20
10
0
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
April
May
June July
Month
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
FIG. 1. Refinery capacity utilization in Nigeria, 2014.

Global
tle improvement [on refinery performance], but still far from
their installed capacity, which is below 30%. Mr. Ahmed also
suggested that the reduction of the domestic crude allocation
to NNPC would serve as incentive for refineries to improve
their capacity development.
Although Nigeria produces an average of 63.34 MMbbl of
crude oil and condensate, the countrys refineries process only
261 Mbbl with the three refineries combined capacity utilization, according to NNPC.
This discrepancy is not unique to Nigeria. Market analyst
Wood Mackenzie reported a 7-MMbpd gap between crude production and refinery output in Africa between 2010 and 2013.
Refinery maintenance issues dent profits. NNPC reported that the utilization levels of the refineries dropped from
11.18% between January and August 2014, before shutting
down between February and June of 2015, when the corporation implemented a much-discredited maintenance program
for the three processing plants. The utilization level increased
by 13.62% in July 2015 and by 24.08% in August 2015, before
plunging to an all-time low of 1.96% in September 2015.
Under the maintenance program, NNPC planned to rehabilitate the refineries, using the original refinery builders for each
plant. However, the builders declined the offer and, instead,
nominated partners to perform the rehabilitation. NNPC rejected the partners price offers, based on the high estimated costs.
In August 2015, however, new NNPC Group Managing
Director Ibe Kachikwu hinted at the possibility of incorporating private investors into the revival and expansion of Nigerias
state-run refineries. Mr. Kachikwu advocated establishing some
level of independence, along with performing turnaround maintenance when it is due and creating contractual models to make
the businesses profitable. At present, the refineries are losing
more than $200 MM/month as a result of underperformance.
Suggested reform plans drive discussion. The NRGI
has made several suggestions that President Buharis administration may find useful in reforming Nigerias hydrocarbon
processing sector. The NRGI says that NNPC should consider
granting the refineries operational independence and leasing
refining capacity from them in exchange for providing crude
oil. The provision could be in the form of a repurchase agreement, under which the corporation would buy crude from its
upstream partners on behalf of the refineries. The agreement
would leave room for additional parent-subsidiary sales, with
volumes capped at the refineries actual needs.
Another option presented by the NRGI is to force the refineries to buy their own oil from upstream operators, although
the report cautions that some producers might be initially
hesitant to conduct business with the underperforming, cashstarved refineries.
The government could also consider the controversial proposal of new legislation that coerces international oil companies or other operators to sell parts of their equity production
to the refineries. Finding the best transaction type depends in
part on whether the government plans to change the refineries ownership and management structuresfor example, by
signing product-sharing and technical service contracts with
competent foreign refining companies, or by selling off equity
to a private investor through a formal privatization exercise, reported the NRGI.

In the meantime, Mr. Kachikwu said that NNPC plans to
proceed with the construction of new refineries next to the existing ones to increase the capacity of Nigerias light petroleum
products for domestic consumption and export markets. In
2000, NNPC said it planned three new crude processing plants
with a combined capacity of 400 Mbpd550 Mbpd in Lagos,
Bayelsa and Kogi.
The strategy is to develop investment consortiain partnership with local and foreign investorsfor these projects,
with the government only retaining a minority interest, announced NNPC in a 2002 release. The corporation said that
the consortia would then decide on the locations, configurations and shareholdings of the refineries.
A feasibility study by Mackenzie Energy Consulting Ltd. and
Foster Wheeler Energy in 2011 reported that the planned refineries were economically viable, and proposed capacities of 200
Mbpd for Lagos, 100 Mbpd for Kogi and 100 Mbpd for Bayelsa.
According to NNPC, with the completion of the new refineries,
West and Central African countries will look to Nigeria for fuel
supplies and discontinue imports from Northwest Europe, the
Middle East and Asia.
Lagos private refinery project under development. Dangote Group, owned by Africas wealthiest man, Aliko Dangote,
has received approval to build a $9-B refinery, along with fertilizer and petrochemical plants, in Lagos, Nigeria.
The refinery, which would have an estimated capacity of 500
Mbpd to 650 Mbpd, is the first private crude processing plant
in Nigeria in decades, after the cancellation and delay of earlier
projects due to uncertainties surrounding government plans to
deregulate the downstream sector.
Dangote Group has acquired interests in at least three blocks
to secure feedstock for the new refinery, which is planned to
come online in 2017, at the earliest. The company has also taken
up to a 9% stake in Block 1 in the joint development zone between Nigeria and So-Tom. Other partners include Chevron
and ExxonMobil.
Additionally, Dangote Group has acquired a 10% interest in
Block 3 in the same basin where Anadarko operates, as well as a
6% investment in Block 315 with partners Statoil and Petrobas.
In late 2014, Dangote Group reported that it had signed a $3.3B loan agreement with a consortium of local and foreign backers
to fund the ambitious refinery project. The company is expected
to provide $3 B in equity, while $6 B will come from loan capital.
After many decades of mismanagement and corruption in Nigerias downstream sector, it is hoped that the ongoing industry
reforms will help transform the countrys refineries into viable
business entities.
SHEM OIRERE has reported widely on the business
beat for Kenyan newspapers The Daily Nation,
Kenya Times and The People. He also freelances,
reporting extensively on Africas energy, construction
and chemical industries for various international
publications. He graduated from journalism school
in London.
Your one-stop resource

from drop in spray lances
to tank washing nozzles
Retractable Spray Lances
For over 60 years, BETE Fog Nozzle has been

recognized as the leader in spray nozzle design
and innovative solutions from custom spray
lances and chemical injectors to tank cleaning
nozzles. BETEs technological advancements
have revolutionized nozzles used for atomizing,
evaporation, cooling, misting, and fogging.
Our in-house capabilities include all aspects of
design, fabrication, and performance testing.
BETEs Application Engineers can take your
sketch/inquiry and produce a recommendation
and drawing of our proposed solution. With
BETEs extensive experience, we will improve
your process with the right spray nozzle
with custom fabrications designed for your
application.
Allow you to remove a

nozzle for inspection or
service without taking
Vivyi
MaxiPass Nozzles
The ultimate in clog-resistance
with the largest free passage
in a full cone nozzle
HydroWhirl Orbitor
A versatile Clean-In-Place tank
washing machine that combines
high-impact cleaning with
extended operating life
TF Spiral Nozzles
Produce sprays composed
of small droplets for quenching
and cooling processes
YOUR STRATEGIC PARTNER FOR ENGINEERED SPRAYING SOLUTIONS
Performance
Through
Engineering
Made in the USA
www.bete.com
| Special Report
CLEAN FUELS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The global refining industry continues to invest with the goals of increasing
processing flexibility, reliability and safety. Outside of the US, demand for
transportation fuels is shifting toward diesel and other middle distillates. However,
gasoline demand will continue to increase in developing nations. The highestdemand region for refined products and transportation fuels remains Asia-Pacific.
Refiners will continue to make investments to increase environmental and
sustainability performance, as well. The special report investigates opportunities
available to cost-effectively process clean transportation fuels and products, and
adhere to existing and impending environmental regulations.
Photo courtesy of Saudi Aramco Total Refining and Petrochemical Co. (SATORP).
Special Report
Clean Fuels and the Environment

C. CHAU, R. SCHILLER and M. ZIEBARTH,
W. R. Grace, Worms, Germany
Maximize petrochemicals in the FCCU to increase

refinery margins and improve gasoline pool quality
rent market dynamics, challenging the FCCU to move out of its
Over the last several years, the refining industry has been
maximum gasoline comfort zone is a winning strategy to drive
weathering a storm of volatile market conditions. Overall
overall refinery profitability.
growth in fuels demand and global gross domestic product have
driven new refinery construction and supported refinery utilization rates. Refiners have also had to contend with extreme oil
Optimizing FCC products. The FCCU is at the heart of the remarket volatility, driven in part by the shale, or tight oil, revofinery and plays a key role in operations due to its remarkable calution in North America (NA). Additionally, more stringent
pability to convert a wide range of hydrocarbons into more valuenvironmental regulations for fuels quality have required refinable productsincluding gasoline, but also light olefins, such as
ers to make capital investments and alter operating strategies to
propylene and butylenesfor both refining and petrochemical
maintain compliance. These shifts, among others, have created
applications. Beyond its core role in producing transportation
a dynamic market environment that requires flexibility.
fuels, as described in FIG. 1, the FCCU can play a major role
The most flexible unit within any refinery is the fluid catawhen integrated into a petrochemical-oriented complex. The
lytic cracking unit (FCCU). Refiners need that flexibility to
FCCU has the ability to adapt to changing market conditions
operate with a dynamic feed slate of varying quality, as well as
and the relative demands of fuels and petrochemicals. Maxito produce a range of products to meet market demand. The
mum unit profitability relies on the constant optimization of
shift to more liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) olefins production
the value of FCC products through high-performance catalytic
using the FCCU is worth noting. The majority of new refinery
solutions. Specific emphasis is given in this article on innovaconstruction in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific is geared totive solutions and opportunities offered to refiners when impleward maximum propylene operations to
feed either existing or new downstream
Fuel gas
petrochemical processing. In existing reAmine
SRU
Sulfur
fineries, a general trend toward incremenunit
H2
tal octane has been observed. Tight oils
LPG
H2
Isomerization
C3
often result in lower refinery pool octane
Total
naphtha
C4
due to the nature of the hydrocarbons
H2
HDT
C3=
C3=
present in the feedstock.
Catalytic
Crude Crude
reformer
Increasingly stringent environmental
distillation
Gasoline
Ethanol
H2
unit
regulation is causing more refiners to seek
Naphtha
solutions to offset octane loss due to deepU95
iC4=
HDS
ETBE
Atm.
er hydrotreating of the naphtha streams to
U98
residue
nC4=
remove sulfur. Incremental high-octane,
C4=
VGO
HDS/MHC
Alkylation
zero-sulfur gasoline blendstock from the
Vacuum
Diesel
LVGO
H2
H2 Selective
alkylation complex compensates for ocdistillation
FCC
Jet fuel
gasoline
HVGO
unit
tane loss due to post-treater severity. It
Hydrocracker
Diesel
LCO
HDT
also enables refinery compliance with
Heating
H2
Vacuum residue
oil
strict fuels regulations. An additional
Visbreaker
Clarified oil
burden on catalytic reforming has also
Residue
occurred with tight oil in refinery crude.
Fuel oil
Aside from capacity, to maximize alkylate
Coker naphtha to NHDT
LS FO
LCGO/HCGO to HDT or FCC
production, the FCC feedstock must be
HS FO
Coker
PetCoke
available in the refinery. The FCC process
has the flexibility to meet these product
demands when optimized with the right FIG. 1. The FCCU: A fully integrated unit with the flexibility to maximize light olefins for alkylation
catalyst technology. In light of the cur- or petrochemicals.

ing (DCC), but the use of highly selective and active catalysts
can continue to drive propylene yields in traditional FCCUs.1
Besides the LPG consumed by refining applications, propylene is a raw material and a precursor to various chemicals, as
shown in FIG. 3A. Propylene can be routed through various reaction schemes for final use in resins, fibers, solvents or polymers.
Propylene can also be sent to an alkylation unit as a supplement
to butylenes feedstock for high-value gasoline production.
Butylenes can be used as starting chemicals for the copolymer industry or as polyisobutylene rubber (FIG. 3B) as an alternate to automotive fuel applications through the etherification
of isobutylene into ethersnamely methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE) and ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)to boost gasoline
octane. FCCUs play a significant role in supplying incremental
propylene and butylene demand from petrochemical markets,
since ethane steam cracking generates mostly ethylene, whereas
higher olefins are produced by naphtha steam cracking. Butylene contributes by far the most to gasoline production via
alkylation, with a continuous increase in capacity and demand
worldwide, shown in FIG. 4, even though alkylation capacity in
the US remains relatively constant despite refinery rationalization over the same period.
AromaticsAromatic components resulting from crack160
ing at elevated temperatures in the FCCU may also be valuable
140
for petrochemical applications. The catalytic reforming process
Propylene gap
produces most of the aromatic streams for refining, as well as
120
xylenes for petrochemicals. Benzene extraction from FCC naph100
tha is an option that is being considered to both comply with
C3= other sources
gasoline specifications and add value to the aromatics produced,
80
but this option requires capital investment. Moreover, steam
C3= ex-refinery
crackers and new unit constructions and startups in the petro60
chemical sector do target increased aromatic production, and,
40
as a result, extraction of aromatics from the FCCU is not the
C3= ex-steam cracking
preferred option. Extracting aromatics from FCC streams could
20
become more popular in the future if specifications on aromatic
0
content of gasoline become more stringent. Direct extraction of
2005
2010
2015
2020
2000
aromatics from FCC gasoline can also help rebalance gasoline
FIG. 2. Selective propylene production needed to fill a growing
surplus in some regions. Besides blending strategies, alkylation
demand gap. Sources, forecasts and permission: IHS Chemical.
units, which produce high-octane gasoline without aromatics,
are the best option for refiners to comply
C4 Based chemicals
with aromatic specs in gasoline. This opFibers
PP
n-butane
Resins
tion will be discussed further below.
Syn
gas
Resins
Polybutadiene
Optimizing products from changOxo2 Ethylhexanol
Pesticides
1,3-butadiene
alcohols
butanol
SER
Pharmaceuticals
ing feedstocksThe FCCUs flexibility
ABS resin
Propylene
Propylene Polyester
Fibers 1-butene
is also linked to its ability to process feedHexamethylene- Adipic
oxide
glycol
Resins 2-butene
stocks with a wide range of properties,
Adiponitrile
Nylon-6,6
acid
diamine
HCN
Acrylic fiber
Synthetic wool
mainly in terms of specific gravity, contamAcrylonitrile
acrylic resins
Polyacrylic acid-diapers
inants, Conradson carbon and crackabilPropylene
Phenolic resins
Maleic
C6H6
O2
BDO
THF
n-butane
Phenol
Polycarbonate-CDs,
anhydride
ity, as reflected by paraffinic, naphthenic
comp. casings
Cumene
and aromatic content. This flexibility is
Solvents
Acetone
Polyisobutylene
made possible by selecting the proper opMMA-plexiglass
H2O
(butyl rubber)
erating conditions, and by using optimized
Isopropyl
Solvents
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
alcohol
Personal care products
catalysts, as described in the next section.
i-butene
Methanol
O2 Acrylic
Methacrolein
Methacrylic
Methyl methacrylate
Acrylic Coatings
Whether processing nickel- (Ni) and vaacid
acid
esters Resins
nadium- (V) containing residue, or proiC4
Formaldehyde+ethylene
Gasoline
Alkylate
cessing shale oil with higher levels of iron
Butenes
Ethylene propylene
copolymers
and calcium, FCCUs must achieve maxiA
B
mum bottoms upgrading despite facing a
FIG. 3. The propylene and butane/butylene petrochemical value chains.
challenging variety of feed contaminants.
Propylene demand, metric MMtpy
menting dual-zeolite FCC catalysts for enhanced butylenes and

the subsequent optimization of downstream alkylation units.
Light olefinsProduction of propylene and butylenes best
illustrates the optimization strategy and balance between refining and petrochemicals. Optimizing propylene yield is beneficial to the profitability of numerous FCCUs. Propylene yields
can be increased from 3 wt% to 5 wt% in conventional FCCUs,
and from 12 wt% to 30 wt% in high-severity FCCUs. Propylene
demand is increasing (FIG. 2), and, apart from the steam cracking, refineries are a key source.
With a shift from naphtha toward lighter feedstocks, such as
shale gas and ethane feeds, steam crackers, especially the newly
erected large units, are producing less propylene. To partially
fill the supply gap, on-purpose propylene is needed from alternate or complementary technologies: propane dehydrogenation (PDH), methanol-to-olefins (MTO) from gas or coal,
olefins cracking and metathesis. Despite being thought of as a
mature technology, FCC can play an increasing role in satisfying higher propylene demand. Several new FCC-type processes
to maximize propylene have been introduced to the market,
namely high-severity FCC (HS-FCC) and deep catalytic crack-

push the FCCU to its operating limits, producing higher-value
yields, often with higher throughputs. Close collaboration between the catalyst supplier and refiners contributes to FCCU
profit optimization. This can be achieved by the proper choice
and application of customized catalyst formulations and additives. Innovative FCC catalysts and additivesdeveloped by
representative testing and deactivation methods at the pilot
scalethat mimic industrial commercial equilibrium catalyst
(Ecat) properties have demonstrated improved profitability in
Alkylation capacity, Mbpd
Fine-tuned catalyst formulations are required for the FCCU to

expand its operational flexibility within common unit constraints
like air availability, delta coke, regenerator temperature, catalyst
circulation, riser temperature, wet gas compressor limit, LPG
handling capacity or downstream separation of LPG olefins, etc.
The requirement to maximize product values in demanding
market conditions and a competitive environment is equally important in adapting to challenging feeds. Generally, the deeper
the feed conversion, the higher the added value, except in the
case of high light cycle oil (LCO) demand,
2,500
when lower 430F (221C) conversion is
desirable. Maximizing the conversion of
Ex-US
US
the bottom of the barrel and pushing FCC
2,000
Worldwide
flexibility to its limits, out of the comfort
zone, increases unit profitability through
the optimal balance of propylene, butyl1,500
ene, gasoline and distillates.
The balance between refining and
1,000
petrochemicals is crucial to maximize the
product slate value in the face of market
dynamics.
500
Optimizing the FCC catalyst. Challenging the comfort zone by operating at

multiple constraints drives improved unit
profitability. Fine-tuned FCC catalyst formulations are developed and designed to
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
FIG. 4. Increasing alkylation capacity worldwide, driving butylenes demand in refining sector
(data by Oil and Gas Journal).
Oil, Gas and Chemicals Filtration & Separations Conference Expo
American Filtration and Separations Society May 9-11, 2016 Houston Marriott Westchase, Houston, TX
The American Filtration & Separations Society invites you to

Oil, Gas and Chemicals Filtration & Separations Conference Expo
Conference website: http://spring.afssociety.org/, Contact Conference Chair for questions, David Engel +1 (832) 296-6624
Conference Features
3 Plenary sessions
3 Concurrent tracks
72 Technical papers
Student Poster Competition
Short Courses on Monday, May 9
Vendor Expo
Plenary Speakers
Larry Ryan Dow Chemical Company
Michael Spearman Otronix
Scott Northrop Exxon Mobil
Technical Conference Topics

Filtration
Coalescing
Adsorption & Absorption
Air/Gas Purification
Bulk Separations and Cyclonics
Chemical Assisted Separations
Equipment & Systems
Media Technology
Produced Water
R & D Innovation
Participating Companies
Berry Plastics (formerly AVINTIV)
Delta Pure Filtration
Dorstener Wire Tech
GKD USA Metal Fabrics
IFTS Filter Testing
Industrial Netting
Nexo Solutions
Onyx Specialty Paper
Sefar Filtration
Spifil Filtration
Dont miss the premier filtration & separations Expo in the USA.
Expo only passes are complimentary but registration in advance is required.

commercial FCCUs.2, 3 Customized catalysts are a key tool for
refiners to matchwith a wider flexibilitylight olefins production to the market demand. FIG. 5 illustrates a multi-faceted
approach to optimize gasoline octane and LPG olefins within
the FCCUs constraints, using:
Adjusted operating conditions or changes in feedstocks
Octane and olefin boosting ZSM-5 additives
New FCC catalysts
Dual-zeolite catalysts that increase butylene yield.
Changes in operating conditions or feedstocksDepending on economics, refiners make changes to their operating strategies to maximize total FCC gasoline, gasoline plus
alkylate or gasoline plus distillate. Operating conditions and
strategies are of primary importance, but many refiners do not
have the flexibility to drive significant yield shifts with operational moves alone. However, significant shifts can be achieved
with a catalyst formulation optimized for the refinery crude
slate, objectives and limitations.
Customized catalytic systems and optimized formulations
enable the maximization of the FCCUs profitability within the
unit constraints.4 LPG handling capability, wet gas compressor
capacity or regenerator temperature are some of the constraints
that can limit FCCU operating flexibility. From an operational
standpoint, increasing reactor temperature will improve octane
but also LPG conversion. Higher conversion and LPG yield
may not be desirable in the face of an LPG constraint.
Product olefinicity can be modified by adjusting FCC catalyst zeolite unit cell size (UCS) by changing the rare earth to zeolite (RE/Z) ratio. Minimizing hydrogen transfer reactions and
promoting isomerization or branching reactions in the gasoline
range are also key to promote LPG olefins and higher-octane
gasoline components, respectively.5, 6
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Gasoline, wt%
C3=, C4=, wt%
FIG. 5. Maximizing LPG olefins and/or gasoline octane with FCC

catalytic and additive solutions.
-14
ZSN-5 in inventory, wt%
FIG. 6. Boosting LPG olefins, especially C3=/C4=, by using ZSM-5

additives.
If the refinery is limited by compressor capacity, a reduction

in dry gas or hydrogen can provide the flexibility to increase
LPG olefins and gasoline octane, either catalytically or through
the optimization of operating conditions. Operating changes
that reduce dry gas include lowering riser temperature and
modifying the heat balance. If possible, selection of feedstocks
with reduced metal contaminants can relieve hydrogen and gas
make constraints by reducing dehydrogenation reactions promoted by Ni and other contaminants. Additionally, higher LPG
olefinicity can provide a more desirable feedstock for the alkylation unit, ultimately increasing the refinery octane.
In the US, the growth in light, sweet domestic crude processing has resulted in an octane shortfall in some refineries, creating a clear value proposition for higher octane from the FCCU.
Catalyst properties, such as porosity and active sites, can be
modified to improve tolerance to feed contaminants contained
in shale oils, typically iron (Fe) and calcium (Ca) at unconventional levels. These improved catalysts can reduce required
catalyst addition rates and improve bottoms upgrading, despite the higher levels of contaminants.7 In Europe, the Middle
East and Asia, heavier crudes containing higher levels of Ni, V
and Concarbon, which translate into higher delta coke in the
FCCU, require improved catalytic coke selectivity and superior
bottoms upgrading capability and stability to ensure activity
maintenance at optimal catalyst consumption. A change in the
catalyst composition may also be required to enable additional
resid processing in the FCCU without exceeding operational
constraints and by keeping coke and gas make under control.
With different target product mixes, FCC catalyst innovation, process, design and equipment have shifted for optimum
conversion. This includes, for example, using slurry recycle to
maximize distillate yields. Other examples include specific unit
configurations like dual-riser naphtha cracking for maximizing
light olefins production.8
Octane and olefin boosting ZSM-5 additives. ZSM-5 additives provide an efficient and flexible route to increase alkylation
unit throughput and better economics via higher LPG olefinicity
(throughput will not increase; only quality of feed and product
will improve) and higher gasoline octane. Propylene and butylene yields increase at the expense of FCC naphtha with ZSM-5
additive use (FIG. 6). The resulting FCC naphtha has higher octane values, both in terms of research octane number (RON) and
motor octane number (MON). As prevailing economics shift,
the LPG/octane benefit can be optimized by adjusting additive
injection rates without changing the base FCC catalyst.
New FCC catalysts to maximize octane. FCC catalyst suppliers continually drive innovation to address market needs.
Catalysts have been developed to provide a more olefinic yield
slate when formulated with multiple zeolites with tailored acidity. These catalysts deliver an optimum level of butylenes to keep
the downstream alkylation unit full and increase refinery pool
octane. The incorporation of isomerization activity into the
catalyst particle itself results in a more desirable yield pattern
than would be realized by the use of a traditional octane boosting FCC additive. Using tailored FCC catalysts offers additional
flexibility to reach higher octane with butylenes being valued in
downstream alkylation units.
Dual-zeolite catalysts to maximize butylenes. Incorporating an active and selective catalytic phase into a dual-zeolite
Minimize your risk

in water treatment
projects
Veolia offers project delivery methods that enable us to execute your

projects quicker, faster, and at lower cost. We provide single-source
responsibility for new construction or facility upgrades.
Veolias partnering approach makes

your concerns, our concerns:
>
>
>
>
Safety as a #1 priority
Cost savings as a result of Veolias buying power
Improved schedule for project delivery
Operational excellence in project execution
Contracts can be customized to meet your needs and purchasing preferences.

Learn more at www.veoliawaterstna.com
Tel +1-800-337-0777
water.info@veolia.com
www.veoliawaterstna.com

higher reactivity and preferential saturation of the larger olefins.5,6 Therefore, high
30
1.2
RE/Z catalysts that equilibrate to high
UCS in the FCCU tend to be undesirable
20
1.0
when trying to maximize C4 olefin yields.
Low zeolite to matrix (Z/M) surface area
10
0.8
catalysts favor the production of gasoline
range olefins, and so are favored for pro0.6
0
ducing LPG olefins. When adding ZSM0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
tC4=
0.6
cC4=
iC4=
1-C4=
5 additives, the propylene to butylene
C3= , wt%
C4= distribution
ratio tends to increase with additive level
FIG. 7. Selectively promoting C4= over C3= using dual-zeolite FCC catalysts with constant
(FIG. 6). At low ZSM-5 levels, the ratio of
C4= distribution.
incremental C3= to C4= is about 1, but it
steadily increases proportionally to usage
rates.
The
reason
behind
the change in product selectivity is the
=
TABLE 1. Achieving higher commercial C4 yields and gasoline
type
of
gasoline
olefin
that
is being cracked. Longer-chain gasooctane with dual-zeolite FCC catalysts
line
olefins
are
the
most
reactive
and tend to crack preferentially,
Base
Base catalyst +
Dual-zeolite
making
more
C
olefins
(i.e.,
C
olefins
make two C4 olefins; C7
4
8
catalyst
ZSM-5 additive
catalyst
olefins make a C4 olefin and propylene). Once C6 olefins are beCat to oil
8.7
9.2
8.3
ing cracked, the main product is propylene.
0.28
0.27
0.28
H2, wt%
In the following case study, using a dual-zeolite catalyst as
0.8
0.8
0.8
C2=, wt%
detailed above enabled the refiner to increase butylenes yield
together with higher gasoline RON and MON, as compared to
Dry gas
2.8
2.8
2.7
the base catalyst with ZSM-5 additive. The incremental gain in
4.3
5.1
5.3
C3=, wt%
the ratio of incremental butylene to propylene using a dual-zeoTotal C4
9.3
10.2
10.6
lite catalytic solution was over 20%, from 0.89 to 1.10 (TABLE 1).
1.5
1.7
1.6
iC4, wt%
The improvement in butylene yields achieved by using
dual-zeolite FCC catalyst has been highlighted both in com0.4
0.4
0.4
nC4, wt%
mercial units and by pilot plant testing. A comparison between
7.3
8.1
8.5
Total C4=, wt%
a dual-zeolite catalyst and another vendors catalyst is detailed
0.89
1.1
C4=/C3=
in TABLE 2. In the commercial unit, the butylenes yield is inGasoline, wt%
50.8
49.1
48.7
creased by 1.2 wt% with an improved propylene production at
constant coke yield. The dual-zeolite catalyst enabled a higher
LCO, wt%
18.4
18.2
18.2
bottoms upgrading by lowering slurry yield by 1.1 wt%.
Bottoms, wt%
6.6
6.7
6.7
Lab testing confirms the advantage of the dual-zeolite cataCoke, wt%
6.9
6.8
6.7
lyst, with gains both in propylene and butylenes and lower botRON
93.5
93.5
94.1
toms at constant conversion. The commercial advantage reaches an even higher level of performance. Lab testing, supported
MON
79.7
79.8
80.1
by modeling studies, generates a set of performance data that is
consistent with the commercial yields and helps define the optisystem, combining ultra-stabilized faujasite and pentasil zeolite
mal FCC catalyst formulation matching the refiners objectives
functionality, contributes to a breakthrough innovation. The
and FCC targets. Moreover, evaluation of catalyst performance
proximity of specifically tuned pentasil activity to sites where
at pilot-scale facilitates a smooth process for catalyst change and
LPG olefin feedstock (gasoline range olefins) is generated inrisk management through a prediction of the yield profile in the
creases selectivity toward butylenes compared to conventional
commercial unit. These consistent databetween testing and
ZSM-5 additives. This feature of the dual-zeolite system, in comin-unit resultsalso contribute to evaluate techniques to quanparison to traditional ZSM-5 additives, generates an incrementify the improvement in profitability generated.
tally higher butylene to propylene ratio, demonstrated both in piThe higher butylene yield translates ultimately into a siglot plant testing and commercial units. FIG. 7A and 7B illustrate a
nificant improvement of FCCU profitability. The results of the
commercial application of a dual-zeolite FCC catalyst where the
economic sensitivity analysis are described in FIG. 8 for a 50gains in butylenes are significantly higher than those achieved by
the use of ZSM-5 additive at similar conversion. Moreover, the
Mbpd FCCU, taking into account the spread between butylC4= distribution remains essentially unchanged.
enes and gasoline, i.e., depending on the relative attractiveness
for butylenes as petrochemicals or as a feedstock for alkylate.
Understanding the drivers for butylene selectivity is key and
The higher the spread, the higher the refinerys benefits when
critical for catalyst optimization. From a catalyst perspective,
a dual-zeolite catalyst is used. Even at low differentials between
the catalyst hydrogen transfer activity has the largest effect on
butylenes and gasoline, the annual value ranges from $0.5 MM
C4 olefinicity. High hydrogen transfer catalysts lower gasoline
to $1 MM. Depending on the size of the FCCU, higher butylrange olefins, the feedstock for pentasil or ZSM-5 additives, to
enes can be worth $2 MM/yr to $5 MM/yr if 0.5 lv% uplift is
produce LPG olefins. Hydrogen transfer also has a more signifireached. Innovation in FCC catalysts, as illustrated here with a
cant effect on C4 olefin yield than on propylene yield due to the
1.4
40
Base catalyst +
ZSM-5 additive
Dual zeolite catalyst
Total, C4= %
C4= , wt%
Base catalyst + ZSM-5 additive

Dual zeolite catalyst
The Only Coupling

To Earn Its Wings
The NEW patented BaldorDodge Raptor takes

coupling innovation to greater heights. Utilizing a
patented winged element design for higher bond
strength and improved fatigue resistance, the Raptor
delivers:
Longer driven equipment life and increased

reliability
Easier installation and reduced maintenance

Drop-in interchangeability
The Raptor is backed by over 50 years of natural
rubber expertise and an industry leading 5-year
warranty. Expect a higher level of reliability with the
new BaldorDodge Raptor coupling.
baldor.com
479-646-4711
Raptors slotted clamp rings offer more clearance

at the bolt holes for an easier installation than
competitive designs.
Download a QR reader app

and scan this code for
more information.
www.baldor.com/dodgeraptor
2016 Baldor Electric Company

TABLE 2. Dual-zeolite FCC catalyst: Commercial performance supported by consistent pilot plant evaluation
Commercial FCCU
Conversion, wt%
DCR pilot plant riser
Other supplier
Dual-zeolite catalyst
Other supplier
Dual-zeolite catalyst
Base
+0.2
Base
Isoconversion
Dry gas, wt%
Base
0.0
Base
0.0
C3=, wt%
Base
+0.7
Base
+0.3
C3s, wt%
Base
+0.7
Base
+0.3
C3=/C3s
0.81
0.83
0.88
0.89
Total C4=, wt%
Base
+1.2
Base
+0.5
iC4, wt%
Base
+0.2
Base
0.1
C4s, wt%
Base
+1.4
Base
+0.3
C4=/C4s
0.60
0.63
0.69
0.71
Gasoline (C5-430F)
Base
1.8
Base
0.3
LCO (430F650F), wt%
Base
+0.9
Base
+0.4
Slurry (650F+), wt%
Base
1.1
Base
0.4
Coke, wt%
Base
Isocoke
Base
+0.1
Annualized value, $MM
C4=, to gasoline spread
$20/bbl
2
$15/bbl
1
$8/bbl
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Uplift from gasoline to C4=, vol. %
0.5
0.6
FIG. 8. Dual-zeolite FCC catalyst providing an increased unit

profitabilitye.g., with a 50-Mbpd FCCU.
dual-zeolite catalytic system, provides opportunities for refiners to enhance their profitability and optimize the added value
from butylenes and propylene for refining or petrochemical
applications in an ever-challenging environment.
Pushing the FCCU to its operating limits. In a dynamic
and volatile market environment, refiners are pressed by challenging economics, tighter environmental regulations and
product specifications. Flexibility is key to adapting to these
conditions with a focus on balancing product slate between
clean transportation fuels and petrochemicals for an optimum
profitability. Operating conditions and strategies are of primary importance, but many refiners do not have the operating FCCU flexibility to drive significant increases in octane or
LPG olefins with process changes alone. A more dramatic shift
can be achieved with catalyst optimization and the use of selective additives to leverage the FCCU flexibility and profitability
in a versatile economic environment and respond to refining
and petrochemical market demands.
FCC catalysts are fine-tuned formulations designed to push
the FCCU to its operating limits and produce higher yields and
increased unit performance, while processing more challenging feedstocks within the FCCUs constraints and ultimately
widening the operating flexibility in an ever-demanding economic environment. Beyond the use of ZSM-5 additives that
primarily favors propylene, a solution has been developed that
relies upon dual-zeolite catalysts for maximizing butylene over
propylene, thus enabling refiners to adapt to increasing gasoline octane demand, run alkylation units at high or maximum
throughput, and export LPG olefins to capture value in the
petrochemical sector.
In a rapidly changing market, the ability to switch product
slates back and forth between clean fuels and petrochemicals
provides the refinery with maximum flexibility and the ability
to monetize and take advantage of shifts in market.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Eric Ye of DuPont Clean Technologies for fruitful discussions on alkylation.
LITERATURE CITED
Complete literature cited available online at HydrocarbonProcessing.com.
CHRISTOPHE CHAU is the global marketing manager for refining
technologies at W.R. Grace. He has over 20 years of experience
in refining catalysts, including new catalyst development,
catalyst evaluation and scale-up, technical service and training in
EMEA/CIS, and, more recently, sales in the Middle East. He joined
Grace in 2014. He holds a degree in chemical engineering and a
PhD in zeolite catalysis from the University of Montpellier/Total.
ROSANN SCHILLER is the director of marketing for refining
technologies at W.R. Grace. She joined Grace in 1998 and has
held roles in technical service, technical sales and product
marketing. She most recently served as marketing director
for FCC commercial strategy. Ms. Schiller earned her MS degree
in chemical engineering from Johns Hopkins University.
MIKE ZIEBARTH is the director of catalyst research in refining
technologies at W.R. Grace. He has over 22 years of research
experience at Grace on FCC catalysts and additives. Mr. Ziebarth
has co-authored 23 granted US patents and seven pending
patents in FCC catalysts, environmental additives and olefins
additives. He holds a PhD in inorganic chemistry from the
University of WisconsinMadison.
Special Report

P. BLACK, Wood Group Mustang, Houston, Texas
Add power to environmental real-time data

through analytics
Advancements in technology are delivering ever-increasing
amounts of data that need to be processed and acted upon. In
the world of downstream oil and gas, including refining and
petrochemicals, the amount of information being generated is
rapidly expanding. New systems are delivering increasing volumes of data, providing a wider variety of information sources
and producing measurements at a higher pace.
In addition to increased measurements, instruments are
now able to provide increased diagnostic information. These
technological advances are spurring the development of advanced analytics tools necessary to process the data and drive
operational efficiency improvements. As big data tools become
customized for environmental requirements, corporations are
realizing the financial benefits of environmental analytics.
The evolution of data. As environmental awareness has increased, the number and scope of regulations have increased
significantly. Construction and operating permits have become more complex, and reporting and monitoring requirements have expanded. Consequently, collecting information
from diverse data sources has meant significant amounts of
copying and pasting.
Compiling information for the myriad of regulatory reports has traditionally been managed with collections of Excel
spreadsheets on network drives. Tracking compliance has required complex macros and manually reviewing thousands of
rows of calculations. As the workforce has aged and the original
designers have retired, the results have become black boxes, delivering values without a clear understanding of the underlying process. The increase in the amount of data sources, the
growth of information to process, and the additional calculation complexity have made the continued use of traditional
methods untenable (FIG. 1).
To manage the explosion in storage requirements and integration of data from business activities, companies have
deployed enterprise resource planning (ERP) software with
centralized data warehouses. These warehouses are designed
to consolidate information from multiple sources, store it efficiently and provide a unified view across internal business
units for planning purposes. While data from many different
business systems was quickly integrated, operational process
information remained locked inside process historians.
To bridge this gap, environmental management information
systems (EMIS) were developed and implemented to provide
the specialized processing and reporting requirements unique
to environmental regulations. These EMIS have helped to close

the discrepancy between the operational information in process historians, discrete data within ERP systems and reporting
based on manual entry.
A critical component of these systems was the ability to
store the information in such a way as to track changes in operational permits for audit purposes and to manage the changing
requirements. EMIS tracked compliance for periodic reporting
and monitored many aspects of health, safety and environment
(HSE) departments.
An industry in transition. With more air quality compliance
requirements being tracked at an hourly or higher frequency, environmental departments began to manage short-term compliance by creating calculations within distributed control systems
(DCS) or process historians. These calculations provided muchneeded guidance to operations but were not perfect solutions.
Due to the unique requirements of the regulations related
to quality assurance of the continuous monitoring systems, it
was not possible to obtain the exact results used to certify reports. Operations units were forced to run facilities based on
estimates, not actual compliance numbers. At times, final re-
FIG. 1. Data dissemination using traditional methods was inefficient

and confusing.

porting showed that avoidable noncompliance had resulted. In
addition, as permits were modified or new regulations released,
it was challenging for environmental departments to coordinate
with operations staff to implement these new procedures.
In addition to the higher frequency of emissions tracking necessary, the level of detail that must be retained for review is increasing. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is continuing to increase the frequency, intensity and scope of
its plant audits. The EPAs 2011 formal information request to
refineries requested highly detailed historical emissions values,
operating conditions and design specifications for specific units.
These developments mandate the need for consistency and
transparency in reporting. Agencies are concentrating on traceabilitywhere the data comes from and the level of quality
checks that occurred before it is reported. Their focus includes
the speed at which issues are detected, steps taken to resolve the
issues and how these issues have been addressed subsequently.
This additional information provides the agency with insight
into the facilitys compliance commitment.
ating certifiable results and providing sufficient notification to

react pre-emptively before problems occur. This new data feed
is forming another integral part of a corporate information reporting strategy upon which C-level decisions can be made to
improve performance.
With the amount of data that is stored by design in a facilitys
RT-EDMS, this system becomes a centralized repository of all
raw information for emissions compliance. Due to its unique position as a bridge between operations and business, it becomes
a natural source of information for an EMIS and ERP platform.
Each department within the plant can access relevant information unique to its own needs, as well as be easily integrated within existing dashboards at all levels throughout the enterprise.
The ability to seamlessly transfer information to other
groups and facilities anywhere in the world allows for the creation of new benchmarks for environmental emissions control,
directly impacting operating performance. It further allows
global companies to quickly respond to changes in international standards, such as the EUs National Emissions Ceilings.2
The next frontier. Regulatory agencies are not the only
Analytics adds another dimension. The ability to calcu-
stakeholders requesting more detail at a higher frequency.

Management is demanding timely information from all areas
of the business. Corporations are implementing real-time operations management systems to increase efficiency and to cut
costs in all areas.
It is not possible in todays environment to run a plant without real-time environmental information. Monday morning
notifications of problems that occurred over the weekend are
no longer sufficient. As a result, facilities are enhancing their
EMIS installations with real-time environmental data management systems (RT-EDMS) to automatically process the continuous flow of information. These systems perform low-level
instrument signal, as well as regulatory data validation, gener-
Enterprise planning
Data warehouse
KPIs
Analytics
Instant notification
Real-time validation
RT-EDMS
ERP
Regulatory
reporting
Operations
Management
Environmental
Health and Safety
External
data
sources
Incident tracking
Carbon management
Health and safety
EMIS
FIG. 2. Real-time environmental data systems provide consistent
information for intelligent decision-making.
late accurate emissions in real time and seamlessly push them

back to operations (as often as every six minutes) is opening up
opportunities to further enhance environmental performance.
The software constantly monitors the results against operating permit levels and can alert multiple operators in time for
intervention before a problem occurs. Furthermore, the possibility opens up of developing advanced multivariable predictive models that can be used for guidance, planning and future
permitting requirements.
The amount of emissions information, combined with large
amounts of process measurements over multiple-year periods,
has added analytical capabilities not previously available to
environmental teams. When tightly integrated into an existing
EMIS package, the combination provides the ability to investigate process conditions that were occurring before an incident.
The processing power of the systems allows the tracking of
near-misses, along with excursions, and provides the starting
point for a deeper analysis to reveal underlying factors that may
be the root cause of problems. Specific incidents and their timing can be analyzed and traced. This analysis can help ascertain
whether processes are more susceptible to events occurring during shutdowns, startups or other identifiable modes of operation.
Cutting-edge environmental management systems with embedded analytical capabilities are the necessary solution to building confidence from all stakeholders in monitoring, reporting and
addressing potential operational problems. Handling big data is
not the only requirement for environmental data management
solutions. There is also a need to bolster the data with meaningful insight for tactical decision-making. These advanced software
suites provide plant operations with detailed information in a
timely fashion so that operators can understand near-misses and
noncompliance trends, as well as avoid potential cutbacks in production due to reaching unforeseen environmental limits.
More than software. While analytics provides a robust capability to address potential problems and to achieve maximum
performance, there must also be a further investment in highly
skilled individuals who can review the data and discern the

underlying patterns. Until now, analytics has been seen as the
exclusive domain of data scientists, using tools understood by
a select few. This is no longer the case; with the deeper integration of the information into daily operational decision making,
three critical skill sets are required to fully deliver the benefits of
environmental analytics:
High-speed processing: Qualified personnel must have
the ability to design systems that can process and store
large amounts of data efficiently. Real-time environmental
data management systems are designed and implemented
in a similar manner as control systems and plant historians.
To maintain processing speed, efficient algorithms must
be used. The frequency at which calculations must
be performed must be carefully balanced against the
computational cost. The strengths and weaknesses of
different data-transfer methods must be evaluated, as well
as the audience to which the information is directed.
Environmental knowledge: An in-depth knowledge
of environmental regulations is necessary, especially
for areas related to continuous monitoring, quality
assurance/quality control procedures, or sections where
specific calculations must be used. An understanding of
the periodic reporting, along with incident notification,
is also necessary. This understanding helps guide the
implementation process to the aspects of compliance
where systems can have the most impact. Specialists must
be able to understand the intricacies of environmental
permits and how to translate the formal regulations into
mathematical formulas.
Operational focus: Qualified personnel must have
an eye for what is important to operations, and an
understanding of the realities of operating in conditions
where the data can be dirty and the responsibility is on
maintaining production. The individual must be capable
of determining the best data that can be used when signal
loss or faulty signals are received. There is a requirement
for a combined knowledge of what situations operations

can respond to, and the timing necessary for mitigation
of potential issues. They must also understand the
appropriate level of detail to provide to management to
facilitate better decision-making (FIG. 3).
With the right tools and experienced personnel, a real-time
environmental data management system with advanced analytics can assist in developing in-house metrics for operations and
foster a necessary dialogue between plant operators and plant
environmental specialists. It can assist in setting operating parameters and identifying key performance indicators, including
utilization, capital expenditures, maintenance costs and profitability. Just as important, the system can help improve air-quality excellence, greatly reduce compliance events and enhance
community relationships.
REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency, Agency Information Collection Activites,
November 29, 2010, http:www.regulations.gov/#!documentdetail;ID=EPA-HQOAR-2010-0682-0001.
2
European Commission, National Emission Ceilings, November 19, 2015,
available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/ceiling.htm.
1
PHILIP BLACK leads the environmental practice for Wood

Group Mustang. His focus is on providing compliance solutions
to global industries and serving as an industry representative
on the subjects of air quality and climate change. He has helped
develop the companys ENVision environmental management
and analytics software suite and is the product manager.
Mr. Black holds a degree in chemical engineering from the
University of Kansas and is a licensed professional engineer in Texas.
IMPORTANT ONLINE AUCTION

new and unused equipment of a chemical plant
CHEMICAL PROCESSING EQUIPMENT

Leuna (Germany)
Never installed MMA production
BRAND NEW REACTORS AND TANKS;
thousands of pieces of unused stainless and carbon steel piping,

pumps, motors, valves, weld neck pipe flanges, electricals etc.;
High-speed
processing
UNUSED COLUMNS 300 to 4.500 mm ID, 8.600 to

38.800 mm high, SS and Zirconium, tray and packed models
with structured packing (over 20!); UNUSED HEAT EXCHANGERS 15 to 3.118 m (161 to 33,561 sq. ft.), SS, Hastelloy and
carbon steel (over 40!) etc.;
Environmental
knowledge
Operational
focus
Built to ASME Code and TV certified

All OEM Documents Available
CLOSING: Tuesday 23 FEBRUARY

Viewing: by appointment PHOTOS/Catalogue on our website
FIG. 3. Three distinct skill sets are required to effectively implement

environmental analytics.
www.TroostwijkAuctions.com
39
The Green Solution to Sulfur Recovery
The LO-CAT process, available exclusively from Merichem, is a patented liquid redox system that uses a proprietary
chelated iron solution to convert H2S to innocuous, elemental sulfur. The catalyst is continuously regenerated in
the process.
LO-CAT Total Package
Flue Gas
The LO-CAT technology is applicable to all types of gas streams including air, natural gas, CO2, amine acid gas,
biogas, landfill gas, refinery fuel gas, etc. Flexible design allows 100% turndown in gas flow and H2S
concentrations. With over 35 years of continuous improvement, LO-CAT units are very reliable and require minimal
operator attention; many licensees report as little as 1.5 man-hours per day and over 99% on stream efficiency.
Treated Gas
Chemical
Addition
From engineering and fabrication, to installation

supervision, training, and startup, through process
warranties and onsite service, Merichem provides a total
sulfur recovery solution.
Each system is
custom-designed and built to your specifications and
aggressive schedules can be accommodated. Full
equipment packages are provided for stick-built or
modular configurations.
Proprietary
Sulfur
Filter
System
Raw Gas
ABSORBER
VESSEL
Solution
Circulation
Pump
Sulfur
Slurry
OXIDIZER VESSEL
Air
Direct-Treat
Air Blower
LO-CAT Direct Treatment Scheme

Chemical
Addition
Raw Gas
Proprietary
Sulfur
Filter
System
Sulfur
Slurry
Air
LO-CAT AutoCirc Scheme

When treating a gas that can be mixed with air, the
AutoCirc design provides significant cost savings in both
operating and capital expenses. By combining the
absorber and oxidizer in one vessel, the solution
circulation pump is eliminated resulting in reduced
electrical consumption. The single vessel approach also
minimizes footprint.
Flue Gas
When treated gas cannot be combined with air, a

direct-treat design is employed. This is achieved by use
of two separate vessels, an absorber and an oxidizer. The
absorber treats the sour gas, producing sweet gas in a
single pass. The oxidizer serves two purposes: The
regeneration of spent catalyst and the concentration of
sulfur particles into a slurry. The proprietary sulfur filter
system takes the sulfur-rich slurry, washes it and
produces an elemental sulfur cake.
Air Blower
AutoCirc
Merichem Company
Merichem Process Technologies

5450 Old Spanish Trail
Houston, Texas 77023
Tel: +1 713.428.5000
www.merichem.com
Special Report

R. CRUM, AECOM, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Build a solid GHG BACT cost-effectiveness

calculation to avoid CCS costs
Determining which technology constitutes greenhouse gas
(GHG) best available control technology (BACT) for a new
or modified facility often hinges on the GHG BACT cost calculation. This calculation, when done properly, must be approached carefully. An improper calculation can result in increased permit challenges, lengthy permit delays and even the
imposition of significantly more expensive control equipment.
An iron-clad cost calculation is especially important in
light of recent US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulatory positions. In several recent regulatory actions, the
EPA has begun using what it terms the social cost of carbon
(SCC). The social cost of carbon is the projected cost associated with the damages to global systems that GHG will supposedly inflict during the next 300 years. For example, each
ton of carbon released this year will supposedly contribute to
rising sea levels, more droughts, stronger hurricanes, vanishing species, etc., for the next 300 years.
Recent data suggests that the EPA may consider the social
cost of carbon to be as high as $39/t, and others have advocated that costs could be four to 45 times higher. At the same
time, many facilities across the US have submitted prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permit applications with
BACT cost analyses indicating that the cost of carbon capture
and sequestration (CCS) is near $50/t. By indicating that the
social cost is $39/t and that CCS is only $50/t, the EPA appears to make CCS somewhat economically feasible when, in
fact, it is not. These facilities have done a disservice to industry and need to revisit their cost assumptions.
If a facility is striving to avoid the imposition of CCS, it
is imperative that the BACT cost-effectiveness calculation
be error-free, be completed properly and be fully supported
with additional documentation. Additionally, it is important
that all costs are included in the calculation. A high percentage of BACT cost calculations submitted to agencies in the
US omit key cost components, such as insurance, general
and administrative costs, maintenance costs and property
taxes. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness calculation is biased
in favor of CCS.
BACT cost calculations are somewhat involved calculations and it is easy to overlook a major cost input. This article will review the various cost items that should always be
included in every permit application so as to aid industry in
developing a proper, iron-clad BACT cost analysis that will be
more than sufficient to pass US EPA regulations and, perhaps,
even activist scrutiny.
Issues with EPA regulations and activist review. The
EPA began regulating GHG emissions in January 2011. The

long-awaited GHG controls guidance document, PSD and Title V permitting guidance for greenhouse gases,1 included over
450 pages of guidance and seven sector-specific white papers
focused on controlling and reducing the emissions of GHG
through the use of BACT.2 All new major source permits not
issued by January 2, 2011 were potentially impacted. Any new
facility emitting more than 100 Mtpy of GHG, a relatively small
source from an industrial perspective, comes under scrutiny.
How large of a source emits 100 Mtpy of CO2e? A
200-MMBtu/hr source fired with natural gas emits about 100
Mtpy. A coal-fired source of 100 MMBtu/hr emits about the
same amount of GHG. A typical cracker furnace will emit 200
Mtpy to 250 Mtpy. A single steam cracking furnace will generally emit 200 Mtpy of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and
a new cracker complex with five to eight cracking furnaces
will often top 2 MMtpy of CO2e emissions. Thus, almost any
capacity expansion at a cracking facility would now require a
major source permit.
Since 2011, several hundred permit applications have been
submitted to state agencies and, in turn, reviewed by the EPA
during a 45-day review period. These permit applications are
public documents and are available for download and review
by the public. Much can be learned from the application itself, and still more can be learned from the EPAs comments
on the application.
As has always been the case with the EPA, there are predictable issues that trigger agency interest and comments when reviewing a GHG permit application. The EPA has a few GHG
issues that always result in a request for more information
or data, which always result in permit delays that can often
stretch into months. There are a few things the user must get
correct or the permit is held up in abeyance until the user submits new information to support contentions made within the
application. These permit delays can and do occur frequently
and result in a minimum of a months delaysometimes, the
result is a delay of six to 12 months. With the air quality permit
being on the critical path for construction, most major capital projects cannot afford a months delay. A months delay, to
say nothing of a six- or 12-month delay, results in significantly
higher costs for the applicant.
Additionally, the GHG BACT analysis is a major focus of activist groups when challenging permits. These groups will review
the BACT analysis in great detail in an effort to derail/delay the

Making a project economically infeasible is precisely why
the activist community diligently reviews the CCS BACT justification. The activists hope to identify a flaw and force the
agency to impose CCS, knowing that this may result in project cancellation. If a permit challenge by the activist
community does not result in a project being canceled, then the activists know their challenge will
Developing a comprehensive GHG BACT
likely delay a project a year or more; a years delay
cost analysis is critically important, and
will often result in the project missing the economic
window of opportunity.
showing CCS to be economically infeasible
The applicant must clearly and resoundingly
must be based on proven methodologies.
demonstrate that CCS is economically infeasible,
and present strong environmental and energy justifications for avoiding CCS. The purpose here is to
assist applicants with the development of iron-clad BACT cost
While there are no sure-fire ways to avoid the EPA or activist
analyses and to identify mistakes made by many applicants in
challenges, there are ways to seriously bolster the GHG BACT
the preparation of their CCS cost justifications.
analysis. The BACT analysis can be strengthened and made ironclad when the analysis clearly addresses the key issues that the
EPA and the activist community expect to see. For example, the
Cost thresholds for GHG BACT analyses. When assessing a
EPA always wants to see a clear discussion of the five-step BACT
list of control options for a criteria pollutant like nitrogen oxide
process. Many permits have been delayed as applicants rewrote
(NOx ) or sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), state agencies often use a value
their BACT analysis to specifically identify steps 15. The EPA
of $5,000/t to $10,000/t. Any control options costing less than
also wants permit applicants to identify emissions of methane
$5,000/t to $10,000/t of pollutant removed are considered ec(CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (NO), in addition to the emissions of
onomically feasible, while control options costing more than
that threshold are considered economically infeasible.
CO2 , even if those emissions are infinitesimally small when comAlthough state and federal agencies generally use $5,000/t
pared to the CO2 emissions. The EPA also wants to see CCS into $10,000/t as the threshold for criteria pollutants, GHG
cluded in every BACT analysis for fired sources. Failure to include
emissions are very different from criteria pollutants, and the
CCS as one of the available technologies in Step 1 of the BACT
BACT cost threshold must be different as well. Whereas a
process will result in a request that the BACT analysis be redone.
mid-sized chemical plant might only emit 100 tpy to 200 tpy of
Like the EPA, activists have their focused list of trigger items
NOx , that same chemical plant will emit as much as 2 MMtpy
when reviewing GHG permits and their associated BACT analyses. Activist groups have been known to hire PhD chemical engiof CO2. (The whole reason the EPA had to develop the Tailorneers to review permit applications, check all of the calculations
ing Rule was to tailor the Clean Air Act to meet the new and
and verify all of the assumptions. Several retired PhD chemical
very different needs associated with the regulation of GHGs.)
engineers from academia, in fact, cater to the activist commuIndustrial facilities typically emit GHGs in quantities roughly
nity and focus their spare time in challenging industrial permits.
three orders of magnitude (1,000 times) higher than the quanTheir analyses of permit applications can be daunting when first
tities of criteria pollutants.
read by a state regulator and can seriously panic the state agency.
As a result of these differences, most state agencies have
As the old saw goes, The best defense is a strong offense.
been using a GHG BACT cost threshold of approximately
With regard to GHG permitting, putting up a strong offense is
$10/t of CO2e, three orders of magnitude lower than the cribuilding an iron-clad BACT analysis, and the heart of the BACT
teria pollutant threshold. GHG permit applicants, therefore,
analysis is the BACT cost-effectiveness calculation. The balance
focus on preparation of GHG BACT cost analyses that demonof this article will discuss how to build an iron-clad BACT cost
strate that CCS costs much more than the $10/t threshold. As
analysis, as well as key issues that can be overlooked by even the
a result, the 200+ applications for GHG permits filed in the US
most astute practitioners.
to date all showed that CCS was significantly more expensive
than the $10/t threshold.
However, the cost estimates varied widely. Some applicaBuilding a GHG BACT cost-effectiveness calculation.
tions showed the CCS cost to be as low as $30/t, while others
The EPA targets several issues for scrutiny when reviewing
soared as high as $250/t. There was wide variation in the estiGHG BACT analyses. While discussing all of these issues is bemated costs for CCS, too wide to be explained by differences
yond the scope of this study, the one aspect of a GHG permit
in the CCS technologies selected. While some of the cost variaapplication that is of highest importance is the justification for
tions were due to differences in equipment choices, many of
avoiding the imposition of CCS.3
the differences were due to poor GHG BACT cost analyses.
If CCS is imposed upon a project by a state or federal agency, then the economics of the project are changed so drastically
that most projects are no longer economically viable. The huge
The importance of the SCC. New development on the hocapital cost associated with the acquisition and construction
rizon will require applicants to justify an even higher cost. Reof a CCS system often results in a 40% to 60% higher need for
cently, the EPA has begun to use the SCC in its cost benefit
capital. These major added costs boost the total project costs so
analyses associated with many recent regulatory actions. The
much that the project is often canceled.
SCC is a cost estimate of the economic damages caused in the
permitting process. When an activist organization is unsuccessful
in delaying a permit within the permitting process, it will often
use litigation as soon as the permit is issued. Then, the permitting
process is subject to the vagaries of the US federal court system.

futuretypically 300 yearsassociated with a small increase
in GHG emissions; conventionally, 1 metric t in a given year.
Said another way, the SCC estimates the benefit that society
will gain, expressed in monetary value, by avoiding the damage caused by each additional metric t of CO2 released into the
atmosphere. The SCC value, which is determined by computer
models, is intended to be a comprehensive estimate of climate
change damages. It includes, but is not limited to, changes in
net agricultural productivity, effects on human health and
property damages from increased flood risk. New types of
damages are being added with each model revision.
Note: The models used to develop SCC estimates, known
as integrated assessment models (IAMs), do not include all
of the important physical, ecological and economic impacts
of climate change recognized in the climate change literature
because of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and because the science incorporated into these models
naturally lags behind the most recent research. As the models
catch up to current science, the calculated values of damage
estimates (SCC values) will increase, perhaps significantly.
The SCC is, perhaps, the most important number that owner/operators may have never heard. It is being used by the EPA
to justify a host of new regulatory actions and new government
subsidies/taxes/surcharges. When agencies prepare to issue
regulations, they must justify proposed regulations by assessing the regulations costs and benefits. The EPA uses the SCC
within the regulatory rulemaking regime to estimate the climate benefits of proposed new regulatory actions. The SCC is
used on the benefits side of the cost-benefit analysis. Recent
justifications using the SCC include renewable fuel and mileage mandates for our cars; water limits for washing machines
and dishwashers; and electrical demand of microwave ovens,
among other applications.
Using the SCC typically allows the agency to demonstrate
huge benefits due to small changes in efficiency because those
benefits are shown to last for 300 years, long after the vehicle
or appliance is sent to the landfill or to recycling. The 2017
2025 Light Vehicle GHG and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations indicated a net present value (NPV)
of $170 B in savings from CO2 reductions through the year
2050. (Astoundingly, only one commenter indicated that SCC
should not be used in the cost-benefit analysis.) The SCC will
become a very important policy tool in the coming years and a
keystone of future climate policy.
The use of the SCC by the EPA has largely gone unchallenged by industry. As a result, the EPA is using it in increasingly
bolder ways and, in fact, recently proposed newer and much
higher SCC valuesvalues that are 60% to 100% higher than
those proposed just three years ago. The future use of the SCC
will likely be aimed much more directly at emitters of fossil fuels.
The EPA SCC value for 2015 is $39/t, assuming a 3% discount rate, and increases rapidly every year thereafter. TABLE 1
presents the various SCC estimates published by the EPA for
the years 20152050, assuming various discount rates. Permit
applicants should assume that the $39/t SCC value represents
the GHG BACT cost threshold when submitting a permit. If
the EPA is using the SCC costs to justify new regulations, it
will not be long before it requests that state agencies with delegated permitting authority use the SCC as the cost threshold
for BACT GHG cost analyses. After all, if the federal agency
believes that the release of 1 metric t of carbon will cause $39
worth of damage in the future, then that cost estimate represents the rational and logical GHG BACT cost threshold.
[Note: The author does not adhere to this view, but presents it
as a likely scenario for the future.]
Thus, permit applicants are advised to always submit GHG
BACT cost analyses of CCS that significantly exceed the current value of the SCC. While that should be easy to do, there
have been a number of permit applications submitted that have
shown costs below this threshold.
Development of a solid GHG BACT cost analysis. In
Step 4 of the EPAs five-step BACT cost analysis process, applicants are asked to rank all of the remaining feasible technologies. In Step 5 of the process, the highest-ranking option
with reasonable cost, energy and environmental impacts is
selected. For all of the reasons and justifications mentioned in
the preceding paragraphs, it is important that the GHG BACT
cost analysis be prepared in such a way as to clearly show that
CCS is not economically feasible.
A review of more than a hundred recent GHG BACT submittals revealed many common errors. As the EPA continues
to strengthen its GHG review process, as it has during the last
three years of GHG permitting, and as it gains further insights
into the range of solutions offering CCS, the agency will eventually ask one unlucky applicant to apply CCS to its facility.
More than likely, the applicant will then bolster the BACT
cost analysis and resubmit it, and the EPA will then waive the
CCS requirement. However, the applicants permit will have
been delayed four to six months and the project may have lost
the economic window of opportunity. A solid and detailed
GHG BACT cost analysis can prevent this delay and the possible imposition of CCS.
The prime mistake that virtually all applicants make is
not including all appropriate costs in their CCS cost analysis,
and the costs that are omitted are not esoteric costs related to
GHG emissions. The omitted costs are costs that should be
used in every cost analysis, whether for criteria pollutants or
GHGs. That is, the issues discussed below are not specific to
GHG permit applications: they apply equally to criteria pollutant permit applications.
TABLE 1. The EPAs SCC issued in 2013 for the period 20152050
for various assumed discount rates
Discount rate and statistic
Year
5% average
2015
$12
3% average 2.5% average 3% 95th percentile

$39
$61
$116
2020
$13
$46
$68
$137
2025
$15
$50
$74
$153
2030
$17
$55
$80
$170
2035
$20
$60
$85
$187
2040
$22
$65
$92
$204
2045
$26
$70
$98
$220
2050
$28
$76
$104
$235
SCC values are $/yr and emissions/yr specific.

Costs typically omitted by GHG permit applicants. How
does the EPA want to see a cost analysis presented? To address
hundreds of requests for such a document, the EPA developed
the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, EPA/452/B-02-001.4
This manual provides information on point source and stationary area source air pollution controls for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), NOx and some acid
gases, primarily SO2 and hydrogen chloride (HCl). Unfortunately, the manual has not been updated to reflect GHG costing
examples, but it is insightful nevertheless.
The objectives of this manual are two-fold:
1. To provide guidance to industry and regulatory
authorities for the development of accurate and
consistent costs (capital costs, operating and
maintenance expenses, and other costs) for air
pollution control devices
2. To establish a standardized and peer-reviewed costing
methodology by which all air pollution control costing
analyses can be performed.
To meet these objectives, this manualfor the last 25
yearshas compiled up-to-date information for add-on
(downstream of an air pollution source) air pollution control
systems, and provided a comprehensive, concise, consistent
and easy-to-use procedure for estimating and (where appropriate) escalating these costs.
From a regulatory standpoint, the manual estimating procedure rests on the use of a study-levelor rough order of
magnitude (ROM)cost estimate, which is nominally accurate to within 30%. This type of estimate is well suited to
estimating control system costs intended for use in regulatory
development because it does not require detailed site-specific
information. While more detailed data is available to the regulator, that data is generally proprietary in nature (which limits
its publication), costly to gather and too time consuming to
quantify. Therefore, for regulatory analysis purposes, studylevel estimates offer sufficient detail for an assessment while
minimizing its costs.
While this document does not specifically address GHGs,

it is certainly a solid guide to use when building a cost analysis,
since a cost analysis for controlling a criteria pollutant will have
many of the same types of costs needed for GHG emissions.
The EPA wants applicants to use certain equations as the
basis for their approach to costing, and the first and most important is used to calculate the total annual cost. Once the total annual cost is derived, it can be divided by the annual emissions reduction to derive the annualized cost effectiveness, as
shown in TABLE 2.
The components of a comprehensive cost analysis.
As the EPA explains in the aforementioned manual, total annualized cost (TAC) comprises three elements: direct costs
(DCs), indirect costs (ICs) and recovery credits (RCs), which
are related by the following equation:
Total annualized cost = DC + IC RC

To develop a comprehensive cost analysis (FIG. 1), the components that make up the above three sub-costsDC, IC and
RCmust be understood. First, the equation for DC helps
to illustrate those costs that might typically be omitted by applicants in a hurry:
Direct costs = Labor
+ Raw materials, feedstock
+ Replacement parts
+ Utilities
+ Impacts to heat rate, efficiency losses
due to the new control system
+ Outages
+ Waste disposal.
Lower reductions at higher cost/ton
Increasing total annualized costs, $/yr
Typically, about half of all GHG BACT submittals use nothing more than a vendor quote when preparing their GHG
BACT permit applications. The applicants probably ask the engineering firm of their larger project, By
the way, when you get a few minutes, can
Air preheater
you prepare a cost quote for a CCS system
for the project? The client would include
the resulting estimate within the GHG
BACT analysis section of the application.
Economizer
Historically, using a vendor quote may
Dominant
have been sufficient. Even a ROM vendor
alternatives
curve
quote would likely exceed the $10/t cost
threshold used by most agencies. However, many vendor quotes will not exceed
the EPAs estimates for the SCC, and venHigher reductions at lower cost/ton
dor quotes are insufficient to protect apAnnual tune-up
plicants from the imposition of CCS.
Boiler blowdown
recovery
Within the DC equation, there are sevCondensate recovery
eral sub-components that the engineering
contractor, without seeing the EPAs costO2 Trim control
ing procedure, might omit, including:
1. Raw materialsMany CCS units
Increasing emission reduction, CO2e tons/yr
will require various types of raw
FIG. 1. Graphical illustration of average cost effectiveness of the various control options under
material feeds, such as catalysts or
consideration.
amine solutions.

2. Replacement partsReplacement parts can incur
a substantial cost and should always be included.
3. UtilitiesThe annual cost of utilities can be a
substantial portion of the total cost of a CCS
system and should not be omitted from the
GHG BACT cost analysis.
4. Outages related to installation and startup of the
new systemThe system installation can result in
an outage of a month or perhaps much longer.
These outages will cost the applicant money, and
those costs should appear in the BACT cost analysis.
5. Impacts to heat rate/efficiencyThe installation of
a CCS system will have an enormous impact upon
the overall operation of the new facility. CCS systems
will typically have a parasitic energy burden of 25%
to 40% of the total energy consumed by the main
facility. It is vital to capture those costs in the analysis.
6. Waste disposalMany CCS units will generate
various forms of waste products, such as spent
catalysts or spent amine solutions, which need to
be sent out for disposal. Capture those costs.
A typical engineering quote, as described above, will omit
six of the seven DC components needed for an iron-clad
BACT cost analysis.
The equation for IC includes:
Indirect costs = Overhead: typically a % of labor costs
+ Property tax: typically, a % of total
capital cost (TCC)
+ Insurance: typically, a % of TCC
+ General and administrative: typically,
a % of TCC
+ Capital recovery: capital recovery
factor (CRF) x TCC.
Very few engineering quotes will include any of the above
line items. While the applicants might include line items related to electrical, piping, insulation, instrumentation, and even
taxes and freight, applicants will seldom, if ever, see items like
property tax, insurance, and general and administrative costs
within the bounds of a vendor quote. These are all perfectly
legitimate costs, and all applicants for GHG permits should
include these line items when an iron-clad BACT cost analysis
is required.
Capital recovery (CR) is the last sub-component cost factor in the list of indirect costs. It is a critically important cost
factor, and great care should be used in establishing it. Two
components are used to establish the CR: CRF and TCC.
The CRF is a little more involved and will be discussed later
in this article.
The equation for TCC is as follows:
Total capital cost = delivered cost of the control equipment
+ Auxiliary equipment
+ Instrumentation
+ Piping
+ Ductwork
+ Painting
+ Construction
+
+
+
+
+
+
Engineering
Working capital costs
Startup costs
Performance tests
Initial catalyst loads
Any additional costs that are
legitimate upfront costs associated
with the planned equipment.
Again, there are many sub-components to the TCC equation that are often omitted when a simple vendor or engineering quote is requested. Permit applicants need to be sure to
add appropriate costs for startup, performance tests, initial
catalyst loads and working capital costs. These are all allowed
by the EPA and should be included in the GHG BACT cost
analysis. Without these costs, the permit application may be
at a disadvantage to those that may include these costs, as the
annual cost effectiveness (cost/t removed) may be so low as to
prompt the EPA into asking the applicant to consider implementation of CCS.
When addressing the capital cost recovery factor, the equation is:
Capital recovery factor = i [(1 + i)]n ((1 + i)n 1)
where:
i = interest rate
n = lifetime of abatement system.
Example: When i = 0.06 (6% interest rate) and n = 10 years,
the capital cost recovery factor is 0.136. In this example, a company can recover 13.6% of the capital cost every year.
As is apparent from the equation, a high interest rate and
a short equipment life will lead to much higher annualized
costs. Using a high interest rate and/or a short equipment lifetime results in a high annual cost recovery of the equipment
and, ultimately, a high cost/t removed, which will indicate
that CCS is economically infeasible. Higher annualized costs
resulting from a high interest rate and/or a short equipment
lifetime will result in a greater probability that the equipment
will be excluded from further consideration in the BACT analysis, as it will exceed the BACT cost threshold.
On the surface, it certainly appears to be beneficial to select
a high interest rate and a short lifetime for the equipment. However, permit applicants are cautioned that the EPA scrutinizes
these two items very closely. Applicants are advised to choose
TABLE 2. Illustration of annualized cost-effectiveness calculation
Option
Total
annualized
cost, $/yr
Total emissions
reductions,
CO2e t/yr
Average cost
effectiveness,
$/t CO2e
Annual tune-up
3,000
2,010
1.49
Boiler O2 trim control
5,308
3,350
1.58
Economizer
124,315
10,049
12.37
Boiler blowdown
heat recovery
25,061
1,340
18.7
Condensate recovery
Air preheater
11,018
13,399
0.82
130,735
10,049
13.01

their interest rate and equipment lifetime carefully. ExxonMobils Baytown, Texas olefins cracker project was recently challenged by the Sierra Club on its choice of interest rates (14%).
The Sierra Club was suggesting that an interest rate of 0.8%
was more appropriate, using the US Office of Management and
Budgets (OMBs) Circular A-94 social interest rate discussed
in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. In a second example, US Nitrogen submitted a PSD permit and assumed
a 13% cost of capital (interest rate) and a 10-year life of the
equipment (depreciation). By doing so, it was able to eliminate
several technically feasible control solutions from further consideration. The EPA objected to the US Nitrogen interest rate
and asked why the standard rate of 7% and the normal 20-yr
life span had not been used for its equipment.
Common interest rates used by industry and accepted by
the EPA for applications include the business current borrowing rate, the current prime rate and other acceptable industrial
rates of return. Typically, in the absence of other rates, the recommended interest rate is determined as follows:
1. Average the 10-yr US Treasury bond interest rates
for the last six months
2. Add 2% to that interest rate
3 Round up to the next higher integer.
For example, if the 10-year bond averaged 2.9% for the last
six months, the interest rate to use would be 5%. Applicants
can certainly use an interest rate higher than 5%, but the application should clearly explain why the higher interest rate
was selected in the permit application. Applicants may be able
to quote loan documents, internal costs of capital or other
sources of information, but any interest rate selection must be
supported by solid documentation.
Clearly, some equipment, like that in acid service, does not
last 20 years, which is the EPAs suggested lifetime estimate
for most equipment types. If the application uses a lifetime
shorter than 20 years, detailed arguments as to why the equipment cannot be expected to last 20 years should be presented.
Lessons learned. Developing a comprehensive GHG BACT
cost analysis is critically important. The activist community
and the EPA are no longer accepting brief one- to three-page
cost analyses that blithely conclude that CCS is not economically feasible. Numerous permits have been challenged and
held up unnecessarily for months while agencies and courts
work through the issues.
While CCS is almost always prohibitively expensive, demonstrating that it is too costly is not always easy. Building a
strong case to show CCS to be economically infeasible must
be done in such a way as to be understandable to all concerned
parties, using proven methodologies. Fortunately, the EPA has
provided fairly detailed guidance on what it expects and how
the analysis is to be approached.
A BACT cost analysis developed using this document as a
guide will be difficult to challenge and should withstand EPA
scrutiny.
Permit applicants are advised to properly account for all
costs in a BACT cost analysis. Using a simple vendor quote
will no longer suffice for GHG BACT cost analyses. Vendors
leave too many major costs out of their quotes, and the activist community may be able to challenge the costs and gain
a hearing with the state or federal agency. Failing to include

key costs in your BACT cost analysis will result in poorer than
necessary economics and also possibly result in unwanted and
unnecessary permit challenges.
Key direct costs that are often left out of permit applications include raw materials (amine solutions, catalysts, etc.);
replacement parts; utilities to operate the new unit in the first
year; outages related to installation and startup of the new
system; impacts to heat rate/efficiency caused by energy and
power losses from the CCS unit; and waste disposal of amine
or spent catalyst.
Key indirect costs that are often omitted from the calculation include company overhead, property taxes on the site
occupied by the CCS unit and associated pipelines, insurance, and general and administrative costs.
Lastly, most applicants omit several key cost components
from the total capital cost computation, including, but not
limited to, startup and initial shakedown costs, performance
testing costs, costs for initial catalysts loads, and working
capital costs.
The last two components of an iron-clad BACT cost analysis relate to the capital cost recovery factors: interest rate and
equipment lifetime. While higher rates and shorter lifetimes
are advantageous when trying to demonstrate the economic
infeasibility of CCS, they will also create an easy pathway for
agencies and activists to challenge the permit application. It
is best to use a 7% interest rate and a 20-year equipment lifetime if the cost analysis still shows a sufficiently high CCS
cost. If the applicant adds in all of the often-omitted costs discussed above, the 7% rate and 20-year lifetime may work and
demonstrate the high and unacceptable costs associated with
CCS. If the estimated annualized cost effectiveness is still
too low (below the SCC value) and the actual interest rate is
higher than 7%, then the higher interest rate should be used.
The use of the higher rate should be fully justified within the
text of the permit application. If a vendor declares that the
equipment will not last 20 years, then a shorter period of time
should be used in the calculations, and this should also be
fully justified within the text of the permit application.
LITERATURE CITED
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), PSD and Title V permitting
guidance for greenhouse gases, http://www3.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/
ghgpermittingguidance.pdf, March 2011.
2
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html
3
Crum, R., American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Paper No. 36b,
Building an iron-clad BACT attackAvoiding imposition of carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) on your next major ethylene expansion, AECOM, April
2013.
4
EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, EPA/452/B-02-001, 2002, 6th Ed.,
http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html
1
RON CRUM is the vice president of AECOM. With 30 years of

experience in the engineering field, he has directed and
presently manages large, multi-year, multi-disciplinary projects
throughout the US and Europe. Mr. Crum sits on several
committees of the American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers Association (AFPM) and has provided addresses
at numerous national and international conferences.
Prior to joining AECOM 24 years ago, he worked as the engineering and IT lead
on the global mergers and acquisitions team for Borg-Warner Corp. He earned a
BS degree in mechanical engineering from Louisiana State University, and he
serves on the LSU Mechanical Engineering Advisory board and the LSU Civil and
Environmental Engineering Advisory board.
MAN Inside
Reliable solutions for the long run
Isothermal and
Gear-type compressors
Process-gas screw compressors

Axial compressors
Reactors
Centrifugal
compressors
Steam turbines
Expanders
Marine Engines & Systems Power Plants Turbomachinery After Sales
We build rock solid components for a broad range of applications in reneries and petrochemicals. Whether for hydrogen production and recovery, desulfurization, uid catalytic
cracking (FCC), PTA, Fertilizer or IGCC our axial, screw and centrifugal compressors, as
well as our steam turbines and reactors are built to achieve the highest level of availability.
Redening reliability today and tomorrow. Find out more at www.mandieselturbo.com
KNOW - HOW DELIVERED
INNOVATION DEFINED
KBR offers an array of innovative solutions to help you

restore, maintain or improve the profitability of your refinery.
From our safe K-SAAT technology that produces alkylates
without the use of strong acids, to our flexible MAXOFIN
FCC technology that allows you to switch between gasoline
and propylene production depending on market conditions, to
our hydroprocessing technologies that enable you to produce
cleaner fuels, we have the solution thats right for you.
To learn more about our solutions for grassroots or

existing refineries, visit refining.kbr.com
technologyconsulting@kbr.com
2016 KBR, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Outlook
Industry Leaders Viewpoints

L. NICHOLS, Editor/Associate Publisher
2016 Industry Leaders ViewpointsPart 2

Industry leaders and esteemed colleagues shared their viewpoints on 2016
and beyond with Hydrocarbon Processing.
These viewpoints give insight into growing regions of activity, technological advances and how the downstream industry
can innovate in 2016 and into the future.
The following viewpoints are a continuation from the January issue.
DOUGLAS N. KELLY, P.E.

Vice President, Refining
Technology, KBR
The refining industry is innovative,

too. When people hear the word inno-
vation associated with a company, most

people immediately think of companies
like Apple, Tesla, Uber or any number
of pharmaceutical companies. The latest
Forbes list of the Worlds Most Innovative
Companies does not include any refining
companies. The refining industry is generally known for being conservative and
mostly adopting well-proven technologies, and that reputation is somewhat expected. After all, refining has been around
for well over 100 years, and innovation
is often associated with newer industries
and companies. However, to believe that

there is no room for novel ideas or creative thinking in such a mature industry
could not be further from the truth.
Refining companies have had to continually innovate to deal with numerous
challenges over the years. One of the
challenges driving innovation includes
responding to volatile feed and product
prices. Crude oil prices have ranged from
$15/bbl in 1946 to $145/bbl in mid-2008
to $40/bbl in December 2015, with many
significant price variations throughout
the history of the industry.
In addition to the significant price fluctuations, not all crude is created equal.
There is heavy, light, high-sulfur, lowsulfur, high total acid number (TAN),
low TAN, high metals and low metals,
and every combination in between. Refining companies have had to adjust to these
regular and constant changes in markets,
as well as crude quality, by deploying new
operational approaches and new technologies. In other words, they had to innovate!
Additional significant challenges driving innovation and creativity in the refining industry are the ever-increasing
environmental pressures. Government
regulations around the world require refiners to produce cleaner fuels, putting pressure on refining profitability. The refining
industry has responded to these challenges by continually developing better catalysts and process technologies to produce
lower-sulfur fuels, while still maintaining
refining margins. This has been no easy
task, as sulfur specifications in fuel have
gone from 2,000 parts per million (ppm)
to 10 ppm, as shown in TABLE 1.
Each new specification limit has required the refining industry to rethink
the traditional approaches fundamental
to the refining business, and to develop
and deploy new technologies to meet the
more stringent requirements. The refining
industry has invested billions of dollars in
research and development to ensure the

production of cleaner fuels to protect the
environment. It is ironic to think about
how much the refining industry has done
to protect the environment, while receiving little to no credit for the innovation,
creativity and costs associated with making clean fuels available to the public.
Those outside of the refining industry
typically do not see the focus on safety.
Refining companiesincluding the associated companies that supply services,
engineering, technology and equipment
to support the industryprioritize safety
as a core value. As a result, safety continues
to be a driver for innovation in the refining
industry. For example, a process that has
historically posed significant challenges
to safety in refineries is the alkylation process due to the use of strong acids (either
sulfuric or hydrofluoric acid) as a catalyst.
Countless innovations have been developed to improve the process safety for
traditional acid-based alkylation processes.
More recently, a new alkylation technology
has been developed utilizing a much safer
solid acid catalyst, which will allow refiners
to meet their production objectives with
intrinsically safer operations.
There are many examples of innovation
in the refining industry, but the final one
included here deals with one of the most
mature technologies in the refinery, the
fluidized catalytic cracking unit (FCCU).
FCC technology has been around since
the late 1930s, and its main purpose has
TABLE 1. The evolution of EU fuel
specifications for sulfur content
Name
Implementation
date
Sulfur limit,
ppm
N/A
Oct. 1994
2,000
Euro 2
Oct. 1996
500 (diesel)
Euro 3
Jan. 2000
350 (diesel)
150 (gasoline)
Euro 4
Jan. 2005
50
Euro 5
Jan. 2009
10

been to produce gasoline. It has been the
heart of the refinery and is an area that
most people would consider mature.
However, global market drivers, such as
declining gasoline demand coupled with
increased propylene demand, are changing the operating objectives of FCCUs. In
response, new FCC technologies and improved catalyst have been developed that
are capable of producing more propylene
and less gasoline, providing refiners with
flexibility to respond to market demands.
While refining may not have been the
first industry you think of when you hear
the word innovation, we should all point
to the creativity and innovation that have
shaped, and will continue to shape, the
refining industry. Innovation in refining continues to provide profitable (economic) solutions in a wildly unpredictable market, as well as provide jobs that
have been made safer through improved
processes, operations and technologies,
all while delivering cleaner transportation
fuels that enable us to utilize hydrocarbon
resources that protect our environment.
LUIZ HENRIQUE
SANCHES
Partner, LHSConsulting
and Training Co.
Brazils upstream and downstream industries have evolved dramatically over
the past 30 years. Regarding fuel quality,
Brazilian diesel now contains 7% biodiesel,
obtained from vegetable and beef tallow.
Brazil has also reduced the sulfur content
in gasoline, abolished the use of tetra ethyl
lead as an octane enhancer and reduced the
concentration of aromatics in its composition. The percentage of ethanol anhydrous
in gasoline has increased from 20% to 27%.
The advent of flex-fuel cars increased the
production of hydrated ethanol as fuel.
Presently, this market reaches more than
20 MMcmy of anhydrous used in gasoline
and hydrous used in hybrid cars.
However, Brazils largest industry is still
run by the state, and is used as an instrument of inflation-reduction policy. Petrobras reached a debt of over $130 B. Furthermore, a series of scandals in management
resulted in an investment downgrade. This
debt grew from the gasoline price freeze,
which was put in place to curb inflation.
This resulted in very serious consequences, which included companies such as
Repsol withdrawing from the downstream

industry and decreasing growth in the renewable fuels industry. Ethanol distilleries
were riddled with high debts, which put
them on the brink of bankruptcy.
Since most Brazilian refineries are not
equipped to process heavy crude from
Brazils domestic production, the country
is forced to export these types of crudes.
This results in the countrys need to import lighter, more expensive crude oil.
Compounding this, Petrobras corruption
scandal has canceled additional refining
capacity from being built. This has resulted in Brazil being forced to import diesel,
gasoline, LPG and naphthaleading to a
trade deficit of $11 B in 2014.
In the distribution and retail segment,
the market has seen high margins due to
the drastic reduction of tax evasion by
distributors and unscrupulous stations.
This trend should attract new players.
New products are not expected to launch
in 2016. Fuel distributors will market
diesel fuel under the banner of smaller
sulfur content, and gasoline will have
higher octane.
Another challenge in 2016 is a growing
trend in the inspection of trucks. These
inspections verify that trucks are using
the Automotive NOx Liquid Reduction
Agent (ARLA) product, which is responsible for the reduction of nitrous oxides
produced by new diesel engines.
CLEANTHO LEITE FILHO

Business Development Director,
Braskem Idesa
The past year was a very interesting and

dynamic time in the downstream petro-
chemical markets, primarily due to plummeting oil prices. The petrochemical markets faced a continuously shifting scenario,
as raw materials such as shale gas became
readily available. This led to record low
gas prices, placing many North American
(NA) producers at the top of the most
competitive players worldwide. The wave
of new investments in light-feed crackers
has been groundbreaking.
The first of these new investments was
Braskem Idesas Etileno XXI Project. The
project will host a world-scale cracker
capable of producing over 1 MMtpy of
ethylene and identical amounts of polyethylene in three individual plants. After
several years of planning and over four
years in construction, the plant began operations in late December 2015.
To implement this $4.5-B mega-project, Braskem Idesa selected the most capable EPC contractors, modern and efficient technologies, and built and trained
a team of skilled operators. Another great
challenge was to mobilize and manage a
17,000-person construction team with
all its complexity, while maintaining the
highest safety standards. The project was
awarded the DuPont Safety & Sustainability Award for 2015, with only 0.39 accidents/million man-hours worked.
As for the outlook of the polyethylene (PE) market, we at Braskem Idesa
believe that the next five years will be
very challenging. On one side, there will
be some surplus production in our region, especially as the next large projects
come onstream in 2017 and 2018. On the
other side, we will benefit from Braskems
well-established and large commercial
network in Mexico, South America, Europe and the US. Through this network,
we trust that existing and new customers will have a great opportunity to take
advantage of our resin portfolio, logistics
solutions and technical support.
The global market demands highquality products. Therefore, producers
must seek the newest technology, with
high standards in terms of productivity,
efficiency and quality. In terms of PE market trends, we continue to see an increasing demand for bimodal products as customers seek new product specifications,
such as weight reduction, fewer material
blends and optimized conversion rates
(kg/hr). Molecular design of the bimodal
HDPE resins provide a unique balance of
properties that are not achievable in the
GLOBAL SPENDING TO REACH

NEARLY $340 BILLION IN 2016.
Find out how, where and why.
HPI Market Data 2016 is the hydrocarbon processing industrys most trusted forecast of capital, maintenance
and operating expenditures for the petrochemical, refining and natural gas/LNG industries. Produced annually by
the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing and the Construction Boxscore Database, and featuring data provided by
governments and private organizations, this comprehensive resource provides comprehensive and top-level insight
into HPI market trends, spending and activity.
HPI Market Data 2016 features:

Global spending in the refining, petrochemical and gas processing sectors
Capital, maintenance and operating spending broken out by region
Short-term and long-term implications of todays low crude oil prices
An exploration of changing markets and demand within the global HPI, with discussion of
emerging markets
More than 55 tables and 100 figures, including information and data collected from governments
and private organizations
Editorial analysis of worldwide economic, social and political trends driving HPI activity across all sectors
Highlights include:
The HPIs capital, maintenance and operating budget for 2016
and a year-over-year comparison against 2015
Expanded section on global construction and investment
Impact of current crude oil prices on global project spending
How refineries will be designed to handle unconventional feedstocks,
such as NGLs, bitumen, heavy oil, and shale
Order Today!
Call +1 (713) 520-4426 or visit GulfPub.com/2016
HPI
MARKET
DATA 2016
GasProcessingConference.com
AMERICAS
September 1314, 2016

Norris Conference Centers CityCentre
Houston, Texas
Call for Participation

Now Open
Submit your abstract by March 17, 2016
The second GasPro Americas (GasPro) will be held September 1314, 2016, in
Houston, Texas. We invite you to be an integral part of the discussion, and join
engineering and operating management from the downstream, midstream and
upstream sectors of the oil and gas industry. If you would like to participate as
a speaker, please submit your abstract(s) for consideration.
GasPro 2016 will focus on gas supply, procurement, purchasing, transportation,
trading, distribution, operations, safety, the environment, regulatory affairs,
technology development, business analysis, LNG and more.
We encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to share your
knowledge and expertise with your fellow peers in the industry.
Submission guidelines: Abstracts should be approximately 250 words in
length and should include all authors, affiliations, pertinent contact information,
and the proposed speaker (person presenting the paper). Please submit via
email to EnergyEvents@GulfPub.com by March 17. For more information visit
Questions? Please contact Melissa Smith, Events Director, Gulf Publishing
Company, at Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com or +1 (713) 520-4475.
Specific topics to be
discussed include:
Petrochemicals/methanol/olefins
Catalysts
Small-scale and modular
gas processing
Plant design/revamp/grassroots
Offshore/stranded gas
Separation technology/NGL
Field processing/gas treating
Metering/custody transfer/
gas transfer
Gas compression
Operations/maintenance/reliability
Safety/environment
Pipeline infrastructure/storage
Legislative and regulatory
compliance (domestic
international)
Business and market perspectives
Economics and finance
Training and human capital
Integration of global gas markets
Project finance
Project management/delivery
Organized by:
Risk mitigation
LNG (outlook and exports)
Hosted by:
LNG supply chain

monomodal HDPE. For example, the
main advantage of bimodal vs. monomodal resins in bottles is the increase in the
mechanical properties without sacrificing environmental stress crack resistance
(ESCR). This can translate into weight
reduction of the packaging. Besides being
an economical upside, it is also a more
sustainable approach once it reduces carbon dioxide emissions.
Braskem Idesa began commercializing its bimodal and monomodal HDPE
resins in January. They are produced
by two Innovene S trains from INEOS
technology, as well as a full Ziegler/
Cr product mix, with a joint capacity of
750 Mtpy. Together with the 300-Mtpy
LDPE plant, we offer a broad range of
resins from fractional melt flow indexes
(MFIs) to higher melt indexes for injection-grade applications.
SHARI DAVIS
Director of Project Management
and Project Controls, Strategy
Engineering and Consulting, LLC
Whats next? Moving from document- to data-driven project execution. When I was a young engineer, we
did things manually. Piping and instrument diagrams were drawn on a drafting
board, and calculations were done on
paper with a scientific calculator. My first
project was an ethylene plant. One of the
grunt tasks for young engineers was the
line list. This was a very labor-intensive
process that tracked hundreds of lines
in the facility. Each line typically had 16
pieces of information, which included
line size, service, number, piping specifi-
cation, insulation type, insulation thickness, where it is routed from, where it is

routed to, what piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) it is on, if stress
analysis is required, operating pressure,
operating temperature, design pressure,
design temperature, test medium and test
pressure. In addition to normal operations, there could be alternate conditions.
We learned very quickly to plan our
work and estimate how long it would take
to get everything done. We also learned
about this horrible thing called rework.
This is when you had to erase everything
you had done because you didnt leave
enough blank rows to add a new line.
Computers were just entering the
industry. Our company had only two
computers for all the engineers to use.
Another young engineer and I created a
spreadsheet in Lotus 1-2-3 to help us do
the line list. My mentor quickly realized
the potential. It was so much easier to add
a row. We could sort the list and identify
the larger lines so the bill of material for
long-lead piping items could be started
earlier. We added formulas to calculate
the design and test pressure. We used
look-up tables to check insulation thickness based on the operating temperature.
Because I was a new engineer and not
influenced by years of doing things a certain way, I was able to see the potential in
executing projects with data instead of
documents. I imagined a future where I
would be sitting in an office with 10 or 15
computer screens, all generating data that
would be used by other groups to develop
their deliverables. So, why hasnt this paradigm shift occurred? One reason might
be the way we track progress on projects.
In an ethylene plant, there are thousands
of documents. These deliverables contain
tens of thousands of pieces of data with
no good way to track them.
Most engineering companies use an
earned value method that is based on progressing documents based on milestone
issues. A line list with 625 lines could have
10,000 pieces of data. To make things
more complicated, we dont have all the
data at the beginning of the project. It
evolves over the life of the project.
Project execution is slower when
based on documents. We starve groups
of information waiting for the document
to be complete so it can be issued. To
check isometrics, the piping design group
needs the line size, service, number, pip-
ing specification, and insulation type and

thickness. They dont need the other information. However, they have to wait
until all the rest is done so the document
can be issued.
Moving toward digital and digestible
data generation is the future for project
executiongiving project team members the ability to pull data as it is finalized and ready for use. There are many
benefits to data-driven project execution.
The most compelling benefits include:
More granularity on the project,
resulting in better mobility with
just in time release of information
Information doesnt become
stagnant, so rework is reduced
Progress reporting is more
accurate, resulting in reduced
project schedules.
My mentor taught me an important lesson as a young engineer. If you hold up piping design, you hold up project execution.
There is a great demand in the industry for
projects to execute quicker. Every project
is on the fast track. Data-driven execution
is the answer, so groups like piping design
are not held up waiting for documents.
GIOVANNI SALE
Americas Region Vice President
Maire Tecnimont Group
Commercial and Business
Development Vice President
Tecnimont
The availability of cheap gas and associated ethane/propane natural gas liquids, along with the slowdown of Chinas
economic growth, are driving downstream producers to optimize their existHydrocarbon Processing|FEBRUARY 201651

ing production units. This is being done
through tailored intervention, as well as
planning investments to monetize the
strong availability of gas and the associated ethane/propane. Within this view,
the main trends show a growing focus
on investments in the implementation of
new fertilizer and polyolefin plants, and
leveraging on the best technology available in the market, with special attention to install multi-product (fertilizer)
and multi-grade (polyolefin) production
units to meet the worldwide demand with
the necessary flexibility.
It is well known that the petrochemical
industry sector is counter-cyclical. However, the slowdown of the global economy
is not in favor of the expected pace of investments. It is also important to highlight
that the current low price of naphtha is
creating a new renaissance for polyolefin
producers, which are based on this semiproduct as feedstock. This is particularly
true in Europe, where the existing petrochemical companies are benefitting from
such a dynamic. This is also driving new
strategic investments that were totally unexpected only a few years ago.
Maire Tecnimont Group continues to
leverage its expertise in the hydrocarbon
processing value chain, both in fertilizer
and petrochemical technology. We continue to serve investors for the optimization of existing plants and for the grassroots realization of new state-of-the-art
production units.
MARK SCHMALFELD
Global Marketing Manager
Refinery Catalysts, BASF Corp.
The refining industry continues to be

driven by many factors, which include
the impacts of low oil prices, competition
for cheaper crude supplies, capital limits,
regulatory planning, and managing in a
competitive environment where new capacity is creating global supply-demand
imbalances. Todays refineries must make
more complex decisions as low oil prices
impact operational plans, capital investments and economics.
In 2016, there will be a continuous
focus on catalyst technology selection,
catalyst innovation and providing experienced technical services to help
refineries create value. Refinery capital
investments are expected to be more
restrained in 2016, as firms focus on operational profits and meeting incremental demand growth. Despite lower crude
prices, global gross domestic product
(GDP) and fuel demand are forecasted
to grow. Petroleum-based fuels remain
the major supply of the fuels, as renewable fuels remain a relatively small share
of the global mix. GDP growth correlates
with higher fuel demand, so we also expect an increase in catalyst demand over
the long term.
Demand for BASF refining catalysts,
such as FCC and additives, was strong
in 2015. We expect this trend to continue in 2016 as we introduce new catalyst
technologies and continue to develop
our technical service offerings by investing in new tools and resources. Catalyst
technology continues to enable refiners
to push the adaptability of the FCCU, as
it keeps evolving to meet todays increasingly complex global energy requirements. This will be driven by fuel demand
growth, particularly in the emerging markets; the long-term trend toward heavier
feedstocks; and the global shift in product mix from gasoline to diesel as gasoline
engine fuel standards are implemented.
With all these drivers, FCC catalysts will
continue to represent a growth market.
Changing feedstocks and evolving
product needs open up opportunities as
customers seek to optimize their units
with improved catalyst systems. The continued need for the next-generation highconversion catalysts will require building
on the success of existing technology
platforms. BASF continues to develop
next-generation high-conversion catalysts to meet the ongoing needs for gasoline, particularly in emerging regions.
In 2016, the NA market continues

to plan for a high volume of light sweet
crudes (i.e., tight oil crudes). Tight oil
crudes require high-activity catalysts tailored for processing these highly reactive
feeds. Catalyst technology also supports
NA in meeting its demand for octane,
which is in greater need when processing
tight oil feeds.
Growing demand exists for petrochemicals, particularly in the Middle
East and Asia. New, highly complex
refineries with the ability to produce
petrochemical feedstocks, such as propylene, are under construction. Catalyst
technology continues to be improved
and offered to petrochemical complexes.
Asia, led by China and India, and the
Middle East will be the major refinery
catalyst demand growth areas in 2016.
NA refineries have continued to operate at high utilization rates with highly
optimized catalyst systems. The regions refineries are exporting increased
volumes of fuels to Latin America, as
investments in Latin American infrastructure have been delayed. Compared
to the rest of the world, Asian refineries
are expected to operate at lower average
utilization rates in 2016. This is due to
the regions excess capacity against 2016
forecasted demand.
Incremental demand for diesel over
gasoline is the longer-term trend for
growth in the fuels market. Over the longer term, gasoline demand is expected
to decline in NA as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards of
2025 need to be achieved.
The refining industry is going through
a period of dynamic changes. New refinery complexes are being built, mainly in
Asia and the Middle East. This construction is driving refining capacity to exceed
demand. However, over the next few
years, refinery networks should balance
globally as capacity aligns with demand.
Refineries will continue to meet increasing compliance regulations for air
and fuel quality. Environmental regulations will also continue to be phased in
globally. Catalyst innovations will help
refineries meet environmental compliance requirements for sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, particulate
and fuels sulfur control. The refining industry continues to grow, with dynamic
technology changes influencing the productivity and needs of the industry.

JOSEPH C. GENTRY, PE
Vice President of Technology,
R&D and Engineering, GTC
Technology US, LLC
Capital constraints will remain the

primary challenge facing the downstream hydrocarbon processing industry
(HPI) in 2016. Discretionary capital for
economic merit is being squeezed by
environmental- and compliance-related
projects that are mandated to stay in
business. This is unfortunate, because
constraints on economic growth for
spurious reasons distort the natural flow
of capital and are hurtful to the overall
health of the world economy.
I predict there will be disproportionate media coverage on green chemicals
via press releases, discoveries of green
routes to some petrochemicals, and
messaging about how green production
saves money. HPI companies are quite
logical and have already largely implemented projects that save them money,
within their capital availability. Be wary
of hyped-up opportunities supported by
subsidies or incentives. My view is that
all projects should be grounded in fundamental market-based economics over
the long term.
A trend that I see continuing is risk
aversion. Many companies in the HPI
severely penalize employees who make a
mistake, while failing to reward their employees who make great decisions based
on sound technical and economic evaluations. This leads to inertia and missed
opportunities for improving profitability.
Successful enterprises encourage proper
understanding of technologies and markets, and give their employees the free-
dom to make decisions at the level where

they are best understood.
Another example of risk aversion is
high-profile companies, which are paralyzed to do a project out of the fear that
some controversy may erupt and cause
negative publicity. I would challenge
these companies to stand up for sound
economics and fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. We should be
proud of our industry for bringing about
cheap energy and for producing affordable goods that have lifted the economic
well-being of millions of people, all
while doing it safely and with environmental responsibility.
On the technology side, I see two areas emerging that will gain acceptance
over the near term- to medium-term:
1. Processes that convert natural gas
to olefins/polyolefins, aromatics
or other liquid products. Natural
gas resources are more abundant
than oil-based resources, but have
the significant disadvantage of
high transportation cost to market.
2. Advanced distillation using
dividing walls, thermal coupling
and multi-functionality within
columns. As engineers learn about
and understand these technologies
more completely, they will find
abundant opportunities for
innovation across the industry.
On the business side, I see opportunities for forward-thinking companies to
gain a quick infusion of new technology,
production assets, market share or branding via mergers or business acquisitions.
This is a normal part of business realignment and optimization.
The downstream HPI will likely remain cautious for investment based on
uncertainty of oil prices and regulations.
Companies are understandably unwilling
to invest long-term toward a moving target. What then should we do?
Educate employees about new
technologies that will improve
local economics. Encourage an
environment of prudent risk-taking.
Build a level of trust and empower
decision-making at the lowest
practical level.
Reject spending capital monies
on projects that are politically
correct but actually bring about
the opposite outcomes of what is
purported. Business focus must
remain on sound, economicallygrounded projects implemented in

a responsible manner.
Spread the positive truths about
our industry.
MRIAM CHBRE
Deputy to the Delegate
Numerical Methods and
Data Processing Scientific
Development Division, Total S.A.
With the digital maelstrom, refining

and chemicals are on the road toward the
smart plant of the future that combines
micro-sensing, advanced analytics and
wide-range automation. We can expect
general online certification of products
with reduced inventory and extended
workflows toward regional hub-wide optimization and eco-park organization between complementary partners.
The root of this revolution is not recent.
Twenty-five years ago, statistical process
control, rule-based expert systems and
fuzzy logic controllers were implemented
in petrochemical plants. Twenty years ago,
multivariate statistical process control and
neural-networks-based inferentials for
soft sensing were developed in refineries.
Fifteen years ago, real-time databases were
deployed in petrochemical platforms, with
multi-plant remote monitoring.
Let us now target more. More accuracy is expected with our predictive
models. This may include more physics
embedded for a better understanding before prediction and action. Let us target
wider. We want to go toward multi-period, multi-scale integrated optimization
schemes that flow from:

Planning scheduling advanced
process control (APC) and
operations; process units
production lines plant
business unit hub eco-parks
Let us think faster. This includes efficient closed loops for fast transients,
quick access to information before decisions are made, in-situ and in-transit data
visualization and processing during huge
high-performance computing (HPC)
parallel programming calculations, and
simulations for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) applications related to
multi-phase turbulent flows in combustion and explosions at the lowest scale.
Let us focus on dynamics. This includes
master lifecycles with corrosion, catalytic
deactivation and material aging. Data
reconciliation (redundancy) and data assimilation (model update with data) are
needed for day-by-day adaptation.
Online product certification is the
way to reduce intermediate storage and
practice direct shipping. Let us develop
uncertainties quantification and robust
approaches for a better resiliency and disturbance rejection, all while focusing on
minimizing product giveaways.
Data-centric approaches should be
developed for efficient automated workflows. Besides the rush toward data
mining and machine-learning-based
modeling, we need more actions on optimization, image processing and complex
data fusion. Optimal solutions include
combining economics with energy efficiency and environmental targets.
Real-time dynamic optimization
(RTDO) will be one of the great challenges in the years to come. RTDO aims
at establishing an efficient bridge between
planning, scheduling and production operations with APC and automation.
There is a buzz on social network
monitoring, the Internet of Things (IoT),
mobile devices and communication exchange underground management to
understand peoples feelings and expectations in a business-to-client market development. We need to escape from this
buzz and flood of marketing data lakes
in the cloud to keep working on strong
scientific challenges driven by our industry. This includes heterogeneous and very
complex technical data fusion that could
gather numerical hyper cubes (time series, lab measurement, etc.), text docu54FEBRUARY 2016|HydrocarbonProcessing.com
ments (expert diagnosis data) and images

or movies. Particularly, semantic referential and dictionaries for extended queries
could be developed with meta-data and
contextual knowledge management. This
could help us develop quick diagnoses
while relying on expert heuristics. This
data fusion, including text mining in connectivity with numerical boards, is one of
the new challenges for the future. The underlying result of data fusion challenges
could be to catch and master know-how
and expertise for fast training with nextaugmented operator training simulators
(OTS) generations.
JIM SHIPLEY
Global Technical Marketing
Manager, Sandvik Materials
Technology
The challenges in the HPI have been

varied in the last year. It is clear that the
new normal facing the industry is a reality with a low oil price and a stable gas price.
In the upstream, the development of
new offshore oil projects has been curtailed due to the reduction in revenues.
Conversely, the downstream sector has
seen a large number of projects begin to
move through design and planning on the
back of low and stable feedstock prices.
Gas is an increasingly attractive building
block and brings interesting opportunities to reduce emissions. The increasing
global realization regarding the climate
threat is giving rise to new technologies
and new paths to reduce emissions, all
while maintaining output.
There is now an increased demand,
within both the upstream and downstream
sectors, for more cost-effective solutions,

with a focus on both capital expenditure
(CAPEX) and operational integrity. Issues such as corrosion and the cost of
replacement materials are driving discussions regarding material selection that give
total cost of ownership advantages and reduced operational expenditure (OPEX).
Trends in the industry are clear. Energy
efficiency is one major key to reduce longterm emissions and environmental impact through the reduction of equipment
replacement and better lifecycle costing.
Front-end design companies are now
looking for material solutions that can help
combat both CAPEX and OPEX issues.
There is a significant increase in the
interest for more corrosion-resistant and
stronger duplex materials, in lieu of expensive nickel and titanium alloys. For
example, the upfront CAPEX for a heat
exchanger can be reduced by up to 60%
by using duplex materials compared to alloys, such as alloy 625. This is made possible due to the excellent pitting corrosion
resistance on par with that of common
workhorse nickel alloys, such as alloy 625,
as well as excellent resistance to stresscorrosion cracking in chloride-containing
environments. Significantly increasing
crevice corrosion resistance is vital in the
reduction of failures due to under-deposit
corrosion. This is an additional focus area
where both nickel alloys and titanium
have documented concerns.
The environmental impact of continuous, and often unplanned, replacement of heat exchangers is enormous.
Not only does the material have to be
produced, transported and installed, but
the more often the failure, the higher
the impact. OPEX reductions impact
this in a positive way, and the increased
lifetime expectancy of equipment means
both a cheaper overall solution and a
significantly reduced environmental impact. Replacing low-alloyed materials,
which do not give sufficient service life,
with long-term, cost-efficient and environmentally sound solutions is therefore important. Not only do the material
properties affect this, but the surface finish and fatigue properties are also of great
interest in reducing the running costs of
equipment and the risk of failure due to
deposits or vibration.
End of series. Part 1 of this article
appeared in January.
Process Engineering
and Optimization
J. VAZQUEZ-ESPARRAGOZA and J. CHEN,
KBR Technology, Houston, Texas
Use discrete event simulation as decision support

for storage and shippingPart 2
Over the past decades, one engineering firm has been using
discrete event simulation (DES) to study shipping and storage
as an integral part of project execution throughout all phases
of a process facilitys design, construction and operations. The
simulation quantifies and visualizes the operations prior to actual project capital commitment, generating millions of dollars
in savings for clients. A successful solution optimizes lifecycle
costs by balancing the capacity for material movement and storage capacity against risks, unforeseen events and the overall
project schedule, as discussed in Part 1, published in January.
Part 2 presents a four-step simulation-based methodology
and shows a third example of the estimation of the storage volumes and shipping capacity for refinery operations in Africa
and the Middle East. As in Part 1, the project background, study
basis, objectives and key deliverables are discussed. Conclusions are presented, and a brief introduction of additional fields
where simulation has been applied is also given.
Simulation methodology. The traditional spreadsheet-based
techniques and deterministic mathematics models, in general,
are inadequate to handle the inherent complexity and uncertainty of the logistics systems. Instead, DES that uses statistical
distributions to model the variations is an ideal tool to provide
accurate solutions for correct decision-making the first time.
It is also very flexible to model a system with different levels of details from the plant level down to the operations of a
single pumping station, trucks or ships. A logistics study follows
a four-step, simulation-based methodology, as shown in FIG. 1.
Planning phase. This phase defines the study scope, modeling objectives, project objectives, decision variables, performance measures and critical uncertain factors. The project objectives specify the duration of the simulation project and the
detail level of the visual display and animation. The modeling
objectives state the purpose of the simulation modeling, which
is usually the problem to be solved.
Process mapping is applied to capture the key steps and decision points. This is the blueprint for developing the structure
of a computer model. It is also necessary to identify the stakeholders to facilitate the data collection and model validation,
which, in turn, enhance the quality of models and the credibility of the outcomes.
Simulation. The data to feed the simulation model are collected in this phase. Depending on the modeling level, the factors listed in Part 1 are selected for specific needs. The statistical
distributions are then generated for the collected data to represent the variability in the system. The computer model for the
baseline scenario is developed using a licensed DES application.
Prior to applying the computer model for subsequent analysis,
it is necessary to verify and validate the model. Model verification
ensures that the computer program is correct in syntax, while
validation is needed to guarantee a satisfactory range of accuracy.
The animation model is developed for two purposes. One
goal is to facilitate monitoring the flow of entities to ensure that
FIG. 1. Simulation methodology.

Process Engineering and Optimization

Study basis and objectives. The echelon structure of the
intermediate components and the final products in the study
scope are shown in FIG. 3. Three grades of gasoline are produced
from eight components via blending operations. Similarly, seven components are blended by two blenders to produce three
grades of diesel. The blending processes for different products
are simulated with different rundown rates and recipes.
The study bases include:
All import/export shipping operations at the refinery
marine terminal can be handled by two berthsa solids
berth and a liquids berth. The liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) is restricted at the solids berth, and other products
can be handled at either of the two berths.
The product tank requires one day of testing before
loading onto the ships.
A predetermined refinery capacity is given in the unit of
barrels per stream day.
A predetermined capacity for each blender.
The ships may arrive up to four days late.
Twenty-four hours of operations
are needed for product transfer
at the harbor.
Among the various factors that influence the sizing of the storage capacity, three
key issues must be taken into account:
The flowrate and recipes of
intermediate components for
producing the final products
The blend batch size, either
150 Mbbl or 300 Mbbl, for each
final product
FIG. 2. Three-dimensional animation for an
The uncertainty of delay in ship
LNG facility.
arrivals, as it is necessary to examine
the model logic is error-free. Another purpose is to visualize

the model using dashboards, graphs and 2D/3D objects for
the best communication with the users teams. FIG. 2 shows a
snapshot of 3D animation for an LNG facility when a vessel is
approaching the berth.
Perform what-if analysis. What-if analysis uses the baseline model as a test bed to evaluate various alternatives. Any
parameters of the decision variables, assumptions and the basic input data can be adjusted to fit the study purposes. Each
scenario is run for multiple replications, using different random seeds, to obtain the performance with meaningful statistical characteristics.
Identify the solutions and implement results. This phase
organizes the outcome of what-if analysis and applies the
techniques of statistical analysis to compare the performance
among scenarios. The scenarios that yield the best financial
benefits without compromising the operational performance
are identified as recommendations. The final solution is then
selected by the decision makers for implementation. To achieve
continuous improvement, the actual performance of the solution, which may lead
to model refinement and modification, is
monitored and evaluated.
Case study. The objective of this study
was to estimate the total volume of intermediate and product tanks required,
along with a confirmation of the blender
rates and the maximum blend sizes for the
gasoline and diesel products, in a refinery
in Africa. The facility imports crude oils as
raw materials and exports the refined liquid products and bulk solid byproducts.
TABLE 1. Three of 12 cases for gasoline products

Case
Product
Recipe
Blend batch
for Grade 1, bbl
Blend batch
for Grade 2, bbl
Blend batch
for Grade 3, bbl
Maximum ship
delay days
Constrained capacity
of final products
Gasoline
150,000
300,000
300,000
No
Gasoline
150,000
150,000
150,000
No
Gasoline
150,000
300,000
300,000
No
TABLE 2. Storage capacity for gasoline products and their components

Gasoline and its components
Preliminary capacity by value engineering, bbl
Suggested capacity by simulation (simulation results), bbl
30,000
30,000 (29,950)
Butanes
Light naphtha
150,000
150,000 (125,550)
Heavy-cut light naphtha
240,000
240,000 (184,230)
Isomerate
180,000
180,000 (165,745)
Heavy CAT naphtha
320,000
320,000 (316,701)
Reformate
360,600
360,600 (360,019)
Saturated/unsaturated LPG mix
29,000
32,000 (32,030)
Grade 1 gasoline
2 300,000
2 300,000 (455,000)
Grade 2 gasoline
3 300,000
1 300,000 (300,000)
Grade 3 gasoline
1 300,000
1 300,000 (300,000)
LPG
3 30,000
3 30,000 (77,000)

the system performance when changing the maximum
delay time, ranging from two days to four days.
Note that event times are specified by the use of probability distributions. For example, if the travel time of a ship
through a channel averages 3 hr, then the model generates
travel time periods for a ship following a triangular distribution as TRIA(Min, Mode, Max) or TRIA(2.4, 3.0, 3.6) hr.
Other probability distributions are used for time events like
mooring, bad weather and maintenance.
A total of five factorsincluding the recipe type, the blend
batch size of three grades of final product, the maximum delay
days, and whether to constrain the total capacity of the final
productsare identified as the independent variables for the
what-if analysis. Twelve cases for the gasoline products and 16
cases for the diesel products are designed for the analysis of
the tankage system. For illustrative purposes, TABLE 1 gives the
description of three cases for gasoline.
Analysis and results. The time-based tank levels of some
of the intermediate components and the Grade 1 gasoline for
one of the runs are shown in FIG. 4. By observing the variability of the tank levels during the simulation run, the minimum
and maximum amounts of components and product volumes
across all of the cases are obtained. These values are then used
to determine the required storage volume for each component
and product tank needed to maintain refinery operations.
1 2015-12-14 11:19:25
Akin to180125-2016-.pdf
the previous examples, other
key performance mea-
surements, including the estimation of the utilization of the

berths and blenders, and the waiting time of shipping for loading, are also captured by the simulation.
TABLE 2 summarizes the suggested tank sizes for gasoline
products and their intermediate components (simulation figures are in blue), comparing with the preliminary design specifications proposed by a value engineering study. Overall, the
Butanes
Grade 1 gasoline
Alkylate
Light naphtha Heavy CAT naphtha Blender
Refinery
Grade 2 gasoline
HC light naphtha
Reformate
Grade 3 gasoline
Isomerate
Sat/unsat LPG mix
LPG
Grade 1 diesel
Caustic treated kerosine HC kerosine

LCO
SR diesel
HT diesel
HT light distillate
Shipment
Blender
Grade 2 diesel
Grade 3 diesel
Jet fuel
HT heavy distillate
FIG. 3. Storage topology diagram.
CM
MY
CY
CMY

TABLE 3. Storage capacity for diesel products and their components
Diesel and its components
Preliminary capacity by value engineering, bbl
Suggested capacity by simulation (simulation results), bbl
Caustic treated kerosine
240,400
240,400 (225,032)
Heavy-cut kerosine
240,400
240,408 (222,322)
Straight-run diesel
63,000
63,000 (57,192)
Heavy-cut diesel
340,000
340,000 (226,700)
Heavy-cut light distillate
240,400
240,400 (206,700)
Heavy-cut heavy distillate
160,300
160,300 (145,286)
Grade 1 diesel
3 300,000
2 300,000 (595,355)
Grade 2 diesel
2 300,000
1 300,000 (300,000)
Grade 3 diesel
1 300,000
1 300,000 (300,000)
Jet fuel
2 300,000
1 300,000 (300,000)
achieved substantial cost savings by identifying accurate storage capacity and minimizing the risks of oversizing.
Heavy catalytic naphtha
400,000
Level, bbl
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
100
200
300
400
Time, day
500
600
700
Isomerate
Level, bbl
160,000
120,000
80,000
40,000
0
200
300
400
Time, day
500
600
700
Grade 1 gasoline
500,000
Level, bbl
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
50
100
Time, day
150
200
250
FIG. 4. Time-based tank level of intermediate components and

Grade 1 gasoline.
two sets of results are aligned well, except for the storage for
the saturated/unsaturated LPG mix and the Grade 2 gasoline
(figures in red). The tankage for the saturated/unsaturated
LPG mix is recommended to be larger, while one 300-Mbbl
tank is sufficient for the Grade 2 gasoline. The similar observations for the diesel products and their components are
shown in TABLE 3. The tanks for Grade 1 diesel, Grade 2 diesel
and jet fuel are recommended to be one unit less than the preliminary design.
The simulation study effectively improved the fidelity of
engineering design for a large-scale refinery. In addition, it
Recommendations. Making a sound decision on the number of ships used for product transportation and the volumetric storage capacity is one of the major challenges in logistics
design and management in the oil and gas industry. The problem involves intensive capital investment, an inflexible supply
chain and high complexity. Moreover, numerous production
and transportation risks, such as unscheduled maintenance,
weather variations, traveling speed and harbor availability, require a sophisticated modeling tool capable of handling the
complexity and uncertainty of the transportation of products
by fleets of ocean vessels.
Simulation-based studies accurately evaluate the performance of logistics operations, as well as proactively identify
potential bottlenecks and improvement opportunities. Besides the shipping and storage studies, logistics simulation
and traffic simulation are available to optimize the materials
movements during the construction phase. Freight profiles,
discrete-event models and traffic models are developed to examine the supply chain capacity of civil infrastructure to ensure that the planned freight arrivals can be accommodated in
different construction phases.
End of series. Part 1 of this article appeared in January.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. Jeffrey Feng for his support and supervision in preparing this article, and KBR for granting permission to publish it.
JAVIER VAZQUEZ-ESPARRAGOZA is a technical professional
leader with the Automation and Process Technologies group at
KBR. He is a registered professional engineer in Texas, and has
been in the process technologies and automation area for the
last 20 years. Previously, he worked as a software development
engineer at Bryan Research and Engineering and spent several
years in the academic field at the University of Puebla in Mexico.
He holds a PhD in chemical engineering from Texas A&M University.
JASON CHEN is a principal technical professional at KBR
with the Automation and Process Technologies group. He has
extensive experience in logistics simulation and operations
management systems in the oil and gas industry. He holds a
PhD in systems science from the State University of New York
at Binghamton.
Process Engineering
and Optimization
N. LIEBERMAN, Vacuum Improvement
Consulting Engineering, Metairie, Louisiana; and
R. CARDOSO, Phillips 66, Westlake, Louisiana
Troubleshoot operation of a steam ejector

vacuum system
system is composed of 12 steam ejectors and 12 condensers, as

shown in FIG. 1. Each ejector has a dedicated surface condenser.
The first-stage ejectors are close-coupled to the vacuum
tower and work in parallel. They are directly connected to the
tower discharging to the three respective first-stage condensers.
Each first-stage ejector/condenser was designed for one third
of the total design load. There are three trains, each comprising second, third and fourth stages. The vapors from the three
first-stage condensers combine in a common header before going to the second-stage ejectors (one in each train). Condensed
The importance of offgas analysis. At first, an air leakage was suspected to be the cause of the high offgas rate from
the fourth stage. An initial sample (shown in TABLE 1) revealed
the presence of nitrogen (N2 ) and oxygen (O2 ), although
Steam
Steam Steam
J = 1, 2, 3
Steam
Steam
Steam
E = 1, 2, 3
J = 4, 5, 6
A train
E = 4, 5, 6
To seal drum
First stage
Second stage
Third stage
Fourth stage
Steam
To seal drum
Steam
Steam
J = 7, 8, 9
B train
E = 7, 8, 9
To wet gas
compressor
Steam
To seal drum
Steam
Equalization line
System background. The crude vacuum tower overhead
water and liquid hydrocarbons from all stages drain into a seal
drum (not shown).
The onset of summer and higher cooling water temperature
caused the vacuum tower pressure to be unstable. The noncondensable flowrate from the last stage was above the maximum
meter reading value. Noncondensable flowrate increased from
baseline to maximum meter scale in five months. Tower pressure would change drastically from 10 mm Hg to approximately 30 mm Hg without an apparent reason. The possibility of an
unscheduled unit shutdown was high.
Process gas
A crude vacuum unit operating properly generates high gasoil

yield vs. low-value vacuum residue. Moreover, gasoil in the residue can adversely affect downstream units. Stable pressure and
low pressure are important to achieving good operation, not only
for recovering valuable products but also for avoiding swings that
impair control systems and the meeting of product specifications.
Steam ejectors are in widespread use in overhead vacuum
systems. To achieve low vacuum levels, ejectors are arranged
in two, three, four or more stages, with each stage comprising
a steam ejector and a surface condenser. The condenser condenses steam and hydrocarbon, and cools noncondensable gases
and steam to the next-stage ejectors. Components of this type of
vacuum system require relatively low maintenance and are easy
to put into operation. The alternative to a steam ejector is the far
more complex liquid seal ring compressor.
Despite being a long-established way to produce vacuum,
multistage ejector condenser systems are intricate; problems
can arise from process operations, changing crude slates, steam
quality, mechanical problems and fouling. Lack of understanding of the operating principles makes it possible to view these
systems as a black box.
Here, a case study is presented wherein the operation of a
vacuum towerone that otherwise would have needed to be
shut downwas corrected. It highlights the importance of understanding the entire vacuum system, of field observation and
of the interpretation of operating vs. design data. Some basic
concepts to help understand and troubleshoot a steam ejector
vacuum system are presented.
Steam
Sample
point
J = 10, 11, 12
C train
E = 10, 11, 12
To seal drum
FIG. 1. Vacuum tower overhead system.


these were not in a 4:1 ratio (even accounting for the CO2 formation). The samples were taken in stainless steel cylinders,
which could cause the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to mask the
presence of O2 in the offgas, as shown in Eq. 1:
H2S + O2 H2O + S0(s)
(1)
Whenever exposure to H2S can take place (e.g., while performing a pressure survey or collecting samples), appropriate
personal protection equipment is required.
The operator collected new offgas samples, using a plastic
syringe. Gas chromatography analyses did not indicate any
considerable air leakage that could contribute to the high offgas flowrate. Most of the detected N2 was calculated to come
from instrument purges.
A common source of seal drum offgas is residual propane
and butane, either from crude leaking into a vacuum tower
pumparound stream, or from poor stripping of vacuum tower
feed. However, the amount of olefins in the seal drum offgas
indicated that the vapor load to the ejectors was almost exclusively due to thermal cracking (high furnace coil temperature
and residence time in the bottom of the tower).
While collecting the samples, another important fact was
noticed. Four feet of stainless steel tubing was used to connect
the syringe to the process pipe (FIG. 1 indicates sample point location). Between samples, offgas cooled in the stagnant tubing.
When the second sample was collected, steam condensate was
drawn into the syringe, which indicated that part of the high offgas rate was due to problems with the fourth-stage condensers
not being able to efficiently condense ejector motive steam.
The steam ejector, demystified. An ejector is really a com-
pressor. It converts the enthalpy of motive steam to supersonic

velocity through an adiabatic expansion. The low pressure conTABLE 1. Gas chromatography analyses of offgas samples
Stainless steel
cylinder analysis, %mol
Components
Methane
Plastic syringe
analysis, %mol
21
28.6
9.5/1.3
14.8/1.8
Propane/propylene
6.7/2.9
10.5/4.5
Butanes/butenes
0.5/2.5
5.5/4.1
Pentanes and heavier
3.3
2.9
N2
13.7
2.2
O2
1.3
0.5
H 2S
31.5
21.3
H2, CO and CO2
5.8
3.3
Ethane/ethylene
TABLE 2. Outlet temperature vs. water saturation temperature

Gas outlet temperature, F
1
2
Water partial pressure, mm Hg1
96 (design)
43.5
101
50.6
106
58.7
111
67.92
From steam table

Higher than MDP
sequently generated in the ejector suction chamber pulls the

process load and the resulting mixture, still at supersonic velocity, enters the diffuser. In its converging section, velocity is converted to pressure as the cross-sectional area decreases. Past the
throat, as vapor flows from sonic to subsonic, pressure is hugely
increased and velocity drops to a subsonic level.1 This transition
from critical flow to subcritical flow is called the sonic boost.
The ejector is designed to work in this critical mode of operation. In the diffuser-diverging section, velocity continues to be
converted into pressure as the cross-sectional area increases,
even if the sonic boost is lost. This is called velocity boost.
The steam nozzle throat is an orifice designed for critical
flow; therefore, steam pressure and temperature define the
flowrate through the nozzle. The throat is designed to pass a
specific steam mass flow. Wet steam can limit the required steam
flow through the nozzle, and accelerated droplets can erode the
nozzle and/or the diffuser, leading to poor performance.
The manufacturer will provide the performance curve that
indicates ejector inlet pressure as a function of ejector suction
gas mass load (as water equivalent in lb/hr). The same curve
also indicates the design motive steam conditions (temperature
and pressure), cooling water supply temperature and the ejectors maximum discharge pressure (MDP).
Ejector suction pressure will follow the operating curve
(i.e., if gas load increases, then so does the suction pressure),
and it should be, but is not always, independent of discharge
pressure until the MDP is reached. The ejector cannot operate properly above its MDP. The ejector will typically make a
surging sound. The ejector manufacturers term this improper
operation being forced out of critical flow. The steam and gas
flowing through the ejector is no longer dropping from sonic
to subsonic velocity in the appropriate portion of the ejectors
diffuser. The compression ratio of the ejector will drop (for example, from six-to-one to two-to-one). Performance will break,
and the ejector suction pressure will increase sharply and may
be unstable. In general, all upstream ejector stages will subsequently break performance.
The system in this study was designed for cooling water at
88F and process gas outlet at 96F (8F approach). These conditions allow for a low design maximum discharge pressure of
67 mm Hg. However, as the bundle fouls and/or cooling water flowrate drops, the approach increases, and this results in a
much higher process gas outlet temperature of 108F to 113F.
When that happens, the vapor pressure of water becomes a major contributor to the operating pressure of the system, which
will eventually lead to jet breakage in the first stage, as it exceeds
its MDP of 67 mm Hg.
TABLE 2 shows the relationship between process gas outlet temperature and the pressure contribution of water alone.
Note that, as the temperature increases, the margin to the MDP
shrinks, and any additional process load will throw the ejectors out of their stable operation curve. Typically, 5 mm Hg to
8 mm Hg is added to the condenser gas outlet pressure to estimate the ejector discharge pressure, which accounts for the
pressure drop across the tube bundle. This explains why the
condensers, even when in reasonable condition, would cause the
vacuum to break during the hot months of the year.
The previously mentioned MDP is low for an ejector on the
US Gulf Coast (USGC), where the temperature of cooling water
a vacuum system, condensers and ejectors are highly interdependent and should be analyzed altogether to pinpoint the source
of the malfunction. Ejector surging can be caused by excessive
discharge pressurefor example, by deteriorated performance
of a downstream condenser, or by an extra-system noncondensable load. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind some of the
most common factors that can impact condenser performance:
Cooling water supply temperature and flowrate
Noncondensable load
Condensable load
Fouling
Drain leg (insufficient height or plugged).
The progressive loss of vacuum system overhead capacity largely appears to be a function of fouling, especially in the
first-stage condenser. Measured shell side P was 6 mm Hg to
8 mm Hg, in agreement with what is expected for the first-stage
condensers. This may indicate that the loss of heat transfer efficiency is on the water side, rather than on the process side. A
cooling water survey using an ultrasonic flowmeter indicated a
reduction of 25% in water flow compared to design rates for the
first-stage condensers. This reduction, in addition to high cooling water supply temperature and the low design MDP, resulted
in poor performance and erratic operation during the summer.
The last stage of the vacuum system in FIG. 1 flows to the suction drum of a wet gas compressor, through about 1,000 ft of
4-in. piping. This line, in spite of its length, was adequately sized
for the normal cracked gas flow that is reasonably dry. Flowrate
had been increasing, and the high offgas rate was above the meter range (> 900 Mscfd). FIG. 2 shows trends in the offgas flowrate. As discussed previously, major air leakage was ruled out
based on low N2 content.
The cooling water outlet temperature from the fourth-stage
condenser on the C-train (E-12 in FIG. 1) was too high (above
160F), which would cause hardness deposits in the tubes.
Cooling water flowrate was only 10% of design value.
The fourth-stage condenser on the C-train was performing
poorly, and most of the upstream ejector (Ejector J-12) discharge
stream was exiting the condenser with minimum condensation
taking place. The high gas rate was building backpressure in the
long line to the wet gas compressor suction, ultimately exceeding
the MDP for the fourth-stage ejectors (FIG. 2), causing the whole
vacuum system to underperform and the vacuum tower to operate above design pressure.
The C-train fourth-stage condenser and ejector were taken
out of service. Immediately, the pressure in the discharge of the
fourth stage decreased from approximately 32 psig to 18 psig.
The offgas flowrate dropped from above range (> 900 Mscfd)
to approximately 450 Mscfd. Note: In FIG. 1, there is an equalization line connecting the suction side of all fourth-stage ejectors. The equalization line allowed us to isolate the previously
mentioned fourth stage and replace the bundle while still using
the second and third stage in the C-train.
The condensers U-tube bundle was found to be severely
fouled. Approximately 10% of the U-bends were completely
Details for vacuum system condensers. Proprietary designs attempt to minimize shell-side pressure drop, eliminate
the potential for tubes blanketing by noncondensable gases,
achieve proper separation from condensate and offgases, and
provide extra cooling for noncondensable load to the next stage.
An interesting feature present in some condenser designs is
the air baffle. The air or vapor baffle extends along the length
of the shell and fits snugly against it. Leaf seals (FIG. 3 in red)
are used to prevent leakage around the air baffle. That way, the
upstream ejector discharge stream goes through the bundle be35
Fourth-stage C-train
out of service
Fourth-stage discharge pressure

Offgas flowrate
1,000
850
30
700
25
550
Offgas rate, Mscfd
Ejectors and condensers are interactive. When evaluating
plugged. A new bundle was installed, and the system then performed far better.
Pressure, psig
in the summer can exceed 90F. Performance break is, therefore,

not an exception, but is almost unavoidable during hot, humid
days at a USGC refinery.
400
20
250
15
0
50
100
150
Days
200
250
100
300
FIG. 2. High offgas load and high discharge pressure for the fourth
stage of compression.
FIG. 3. Condenser scheme showing air baffle and leaf seals.


fore leaving the condenser vapor outlet nozzle. Without the air
baffle, the inlet stream would short-cut the condenser, going
directly to the condenser vapor outlet nozzle and overloading
the downstream ejector.
The air baffle is located directly above the gas outlet nozzle
(FIG. 3 and FIG. 4). A temperature survey of the entire length of
the shell side directly below the air baffle location revealed that
at least five out of 12 condensers had problems related to the
mechanical integrity of the leaf seals. Seal problems can be generated by poor installation of the bundle into the shell (bending the air baffle), corrosion due to wrong metallurgy of the
air baffle, leaf seals being too narrow, and not providing proper
sealing against the exchanger shell.2
The leak around the air baffle increases the load to be handled by the downstream ejector, and it can eventually compromise the performance of the entire vacuum system:
Hot gas leakage can occur, indirectly increasing the
saturated condensable loading
The overall higher gas rate exiting the condenser may
be higher than the downstream ejector capacity at the
condenser original design pressure
Condenser pressure will increase, and this can be higher
than the MDP of the upstream ejector.
For the case described here, although the leak by itself was
not responsible for performance issues, it was a contributing
factor. Observing the leaf seal deficiency helps to develop the
scope for the next outage. The leaf seal should be a flexible
grade of 316 stainless steel (SS)never brass or bronze.
FIG. 4. Temperature readings indicating leak around air baffle.
FIG. 5. Thermal scan indicating flooded condenser.
The barometric leg (drain from condenser to seal drum) is

another common problem. Height must be sufficient to avoid
flooding by taking into consideration the differential pressure
between the seal drum, the condenser and the liquid to be
drained (density and tendency to foam). The design requires a
minimum change in direction and absolutely no horizontal runs
(which creates air pockets).
The pipe configuration may have several 45 elbows due to
plant layout and/or available space. These elbows increase the
risk of deposits, such as salts from amines injected to neutralize hydrogen chloride, wax formation and corrosion product
accumulation. Sludge that accumulates in the seal drum due to
biological corrosion is also a common source of poor seal leg
drainage. Good engineering practice is to construct the entire
seal leg out of 316 SS and not carbon steel (CS). It is also a good
practice to tape up all flanges.
The A-train second-stage condenser (E-4 in FIG. 1) was found
to be operating partially flooded on its shell side. FIG. 5 presents
an infrared scan of the condenser shell side showing that condensate level was approximately 50%. The resulting reduction
in the tube area available to condense the discharge of the upstream ejector increased the gas load to the downstream ejector.
The additional load was, especially during summer, above the
handling capacity, and the condenser pressure increased. The
resulting pressure would exceed the upstream ejector maximum
discharge pressure, and the ejector would break performance.
Forced out of critical flow, the second-stage ejector subsequently cascaded the effect back to the first-stage system.
A partially plugged barometric leg could be the source of the
problem. To test this hypothesis, a hose was connected to the
2-in. block valve (with a blind flange), as shown in FIG. 6, to help
drain the condenser to the seal drum.
Water was used to fill the hose and push air pockets in the
hose all the way to the condenser. After the line was filled with
water, the condenser started draining. Flooding disappeared
and first-stage ejectors stopped surging.
Another common cause of poor seal leg drainage and condensate backup are holes in the seal leg. Air draw through such
holes slows the drainage of water and oil from the condenser.
Leaks on the seal legs are indicated by cool spots on the legs
themselves. Air entering the vacuum inside the legs expands
and cools. In the US state of Louisiana, the humid air will condense and visibly drip off the seal legs, indicating the exact location of a leak. If a leak is inside the seal drum, then raising
the seal drum level will result in the restoration of drainage and
improved condenser performance.
Motive steam. Vacuum column operation can be negatively
impacted by poor motive steam conditions. If the steam pressure upstream of the ejector steam chest falls below the design
value, then the motive nozzle will pass less steam. A reduced
steam rate to the ejector may not be enough to compress the
process fluid from the ejector suction to the discharge pressure.
Similarly, a high degree of superheat drops the steam density.
Less steam will then pass through the motive nozzle and impact
the ejector compression capacity.
Conversely, motive steam pressure above the ejector design
will cause excessive steam to pass through the motive nozzle,
and less process fluid will be pulled through the ejector suction.1
Cooling water system fouling. The cooling water supplied

to the surface condensers comes at the end of the plantwide
distribution header, where minimum differential pressure exists
(low supply and high return pressures) impacting the cooling
water flows. Thus, fouling deposits are likely.
The first-stage condensers (E-1, E-2 and E-3) were designed

for 10,000 gpm of cooling water. This cooling water cascades
to the next stages, as depicted in FIG. 7. As fouling and scaling
take place, the first-stage ejector will be the first to be impacted.
As the cooling water flowrate drops, condenser process outlet
temperature will increase. Due to the low maximum design discharge pressure, jet performance may break.
In an attempt to recover performance in the first-stage ejector,
the cooling water bypass valve would be partially opened (FIG. 7).
Opening the bypass valve restored cooling water rates to the
first-stage condenser, but starved the subsequent stages. Low
cooling water velocities in the tube side further promoted scaling
and tube plugging, as observed in the fourth-stage condensers.
Design cooling water rates for first-stage condensers could be
achieved by using the cooling water bypass valve, but, even at
that rate, performance of the first stage would not be restored.
Cold-side temperature approach (process vapor outlet minus
cooling water inlet temperatures) would be an excessive 20F.
This was a clear indication that the condensers were severely impacted by poor heat transfer coefficients due to the fouling layer.
To slow the rate of fouling in the condensers, N2 should be
blown through the tubes twice per week, and the condensers
should be back-flushed once per week.
FIG. 6. Valve used to install a drain hose parallel to the partially

plugged barometric leg.
E = 1, 2, 3
Cooling water
supply
First stage
Second stage
Third stage
Fourth stage
E = 4, 5, 6
A train
Cooling water
bypass valve
E = 7, 8, 9
B train
Cooling water return header
The same steam header serves all 12 ejectors (FIG. 1), and the
steam header conditions are controlled with a pressure-reducing valve and a temperature controller to inject steam condensate and control the superheat degree.
Knowing that some condensers were fouled and that cooling
water flowrate was below the design flowrate, the pressure controller setpoint was stepped down from the design value and the
system was observed. Reducing steam flow to the ejectors unloads the cooling requirements of the condensers. Steam pressure was reduced by 3% stepwise. Steam pressure was optimized
at 6% lower than the design pressure. No major improvement in
operating conditions was observed, but unloading the condensers also led to approximately 3,500 lb/hr in steam savings.
Motive steam supply lines for the system were not properly
insulated, which led to condensate formation upstream of the
ejector nozzles. Steam condensate not only reduces ejector
compression capacity, but it can also cause erosion of the steam
nozzle and diffuser throat, which ultimately will cause the ejector to not perform as expected. Steam headers should be insulated all the way to the ejector.
As suggested in the literature,3 regardless of what temperature and pressure readings indicate in a steam header, it is always
advisable to check steam quality as closely as possible to each
ejector. By opening a bleeder valve and observing the jet, the
following can indicate steam quality:
Superheated steamjet is invisible for some distance
beyond the bleed
Steam close to saturation or with slugs of waterjet
becomes visible a short distance beyond the bleed, and
periodic puffs of white are visible.
When connections are available, a test can be executed to determine if the nozzle is damaged. It is recommended to install a
pressure gauge on the inlet to the downstream condenser, on the
inlet of motive steam, and on the ejector inlet nozzle. The steam
valve can then be closed, reducing the pressure to approximately
70% of design. If the pressure in the inlet of the ejector decreases,
then the motive steam nozzle will need replacement. However, if
the pressure downstream of the ejector decreases, then it means
that the condenser was unloaded, indicating a fouled condenser.
As mentioned previously, the steam nozzle throat is an orifice designed for critical flow. Observing the reduction in steam
usage when removing the ejector from service gives an excellent
indication as to whether the ejector is consuming more or less
than the design amount.
The total motive steam consumption for the entire vacuum
system (12 ejectors) was approximately 10% above the design
value, an indication that threads on the nozzle or the extension
in the steam chest may be damaged and/or the nozzle itself has
eroded due to wet steam. Problems with the nozzle threaded
connection can cause a considerable amount of steam to leak
and bypass the nozzle. This leaking steam does not provide any
compression work and, indeed, it will add to the ejector suction
load, deteriorating the system performance.
E = 10, 11, 12
C train
FIG. 7. Schematic of the cooling water sides of the surface condensers.


TABLE 3. Slop oil lab analysis results
Samples
Sample 1
Sample 2
SimDist IBP
188F
350F
SimDist 5%
306F
420F
SimDist 10%
380F
458F
SimDist 20%
479F
507F
0.88
0.88
Specific gravity
Overall system approach. Besides mechanical problems, fouling issues and design limitations, evaluating the whole system
(starting at the bottom of the crude distillation tower) can reveal
additional options to reduce the load in the already-impaired
ejector vacuum system. One approach to this troubleshooting is
to make a process variable change and evaluate the benefits. Some
of the trials conducted are outlined in the following paragraphs.
Hydrocarbon carryunder from bottom of atmospheric
crude distillation tower. Any light ends carryunder will put
more load in the overhead vacuum system. Special samples
from slop oil (collected from the seal drum) indicate the presence of low-boiling-range components (Sample 1 in TABLE 3).
Stripping steam to the bottom of the atmospheric distillation
tower was adjusted. There was no appreciable gain in vacuum
performance, as the test was performed during winter and the
vacuum system was not overloaded; however, the slop oil distillation data showed a reduction in light ends components
(Sample 2 in TABLE 3).
Comparing samples of the top pumparound and seal oil indicated that most of the seal oil is generated by entrainment at
the top of the vacuum tower. The reason for the entrainment is
unknown, although it may be contributing 10% of the load to the
first-stage jets. Typically, vacuum towers with jets on top have
demisters to eliminate this entrainment. The authors experience with such demisters is not positivethey foul, create a high
pressure drop and often fail.
Vacuum tower bottom. High residence time and high bottom temperature will lead to more cracking (cracking is a function of time and temperature). A reduction in the tower bottom
level and tower bottom temperature using a recycled quench
stream will help. As a general rule, 680F is a good starting temperature. Sometimes, due to design limitations, the quench
control valve goes wide open, and a bottom temperature target
cannot be achieved. At this point, a low residence time will be
important to avoid cracking.
Velocity steam in vacuum tower heater. It is recommended
to increase steam to the heater passes, using as a reference at least
1.5 lb of steam per bbl of vacuum heater charge. The objective is
to limit the peak temperature in the heater coil and, therefore, to
minimize cracking. This also contributes to the reduction in coke
deposition in furnace passes. A good strategy is to inject as much
steam into each pass as possible, to the limit of pass valve output.
Initially, as velocity steam was increased, some improvement
was observed in the vacuum system, indicating a reduction of
cracked gas make. However, a further increase caused the system
pressure to begin deteriorating, due to the vacuum system being
overloaded with additional steam.
Vacuum tower heater outlet temperature. High coil outlet
temperature increases cracked gas production. At some point, a
reduction in furnace outlet temperature does not provide a substantial reduction of cracked gas production, and heavy vacuum
gasoil ends up in the residue.
A noncondensable load that is higher than the design load
can severely impair a vacuum system: as noncondensable gases
increase, saturated vapors discharging from the condenser increase. The downstream ejector may not be able to cope with
the additional load, which will lead to an increase in the condenser pressure.4
The ejector before the condenser may reach its MDP. As a
consequence, the first-stage ejector will break operation, system
operations will destabilize and the tower pressure will rise. Adjustments to the furnace outlet temperature should take place
after having the use of velocity steam is maximized, as previously
described. Reducing furnace outlet temperature did not provide
considerable relief to the vacuum system during the trial period.
Stripping steam to vacuum tower and side strippers.
Stripping steam should be kept at an optimum to fulfill product
specifications. Too much stripping steam may not have an influence on product quality, but it may adversely affect the vacuum
system by increasing the ejector load.
Takeaway. Troubleshooting steam ejector vacuum systems is a
challenging activity, and the ejector-condenser interdependency adds to the complexity.5 In general, there are several possible
causes for a particular performance problem.
As described here, troubleshooting will require exploratory
activity where a step change is made and the impact is observed.
Data collection is critical for performing appropriate troubleshooting. It is not recommended to jump to early conclusions
(e.g., a surging first-stage ejector may be caused by a flooded
second-stage condenser). Pressure and temperature surveys are
a good starting point for determining the cause of the problem,
but they must be properly interpreted to be useful.
Inspection records and turnaround reports should be gathered and unit operation should be discussed with operations
personnel. Operational details include findings from outages,
modification history, new chemicals being used and crude slate
history. Finally, design data evaluation may reveal inherent system limitations.
LITERATURE CITED
Martin, G. R., J. R. Lines and S. W. Golden, Understand vacuum system fundamentals, Hydrocarbon Processing, October 1994.
2
Putman, R. E., Steam Surface Condensers, ASME Press, December 2000.
3
Unique Systems Inc., Installation, operation, maintenance and troubleshooting
of ejector systems, Bulletin PVS-80025121-ESM.
4
Lines, J. R. and R. T. Smith, Ejector system troubleshooting, The International
Journal of Hydrocarbon Engineering, 1997.
5
Lieberman, N. P., Troubleshooting vacuum systems, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, New Jersey.
1
NORMAN LIEBERMAN is a field troubleshooter for refinery process problems.

He graduated with a degree in chemical engineering in 1964 from Cooper Union
for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York. His company provides
retrofit designs for refinery vacuum systems. Additionally, Mr. Lieberman has
been instructing refinery troubleshooting seminars since 1983. More than 18,800
technicians and engineers have attended his 860 seminars.
RODRIGO CARDOSO is a lead process engineer for the Phillips 66 Westlake
Refinery. He has 10 years of experience as a process engineer and has worked
as a chemical expert for the federal police in Brazil. Mr. Cardoso holds a
BS degree in chemical engineering from Rio de Janeiro Federal University
in Brazil and an MS degree from the French Institute of Petroleum in France.
Maintenance
and Reliability
A. DOKHKAN, Jordan Petroleum Refinery Co.,
Zarqa, Jordan
Prevent the overfilling of storage tanks

Overfilling storage tanks, especially those with large inventories of toxic or flammable material, has always been a safety
concern for site owners and operators. History has shown that
overfilling flammable material storage tanks can have extremely
serious, and sometimes fatal, consequences. Site owners are facing increased pressure from governments and insurance companies to assess and control the potential risks posed by the large
inventories of hazardous materials stored onsite.
When addressing overfill protection, one of the first things
to consider is an automatic overfill prevention (AOP) system,
as defined in API 2350.1 As shown in FIG. 1, an AOP system is a
fully automated protection system comprising, in its simplest
form: a level transmitter, a logic solver and an actuating valve
on the filling line. The level transmitter continuously measures the level inside the tank. Once a dangerously high level
is detected, the logic solver sends a signal to the valve, which
then closes to prevent the overfilling of the tank.
There are many within the hydrocarbon processing industry
(HPI) who consider AOP systems to be the ultimate solution
for the prevention of overfilling of any storage tank, but this is
not always the case. Site owners are strongly advised to assess
the risks posed by their stored inventories before they start planning to install these expensive automated protection systems.
Consequence analysis. It can be said that risk equals con-
sequence multiplied by likelihood. Therefore, to perform an

accurate benefit-cost analysis, owners and operators should be
able to quantify probable loss of human life (PLL), financial
loss and potential harm to the environment. They should also
be able to determine the likelihood that an overfilling could
occur in the first place.
In quantifying the potential safety and financial losses resulting from overfilling a storage tank, several factors should
be taken into consideration.2 The first factor to be considered
is the nature of the substance stored. While the risks involved
with storage tanks filled with abundant and non-hazardous
substances (e.g., water) should not take much time to analyze,
storage tanks of flammable and toxic substances should be
studied very carefully.
The second most important factor to consider is the size
of the storage tank. Obviously, the larger the storage tank, the
larger the risk. However, caution must be observed, as this is
not always the case. Although larger tanks pose a great risk
once overfilling occurs, smaller tanks have a lower storage
capacity and, consequently, a greater likelihood of overfilling than larger tanks. Another important factor to take into
consideration is the storage tank filling rate. The overflow rate
must be set equal to the assumed filling rate.
If the stored substance is flammable, then the proximity of
surrounding ignition sources must also be taken into consideration. While an ignition source in the immediate vicinity
may result in a flash, pool or jet fire, distant ignition sources
may result in far more catastrophic consequences (e.g., vapor
cloud explosion). There is the probability that more substance
could be released and evaporated; hence, a higher probability
that the concentration of vaporizing flammable material will
be within the lower explosive limit (LEL) to higher explosive
limit (HEL) envelope.
The effects of overfilling a storage tank can be simulated
with a high degree of accuracy using commercial consequence
modeling software packages, if all these factors are taken into
consideration.
Likelihood analysis and protection layers. Any evaluation of the likelihood of overfilling a storage tank should begin
with the identification of all possible initiating events. Examples may include pumping material into an already full tank, or
a stuck automatic tank gauge.
After identifying all possible initiating events, all existing
layers of protection should be analyzed, including automatic
gauges, radar gauges, independent level alarms, AOPs, etc.3 It
is important to remember that the system must satisfy four
important criteria before it can be assumed to be a valid protection layer. First, the layer of protection under consideration
should be dependable, meaning that it is capable on its own
of preventing the unwanted event from transforming into an
accident. Secondly, it should also be independent: a failure of
one protection layer must not affect the effectiveness of any
other protection layer. One example of this would be two level
gauges sharing one sensor (e.g., a gauge float). In this example,
the two gauging systems cannot be assumed to be two independent protection layers, because a failure of the float would
cause both level gauges to fail. This is also called a common
cause failure.4
The protection layer under consideration must also be
specific. One cannot use a system implemented for a purpose
other than level monitoring as a layer of protection for the prevention of overfilling. An example of this would be someone
Maintenance and Reliability

the operator was recording data in the control room, he or she
would not be able to act upon the high-level event nor prevent
the tank overfilling from occurring.
PFD for operator response is usually assigned a
value of 0.1. However, not all operators at all sites
Before investing in expensive automatic overfill
are alike. If the operator complies with all four of the
criteria of layers of protection, and if the fact that the
protection, first conduct risk analyses of stored
operators work does not require complex decision
inventories. Look at likelihood, consequence,
making is taken into account, then a PFD value of
tank capacity, filling rate and fluid properties,
0.01 can be safely assumed.
Obviously, the operators competency level
particularly toxicity and flammability.
should be assessed for clarity, as should tank layout
and tank marking, as well as the lighting of the tank
area.4 If these factors are not carefully analyzed, the probability
be a part of a valid protection layer because a change in the
specific gravity of the stored material might lead to an incorthat the operator will act on the wrong tank could be higher
rect level calculation, mainly because the manufacturer did not
than expected. In that case, the operator layer of protection
intend for the pressure gauge to be used for level measurement
cannot be assumed to be dependable. Also, the performance
in the first place.
of the operator has to be audited regularly to ensure that the
Finally, the protection layer must be auditable and allow for
PFD assumed for this layer of protection is still valid.
testing and verification. If not, it cannot be proved that the assumed value of probability of failure on demand (PFD) is correct.
Assigning PFD values. When all layers of protection have
been identified, values for probabilities of failure on demand
should be assigned to the identified layers of protection. If a
Weighing operator response. Whether or not an operator
plant has its own record for equipment failure rates, then this
response can be considered as a valid layer of protection must
should be used. Plant failure rates have many benefits over gebe considered. A number of articles, studies and books have
neric failure rates: most importantly, plant equipment faces
been written on this subject, and the following may shed furspecific stress factors that may not be the same as those in
ther light on the necessary conditions involved in evaluating
plants where generic failure rates have been collected (e.g., heat
the effectiveness of operator response.
and humidity). Care must be taken in choosing failure rates,
Operators in different companies, organizations and indusensuring that the company has a good system for collecting and
tries have different duties. The duties and responsibilities of
analyzing failure rates.
the operator should be studied very carefully before a deterEquipment failures can be broadly categorized into two
mination is made whether or not the operator response comtypessystematic and randomand should be analyzed by
plies with the requirements of the layers of protection. For expersonnel who are familiar with reliability sciences.5 A simple
ample, an operator at a site has the sole duty of monitoring the
storage tank level. In this case, it would be safe to assume that
example would be the installation of a general-purpose presthis layer of protection is specific, as the operators only job
sure transmitter in a corrosive service. The pressure transmitis to monitor the storage tank level. At another site, an operater internals might wear prematurely, causing the transmitter
tor might be responsible for monitoring the storage tank level
to fail. A technician might attempt to replace the transmitter
at one location, and responsible for recording the operating
with one of the same type, and the new transmitter will also
variables of a process unit from a control room placed someprematurely fail. This is a systematic failure. If the failure rate
where else. In the second case, the operator cannot be conhad been recorded as a random failure, the pressure transmitter
sidered as a specific layer of protection because monitoring
would have a higher-than-expected failure rate.
levels is not the only duty. If the level of a tank increased while
An important factor that must not be overlooked is the probability that the tank under examination is actually full. This can
Level transmitter
be illustrated by the following example: A tank farm consists of
Logic solver
four tanks, some empty and some full, and an operator changes
the filling over to the wrong tank. The operator might switch to
an empty tank, so the probability that an overfilling will occur
is not 1, but rather is the ratio of the number of full tanks to 4.
If we know that only one of the tanks is always full, and we add
to that the tank that was recently filled, we get a total number of
two full tanks. The probability of switching over to a full tank
Valve
will then be 2/4 = 0.5. Not including this probability in the
likelihood calculation will lead to a mistakenly high likelihood
of tank overfilling. Of course, the analyst should carefully study
Filling line
the sites storage tank filling policy to ensure that the probability calculated is a valid one.
FIG. 1. When addressing overfill protection, one of the first things to
Accurate overfilling likelihood calculations require that all
consider is an automatic overfill prevention (AOP) system.
possible scenarios for filling the tank under consideration are
using a pressure gauge at the bottom of the tank to calculate
the level of the material inside the tank. Unless explicitly stated
by the manufacturer, the pressure gauge cannot be claimed to
Maintenance and Reliability

investigated, including, at the very least, the frequency of filling the tank and the filling flowrate. Storage tanks are usually
filled at various flowrates based on day-to-day activities. With
a wide range of filling rates, an operator might be confused
about the filling rate on which to base its calculations. This
issue can be tackled in two ways. The first option is to calculate the frequency based on the maximum theoretical flow
possible. This is the most conservative approach. The other
approach is to use the most typical flow, and to prepare special
working procedures to be used when working on flows higher
than that used for the frequency calculations. It is the authors
opinion that, in reality, the second option never works. However, if site owners choose to proceed with the second approach, they should construct strong work systems to confirm
that measures are being implemented to ensure that existing
layers of protection are functioning as they should.
Final calculations. After both the consequences and likelihood of overfilling a storage tank have been quantified, the
number of expected fatalities can be calculated. For this, the
analyst must estimate the probability of personnel being present
in the lethal zone. After the number of fatalities has been determined, the frequency of PLL can be calculated by multiplying
the number of fatalities by the frequency of the overfilling event.
The calculated PLL has to be compared with the companys
tolerable risk (TOR) criteria. If the company does not have a
defined TOR, then the UK Health & Safety Executive toler-
able risk target (i.e. 1 103 for workers, and 1 104 for the
public) can always be used as a reference. If the calculated PLL
appears to be greater than the TOR, then the risk is not acceptable and cannot be justified, no matter the cost. However, if it
proves to be below the TOR, then the risk is in the tolerable
if as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) region. The analyst should sum all the losses (i.e., tank cost, inventory, nearby
equipment, etc.), including the monetary equivalent of human
life, and use this cost in a benefit-cost analysis to determine
whether or not it is worth upgrading the existing overfilling
protection systems.
LITERATURE CITED
ANSI/API Standard 2350, Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks in Petroleum
Facilities, 4th Ed., 2012.
2
Mannan, S., Lees loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification,
assessment and control, Elsevier, 4th Ed., 2012.
3
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Layers of protection analysis:
Simplified process risk assessment, Wiley, 2001.
4
UK Health & Safety Executive, A review of layers of protection analysis (LOPA)
of overfill of fuel storage tanks, Research report RR716, 2009.
5
Safety integrity level selection: Systematic methods including layer of protection
analysis, BS/IEC 61511-1:2003 and ISA/ANSI-84:2004.
1
AMJAD DOKHKAN works in the Petroleum Refinery of Jordan

as the section head of the refinery process units development.
He is also responsible for the refinerys process safety projects
and studies. Mr. Dokhkan has worked for over 12 years in oil
refining processes and technical safety, and he is a certified
functional safety professional (CFSP) and a certified
occupational safety practitioner.
July 1920, 2016

Houston, Texas
PetchemTechForum.com
Explore the Latest Technology Advancements and

Best Practices in the Booming Petrochemical Industry
Gulf Publishing Company, publisher of Hydrocarbon Processing, is pleased to
announce the inaugural Petchem Tech Forum (PTF) to be held July 1920, 2016,
in Houston, Texas, at Norris Conference Center CityCentre. The US petrochemical
industry is in the midst of one of the largest industry expansions to ever occur
in North America. Cheap, readily available shale gas has provided chemical
producers in the US with low-cost feedstocks, which is fueling over $135B in new
petrochemical capacity. This includes capacity expansions, upgrades, plant restarts
and greenfield facilities.
Join us at PTF and get valuable insight into the latest technology + solutions
available to help you more efficiently and cost-effectively upgrade, expand,
or build new facilities.
>> Stay tuned to PetchemTechForum.com for more information.

For sponsorship/exhibit/general inquiries: Contact Megan Roiz, Events Program
Manager, +1 (713) 520-4402 or Megan.Roiz@GulfPub.com
67
InstruCalc
CONTROL VALVES FLOW ELEMENTS RELIEF DEVICES PROCESS DATA
New Version
Available
InstruCalc 9.0 calculates the size of control valves, flow elements and
relief devices and calculates fluid properties, pipe pressure loss and liquid
waterhammer flow. Easy to use and accurate, it is the only sizing program you
need, enabling you to:
Size more than 50 different instruments,
Calculate process data at flow conditions for 54 fluids in either mixtures or
single components and 66 gases, and
Calculate the orifice size, flowrate or differential range, which enables the
user to select the flow rate with optimum accuracy.
Updates and Whats New in InstruCalc Version 9.0

ENGINEERING STANDARD UPGRADES
NEW VERSION
Control Valve Revisions:

Updated to ANSII/ISA 75.011.01-2012
Calculation accuracy changed for critical flows
Viscosity correction factor changed
Pressure drop calculation revised to agree with Crane
Technical paper No 410.
Option of Cv Units (English) or Kv units (Metric) added.
Option of either aerodynamic noise calculation by ISA 75.17
method or InstruCalc method
Calculation accuracy added (input data within acceptable limits)
Relief Devices:
Pressure Relief Devices Program follows API 520 Pt 1, 9th edition dated 7/14
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The ability to have more than one calculation open at a time has been added.
Each instance of the program is framed in a different color. The user can have
multiple what if scenarios displayed for making engineering decisions.
Order Direct from the Publisher.

GulfPub.com/InstruCalc or call +1 (713) 520-4426.
Process Control
and Instrumentation
G. OLESZCZUK, Honeywell Advanced Solutions,
Warsaw, Poland; and M. BOEK, PKN ORLEN S.A.,
Pock, Poland
Utilize APC solutions to resolve hydrocracker

conversion optimization challenges
process. It was also implemented to allow optimization across
Improving profits and reducing costs remain priorities for
multiple process unit sections.
owner/operators and management. Advanced process control
(APC) solutions not only meet such expectations, but also
very often exceed them.
APC project methodology and control engine. The key
In 2013, a solutions provider implemented two APC apsoftware is responsible for optimal online control of the difplications at the largest refinery in Central Europe, operated
ferent processes. Most engineering activities are conducted
by PKN Orlen in Pock, Poland. Based on market conditions
online and on operating units requiring complex and deep
and a benefits study, PKN Orlen designated two units for pilot
chemical knowledge. To implement the system, APC engiAPC applications: the hydrocracker (HCK) and fluid catalytneers must first create a model of the investigated process that
ic cracking (FCC) unit. This article focuses on the implemenis built empirically and based on a series of step tests.
tation of the HCK and provides details of the suite of APC
The scope of these steps must be large enough to discern
solutions that have helped the PKN Orlen facility to achieve
the response of the process unit, yet small enough to avoid
greater profits and results.
any significant disturbances to the process. Once the process
Maintaining its edge as one of the largest oil and gas
responses to the step tests are established, the matrix of transproducers in Central Europe requires that PKN Orlen
mutation functions can be identified using a design software.c
continuously improve its production standards, utilize the
Transmutation functions are the linear models of the investilatest technologies and undertake a production optimization
gated process, visualized in a two-dimensional space.1 The size
program for the whole PKN Orlen Capital Group. An APC
of this space is defined by the numbers of process-controlled
solution is one of the main components of this program, mainly
variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables.
because of its ability to quickly improve production results and
An example of the process model transmutation function mamake a clear difference to the bottom line.
trix, which reflects the number of process relationships, is shown
A suite of APC solutionsa was already delivering sustained
in FIG. 1. Because the model is empirically obtained, it can be
process performance benefits at the Pock petrochemicals
customized for specific process units or particular unit sections.
and refinery complex, covering
everything from the basic loop to realtime optimization and all necessary
maintenance tools. Using the same type
of software on the control and global
process optimization layer would make
it easier and more efficient for operators
and engineers monitoring the solutions
across multiple unit sections, and would
also minimize training requirements.
The solution is based on a
commercial productb and its associated
components.c, d, e As well as providing
multivariable control, the controllerb
provides a unified real-time (URT)
platform for future implementation of
specific and customized calculations
that might be required for a specific FIG. 1. The process model transmutation function matrix reflects the number of process relationships.
Process Control and Instrumentation

Such a solution guarantees more credible results than analytical
models that are often far removed from real process conditions.
A controller reads the process data from the existing control
system based on the earlier obtained process model and, by
utilizing a range control algorithm (RCA), sends optimal data
back to the control system.
There are three types of the controller inputs and outputs:
Controlled variables (CVs), which are usually process
values, such as qualities, flows, temperatures and
pressures, that must be kept in safe and optimal ranges
Disturbance variables (DVs), which are read-only
variables, such as feed quality and ambient temperature
or parameters outside the local control systems control
(i.e., disturbances from other process units)
Manipulated variables (MVs), which are the values
the APC sends back to the control systems, are usually
represented by the list of setpoint values for proportional
integral derivative (PID) controllers.
FIG. 2 is a simplified scheme showing how the controller works.
The range control algorithm. The heart of the controller is
the RCA, which calculates and predicts CV values based on the
process model. Formulation of the RCA is based on a control
theory, where the predicted CV is represented as:2
= Au
(1)
where A is the process model and u is a set of MV moves. The

range control formulation is defined as:
minu ,y W(Au y)
(2)
where W is the weighting function. The above formulation is

subject to the following constraints:
ROCL u ROCH
MVs lie within the rate of change limits
MVL u MVH
MVs lie within high and low bounds
CVL y CVH
CVs lie within high and low bounds
(3)
(4)
(5)
The solution u is the control moves, and the solution y is

the optimal CV response trajectory. This control formulation
minimizes energy input to the process (by minimizing the CV
response error), minimizes scope for controller instability,
and guarantees an optimal response because of minimum MV
movement. Additionally, a tuning parameter, a funnel, was
implemented in the RCA to shape the optimal solution trajectory.3 The funnel feature improves noise rejection, facilitates a
Profit controller
DVs
Optimization
Prediction
Control (RCA)
MVs
Control
system
(DCS)
Process
model
FIG. 2. Honeywells Profit Controller architecture.
Real
process
CVs
+
-
minimum-effort solution with robust gain control, determines

the control speed, enhances control performance and makes
tuning much easier.
The RCA itself guarantees robust control and, more importantly, when it comes to achieving benefits through optimization, the RCA formulation is extended to calculate a set of MV
steady-state optimal targets, such that:
J=
ai MViSS +
bi CV jSS +
i=1,..# MVs
i=1,..# MVs
j=1,..#CVs
c i MViSS MViT +
d 2j CV jSS CV jT
j=1,..#CVs
(6)
where constants a and b are defined by APC engineers and process engineers or unit managers for product value optimization,
and coefficients c and d are also defined by operation staff and
are responsible for pushing the process to a defined ideal operation point. In reality, coefficients a, b, c and d are set during
APC tuning to define the optimization objective targets.
This optimization formula is then implemented in the RCA.
Thus, a new RCA formulation with steady-state solution uSS for
MV moves looks as follows:
y
Ad
minu ,y W
Wo S u uSS
(7)
The objective is to push the steady-state MV values with

minimum effort closer to an optimum as defined by uSS. Ad
specifies the process dynamics; S is a summation matrix; and
Wo is a tuning weight to adjust the optimization speed and determinate how dominant the controller and optimization parts
of the controller are.
Once the model is built using the software tool, a multivariable controller can be generated and implemented in the existing control system. Operators and engineers at the unit control
room use an online windows graphical user interfacef to control the process with the controller. This provides convenient
access to review the recent work status of the implemented
APC controllers and allows different privilege levels and access
for different users.
To predict the laboratory analysis in most APC projects in
real time, inferentials (artificial analyzers) are designed. For
the HCK unit, more than 10 inferentials were designed using
sensor softwaree that is compatible with all main distributed
control systems (DCSs) available on the market, and the software is located on the server computer. The server computer
with APC software communicates with the existing control
system [usually a DCS, but it can also be a programmable logic
controller (PLC) or Scada system] via Ethernet connection using the open platform communications (OPC) interface.
APC application challenges on the HCK unit. The HCK
unit is one of the most complex units at the Pock refinery. It
uses a catalytic process with specialized catalysts in two reactors to convert high-boiling-range material into diesel, jet fuel
and lighter products. During this process, significant aromatic
saturation and isomerization occur, in addition to the cracking.
These reactions also take place in the presence of a recycle gas
with a high hydrogen (H2 ) content. Effluent from the cracking
reactor is cooled, and liquid products are separated from vapors.

The vapor stream is then compressed and recycled to the reactors. The liquids are sent to the fractionation section, where
various products are recovered.
In the HCK unit (FIG. 3), fresh feed is routed from the vacuum unit, or from a combination of the vacuum unit and the
storage tanks. The HCKs valuable products range begins with
heavy diesel and ends at light naphtha.
Minimizing residue by minimizing light fraction content

(final boiling point below 360C)
Minimizing column pressure, oxygen (O2 ) in heater flue
gases and fuel gas to heaters
Stabilizing MF column operation
Maximizing light naphtha flow
Stabilizing the naphtha splitter operation.
Objectives and constraints. The HCK units potential caReactor constraints. Most of APC goals at the HCK unit are
pacity is higher than 400 t/hr of fresh feedstock from the vacsubjected to some process unit constraints, with the most difuum unit: vacuum oil, atmospheric oil and, optionally, diesel
ficult constraints on the reactors section coming from reactor
oil from hydrodesulfurization of vacuum residue. The boilcatalyst behaviors and H2 heater limitations:
ing range of the feed is 330C to 557C. Unit performance is,
The catalyst deactivation was very high (almost EOR)
therefore, strongly dependent on the catalytic cycle. The HCK
at the HCK unit during the project execution,
distinguishes two phases of catalyst life: the start of run (SOR)
which made the APC project even more complicated.
variant and the end of run (EOR) variant, which differ in yields
The air coolers on the heat exchangers sometimes did
and operating characteristics of the HCK plant.
not fully balance the heat, which limited throughput
The primary objective of the hydrocracker reactor advanced
maximization.
control was to provide safe and stable operation within unit
The H2 heater often had limitations on the tube skin
constraints. The secondary objectives included conversion/
temperatures.
inventory control, bed profile control and feed maximization.
Controllers were used for online control and economic optiFractionation constraints. Meanwhile, the most important
mization. The solution was dynamically integrated with other
constraints on the fractionation section were due to product
HCK sections, including parallel reactor trains and the product
specification requirements:
fractionator by using an optimizer technology.d
When running in diesel mode, the jet product was limited
by initial boiling point (IBP), final/end boiling point
The following general goals for the APC application were set:
(EBP) and flash point.
Throughput increase
When running in jet mode, additional constraints
Conversion stabilization and maximization within
surfaced: the naphthalene, asphalt and resins content in
constraints
heavy products; the light diesel product is limited by 90%
Reduction of standard deviation in the weighted average
distillation, IBP and cold filter plugging point (CFPP);
bed temperature (WABT) and conversion
heavy diesel 95% distillation constraint is valid throughout
Middle distillates yield maximization through
the whole year, while CFPP is a limit only during the winter.
conversion improvement
Sulfur content is an important limit in summer, especially
Cost-effective energy optimization
when light and heavy diesel products are combined.
Reactor temperatures reduction (while stabilizing
When the ambient temperature is very high, HCK
conversion)
operators have problems with cooling the top of
Main fractionator heaters outlet temperature reduction
Steam use reduction.
Among these general tasks, specific objecLight naphtha
Offgas
tives were defined for the APC application:
Maintaining reactor bed temperatures
Reactor 1
Reactor 2
Debutanizer
Naphtha
Maintaining heater skin wall
splitter
temperatures
Heavy naphtha
Maintaining consistent-quality
Fresh M
Deethanizer
property values on the main
fractionator (MF), with yields
dependent on feed quality
LPG
Controlling debutanizer temperature
Jet fuel
within constraints and product
quality, and naphtha splitter
HP
top product quality
Light diesel
LP
separator
Minimizing the H2-to-feed ratio
separator
VGO feed
Keeping temperature between
Heavy diesel
reactor beds close to zero
Stripper
column
Maintaining proper wall temperatures
Main
column
on the H2 heater
Bottom
Maximizing jet draw, light diesel draw
and heavy diesel draw
FIG. 3. A process overview of a hydrocracking unit.
Minimizing heavy gasoline flow

the main fractionator column, which determines
the heavy-naphtha final boiling point (FBP).
Minimum pumpdown flows are often required in
the fractionator column to maintain the proper
column circulation.
As shown in FIG. 3, the main constraints for light end products of the stripper column were due to debutanizer column
operation, where C5 content in LPG should not exceed 0.5%,
and bottom C4 in naphtha should be below 7.8%. On the naphtha splitter column, the C7 content in light gasoline specification was 3% maximum. The FBP for the heavy gasoline product
(180C) was also constrained together with P on an offgas
vessel, which caused problems during very hot days.
Based on the objectives above and the unit constraints, six
multivariable predictive controllers were designed for the HCK
unitone for each of the hyrocracking reactors, and separate
controllers for the following: the stripper column; the main
fractionator column together with a heater; the debutanizer column; and the naphtha splitter column.
Conversion control via optimizer. Conversion at the HCK
was calculated based on feed to the unit and flow of the hydrocarbon residue from the MF column, shown here:
CONV = 1
Residue flow from MF

Feed to the unit
100%
Theoretically, this simple formula is correct; however, it often provides inadequate results:
The hydrocarbon cracking conversion process takes
place on reactor beds, so product flows from the MF
column (in this case, residue flow) might render the
results of the above equation inaccurate, as they depend
FIG. 4. An APC in the DCS architecture.
Profit optimizer
Profit controller
Profit controller
Profit controller
SPs of many
controllers
SPs of many
controllers
SPs of many
controllers
FIG. 5. Cascade APC structure of the controller with optimizer.
on current MF operation conditions, not solely

on catalyst cracking on reactors.
In this case, residue flow on the MF column was
controlled in cascade with the columns bottom level
controller. This solution made conversion calculation
very noisy due to level fluctuations at the bottom
of the column.
The response on MF draws has a big delay relative to
the time for hydrocracking reactions on the reactor
bedsa time lag of up to 5 hr or longer.
The first and the second points force APC to control variables, on which APC did not previously have a direct impact. It is
very difficult to define the real conversion profilethe calculation requires a complicated nonlinear differential equation solver
that must work in real time with an inadequate analytically evaluated model. In reality, by controlling conversion, the controller
was not controlling the real conversion but the simplified formula (above) based on the real-time data provided from the DCS.
Hydrocracker inferential. Inferentials were integral to the
HCK APC project. Using historical data from lab samples and
key process parameters, the inferentials were designed and implemented for the most important process quality parameters.
These inferentials predicted the following product qualities:
Nitrogen (N2 ) content after the first reactor
Unstabilized gasoline, 90% distillation
Heavy naphtha, 95% distillation
Jet, 95% distillation
Jet, flashpoint
Jet, naphthalene content
Jet, aromatics content
CFPP of light diesel
Light diesel, 95% distillation
Heavy diesel, 90% distillation
Hydrocracker residue distillation, below 360C
C5 content in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
Light naphtha, 95% distillation.
Each inferential requires a few days of bias updating. The
bias update calculation is based on laboratory data, and it continually updates the relevant inferential equation. This procedure makes artificial inferential calculation very reliable and a
close proxy for actual lab samples.
APC solution and results. The hardware solution (FIG. 4)
for the HCK unit contains the APC server computer connected
to the existing DCS through an APP-node computer, which
serves as the OPC server. During the project execution, a number of additional features to help operators maintain the APC
solution were delivered:
On the DCS side, all PID loops (used as MVs) were
given a special indicator on the operator graphics to
show if the particular loops are in remote cascade
mode with the controller.
For safety reasons, an emergency shutdown button
has been configured in the DCS on the DCS stations.
The button ensures that the APC stops immediately after
the operator enables it.
For lab sample bias updates, an additional graphical
interface was created.
Modeling inferentials. This higher conversion from the APC

application still needed to be transformed into yield increase by
optimal separation. Product separation mainly takes place in the
HCK main fractionation column. It was, therefore, necessary to
get sharp cutpoints based on high-quality inferentials.
Among the many possible ways of modeling inferentials
in the software (including ordinary least square, partial least
square and dynamic sub-space methods), the weighted least
square (WLS) method was chosen to model the main quality
properties. In the WLS method, soft-sensor models are based
on robust regression, where they are desensitized to outliers in
the data. While the robust regression models require a nonlinear solution, the final models in WLS are, in fact, linear.6 Despite
the fact that linear models were used for all inferentials, a very
good match with the real lab data was achieved.
FIG. 7 shows some examples of the main product quality
prosperities predicted by inferential modelinge against laboratory analysis over three months of unit operation from March to
the end of May 2015. As can be seen, even during disturbances
in operations that took place at the end of April 2015, the inferentials were able to predict lab values quite accurately.
The automatic bias update mechanism for all inferentials

was also configured for the HCK unit. All lab samples were
fetched directly from the laboratory information management
system (LIMS) via a specially customized function block created in the universal runtime (URT) platform and presented
on DCS graphics with time/data stamps. Instead of updating
bias values for inferentials manually, operators accept new laboratory samples using DCS dedicated graphics. This solution
improves data entry and increases accuracy of online laboratory samples prediction.
With the implementation of controller and inferentials on
the HCK fractionation sections, diesel yields were increased
by more than 0.8%, while conversion stayed at the high 3%
improved level. Results for diesel yield improvement based on
real operation data are shown in FIG. 8 and TABLE 2.
The APC at HCK units work like a process autopilot, boosting safety while maximizing yields of valuable products. As a
result of the implementation on the HCK unit, PKN Orlen
conservatively estimates that it has achieved increased profits
of at least $2 MM/yr. Results were calculated and checked using real process data and standard benefit calculation methods.7 The return on investment (ROI) for the project was less
than a few months.
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their thanks to PKN Orlen for analyzing
operational data of post-APC samples and for its permission to publish the data.
Also, they thank all operators and other PKN Orlen staff at HCK units for fruitful
cooperation during the implementation of both APC projects.
NOTES
Honeywell Process Solutions Profit Suite portfolio.
b
The Profit Controllers, previously called robust multivariable predictive control
technology (RMPCT)Honeywell Process Solutions algorithm for APC and
a
TABLE 1. HCK unit conversion pre- and post-APC application

Conversion
Base case, without APC
65.55%
Test run, with APC
68.51%
TABLE 2. HCK unit diesel yield pre- and post-APC application

Diesel yield
Base case, without APC
45.30%
Test run, with APC
46.16%
74
72
+ 2.96%
Conversion 2013
70
Conversion, %
The APC process solution had to fulfill all the process objectives and handle all unit constraints listed above. To achieve
this, controllers were designed to work in different operation
modes. Depending on current unit objectives, the APC solution
can maximize jet production, diesel production or olefins yield.
To automatically switch between the most frequently used production modes, a special DCS point and operator switch was
implemented and visualized as a faceplate on the DCS graphic.
To overcome the conversion obstacles, it was decided (as in
similar APC projects4) to use an optimizer, another software
tool from the portfolio. A cascade approach allows the optimizer to take over the task of optimization across multiple sections.
It reuses the controller models to provide steady-state and dynamic optimization across multiple process sections. Moreover,
the optimizer can be used for many unitsthe entire plant can
work under one or more optimizers.
FIG. 5 illustrates the hierarchical connection between the
optimizer and the controllers. Three controllers were designed
to work under one optimizer. Two controllers were responsible
for optimization and control of the hydrocracking reactors, and
one APC controller was designed for controlling and optimizing the main fractionator column.5 The built-in optimizer in the
slave profit controllers was configured for reactor product value
optimization, while H2 quench flows and product flows were
adjusted to maintain conversion and unit throughput. Disturbance rejection was applied for bed temperature control stability to account for the exothermic and highly interactive nature
of the hydrocracker operation.
Controlled variables in the optimizer included: reactor
conversion, WABT, reactor profiles (or bed temperatures), H2
quench valves, H2 make up and H2/hydrocarbon ratios. Optimization coefficients (mentioned in the technical description
of RCA) were assigned for conversion at very high values to
maximize the conversion within unit constraints. This approach, using the controllers with the optimizer, increased the
average cracking conversion compared to the pre-APC period
by almost 3%, as shown in FIG. 6 and TABLE 1.
68
66
64
62
Conversion 2012
60
FIG. 6. Conversion improvement at the HCK unit after implementation

of the APC.

Jet gasoline flash point inferential vs. lab analysis
60
Distilation of light diesel, 90%
Jet gasoline flashpoint
55
50
45
40
Jet FP inferential
Lab samples results
35
Light diesel D90; inferential vs. lab analysis
Inferential D90% light diesel

Lab samples results
20-Feb.
25-Feb.
2-Mar.
7-Mar.
12-Mar.
17-Mar.
22-Mar.
27-Mar.
1-April
6-April
11-April
16-April
21-April
26-April
1-May
6-May
11-May
16-May
21-May
26-May
31-May
5-June
10-June
25-Feb.
2-Mar.
7-Mar.
12-Mar.
17-Mar.
22-Mar.
27-Mar.
1-April
6-April
11-April
16-April
21-April
26-April
1-May
6-May
11-May
16-May
21-May
26-May
31-May
5-June
10-June
30
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
Time
Time
Distilation of heavy naphtha, 95%
165
Heavy naphta D95; inferential vs. lab analysis

HN D95% inferential
Lab samples results
380
Distilation of heavy diesel, 90 %
170
160
155
150
145
140
Heavy diesel D90; inferential vs. lab analysis
370
360
350
340
330
Inferential D90% heavy diesel

Lab samples results
320
20-Feb.
25-Feb.
2-Mar.
7-Mar.
12-Mar.
17-Mar.
22-Mar.
27-Mar.
1-April
6-April
11-April
16-April
21-April
26-April
1-May
6-May
11-May
16-May
21-May
26-May
31-May
5-June
10-June
20-Feb.
25-Feb.
2-Mar.
7-Mar.
12-Mar.
17-Mar.
22-Mar.
27-Mar.
1-April
6-April
11-April
16-April
21-April
26-April
1-May
6-May
11-May
16-May
21-May
26-May
31-May
5-June
10-June
135
Time
Time
FIG. 7. Inferentials prediction vs. real laboratory results for some quality properties at the HCK unit.
Jet light diesel and heavy diesel yields, %
50
49
48
LITERATURE CITED
Qin, S. J. and T. A. Badgwell, A survey of industrial model predictive control
technology, Control Engineering Practice 11, 2003.
2
MacArthur, J. W., RMPCT: A new robust approach to multivariable predictive
control for the process industries, Honeywell Inc. Industrial Automation Control,
internal documentation.
3
Lu, J., Challenging control problems and emerging technologies in enterprise optimization, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
Symposium on Dynamics and Control Process Systems, 2001.
4
Mastrogiacomo, M., M. Piccolo and L. Johnson, Hydrocracker and hydrogen production optimization using Profit Optimizer, Industry Solutions for a
Changing World ConferenceUser Group, 2002.
5
Oleszczuk G. and M. Dylewska, Advanced process control in FCC and hydrocracking units, PTQ magazine, 2Q 2015.
6
Honeywell Profit Suite documentationProfit Sensor Pro User Guide.
7
Martin, G. D., L. E. Turpin and R. P. Cline, Estimating control function benefits,
Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1991, p. 6873.
1
+ 0.86%
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
Without APC
With APC
Linear, with APC
Linear, without APC
FIG. 8. Improvement in diesel yield on the HCK unit after APC

implementation.
local optimization.
c
The Profit Design StudioHoneywell Process Solutions MS Windows-based
APC desktop for developing and offline testing of Profit Suite APC and APCrelated applications.
d
The Profit OptimiserAllows cost-effective, multi-unit optimization, sitting on
top of the Profit Controller with both steady-state and dynamic optimization. For
some plants (e.g., ethylene), this technology has been used for plant-wide optimization with much lower implementation and maintenance costs than traditional
real-time optimization (RTO).
e
The Honeywell Profit Sensor Pro (PSP)/Lab UpdateHoneywell Process
Solutions inferential modeling for soft sensors with lab feedback, fully integrated
with Profit Design Studio. The inferential models developed can be used as inputs
in a multivariable or other control scheme. It also features static pressure control
(SPC) as an option for smart lab feedback, removing lab noise and outliers.
f
Profit Suite Operation Station (PSOS)Honeywell Process Solutions online
Windows-based graphical operator interface for Profit Suite applications.
GRZEGORZ OLESZCZUK has worked in control and

optimization industrial processes for 15 years, with more than
eight years at Honeywell as an advanced solutions operation
leader. He has implemented several APC and OTS solutions
across Europe and North Africa. Dr. Oleszczuk gained his PhD
in automation and dynamics at Old Dominion University in
Virginia, and an MSc degree in chemical engineering and
automation control at Warsaw University of Technology in Poland. He specializes
in process dynamics modeling.
MAREK BOEK is a manager with long experience in production
process management. An active participant in many investment
and effectiveness programs realized in refineries, he is a former
senior process engineer of the FCC and PrimeG+ unit. Mr. Boek
is the manager of the APC department and is directly responsible
for the implementation and maintenance of advanced process
control systems in the PKN Orlen refinery.
Process Control
and Instrumentation
M. MARSHALL, Michael Marshall LLC, Findlay, Ohio
Enhance PSM design with metrics-driven best practices

This study identifies the attributes
and benefits of a data- and metricsdriven management system focused on
the process safety design integrity, reliability and control of process plant flares
and pressure relief systems. This process
safety management (PSM) system approach focuses on the four key business
drivers of risk, regulatory, operations
and profits, and involves several distinct
business methods involving people,
processes and tools/technology. At the
center of the management system is the
unique design and implementation of
metrics and key performance indicators
(KPIs) created from data that is lifted
and aggregated from an enterprise asset
management platform.
The current regulatory climate. The
highly publicized incidents at BP Texas

City, Texas in 2005; Tesoro Anacortes,
Washington in 2010; and Chevron Richmond, California in 2012, occurred not
because of a singular failure of equipment, instrumentation, facility siting, operator, procedures, communication, supervision or training, but rather a failure
of a combination of all those thingsi.e.,
a management system failure.
The BP, Tesoro and Chevron incidents
are now driving the reexamination of the
PSM rule by the US regulatory community. The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB)
has taken notice that US oil and gas industry losses are the highest among any
industrial sector, as well as the fact that
the US refining industry accident rate is
3 to 4 times higher than in Europe.
The PSM rule and its allegedly lessrigorous regulatory framework are
quickly falling out of favor with regulators. As such, the attributes of the safety
case and as low as reasonably practical
(ALARP) regulatory regime currently
in use throughout the UK, Australia

and Norway are now being advocated
by the CSB. More notable is Californias
proposed regulation for inherently safer
design (ISD), an initiative that was endorsed by then-CSB chairman Dr. Rafael
Moure-Eraso, who suggested that other
states do the same.
ISD has been hotly debated for years
and would require that risk be reduced to
the greatest extent possible with the selection and implementation of changes
in chemistry and/or a change to process
variablese.g., the reduction in pressure, temperature, flows, etc. Unmistakably, this would take the petrochemical
industry and its PSM approach from
performance-based to prescriptive.
Before opting to prescriptively rewrite the PSM rule, it is suggested that

a focused metrics-driven management
system approach is more sensible, productive and achievable in the short term.
Such an approach also embodies the
core principles of the PSM rule and is
consistent with the findings and recommendations of the 2007 Baker Panel Report (TABLE 1).
It would seem that the Baker Report
is prompting a revisit to the PSM rule
for intent and direction, as well as for
the proper administration of PSM
the effective application of a management systems approach to continuously
improving our process safety environment and culture. The authors of the
TABLE 1. 2007 Baker Panel focus areas and opportunities for improvement
1. Process safety management systems
a.Process risk assessment and analysis
b.Compliance with internal process safety standards
c.Implementation of engineering good practicesEngineering design practices and
associated training are in place and translate industry RAGAGEP into specific how to
design guidance and application standards
d.Process safety knowledge and competence
e.Effectiveness of corporate process safety management systemManagement systems
are effective and successful in preventing accidents.
2.Performance evaluation, corrective action and corporate oversight
a.Measuring process safety performance
b.Incident and near-miss investigations
c.Process safety audits
d.Correction of identified process safety deficienciesRepeat findings are addressed
suggesting that true root causes are not being identified and corrected
e.Effective use of findings from operating experiences, process hazard analyses, audits,
near misses and incident investigations to improve operations and systemsPerformance
data and indicators are effectively used to drive continuous improvement in process safety
and risk management systems (e.g., the risk of major incident relative to LOPC data)
f.Adequate management and corporate oversight.
3.Corporate safety cultureAny one or all of the following management system elements might
be scrutinized in the event of an incident relative to the opportunities noted above:
a.Effectiveness of process safety leadership
b.Adequacy of employee involvement and empowerment
c.Adequacy of resources and positioning of process safety capabilities
d.Effectiveness of incorporation of process safety into management decision-making
e.Common, unifying process safety culture.

PSM rule took great pains to make it a
performance-based standard for a reason
(prescriptive is inherently inferior), so it
should not be abandoned now.
Revisiting PSM, management systems and continuous improvement.
With the promulgation of the PSM Standard 29 CFR 1910.119, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) mandated that a management
system comprising several well-defined
elements be established for preventing
or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable or explosive chemicals. The process safety information (PSI) element of
the PSM rule states, The employer shall
document that equipment complies with
recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices (RAGAGEP),
with specific reference given to relief
system design and design basis.
Although OSHA does not explicitly
use the term continuously improving in
its regulatory standards, it uses equivalent
terms such as accurate, complete, clear
and ongoing, as in the Appendix C compliance guidelines of 29 CFR 1910.119,
which uses the term complete and accurate in lieu of continually improving.
Likewise, for the mechanical integrity element of 29 CFR 1910.119, OSHA uses
the term ongoing to describe the expectation to continually improve.
Recent incidents and enforcement actions demonstrate OSHAs expectation
for operating plants to maintain a continually improving PSM system. In 2007,
OSHA initiated its National Emphasis
Program (NEP), a special enforcement initiative specific
to refineries and chemical
plants. Of the citations issued, many involved missing,
inaccurate and incomplete
process safety information, as
well as outdated relief system
studies.
A management system for
flare and relief systems.
Flare and relief system design

compliances are also assessed
annually in ever-increasing detail for participants of OSHAs
Voluntary Protection Program
(VPP). The environmental
enforcement aspect to flare
operation and systems management

continues to be relevant. Notwithstanding social responsibility, it is just good
business to develop a management system that not only enhances safety and
environmental protection, but also augments asset protection. Safety and environmental stewardship are of paramount
importance, but asset protection, business continuity and public image also
have vital significance in any business
environment.
Knowing what data to capture and
display is essential to proper metrics development and analysis, and the ensuing
derivation of KPIs. FIG. 1 illustrates the
who, what, when, where and how of doing just that with a focused, metrics-driven flare and overpressure management
system (FOMS).
Associated FOMS benefits. It goes
without saying that flare and relief system

design and operation have come under
intense scrutiny by OSHA. With the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
now getting into the act, it would seem
that regulators are looking for a new 3%
inlet pressure drop (IPD) soft spot, and
have found it in flare system operation
and management.
The vast majority of gas flaring is associated with plant upset, poor operation or
imbalance, and, as such, is unplanned and
subject to regulatory penalty. The EPA is
now aggressively mandating and enforcing flare management plans (FMPs) and
flare gas recovery systems, just as OSHA
enforced relief-system pressure relief
analyses (PRAs) and the 3% IPD rule.
It has become clear that this doublebarrel surge via OSHA and the EPA has
arrived and is progressing rapidly. It may
seem that the industry is under assault,
but the ultimate truth is that process safety just makes good business sense.
When considering a performance improvement program in this highly regulated process safety environment, four key
business drivers should be considered:
risk, regulatory, operations and profits.
Building a focused flare and relief systems
management process around those four
drivers involves a unique management
system structure of people, processes and
tools/technology.
Central to the growth and continuous
improvement of those three elements
will be the proper design and implementation of metrics and KPIs. The institutionalization of KPIs and the subsequent
reporting and action planning process
will drive the continuity and sustainability of the plan-do-check-act rudiments of
this management system approach.
Sustainability through KPIs. The

PSM standard is exceptional in its vision,
design and implementation, but it could
have been made better by the inclusion
of metrics and KPIs. It is often said, If
it cant be measured, it cant be managed,
and this is likely a reason why so many
PSM programs have failed to grow and
measure up to industry best practices and
OSHA expectations.
KPIs are critical to a properly designed
management system in that they institutionalize processes and drive accountability, providing continuity and sustainability. An effective KPI system
and data mining process takes
into consideration business
drivers, success factors, targets, improvement actions and
performance measures. However, knowing which metrics
should be funneled into KPIs
is the challenge.
It would now seem that API
754 was written only to gauge
the high-level effectiveness of
PSM programs. The opportunity still remains for further development of focused metrics
that further drive performance
improvement in areas like flare
FIG. 1. Capturing and displaying the correct data are essential to
and relief system design and
proper metrics development and analysis.
operation, among others. Cor-

respondingly, the CSB has characterized
the shortcomings of API 754 as follows:
Tier 1 and 2 numbers are lagging
indicators and thus of limited
usefulness as performance
indicators.
The statistical power of small
numbers of Tier 1 and 2 events is
insufficient to detect effect.
Tier 3 and 4 events are leading
indicators that are reflective of
process failures, yet they are not
publicly reported and utilized
for industry trend analysis and
benchmarking comparisons.
Employee participation was
insufficient in the development
process and thereby lacking in a
broad-based consensus.
Industry can be even more critical and
innovative by utilizing historical operations, reliability and maintenance data in
analytical tools and performance metrics
to create a competitive environment for
improving plant reliability and profitability. The word competitive should be
stressed so this plan-do-check-act process
will drive itself and grow by fostering a
healthy and productive incentive among
stakeholders for continuous improvement in reliability, profitability and, most
importantly, process safety.
points, metrics flood and confusion can

set in and negatively impact the problemsolving process.
Proper development, implementation and management of metrics and
KPIs should involve many of the same
concepts utilized in alarm rationalization
and managementit is more of an art
form than many realize, requiring critical thinking and strategic design aptitude
that draw on a frontline-to-exec level of
appreciation for what good looks like.
This is what the FOMS developers had in
mind for a management process focused
on flare and relief systems.
Too often, the process of data gathering and metrics reporting is more about
presentation than substance and lacks
real problem solving and process optimization potential. The metrics and KPIs
of an FOMS are specifically designed for
Management system design and

implementation. Again, PSM was con-
ceived out of a management system mentality of a plan-do-check-act cycle with

continuous improvement at its core. The
focused, metrics-driven management
system of FOMS follows this same model
and function, illustrated in FIG. 2. In application, it begins with a four-phase development process: Where are we now?
Where do we want to go? How are we going to get there?
Phase 1: Where are we now?
Identify and engage process owners
and stakeholders
TABLE 2. The process of data gathering and metrics reporting should solve real
problems and address process optimization potential.
Risk
Where is the risk? How should it be managed?
Regulatory
What are the compliance needs? Where is the most vulnerability?
Operations
How can operational health be measured? How can safety

systems be optimized?
Profits
What are the economic impacts of flaring? What are the flare
limits on operations?
Continuous improvement
How can sustainability be ensured? Define who, what, when,

where and how.
Refining the development of KPIs.
The idea is to tap into the data-rich potential of an enterprise asset management (EAM) system. From this data and
informational structure, the 20% of data
that 80% of operators, engineers, managers and execs want to see is extracted,
with the challenge being identifying that
20% of key information. Beyond that,
further consideration is necessary for
the more refined development of KPIs,
which then provide the need-to-know
requirements of stakeholders at a dashboard level of awareness.
What so many KPIs fail to do is drill
down deeply enough to facilitate the
identification of basic and root causal
factors associated with problem solving
for optimal performance. There can be
too many of these focused metrics, and
the pitfalls are similar to usability problems associated with multiple alarms
sounding during a process unit upset,
commonly referred to as alarm flood.
Just as with too many alarms, poorly designed alarms and improperly set alarm
problem-solving performance improvement issues at the basic and root cause

levels, and they are built around the business drivers of risk, regulatory, operations and profits (TABLE 2).
Industry benchmarking
Costs and budgets
Culture and involvement
Risk tolerance
Governance
Compliance
Act
Flare and overpressure management

system
Plan
Tradeoffs and costs
Assess progress relative
to standards
Drivers, goals
PSM and RMP and strategies
RAGAGEP
VPP
Leadership
and vision
Risk
Regulatory
Operations
Profits
Form team
Baseline and gap
analysis (SWOT)
Redesign work
processes
Pressure relief analysis (PRA)

PHA
LOPA (Philosophy apps, f/N)
PSI and document control
Best practices and procedures
Training
Resource
allocation,
tools and
technology
Do
Review
performance
targets
Automation tools and

software
Metrics, KPIs and Implement new work
reports
processes and procedures
Roles and responsibilities
Root cause analysis
Auditing and certification

One-stop ePSD portal
Incident investigation
Emergency response and planning
Lessons learned
Management of change
Health check monitoring
Risk profiling and mapping
Debottleneck and optimize
Flare management, minimize
Mechanical integrity (RBI)
Check
FIG. 2. The FOMS follows the plan-do-check-act cycle.

FIG. 3. Inverting the hierarchical pyramid and

involving personnel at all levels are keys to
understanding and leveraging the nuances of
company culture.
A changing PSM and PRA

landscape
BP, Tesoro and Chevron
incidents are driving
reexamination of PSM rule
US refining accidents are three
to four times that of Europe
Safety case and inherently safer
design/technology (ISD) are
gaining favor with regulators
Compile available documents
and information
Flowchart current processes, tasks
and procedures
PRA methods and processes are
now mature
PRAs giving way to enhanced
auditing, mini-PRA tune-ups and
management of change (MOC)
processes
Are more processes needed to
ensure PRA integrity?
Intense regulatory scrutiny
remains: risk, regulatory,
operations and profit drivers
Identify current tools and
technology
PRA science and technology
are still evolving
There is little in the way of
PRA-specific management
systems tools/information
technology (IT)
There is a lot of IT structure
in need of management system
content and integration
Understand strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats (SWOT)
in existing processes.
Phase 2: Where do we want to go?
Engage process owners and
stakeholders for vision, objectives

and value drivers
Business focused without putting
safety second
Team environment, but
competitive
Problem solving
Communities of practice
and pride
Knowledge managers, not tribal
Bottom-up, top-down, inverted
pyramid with closest to the
work mentality
Measurements, accountability
and rewards
Baseline processes and perform
gap analysis
Evaluate gaps and tradeoffs (costs)
Redesign processes and
functionalities
Think like an operator, manager,
regulator
Metrics and reporting, KPIs
Ongoing gap analyses, data
centric
Expert systems to automate
Integrate with existing systems,
customizable
Process optimization and profits
Better manage and control change
Enable regulatory compliance;
safety case and ISD
Cross-organization integration
and collaboration
Focus on operations workforce
Standardization and consistency
Specify tool and technology needs
Workflows
Protocols and practices
Portals and links to data and
systems
Data repositories
Search engines and links
Dashboards, scorecards, forums
Executive dashboards
Document management
Training and more training,
e.g., computer-based
Enterprise discoverability
and sharing
Design to drive sustainability
Develop project plan and prioritize.
Phase 3: How are we going to
get there?
Identify needs and objectives
Define good or where we want
to go, and plan a path forward
Critical focus on management
systems design and
implementation, people,
processes, tools/technology
Strategic focus on gaps, soft
spots and critical systems
within operations,
maintenance and engineering
organizations, corporate
Content, the 20% of data that
80% of stakeholders want to
see (strategic and customizable
KPIs, data maps, scorecards,
dashboards, reports, data portals,
alerts, analyses and trends)
Design to involve only new
processes and tools, not new
labor
Develop strategic purpose
Maintain a business perspective
on everything, including
process safety
Tightly integrate strategy and
tactics with business processes to
be self-sustaining
Ensure that organization and
systems are designed to enable
execution of business processes
Showcase new philosophy to
inspire personnel at all levels
Design for employee involvement
and buy-in at all levels, and
make it competitive
Integrate with existing assets,
programs and systems
Get KPIs in the hands of those
closest to the work, i.e., those
most able to affect change
Connect enterprise performance
measurement with budgets,
reviews and bonuses
Make everyone an ambassador,
especially regulators
Design metrics to be what
operators, managers and
executives want
Adapt and make compatible with
outsourcing applications of
IT and engineering services
Establish team leadership
and governance
Understanding and leveraging
nuances of culture is vital
Plant environment (operations,
maintenance, engineering,
corporate)
Cost/safety prioritization,
RAGAGEP benchmarking
Address internal competitiveness
and silos
Integrate with RBI and PSM

offerings, leveraging IT and
maximizing synergies
Get regulators on board, such as
local and state OSHA, EPA
Communicate to and involve
everyone at all levels, and invert
the hierarchical pyramid (FIG. 3)
Perform root cause analysis
Design metrics, KPIs, reports,
automation tools
Design to drive sustainability
(training, auditing, certification,
profits)
Integrate with existing IT
structure and software, synergies
Provide for enterprise
discoverability and sharing
Leverage EAM platform and
integrate with PRAs
Asset integrity management
systems
Continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMSs)
PSM suite of software
Digital control systems
Process instrumentation
Remember that IT and software
prowess need content in cohesive
processes, an FOMS
New/improved software
solutions, business methods and
Internet innovations
Initiate training programs
Implement transition plan, pilot
and then rollout
Compatible with third-party
applications, software and systems
Leverage synergies/overlaps
with PSM, equipment inspection
and reliability programs, e.g.,
RBI API 580/581, especially
damage mechanisms (API 572)
and mechanisms contributing
to the loss of primary
containment (LOPC)
Flare/relief system specific
programs for mechanical
integrity, MOC, incident
investigation, procedures,
PSI and other PSM elements.
Phase 4: How do we improve,
grow and keep going?
Implement and validate redesigned
process
Initiate ongoing metrics and
management systems
Monitor, evaluate and report on
new processes
Review targets and performance
Audit and adjust for continuity,

sustainability and growth.
A close second. A close second to an
FOMS, however, would be a focused,
metrics-driven management system approach addressing mechanisms contributing to LOPC. LOPC is preventable,
and equipment reliability relative to process safety is by far the leading risk opportunity and ongoing business concern
facing the oil and gas industry today. The
same personnel, processes and tools/
technology (software and EAM) structure and methods employed in an FOMS
can be easily adapted for an LOPC-focused initiative. This strategic initiative
also involves the same business drivers
of risk, regulatory, operations and profits.
Industry can also be much more critical and innovative in responding to LOPC
incidents, data and metrics with enhancements to mechanical integrity proficiencies relative to inspection, maintenance,
design and overall systems management.
Historical operations, reliability and
maintenance data can be better utilized
and managed with analytical tools and
performance metrics to determine needs
and risk exposure, provide direction and
address opportunistic reliability issues.
A refining-specific incident and loss database, as well as an optimization methodology (utilizing RCFA) that quantifies
the economic impact (dollars in lost profit opportunity) of equipment anomalies,
LOPC incidents and upset/malfunction
operating conditions, has been developed
and put into practice. This approach includes a much more critical focus on
inherently challenging API 754 process
safety event (PSE) LOPC metrics relative
to damage mechanisms; operating envelopes; and consequences of deviation,
procedures, design and training.
MICHAEL MARSHALL has over
33 years of experience working
in the refining and petrochemical
industry. While working first with
Chevron for 10 years and then
retiring from Marathon Petroleum
Co. after 23 years, he progressed
through various in-plant and corporate refining facility
and project engineering, operations, maintenance and
equipment inspection/reliability managerial positions.
His areas of expertise include risk-based equipment
inspection and mechanical design relative to the loss
of primary containment damage mechanisms, safety
systems and overpressure protection. Mr. Marshall
holds a BS degree in civil engineering from Purdue
University and is a registered professional engineer
(PE) in the state of Indiana.
2016
August 23, 2016

Houston, Texas
Final Call for Participation

Call for Abstracts Extended
Gulf Publishing Company, publisher of Hydrocarbon Processing and Gas Processing, is pleased
to announce that the fourth annual GTL Technology Forum will be held in Houston, Texas
on August 23, 2016. If you would like to participate as a speaker, we invite you to submit an
abstract for consideration by our advisory board. This years program will focus on economics
of scale and the dynamics of GTL in a low-cost environment.
Suggested topics and areas of interest include:

GTL: Fischer-Tropsch
GTL: MTG/methanol
GTL products: fuels, lubes, specialty products, etc.
Economics, properties, performance, etc.
Floating GTL
Financing of GTL projects by owners, equity, banks
Permitting issues (requirements, thresholds, timing, etc.)
Waste heat recovery
Maximizing wax and chemicals production
Upstream and downstream integration
SynGas generation (SMRs, ATRs)
And more.
For a full list, visit GTLTechForum.com
Dont miss this unique opportunity to share your

knowledge and expertise with your peers in the industry.
Submission Deadline: March 4, 2016.
Abstracts should be approximately 250 words in length and should include
all authors, affiliations, pertinent contact information, and the proposed
speaker (person presenting the paper). Please submit via e-mail to
EnergyEvents@GulfPub.com.
Speaker/Sponsor/Exhibitor Inquiries: Please contact Melissa Smith,
Events Director, Gulf Publishing Company, at Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com
or +1 (713) 520-4475.
GTLTechForum.com
ADRIENNE BLUME, EXECUTIVE EDITOR

Adrienne.Blume@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Innovations
Design software reduces
risk, boosts efficiency
of brownfield projects
In a market with reduced capital investment budgets, revamps and upgrades
are becoming increasingly prevalent to
extend asset service life. The ability to
execute brownfield projects rapidly, efficiently and at low risk is essential to both
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) companies and to their owner-operator (OO) clients.
The latest version of AVEVA Everything3D (AVEVA E3D) integrates
a number of new features (FIG. 1) that
offer EPC companies a valuable edge
when bidding for these projects, and
also enable OOs to achieve greater return on investment at lower risk.
AVEVA E3D reenvisions laser data integration by incorporating technologies
such as HyperBubble (a photorealistic
rendering of laser scans), Laser in Draw,
and Design in Context. By integrating
HyperBubble data into the 3D design
environment, designers can take accurate measurements between any points
in the entire scanned asset. They can
also align new designs with existing objects and perform clash checks between
designed objects and the point cloud.
AVEVA E3D is said to allow for the
easy application of lean principles to
brownfield projects. Point cloud demolition and re-scan registration capabilities enable the concept of the Trusted
Living Pointcloud. Used in conjunction
with the 3D model, the pointcloud provides a valuable resource for throughlife asset management.
The use of 3D laser scanning for accurate and detailed site survey is now widely established. It is claimed to be quicker,
cheaper and more efficient than traditional surveying techniques, since large
areas can be accurately scanned in a short
time. It is possible to reference laser data
when creating a new design, but AVEVA
E3D makes laser data directly usable
within its own 3D design environment.
The AVEVA E3D 2.1 Laser in Draw

capability means that it is now possible
to use the laser data for both 2D and 3D
deliverables. The as-built design and the
new design can be combined on the same
drawing, which saves time and cost, and
makes construction drawings more easily understood by the onsite team.
AVEVA has also pioneered a cloud deployment of AVEVA E3D to offer its customers reduced infrastructure costs and
the ability to flex license call-off in response to project workload fluctuations.
FIG. 1. The 3D plant design model is created

and modified using discipline-specific
applications optimized for efficient modeling.
Research advances
clean diesel production
for future industrial use
Researchers from Katholieke Universiteit (KU) Leuven in Belgium and
Utrecht University in the Netherlands
have discovered a new approach to the
production of fuels. The new method
reportedly can be used to produce much
cleaner diesel and can quickly be scaled
up for industrial use.
The production of fuel involves the
use of catalysts. These substances trigger
the chemical reactions that convert raw
material into fuel. In the case of diesel,
small catalyst granules are added to the
raw material to sufficiently change the
molecules of the raw material to produce
usable fuel.
Catalysts can have one or more chemical functions. The catalyst that was used
in the university study has two functions,
represented by two different materials: a
metal (platinum) and a solid-state acid.
During the production process for diesel, the molecules bounce between the
metal and the acid. Each time a molecule
comes into contact with one of the materials, it changes. At the end of the process, the molecules are ready to be used
for diesel fuel.
The assumption has always been that
the metal and the solid-state acid in the
catalyst should be as close together as
possible; this would speed up the pro-
duction process by helping the molecules

bounce more quickly. Professor Johan
Martens (KU Leuven) and Professor Krijn de Jong (Utrecht University) have now
discovered that this assumption is incorrect. If the functions within a catalyst are
nanometers apart, then the process yields
better molecules for cleaner fuel.
The new technique can optimize several molecules in diesel. Cars that are
driven by this clean diesel would emit
far fewer particulates and CO2. The researchers believe that their method can
be scaled up for industrial use with relative ease, enabling the new diesel to be
used in cars in 510 years.
Control system boosts

cyber security and
processing performance
As concern with cyber threats to refineries continues to grow, traditional
control system vendors are responding by adding cost and complexity to
their legacy technology. The Bedrock
universal control system from Bedrock
Automation is said to offer refineries increased performance, processing power,
redundancy, scalability, cyber security
protection and cost efficiency.
Featuring a patented architecture
with a pin-less, electromagnetic backplane (FIG. 2) and embedded cyber security, Bedrock addresses virtually all
control applications with fewer than a
Innovations
dozen part numbersreducing cyber attack vectors; cutting lifecycle costs; and
simplifying engineering, commissioning
and maintenance.
Reinventing control systems. A
commitment to functional design is a
core tenet of the system that delivers
input/output (I/O), power and communications across the pin-less electromagnetic backplane, with a parallel
architecture that supports rapid scan
times regardless of I/O count. The removal of I/O pins improves reliabil-
FIG. 2. The real-time operating system delivers

safety and multi-layered cyber security.
ity and increases cyber security while

forming a galvanic isolation barrier for
every I/O channel. This backplane also
allows installation of I/O modules in
any orientation and location for flexibility in I/O and cable management.
Secure I/O modules use layers of advanced technology to deliver softwaredefined I/O for universal analog, discrete, Ethernet and Fieldbus signal types.
A secure power module is functionally
and physically coupled to the backplane
to deliver single- and dual-redundant cyber secure power for the control system.
A secure universal controller is powerful enough to run virtually every application, independent of size or control task: discrete, batch, continuous or
multivariable control from one device
that supports as few as 10, to as many as
thousands, of I/O points. Separate programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and
distributed control systems (DCSs) are
no longer required.
Layers of protection. Replacing pins
with an electromagnetic backplane is a
key layer of cyber security protection

that Bedrock Automation has implemented. Additional cyber security layers include:
A real-time operating system
(RTOS) with what is claimed to
be the highest safety and security
rating of any available RTOS
Cyber secure microcontrollers
with encrypted keys embedded in
all system modules, including the
controller, power supply and I/O
All modules encased in antitamper metal that is impenetrable
without metal cutting tools
Authentication extending
throughout the supply chain,
including third-party software and
applications.
Adding many layers of protection to
a conventional DCS, SCADA RTU, PAC
or PLC would add cost and complexity, and degrade performance. However,
these layers have been built into the Bedrock design, offering more immediate
security and increased protection.
HPIRPC.com
Register Early
+ Save 15%
78 June 2016 | Milan Marriott Hotel | Milan, Italy
Join us for the 7th Annual IRPC as we

explore Innovation in the Downstream
Gulf Publishing Company and Hydrocarbon Processing are pleased to announce that the 2016 International Refining and Petrochemical
Conference (IRPC) will be held 78 June in Milan, Italy. In its seventh year, the 2016 conference and exhibition will provide a high-level
technical forum in which key players in the global petrochemical and refinery sector will meet to share knowledge and learn about best
practices and the latest advancements in this developing sector of the oil and gas industry.
The theme for this years conference is Innovation in the Downstream. The 2016 program will be put together by an esteemed advisory
board, and will cover refining/petrochemical integration, licensing technology, maintenance and reliability (including preventative
maintenance, the Internet of Things (IoT) and predictive maintenance,) energy policy, heavy oil, emerging technologies, plant design
and more.
The preliminary agenda will be announced soon. Stay tuned to HPIRPC.com for more information.
For Sponsorship/ Exhibit/General Inquiries: Contact Melissa Smith, Events Director, +1 (713) 520-4475 or Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com
MARKETPLACE / Gerry.Mayer@GulfPub.com / +1 (972) 816-3534
Why Should You Filter Your Water?
SALE
RENT
LEASE
Superheat & Saturated Boilers

to 250,000pph 750psig
Custom Design & Manufacture Too!
In Stock Assorted Sizes
Ultra Low Nox Available
SCRs Available
Scale formation reduces the heat transfer rate andincreases the water
pressure drop through the heatexchanger and pipes. In fact, one study
has shownthat.002"foulingwillincreasepumpingneedsby20%.
The Best Engineered Water Filteration

Solution Always Costs Less
2672SLaCienegaBlvd,LosAngeles,CA90034USA
(800)226-1942(310)839-2828Fax(310)839-6878
www.tekleen.cominfo@tekleen.com
Specialty Engineering
Static Equipment
Rotating Equipment
Metallurgical and
Materials Lab
Field Service
4.25" wide x 4" high
CMYK color
Specialists in design, failure

analysis, and troubleshooting of
static and rotating equipment
www.knighthawk.com
Houston, Texas
Tel: 2812829200
Fax: 2812829333
SURPLUS GAS PROCESSING/REFINING EQUIPMENT

25 MMCFD x 1100 PSIG PROPAK REFRIGERATION PLANT
28 TPD SELECTOX SULFUR RECOVERY UNIT
1100 BPD LPG CONTACTOR x 7.5 GPM CAUSTIC REGEN
NGL/LPG PLANTS: 10600 MMCFD
AMINE PLANTS: 603300 GPM
SULFUR PLANTS: 10180 TPD
FRACTIONATION: 100025,000 BPD
HELIUM RECOVERY: 75 & 80 MMCFD
NITROGEN REJECTION: 25100 MMCFD
MANY OTHER REFINING/GAS PROCESSING UNITS
We offer engineered surplus equipment solutions.
Bexar Energy Holdings, Inc.
Phone 210-342-7106Fax 210-223-0018

www.bexarenergy.comEmail: info@bexarenergy.com
Adhesive compounds withstand:
Acids Bases Organic Solvents
demanding
main@masterbond.com.com +1.201.343.8983
www.masterbond.com
Call 972-816-3534 for details about

Hydrocarbon Processings Marketplace
Detailed and up-to-date information for active construction projects in the refining,
gas processing, and petrochemical industries across the globe/ConstructionBoxscore.com
ADVERTISER INDEX / HydrocarbonProcessing.com

The first number after the company name is the page on which an advertisement appears. The second number is the Reader Service Number. There are two ways readers can obtain product and service information:
go to www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS, follow the instructions on the screen, and your request will be forwarded for immediate action, or go online to the advertiser's website listed below.
Company
Website
Page RS#
American Filtration and

Separations Society...................................31 (156)
www.info.hotims.com/61384-156
American Petroleum Institute.......................14 (153)

Axens..........................................................88 (53)
Baldor Electric Company.............................. 35 (63)

Company
Website
Page RS#
EventsPetchem..................................... 67
Marketplace............................................. 83
HPI Market Data 2016..............................50A
Software..................................................68
John Zink Company .....................................17 (61)
KBR............................................................48 (97)
Bete Fog Nozzle........................................... 27 (73)
Kelvion Holding GmbH...................................2 (79)
CB&I............................................................ 22 (58)
Man Diesel & Turbo...................................... 47 (100)
cippe.......................................................... 57
Dyna-Therm.................................................16 (154)
Merichem Company...................................... 11 (84)
Gulf Publishing Company

EventsECF............................................. 87
EventsGasPro......................................50B
EventsGTL.............................................80
EventsIRPC........................................... 82
Merichem Company.....................................40 (88)

Paharpur Cooling Towers, Ltd.......................20 (99)

Pentair.........................................................12 (152)
Company
Website
Page RS#
Plymouth Tube Co....................................... 79 (157)

Rezel Catalysts Corp.......................................5 (65)

Saint-Gobain NorPro....................................13 (91)

Shell Global Solutions International BV......... 24 (92)

Spraying Systems Co.....................................18 (67)

Tensar International Corporation...................10 (151)

Troostwijk Auktionen................................... 39 (155)

Veolia Water Technologies........................... 33 (72)

Wood Group Mustang....................................6 (78)

Zwick Valves................................................ 67 (158)

ZymeFlow Decon Technology........................15 (93)

This Index and procedure for securing additional information is provided as a service to Hydrocarbon Processing advertisers and a convenience to our readers. Gulf Publishing Company is not responsible for omissions or errors.
Bret Ronk, Vice President

Downstream and Midstream
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4421
E-mail: Bret.Ronk@GulfPub.com
www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
SALES OFFICESNORTH AMERICA
IL, LA, MO, OK, TX
Josh Mayer
Phone: +1 (972) 816-6745, Fax: +1 (972) 767-4442
E-mail: Josh.Mayer@GulfPub.com
AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS,
KY, MI, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OR, SD, TN,
TX, UT, WA, WI, WY, WESTERN CANADA
Ryan Akbar
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4449
Mobile: +1 (832) 691-6053
E-mail: Ryan.Akbar@GulfPub.com
CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA,
RI, SC, VA, VT, WV, EASTERN CANADA
Merrie Lynch
Phone: +1 (617) 357-8190, Fax: +1 (617) 357-8194
Mobile: +1 (617) 594-4943
E-mail: Merrie.Lynch@GulfPub.com
CLASSIFIED SALES
Gerry Mayer
Phone: +1 (972) 816-3534, Fax: +1 (972) 767-4442
E-mail: Gerry.Mayer@GulfPub.com
DATA PRODUCTS
JNette Davis-Nichols
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4426
E-mail: Jnette.Davis-Nichols@GulfPub.com
SALES OFFICESEUROPE
FRANCE, GREECE, NORTH AFRICA,
MIDDLE EAST, SPAIN, PORTUGAL,
SOUTHERN BELGIUM, LUXEMBOURG,
SWITZERLAND, GERMANY, AUSTRIA, TURKEY
Catherine Watkins
Phone: +33 (0) 1 30 47 92 51
Fax: +33 (0) 1 30 47 92 40
E-mail: Watkins@GulfPub.com
Jim Watkins
Phone: +33 (0) 1 30 47 92 51
Fax: +33 (0) 1 30 47 92 40
Cell: +33 (0) 6 76 35 11 52
Jim.Watkins@GulfPub.com
ITALY, EASTERN EUROPE
Fabio Potest
Mediapoint & Communications SRL
Phone: +39 (010) 570-4948
Fax: +39 (010) 553-0088
E-mail: Fabio.Potesta@GulfPub.com
RUSSIA/FSU
Lilia Fedotova
Anik International & Co. Ltd.
Phone: +7 (495) 628-10-333
E-mail: Lilia.Fedotova@GulfPub.com
UNITED KINGDOM/SCANDINAVIA,
NORTHERN BELGIUM, THE NETHERLANDS
Michael Brown
Phone: +44 161 440 0854
Mobile: +44 79866 34646
E-mail: Michael.Brown@GulfPub.com
SALES OFFICESOTHER AREAS

CHINAHong Kong
Iris Yuen
Phone: +86 13802701367 (China)
Phone: +852 69185500 (Hong Kong)
E-mail: Iris.Yuen@GulfPub.com
BRAZILRio de Janeiro
Marco Antonio Monteiro
Mobile: +55 21 99616-4347
Fax: +55 21 2240-5077
E-mail: Brazil@GulfPub.com
INDIA
Bret Ronk
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4421
INDONESIA, MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE, THAILAND,
AUSTRALIAPerth
Peggy Thay
Publicitas Singapore Pte Ltd
Phone: +65 6836-2272, Fax: +65 6634-5231
E-mail: Singapore@GulfPub.com
JAPANTokyo
Yoshinori Ikeda
Pacific Business Inc.
Phone: +81 (3) 3661-6138, Fax: +81 (3) 3661-6139
E-mail: Japan@GulfPub.com
KOREA
Young-Seoh Chinn
JES Media, Inc.
Phone: +82 (2) 481-3411/3, Fax: +82 (2) 481-3414
E-mail: Korea@GulfPub.com
REPRINTS
Rhonda Brown, Foster Printing Service
Phone: +1 (866) 879-9144 ext. 194
E-mail: RhondaB@FosterPrinting.com
ALISSA LEETON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Alissa.Leeton@GulfPub.com
Events
FEBRUARY
ARC Industry Forum, Feb. 811,
Renaissance Orlando at
SeaWorld, Orlando, Florida
P: +1 (781) 471-1175
pking@arcweb.com
www.arcweb.com/events/
arc-industry-forum-orlando
Society of Plastics Engineers
(SPE) South Texas Section,
Feb. 2124, International
Polyolefins Conference 2016,
Hilton Houston North,
Houston, Texas
P: +1 (713) 829-9226
suzbiggs@comcast.net
www.spe-stx.org/conference.php
IHS Energy CERAWEEK,
Feb. 2226, Hilton Americas,
Houston, Texas
P: +1 (800) 447-2273
ceraweek.com/2016/
MARCH
Energy Construction Forum,
March 12, Gulf Publishing
Company Events, Moody
Gardens Convention Center,
Galveston, Texas
EnergyConstructionForum.com
(See box for contact information)
Plastic & Rubber Vietnam,
March 13, Saigon Exhibition
and Conference Center (SECC),
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
P: +65 6233-6638
www.plasticsvietnam.com/en/theexhibition/general-infomation/
Corrosion 2016, March 610,
Vancouver Convention
Centre, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada
P: +1 (800) 797-6223
firstservice@nace.org
www.nacecorrosion.org/
3rd World Elastomer Summit,
March 910, Dusseldorf, Germany
P: +48 61 646 7025
pbaziuk@acieu.net
www.wplgroup.com
GLOBALCON Conference
and Expo, March 910,
Hynes Convention Center,
Boston, Massachusetts
P: +1 (770) 279-4392
www.globalconevent.com/
AFPM Annual Meeting, March 1315,

Hilton, San Francisco, California
API Spring Committee on
Petroleum Measurement
Standards Meeting, March 1418,
Hyatt Regency Dallas
at Reunion, Dallas, Texas
CAPE VI, 6th African Petroleum
Congress and Exhibition,
March 1517, International
Conference Centre,
Abuja-Federal Republic of Nigeria
P: +44 0-207-700-4949
cape@ametrade.org
cape-africa.com/
AFPM International Petrochemical
Conference, March 2022,
Sheraton Dallas Hotel, Dallas, Texas
Offshore Technology Conference
(OTC) Asia, March 2225,
Kuala Lumpur Convention Center,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
P: +60 3-2182-3000
otcasia@otcnet.org
2016.otcasia.org/
JUNE
LNG 18, April 1115,

Perth, Western Australia
P: +61 2 9265 0700
enquiries@lng18.org
www.lng18.org/index.php
Plant Management Institute 2016,
April 1821, Morial Convention
Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
P: +1 (713) 343-1880
www.electricpowerexpo.com/
SynGas 2016, April 1821,
Tulsa Marriott Southern Hills,
Tulsa, Oklahoma
P: +1 (225) 922-5000
www.syngasassociation.com
International Aboveground
Storage Tank Conference and
Trade Show, April 2022,
Rosen Shingle Creek Hotel,
Orlando, Florida
P: +1 (800) 827-3515
mail@nistm.org
www.NISTM.org
MAY
APRIL
Offshore Technology Conference

(OTC), May 25, NRG Park,
Houston, Texas
P: +1 (972) 952-9494
2016.otcnet.org/
Tube Dusseldorf, April 48,

Fair ground Dusseldorf,
Dusseldorf, Germany
P: +49 0-211-45-6001
Tube@messe-duesseldorf.de
www.tube-tradefair.com/
4th Annual Canada LNG Export

Conference and Exhibition,
May 1012, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada
P: +44 (0) 203 772 6022
www.canadalngexport.com/
CCPS 12th Global Congress on

Process Safety, April 1013,
Hilton Americas and
George R. Brown Convention
Center, Houston, Texas
P: +1 646-495-1371
ccps@aiche.org
www.aiche.org/ccps/conferences/
global-congress-on-processsafety/2016
Managing Aging Plants

Conference and Expo Japan
2016, May 31June 1, International
Conference Hall (Kokusai Kaigijo),
Waseda University in Tokyo
P: +31-575-789-260
k.ichikawa@kci-world.com
www.plantenmei.com
GPA Convention, April 1013,

Hilton New Orleans Riverside,
New Orleans, Louisiana
gpaconvention.org/
Kuwait Oil and Gas,
April 1112, Jumeirah Messilah
Beach Hotel, Kuwait
P: +44 20-7978-0029
Kuwait@thecwcgroup.com
www.cwckuwait.com/
AFPM Reliability and Maintenance

Conference, May 2427,
San Antonio, Texas
International Liquid Terminal
Associate (ILTA), May 2325,
36th Annual International
Operating Conference and
Trade Show, George R. Brown
Convention Center, Houston, Texas
P: 703-875-2011
www.ilta.org
ASME Turbo Expo, June 1317,

COEX Convention and Exhibition
Center, Seoul, South Korea
P: 82-2-6000 1122
karmajin@coex.co.kr
www.coex.co.kr/eng
Global Petroleum Show,
June 79, Stampede Park,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
P: 403-209-3555
brucecarew@dmgevents.com
www.globalpetroleumshow.com
JULY
ARC Industry Forum 2016 India,
July 78, Le Meridien Bangalore,
Bangalore, Kamataka, India
P: +91 80 2554 7114
lkanickaraj@arcweb.com
www.arcweb.com/events/arcindustry-forum-india
ARC Industry Forum 2016 Japan,
July 12, KFC Hall, Sumida-ku,
Tokyo, Japan
P: +81-42 991 1685
skai@arcweb.com
www.arcweb.com/events/
arc-industry-forum-japan
AUGUST
ONS 2016, Aug. 29Sept. 1,
Stavanger, Norway
P: +47-51-84-90-40
info@ons.no
www.ons.no/2016/
Hydrocarbon Processing/
Events
P: +1 (713) 520-4475
Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com
EnergyEvents@GulfPub.com
American Fuel
& Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM)
P: +1 (202) 457-0480
meetings@afpm.org
www.afpm.org/Conferences
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
P: +1 (202) 682-8195
registrar@api.org
www.api.org
MIKE RHODES, MANAGING EDITOR

Mike.Rhodes@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
People
Smaller-scale gas-toliquids (GTL) specialist

Velocys Plc has named
David Pummell as chief
executive officer (CEO).
Mr. Pummell joins Velocys
from ACAL Energy Ltd., a
private equity-backed fuel
cell technology company,
where he was CEO.
Prior to this, he was CEO
of MAPS Technology Ltd.,
before becoming CEO of
Ceres Power Group plc.
He began his career at
BP as a chemical engineer
and held a number of
executive positions across
the downstream business
during his 22-year tenure.
Marathon Petroleum Corp.
(MPC) has made changes
to the companys senior
management structure.
Donald C. Templin,
executive vice president
of supply, transportation
and marketing, has been
named president of
MPLX LP, a fee-based,
growth-oriented master
limited partnership (MLP)
formed by MPC in 2012.
Mr. Templin will remain an
of MPC. Pamela K. M.
Beall, MPCs senior vice
president of corporate
planning, government and
public affairs, will become
of corporate planning and
strategy at MPLX. She
will report to Mr. Templin.
David L. Whikehart,
director of product
supply and optimization,
has been named vice
president of corporate
planning, government and
public affairs, succeeding
Ms. Beall.
The Fluid Sealing

Association (FSA) has
named Carl Jones to its
board of directors. He
currently serves as the
global product specialist
for Packing Fibers Sealant
Technologies at materials
technology company
W.L. Gore & Associates.
As a long-standing
member of the FSA,
Mr. Jones is the technical
committee chair for the
compression packing
division. He has 30 years
of experience in the fluid
sealing industry, including
experience in applications
engineering, territory
and capital project sales,
business development,
strategic project
marketing, and regional
and global product
management with profit
and loss responsibilities.
Founded in 1933, the
FSA is an international
trade association, and
member companies are
involved in the production
and marketing of fluid
sealing devices.
Erik Olsson has assumed
his duties as the president
of the management
consulting business
group and as a member
of the group executive
committee of Pyry PLC.
He will report to Martin
Porta, the president
and CEO of Pyry PLC.
Previously, Mr. Olsson
served as the senior vice
president of the companys
business development
group. He has succeeded
Jarkko Sairanen, who
has left the company,
in these positions.
Ross Glendinning has

been appointed as
senior vice president
of the service division
of Alfa Laval Inc. His
responsibilities include
leading parts sales,
reconditioning services,
field services and technical
support activities, as
well as driving consistent
growth and developing
new sales opportunities
for the companys service
business in the US.
Mr. Glendinning joined
Alfa Laval in 1982 as a
marine engineer for the
military products group.
He has held positions
in regional and national
service, global business
development, as well
as capital equipment
marketing and sales
management. He was most
recently responsible for
Alfa Lavals services for the
industrial process markets.
Mr. Glendinning is based
at the Alfa Laval facility in
Warminster, Pennsylvania.
The supervisory board at
Polands dominant gas
firm PGNiG has called
former economy minister
Piotr Wozniak to assume
the duties of acting
CEO for the state-run
company. He will replace
CEO Mariusz Zawisza.
Two deputy chairmen,
Zbigniew Skrzypkiewicz
and Jaroslaw Bauc,
Polands former finance
minister, have also left the
supervisory board. The
changes at PGNiG are part
of the wider reshuffle in
state-run companies after
the recent presidential and
general elections.
The Sasol Ltd. board of

directors has appointed
Bongani Nqwababa and
Stephen Russell Cornell
as joint presidents and
CEOs of the company,
with effect from July 2016.
Mr. Nqwababa, who
served previously as
non-executive director,
is currently the chief
financial officer (CFO) and
a member of the board of
directors and the group
executive committee.
Mr. Cornell is currently
the executive vice
president of international
operations, and a
member of the group
executive committee.
He is responsible for
Sasols global operations
outside Southern Africa,
as well as for fulfilling
his role of executive
sponsor for the Lake
Charles Chemicals Project
in Louisiana in the US.
The board also
appointed Paul Victor as
CFO and executive director,
following his current role
as senior vice president of
financial control services
and acting CFO.
Bert Lederer will retire
from Teknor Apex Co.
after 40 years with the
company. He had been
working for Olin Corp. as
PVC compounds product
manager at a PVC resin
plant in Massachusetts
when he joined Teknor
in 1975. He earned an
engineering degree
from Tufts University
and an MBA degree
from Boston University
before beginning his
professional career.
Darren W. Woods has been

elected president of Exxon
Mobil Corp. and a member
of the board of directors.
He joined Exxon Co. Intl.
in 1992 as a planning
analyst and has since held
a number of assignments,
including as vice
president of supply and
transportation, and director
of refining for Europe,
Africa and the Middle East
for ExxonMobil Refining
& Supply Co. In 2012, Mr.
Woods was appointed as
president of ExxonMobil
Refining & Supply Co.
and as a vice president of
the corporation. He also
served as vice president
of ExxonMobil Chemical
Co. and as the manager
of investor relations for
Exxon Mobil Corp. Rex W.
Tillerson will continue in
his position of chairman
of the board and CEO
of the corporation.
City Technology, a part of
Honeywell, has made two
appointments. Marco Di
Nubila has been named as
global marketing leader,
where his primary focus
will be further developing
opportunities presented
by new and intelligent
sensing technologies,
industrial edge devices
and the Internet of Things
(IoT). Theresa Berry
will join the company
as product manager,
where her primary focus
will be managing the
development of key new
product innovations.
She recently served as
product manager for
sensors for Tyco Fire
Protection Products.
MARCH 12, 2016
Moody Gardens Convention Center

Galveston, Texas
EnergyConstructionForum.com
North Americas Leading Energy Construction Expo + Forum
Join us at this Must Attend Event

for Energy Construction Professionals
With $500 Billion + in North American Energy Construction projects
announced, you cant afford to miss this opportunity to stay abreast
of the latest opportunities and solutions that will help you deliver
capital projects successfully and safely!
Presently, Hydrocarbon Processings Construction Boxscore Database is tracking
nearly $350B in active projects in the US with another $150B in projects elsewhere in
North America. As investments continue to rise, a number of opportunities and challenges
are presented.
The second annual Energy Construction Forum (ECF) will address the specific needs
of the midstream and downstream energy construction industry. The conference
program will explore:
Featuring Keynote:
STEPHEN MULVA
Director
The critical factors that support project success + how to avoid project failures
Project execution risk and how it can be abated in this environment
The major causes of cost overrun in megaprojects
The implications of low oil prices on North American crude price differentials
+ the impact on refiners and refining investments
How to boost project compliance + efficiency
Hosted by:
and much more
Esteemed Speakers Include Major Project Leaders

and Industry Experts from:
Sasol
Wood Mackenzie
CLMA
Pathfinder LLC
Wood Group Mustang
Endeavor Management
JV Driver Group
IHI E&C
S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd
Construction Boxscore Database
Register online: EnergyConstructionForum.com

For questions or to register offline, please contact Megan Roiz,
Events Program Manager at Megan.Roiz@Gulfpub.com or +1 (713) 520-4402.
Sponsored by:
GEMAIN
Earned Value Management System
Organized by:
Your objectives
in focus
Make the most of todays and tomorrows
challenges with leading-edge solutions from Axens
- Clean and alternative fuel technologies
- Petrochemicals
- Energy efficiency
- High performance catalysts & adsorbents
- Revamps
Single source technology and service provider

ISO 9001 ISO 14001 OHSAS 18001
www.axens.net
Technology and Business Information for the Global Gas Processing Industry
GasProcessingNews.com | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
PIPELINES,
TERMINALS
AND STORAGE
EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE
Automate data integration to meet
GHG regulations for gas gathering lines
PLANT DESIGN
Meet design challenges for knockout drums

with advanced simulation tools
TOP GAS PROCESSORS

IN NORTH AMERICA
Processors continue
to consolidate amid
contract renegotiations
Special Supplement to
CONTENTS
EDITORIAL COMMENT
In the US, LNG export terminal operators are gearing up to send liquefied natural gas to world markets. As of the time
of writing, Cheniere Energy was due to
ship out its first tanker of liquefied Texas
shale gas by early March. A flurry of other
terminals is scheduled to follow suit.
The US exports will contribute to a
predicted tripling of global LNG supply
ADRIENNE BLUME,
by 2020 amid a wave of new production
Editor
from the US, Australia, and Asia-Pacific.
The new suppliers are highly visible entities, with their multibillion-dollar liquefaction projects that will source natural gas
from shale formations, coal seams and conventional gas deposits. But where will the gas go once it is liquefied?
Many of the US export projects had focused on Asia as a
destination market when gas prices were high and demand was
raging. However, with the slowing of demand from Asia and
the worldwide dive in commodities prices, exporters attention
has now shifted to Europe.
Europes energy security comes largely from diversity of
supply, particularly in light of its repeated disagreements with
major gas supplier Russia. However, Europe has also been
serving as a dumping ground for re-exports of Australian LNG
cargoes from Asia, indicating that Europe will continue to be
oversupplied with gas through 2016. Luckily for US exporters,
Europe has both the import infrastructure and trading clout to
absorb most of the additional supplies. GP
www.GasProcessingNews.com
P. O. Box 2608
Houston, Texas 77252-2608, USA
Phone: +1 (713) 529-4301
Fax: +1 (713) 520-4433
Editorial@GasProcessingNews.com
PUBLISHER
Bret Ronk
Bret.Ronk@GulfPub.com
EDITORIAL
Editor
Adrienne Blume
Editor/Associate Publisher, Hydrocarbon Processing Lee Nichols
MAGAZINE PRODUCTION

Manager, Editorial Production
Artist/Illustrator
Senior Graphic Designer
Manager, Advertising Production
Sheryl Stone
Angela Bathe Dietrich
David Weeks
Amanda McLendon-Bass
Cheryl Willis
ADVERTISING SALES
See Sales Offices, page 34.
Copyright 2016 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
EUROMONEY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR PLC

Chairman: Andrew Rashbass
Directors: Sir Patrick Sergeant, The Viscount Rothermere, Christopher Fordham
(managing director), Neil Osborn, John Botts, Colin Jones, Diane Alfano, Jane Wilkinson,
Martin Morgan, David Pritchard, Bashar AL-Rehany, Andrew Ballingal, Tristan Hillgarth
Part of Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. Other energy group titles include:
Hydrocarbon Processing, World Oil and Petroleum Economist
GasProcessingNews.com | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
29
SPECIAL REPORT: PIPELINES, TERMINALS

AND STORAGE
Meet Subpart W emissions compliance
with automated data integration
13
H. Qin
Minimize evaporation losses by calculating

boiloff gas in LPG storage tanks
17
S. Shiva Shamekhi and N. Ashouri
PLANT DESIGN
Eficiently design and operate
vertical gas/liquid separators
21
J. Valappil and P. Diwakar
TOP GAS PROCESSORS IN NORTH AMERICA

29
North Americas top gas processors

consolidate in 2015
J. Stell
DEPARTMENTS
Gas Processing News .......................................................... 4
US Industry Metrics ............................................................. 8
New in Gas Processing Technology ................................ 33
COLUMNS
Boxscore Construction Analysis ........................................ 9
Turkmenistan looks to expand influence
in EU gas market
Executive Q&A Viewpoint ..................................................11

CEO forecasts next decade of LNG industry
President/CEO
Vice President, Downstream and Midstream
Vice President
Business Finance Manager
John Royall
Bret Ronk
Ron Higgins
Sheryl Stone
Pamela Harvey
Cover Image: NextDecade LLCs Rio Grande LNG project in Texas

will include six trains. Each train will have a nameplate capacity of
4.5 MMtpy, for a full buildout scenario of 27 MMtpy.
GAS PROCESSING NEWS

A. BLUME, Editor
Modularized
offering for
smaller-scale LNG
Kiewit Energy Co. and

Air Products have agreed to
collaborate on small-scale LNG
projects in North America to
meet growing demand for LNG
production. The collaboration
provides customers with easy
availability and rapid response
for the design, construction and
commissioning of projects.
The modularized design and
technology offered by Kiewit
Energy and Air Products can be
used on projects that produce up
to 500 Mgpd of LNG. Through
a unified approach, Kiewit
Energy is responsible for project
management, overall engineering
and design, construction and
commissioning, while Air Products
leads the design and supply of
the liquefaction equipment. This
collaborative approach helps
ensure that projects meet cost
and schedule requirements.
Kiewit Energy and Air
Products entered into a formal
agreement to solidify the alliance
in October 2015. At present,
the two companies are working
together on an LNG export
terminal and a peakshaving
facility in the US.
Ichthys field gets safety systems

The Ichthys field was the
largest discovery of hydrocarbon
liquids in Australia in more than
40 years, and the Ichthys LNG
project ranks among the largest
energy projects in the world.
Operated by INPEX, the
Ichthys LNG project includes
some of the worlds biggest
offshore facilities, massive
onshore processing facilities near
Darwin in Australias Northern
Territory, and an 890-km pipeline
to unite them.
HIMA was selected by the
Ichthys JV to supply safety
instrumented systems (SISs) and
the fire and gas system (FGS). The
Ichthys LNG project consists of an
onshore LNG plant; a central processing facility; and a floating production, storage and offloading vessel. The
total order value is the largest that HIMA has ever received for a single project.
Once operational, the Ichthys LNG project is expected to produce 8.9 MMt of LNG and 1.6 MMtpy of LPG,
along with approximately 100 MMbpd of condensate, at peak.
The SISs and FGS are supplied using HIMax, the first safety system designed to provide uninterrupted
system operation throughout the entire life of the plant, while maximizing plant availability, productivity and
safety. SISs and FGS using the HIMax safety system hardware meet the requirements in accordance with AS/
IEC 62061 and IEC 61326-3-1 (DIS).
The high-integrity pressure protection systems (HIPPSs) rely on a Planar4 system, which meets the highest
safety standards and can be used up to Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 4, in accordance with IEC 61508. Onshore
and offshore facilities and the pipeline are connected to around 25,000 safety input/output points, allocated
in approximately 430 cabinets distributed via HIMA safeethernet technology, where applicable.
Besides the SIS/FGS/HIPPS, the HIMA scope of supply includes delivery of the pre-final-investmentdecision system development and standard application design and testing. The cybersecurity and network
management with related hardware installation, the addressable fire system for the living quarters with the
related detectors, and the network management system for the SIS/FGS network complete the deliverables.
The HIMA hardware and firmware provided are certified up to SIL 3, according to AS/IEC 61508. HIMA will
use the principles of AS/IEC 61511 in designing and testing the SISs and FGS. The functional safety management
(FSM) plan will be used to manage all stages of the design, implementation and manufacturing processes.
Gas turbine market forecast at $100 B

Worldwide installations of new gas turbines will average 74,000
MW/yr over the next five years, according to a report by McIlvaine
Co. The system sales revenue will be $75 B/yr. GE, Siemens and
other turbine vendors will generate revenues of $20 B/yr for the
turbine equipment.
Worldwide installed gas turbine capacity is 1.5 MM MW. Purchases
of repair parts consumables and upgrades at existing power plants is
expected to average $30 B/yr. Part of this investment will be a result
of greenhouse gas initiatives. The least expensive way to reduce
carbon footprint is to make the existing gas turbine more efficient.
Adding the steam cycle makes the biggest difference, but there are
other options available.
Inlet filter replacement for existing units is seen at more than
$500 MM/yr. Another $460 MM/yr will be spent for SCR systems
and catalyst. Additionally, McIlvaine Co. expects the market for
replacement parts for pumps and valves to be significant.
Automation for Finlands first LNG import terminal

Honeywell will provide its Experion Process Knowledge System (PKS) automation controls and tank
gauging systems for Finlands first LNG import terminal to efficiently supply natural gas to marine vessels
and industrial facilities in Finland, helping replace other fuels that have higher emissions. The cleaner-burning
natural gas will help these vessels and facilities meet emissions regulations in the Baltic and Nordic seas.
Additionally, Honeywells Enterprise Buildings Integrator (EBI) will connect and power comfort, safety
and security systems within the terminal itself, creating a productive environment for workers. With tight
integration between Experion PKS and EBI, operators will have one interface to access and manage all process
and facility technology, which improves sitewide visibility and efficiency.
The Pori LNG terminal will have a capacity of 30,000 m3 and will be completed in the second half of 2016.
Honeywells tank-gauging systems will be used on tanks provided through Spanish engineering company FCC
Industrial e Infraestructuras Energticas SAU.
4JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016|GasProcessingNews.com
BG takes equity
in Aphrodite
discovery
BG Group has secured a

35% holding in Block 12 offshore
Cyprus, which includes the
Aphrodite gas discovery. This
upstream position provides a
potential source of gas to Egypt,
where BG Group holds equity in
the two-train LNG export facility
at Idku, as well as LNG offtake
rights to lift 3.6 MMtpy.
Operated by Noble Energy,
the Aphrodite gas discovery
is located approximately 170 km
south of Limassol. Completion
of the transaction is subject
to regulatory approvals and
closing conditions.
GAS PROCESSING NEWS

A. BLUME, Editor
GE signs expanded contract with Cheniere

GE Oil & Gas has signed
a $610-MM agreement with
Corpus Christi Liquefaction LLC,
a subsidiary of Cheniere Energy
Inc., to provide spare parts and
planned inspections, maintenance
services and around-the-clock
technical support for the
gas turbines and refrigerant
compressors on the first two
LNG trains under construction
at Chenieres LNG export facility
in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Each train will have six gas
turbines and is expected to have
nominal capacity to produce up
to 4.5 metric MMtpy of LNG.
The contractthe second for
both companiesserves as a
model for large infrastructure projects in terms of efficiency, cost savings and facility reliability.
Construction of GE equipment onsite will start in January 2017, with LNG production scheduled to
commence as early as 2018. The new contract, which covers 20+ years, incorporates all major maintenance
for the LNG trains, including parts, repairs and field services.
In addition, GE will provide a resident technical support team at Chenieres facility to assist with all
aspects of maintenance of GE equipment and include a remote monitoring system for the equipment.
Cheniere will benefit from access to OEM parts and repairs, plus technical expertise of GE field engineers
and technologyall of which will ensure optimal reliability.
GE Oil & Gas and Cheniere also have announced a similar, $1-B maintenance agreement for the Sabine
Pass facility in December 2014. Cheniere is developing the liquefaction project in Corpus Christi with
anticipated aggregate capacity of up to 22.5 MMtpy over five trains.
The IEA forecasts global demand to reaccelerate and grow at an average rate of 2% through 2020,
with an average annual increase of 10% projected throughout the rest of the decade. Demand for European
LNG imports is projected to roughly double in that time period.
Brazilian pipeline center tests pigging

The Brazilian Pipeline Technology Center (CTDUT), located in Rio
de Janeiro near the Duque de Caxias Refinery, was chosen by Shell
in Houston, Texas, to develop tests and research on pipeline pigging.
Shells engineers are trying to develop reliable mathematical models
for bypass pig operations for cleaning pipelines under single-phase
(water) and two-phase (water and air) flow.
The work began about two years ago in Houston when Shell,
in a partnership with a local company, developed a special capsule
sensor that is attached to the pig body and that records pressure
and temperature data on board. In addition, Shell acquired a Rosen
Technologies pipeline data logger to record pressure, differential
pressure (upstream and downstream of the pig), temperature and
data from a navigation system for the local coordinates, while the
pig travels along the pipeline. These devices permit the diagnosis of
internal conditions.
According to a CTDUT research engineer, the main challenge of the
process is to discover the best combination of the pig disks and the
orifice diameters for controlling the flowrate through the bypass. The
disk diameters are usually a little larger than the inside diameter of
the pipeline, which basically controls the wax rate of cleaning. On the
other hand, the control of the flowrate through the bypass is critical
since it has an important role on the resulting force that pushes the pig
through the pipeline. Therefore, choosing the right cross-sectional area
of the bypass orifices is critical to achieving a good result. Too much
bypass may cause the pig to stall, while not enough bypass may cause
wax (or other solids) to plug the line.
Since the installation is flexible in its general configuration, a 2.5-m
transparent section was installed by Shell so that its tests could be
analyzed and filmed during the pig passage. In the two-month period,
more than 200 tests were made.
At present, CTDUT is in the process of installing a new control
and automation system for this loop, which will allow the complete
automatic control of conditions, such as pressures, temperature,
flowrate and pig-position monitoring along the entire pipeline. This will
also allow for the preparation of quick reports and the analysis of large
data sets generated by the system sensors.
Qatar to supply
additional LNG
to India
RasGas Company Ltd. of Qatar
and Petronet LNG Ltd. of India
have entered into a binding salesand-purchase agreement (SPA)
for the supply of an additional 1
MMtpy of LNG to India. Deliveries
will begin in 2016 to four Indian
entities: Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.,
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., GAIL
(India) Ltd. and Gujarat State
Petroleum Corp.
RasGas and Petronet LNG
have also entered into a binding
agreement to adjust some aspects
of their existing long-term LNG
SPA of 7.5 MMtpy, signed by the
parties in 1999, which laid the
foundation for the LNG business
in India. Such adjustments will
protect and preserve the overall
value of the contract.
As per the agreement, LNG
volumes that were not taken by
Petronet from RasGas during
2015 will be taken and paid for
by Petronet during the remaining
term of the SPA, maintaining its
current level of oil indexation
with the oil index more closely
reflecting the prevailing oil prices.
RasGas is a main supplier
of LNG to India and has been
supplying Petronet since 2004.
First gas flows

from Corrib field
in Ireland
Natural gas has started to

flow from Shells Corrib gas field,
marking an important milestone
for Ireland and for Shells
upstream operations. Located
83 km off Irelands northwest
coast in water depths of almost
350 m, the Corrib gas field lies
approximately 3,000 m below the
seabed. At peak annual output,
the Corrib gas field is expected
to produce around 260 MMscfd
of gas, or 45 Mboed. Corrib has
the potential to meet up to
60% of Irelands gas needs.
Six wells have been drilled
at the Corrib field, with gas
transported to the Bellanaboy
Bridge Gas Terminal in northwest
Mayo through a 20-in. pipeline.
The gas is processed at
Bellanaboy before it is transferred
into the Gas Networks Ireland
(GNI) network, which delivers
it to Irish gas consumers.
The Corrib project is a JV
between Shell E&P Ireland Ltd.
(45%), Statoil Exploration Ireland
Ltd. (36.5%) and Vermilion
Energy Ireland Ltd. (18.5%).
Shell E&P Ireland Ltd. is the
projects operator.
Golar gets
financing for FSRU
Golar LNG Ltd. has received
an underwritten financing
commitment for the newbuild
FSRU Golar Tundra. China
Merchants Bank Leasing will
fund the vessel on a charter-free
basis, based on its current cost
of up to $216 MM. The facility
also provides for Golar Tundras
eventual sale to Golar LNG
Partners LP. On the charter-free
basis, the facility will finance a
minimum of $50 MM more than
the final delivery payment to the
shipyard, thereby releasing the
additional cash to Golar.
As part of the financing
commitment, China Merchants
Bank Leasing will provide a
parallel facility to refinance
the Golar-owned FSRU Golar
Eskimo. Upon drawdown, this
new facility will refinance the
vessels $156 MM debt and
provide approximately $100 MM
of additional financing.
GLOBAL SPENDING TO REACH

NEARLY $340 BILLION IN 2016.
Find out how, where and why.
HPI Market Data 2016 is the hydrocarbon processing industrys most trusted forecast of capital, maintenance
and operating expenditures for the petrochemical, refining and natural gas/LNG industries. Produced annually by
the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing and the Construction Boxscore Database, and featuring data provided by
governments and private organizations, this comprehensive resource provides comprehensive and top-level insight
into HPI market trends, spending and activity.
HPI Market Data 2016 features:

Global spending in the refining, petrochemical and gas processing sectors
Capital, maintenance and operating spending broken out by region
Short-term and long-term implications of todays low crude oil prices
An exploration of changing markets and demand within the global HPI, with discussion of
emerging markets
More than 55 tables and 100 figures, including information and data collected from governments
and private organizations
Editorial analysis of worldwide economic, social and political trends driving HPI activity across all sectors
Highlights include:
The HPIs capital, maintenance and operating budget for 2016
and a year-over-year comparison against 2015
Expanded section on global construction and investment
Impact of current crude oil prices on global project spending
How refineries will be designed to handle unconventional feedstocks,
such as NGLs, bitumen, heavy oil, and shale
Order Today!
Call +1 (713) 520-4426 or visit GulfPub.com/2016
HPI
MARKET
DATA 2016
US INDUSTRY METRICS
A. BLUME, Managing Editor
US natural gas spot prices at Henry Hub

and NGL spot prices at Mont Belvieu, $/MMBtu
25
July
2015
Oct.
2015
3
Monthly price (Henry Hub)
12-month price avg.
Production
20
0
2013
2014
2015
2
1
0
Gas prices, $/Mcf
40
120
April
2015
60
US natural gas plant field production of NGL,

LPG, ethane/ethylene and propane/propylene, Mbpd
10
0
Jan.
2015
80
US gas plant field production, Mbpd
$/MMBtu
15
Production equals US marketed production, wet gas. Source: EIA.
Natural gasoline
Isobutane
Butane
NGPL composite
Propane
Ethane
Natural gas spot prices (Henry Hub)
20
US gas production (Bcfd) and prices ($/Mcf)

100
Production, Bcfd
In the US, Henry Hub natural gas spot prices continued their
extended decline through the turn of 2016, but were seen picking
back up slightly in early January as residential and commercial
gas consumption increased with the onset of lower temperatures
in some regions. Despite the colder weather in parts of the US,
storage withdrawals were lower on the year as of early January,
keeping inventories well-maintained. Spot prices for NGL
dropped sharply in early January as production of NGL remained
strong. As of October 2016, production of NGL, LPG, ethane/
ethylene and propane/propylene had reached new highs. GP
Jan.
2016
100
80
LPG
NGL
Ethane/ethylene
Propane/propylene
60
40
20
Oct.- Nov.- Dec.- Jan.- Feb.- Mar.- April- May- June- July- Aug.- Sept.- Oct.2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
Source: US EIA
Source: US EIA
17th
Annual
April 20-22, 2016
International Aboveground Storage Tank Conference & Trade Show
International Aboveground Storage Tank Conference & Trade Show
Rosen Shingle
Hotel 2015
| Orlando, Florida
AprilCreek
27-29,
Rosen Shingle Creek Hotel | Orlando, Florida
This conference is designed for

engineers, managers or other
individuals
involved
with operations,
This conference
is designed
for engineers,
ma
This confe
construction, environmental
or other individuals involved with operatio
compliance, spill prevention and
managerss
construction,
environmental
compliance,
response
or management
activities
prevention
or management ac
associatedand
withresponse
aboveground
operation
storage
tanks.
associated
with
aboveground
storage tan
complian
or manag
abovegro
FREE TRADE SHO
800.827.3515 | www.NISTM.org International 011.813.600.40

800.827.3515 | www.NISTM.org
NISTM
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT
International 011.813.600.4024
BOXSCORE CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
Turkmenistan looks to expand influence

in EU gas market
EUGENE GERDEN, Contributing Writer
Turkmenistan, located in Central Asia on the Caspian Sea,

plans to significantly increase its presence in the global gas
market. The country has the fourth-largest natural gas reserves
in the world; however, to date, its presence in the global gas
industry has been limited. This situation may change in the
coming years, as the country has already started to create conditions for a significant increase in gas exports.
New pipelines to offer wider export reach. According to
Turkmenistans Ministry of Oil and Mineral Resources, the country recently completed construction of the 1,000-km East-West
gas pipeline (FIG. 1). The new gas pipeline connects the countrys main gas fields into a single gas transportation system and
significantly increases its export capacity. In addition, it would
become part of the pipeline system for deliveries of Turkmen gas
to Europe. The official launch of the new East-West pipeline in
December 2015 is expected to help Turkmenistan provide additional guarantees for stable exports of its gas to global markets.
According to an official spokesperson of the Turkmen Ministry of Oil and Mineral Resources, the construction of the
East-West pipeline will allow Turkmenistan to pump up to 30
Bcm of gas from the countrys largest gas fields, located in the
eastern part of the country, to states bordering the Caspian Sea
on the west.
According to the original plan, the new pipeline was to become part of the Nabucco project; however, due to its suspension, the Turkmen government decided to complete construction of the pipeline with its own resources.
At present, Caspian states continue development of infrastructure for exports of Caspian gas to Europe. Part of this
involves the expansion of the South Caucasus gas pipeline, as
well as the ongoing construction of the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline (TANAP) and the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).
By 2020, these pipelines will be able to carry large volumes
of gas, primarily from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, with the
aim of further exports to the EU. According to recent statements by Maro efovi, vice president of the European Commission for the European Energy Union, the EU expects to receive Turkmen gas by 2019.
The EU has long planned to diversify its gas supplies and
reduce its energy dependence on Russia. At present, the European Commission is considering Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan as potential partners for the launch of regular gas supplies
to the EU.
According to Mikhail Korchemkin, head of research firm East
European Gas Analysis, Russia has become an unreliable gas
supply partner to the EU in recent years, and the management
of Gazprom has threatened to significantly reduce gas exports

to the EU, in favor of sending them to Asia-Pacific countries.
Prior to 1997, Russia was the only buyer of Turkmen gas,
and supplies took place through the Russian Central AsiaCenter (CAC) pipeline. However, several years later, the Turkmen
government was able to launch the first Turkmen-Iranian pipeline, with annual gas capacity of 8 Bcmy, and, in 2010, another
pipeline to Iran was established with a capacity of 12.5 Bcmy.
In 2009, Turkmenistan started sales of its gas to China, as
a result of the signing of a 30-year contract for 30 Bcmy of gas
through the Central AsiaChina pipeline system. This system,
which takes gas from Kazakhstan to China and also has a leg
into Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan, was completed in 2010.
By 2030, the government of Turkmenistan plans to increase
gas production to 230 Bcm. Further development of the countrys large Galkynysh gas field and planned development of another 30 gas fields, as per statements from Ashirguly Begliev,
chairman of Turkmengaz, will help meet this goal.
According to plans of the Turkmen government, gas production at the Galkynysh field is expected to reach 93 Bcmy by
2016, and total gas exports from the country should reach 180
Bcm by 2018. As part of these targets, Turkmengaz has started
preparations for the expansion of the D section of the TurkmenistanChina pipeline, which will raise that sections total capacity to approximately 30 Bcmy of gas.
Analysts believe that Turkmenistan has a good chance of
implementing these plans, taking into account the countrys
huge gas reserves. According to data from the British consultKazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Shatlyk
Turkmenistan
East-West pipeline route
Caspian
Sea
Ashgabat
Belek
Iran
Afghanistan
FIG. 1. Turkmengazs East-West pipeline route from Shatlyk to Belek.
Gas Processing|JANUARY/FEBRUARY 20169
BOXSCORE CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
FIG. 2. The official launch of the construction of the TAPI pipeline.
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Caspian
Sea
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Tajikistan
Ashgabat
China
Farkhor
Kabul
Afghanistan
Iran
Kandahar
Islamabad
India
Pakistan
New Delhi
FIG. 3. Planned route of the TAPI pipeline.
ing firm Gaffney, Cline and Associates, Turkmenistans total

gas reserves are estimated at 27.4 Tcm.
In 2014, the total volume of natural gas produced in Turkmenistan amounted to more than 76 Bcm, of which 45 Bcm
were exported abroad. China remains the main buyer of Turkmen gas; however, according to Turkmen government plans,
this situation will change in the near future, amid EU attempts
to significantly reduce dependence on Russian gas. In the
meantime, analysts believe that Turkmen gas shipments to Europe will result in tightening market competition, although this
will not be associated with any radical changes in the market.
Turkmenistan is in need of new markets for its gas. In 2015,
Russia imported only 4 Bcm of Turkmen gas, and no information is available on Russias plan to purchase gas from Turkmenistan in 2016.
Turkmenistan has now pinned its hopes on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, which
broke ground on December 13, 2015 (FIG. 2). This pipeline
would bring Turkmen gas to the vast and promising markets of
Pakistan, India and Southeast Asia over the long term (FIG. 3).
However, implementation of these plans may encounter
some difficulties, the most important of which is an ongoing
conflict between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan for the ownership of a number of gas fields on the Caspian shelf. The two
sides continue to discuss the legal status of the Kapaz field,
which is one of the largest gas fields on the Caspian shelf. Azerbaijan has already started development of the field, despite
fierce protests from Turkmenistan.
Planned LNG projects will supply EU. At the same time as
it aspires to boost its traditional natural gas exports, Turkmeni10JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016|GasProcessingNews.com
stan hopes to increase LNG exports abroad, including to EU

countries. These plans include building an LNG terminal at the
Caspian Sea for transport of Turkmen LNG by sea to Lithuania
and other countries.
The possibility of LNG exports from Turkmenistan has been
confirmed by Algirdas Butkeviius, prime minister of Lithuania. The government of Lithuania has already conducted talks
for the project with the Turkmen government. It is possible that
the LNG terminal could be completed by 2018. The supplies
would be sent through the territories of Azerbaijan and Georgia
to the Romanian seaport of Constanta, and then transported by
LNG tankers throughout Europe.
Turkmenistan already operates two LNG terminals, both of
which source gas from the countrys Naip and Bagaja gas fields. In
2009, the country completed construction of the first Turkmen
marine LNG terminal on the coast of the Caspian Sea at the port
of Kiyanly. Its design capacity is 200 metric Mtpy of LNG, with
the possibility of a significant increase over the next several years.
According to the Turkmen governments plans, by 2030, the
volume of LNG production in the country should increase by
up to 3 metric MMt. This increase will be achieved through the
construction of new LNG plants in other parts of the country.
Implementation of these plans will take place as part of the official state program to develop the domestic oil and gas industry
through 2030.
To date, among the major importers of Turkmen LNG are
such countries as Iran, Afghanistan and Japan; however, the geography of supplies should significantly expand during the next
several years, according to the governments vision.
Sergey Pikin, director of the Russian Energy Development
Fund, commented on Turkmenistans energy development
plans: Despite the fact that LNG infrastructure is more expensive than pipelines, one of the main advantages of LNG, compared to traditional gas, is the possibility of its supplies without
any territorial restrictions and limitations. In the case of building necessary infrastructure, Turkmenistan will be able to supply gas to those countries that can offer higher prices for its gas,
and, in particular, the EU states. The Turkmen government is
aware of this and no longer plans to focus on the supplies of traditional gas to China and Russia, as it did in the past.
While simultaneously catering to gas-hungry EU nations,
Turkmenistan aims to create conditions to attract Western investors to produce gas within its territory. To date, Italys eni
has expressed interest in developing Caspian Sea blocks. The
company plans to explore the 19th and 20th blocks of the
Turkmenistan shelf, with the volume of reserves pegged at
more than 500 MMt of oil and 630 Bcm of natural gas. According to sources in the Turkmen government, negotiations are
underway with other Western investors for the development of
additional blocks. GP
EUGENE GERDEN is an international contributing
writer specializing in the global oil refining and
gas industry. He has been published in a number
of prominent industry titles.
EXECUTIVE Q&A VIEWPOINT
CEO forecasts next decade

of LNG industry
KATHLEEN EISBRENNER, Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive, NextDecade LLC
KATHLEEN EISBRENNER is founder, chairman

and chief executive of NextDecade LLC, a
company positioned to create innovative
opportunities in the US and international natural
gas industry. Previously, Ms. Eisbrenner served
as executive vice president for Royal Dutch
Shell, where she was responsible for Shells
global LNG strategy and LNG trading business.
Prior to Shell, Ms. Eisbrenner served as the chief
executive and founder of Excelerate Energy, an
LNG importer and marketer. At present, she is a
member of the US National Petroleum Council
and the American Bureau of Shipping. Ms.
Eisbrenner has also served as a board member
of Chesapeake Energy Corp. She holds a BS
degree in civil engineering from the University
of Notre Dame in Indiana, and resides in Texas.
During the past decade, strong economic growth in the Asia-Pacific regionparticularly China, Japan and
Indiahas stimulated increased energy
demand. In this decade, from 2010
2020, natural gas is gaining on coals market share as a preferred form of energy.
The world is seeking clean, abundant and
economic power sources.
During the next decade, between 2020
and 2030, the US is anticipated to satisfy
its own gas requirements with the emergence of game-changing domestic gas reserves. These supplies will enable the nation to compete with top LNG-exporting
countries, such as Qatar and Australia,
throughout the global gas markets.
Energy companies have proposed a
plethora of new LNG projects to export
gas from the US, to take advantage of
world markets that are eager for low-cost
fuel. Of these jump-starters, NextDecade
is well positioned to create, develop and
operate two significant LNG facilities to
serve various international markets.
GP talks with Kathleen Eisbrenner,
founder, chairman and chief executive of
NextDecade LLC, about the companys
formation, project statuses and envisioned
future in the LNG market.
GP. How was NextDecade formed,
and why?
Eisbrenner. Ive been in the natural gas

business for almost 34 years. About half of
that experience was spent in traditional
natural gas, and the other half in LNG. Ive
worked with both big companies and also
entrepreneurial startups, and Ive enjoyed
both. Before I formed NextDecade, I started a firm called Excelerate Energy, which
has been extraordinarily successful in developing natural gas floating, storage and
regasification units (FSRUs) around the
world, from conception to full operations.
Then, I was recruited by Royal Dutch
Shell to run Shells LNG business from The
Netherlands, which I did for about three

years. Although Shell is a great company
and I learned a lot from the experience, I
was eager to work again at a smaller entity
where I could have a greater impact. The
reason I formed NextDecade was to develop an organization that incorporated the
best practices of large oil companies with
the best practices of the successful entrepreneurial companies. Thats the basis for
our company culture, and its a lot of fun.
GP. What is your outlook
for the current LNG market?
Eisbrenner. Despite what has been occasionally reported, we have found very
robust appetite for incremental LNG consumption on a long-term basis all around
the world. In fact, weve recently signed
tentative, non-binding agreements to deliver about 24 MMtpy of LNG.
GP. Do you believe that the
volatile oil and gas prices will
affect that outlook?
Eisbrenner. Both oil and natural gas

prices are recently at historic low levels.
That impacts the economics of projects
that are based on oil prices, but it also impacts demand from a positive standpoint.
With oil prices so low, the cost of delivering LNG around the world is also quite
reasonable. If anything, we see demand
pushing upward as a result.
GP. How does this affect
your specific projects?
Eisbrenner. Our projects in North

America are based on a Henry Hub index,
or netback. As of early December 2015,
Henry Hub was about $1.80/MMBtu,
which is also a very low level. So, although
commodity prices overall are quite low,
because we are a Henry Hub-based project, our economics have stayed quite robust and interesting for deliveries to Europe, Asia and Latin America.
EXECUTIVE Q&A VIEWPOINT

GP. What effect might low oil
prices have on gas feedstock
for your projects if drillers lay
down rigs in oil developments,
which would subsequently
reduce the amount of produced
associated gas?
Eisbrenner. We are carefully monitoring the industry to better anticipate

what lies ahead in 2016from the combination of low oil and gas prices to the
potential likelihood of the writedown
of reserves for many of the independent oil companies, especially in light of
the past 12 months of low commodity
prices. There might well be a pullback
in production, which would have an impact on pricing.
I would say, though, that its fascinating to dig into shale economics. Although
shale plays are known to have significant
decline rates associated with production,
there is also an almost infinite tail of production associated with the wells that are
drilled horizontally for the production of
oil and gas. I think the aggregation of all
of these tailssome of which could last
as long as 60 years, a significant durationwill support production, even if
there is a pullback in oil drilling.
Yet, if there is a pullback in the production of natural gas as a result of either oil or gas drilling, then prices will
increase. For example, the Eagle Ford
shale play is profitable at between $3.50/
MMBtu and $4/MMBtu, just for dry gas
production, and there is plenty of gas
there. So the question is whether it will
be produced as production gas or associated gas. Well have to see how it plays
out this year.
GP. What is the plan for your
Rio Grande project near the Mexico
border of Brownsville, Texas?
Eisbrenner. In the Rio Grande project, we are permitting for six trains with
a nameplate capacity of 4.5 MMtpy each.
With a full buildout scenario, thats 27
MMtpy. Our initial final investment decision is dependent on the first two of
those six trains with 9 MMtpy. Thats
about 400 Bcfy of feed gas.
Given the changes to the natural gas
infrastructure in the US, that gas can
come from anywhere. Of course, we are
very focused on Eagle Ford and Texas
production, because that makes the most
logical sense. However, due to the amaz-
ing abundance of gas in the Marcellus

and Utica areas in the Northeast, and
the increasing trend of reversing pipeline
flows from former supply areas, its an
amazing phenomenon.
At this point in time, we are not targeting any one specific area for feed gas.
Rather, we are prepared to take advantage
of the flexibility of the US gas grid, which
has the capability to deliver from multiple
points. We expect the Rio Grande project
to be completed by year-end 2020.
GP. Do you have a pipeline project
associated with that?
Eisbrenner. Yes. The Rio Bravo

Pipeline that we are building to supply
that gas will be 140 mi long and will run
from the Agua Dolce market hub area to
our site near Brownsville, Texas. It will
interconnect with up to nine interstate
and intrastate pipelines. That will create
the liquidity for us to be able to pick and
choose the most economical gas supply.
GP. What do you plan for your
Pelican Island project near
Galveston, Texas?
Eisbrenner. This is a smaller project.

We plan to start with two trains at Pelican Island of 4.5 MMtpy each. For Pelican, our feed gas pipeline will begin at
Katy, Texas. From there, we can connect
with at least 10 interstate and intrastate
pipelines. With both of these projects,
we are looking to build in the flexibility
to source gas from any production basin.
The timeline for this one will follow Rio
Grande, depending on market demand.
We expect this to begin 1224 months
after Rio Grande.
GP. Do you have target markets
lined up for the LNG exports?
Eisbrenner. At this point, we havent

announced any firm commitments, but
we have nine specific contracts out for
review among seven various countries,
so its quite diverse. Regardless of where
we eventually end up exporting to, additional LNG supply will benefit the US
and global economies significantly.
GP. Since your Brownsville project
will be so close to the border,
do you foresee Mexico as a
marketer or a supplier?
Eisbrenner. We are definitely looking at that. Our Rio Grande permit,
which is currently under consideration

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, contemplates two 42-in. gas
pipelines in parallel easements from
Agua Dolce down to Brownsville. That
can accommodate a heck of a lot of gas.
In fact, it would satisfy our current buildout plan of 27 MMtpy.
We are watching what is happening
with Mexico from both perspectives. We
could have the opportunity to pipe gas
to Mexico, and, with the newly proposed
drilling programs there, we see the potential for Mexico to start producing supply gas. Mexico could need additional
imports, but it might also become an exporter of gas or, more specifically, LNG.
A lot of people dont realize that the
same geology of the Eagle Ford is also
there, across the border. Now that the
economic incentives are in place, and
Mexico has recently gained the constitutional ability to solicit interest in drilling
in Mexico, they could be producing as
much as the Eagle Ford, dependent on
commodity prices.
NextDecade was created and is positioned to be flexible within the entire
gas supply-to-market chain, and we find
that exciting. Were looking forward
to working through our projects, from
greenfield to LNG deliveries, over the
next few years.
GP. Where do you see NextDecade
in five years?
Eisbrenner. In 2010, a little more

than five years ago, I founded NextDecade with the goal of becoming the
leader of the second wave of LNG from
the US. Five years from now, I believe we
will have achieved that goal.
NextDecade will have shipped its first
cargoes from Rio Grande LNG and we
will be in the process of getting ready to
bring additional projects online. While
there may still be a lot to do to get there,
I am confident that we can accomplish
this through our commitment to excellent customer service, the communities
in which we operate, and most importantly to the safety and reliability of our
projects, supported by our industryleading partners.
Beyond this, I expect several other
exciting projects to be progressing, both
in the US and around the world. I personally cannot wait to see where the next
decade will take us. GP
SPECIAL REPORT: PIPELINES,

TERMINALS AND STORAGE
Meet Subpart W emissions compliance

with automated data integration
H. QIN, Wood Group Mustang, Houston, Texas
On October 30, 2009, the US Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) published the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (referred to as 40 CFR Part 98), which requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) data and other relevant information from large sources and suppliers in the US.
To meet this compliance requirement, reporters/business
owners must report true, accurate and complete GHG emissions to the best of their knowledge (according to GHG CFR
98.4 authorization and responsibilities of the designated representative). Calculation methodology is specified in the rule,
which makes the quality of the input data critical in ensuring the
ultimate reporting quality.
This GHG reporting rule requires an unprecedented amount
of data input from oil and natural gas producers. The environmental groups in each organization charged with collecting,
calculating and reporting the emissions data are overwhelmed
by the task. As an example of volume collected, one ongoing
project has estimated 1.2 MM data points for a reporting entity
with approximately 9,000 well sites, averaging about 130 data
elements per well site. The data required for the GHG natural
gas production has been estimated to be approximately two orders of magnitude more than any previous EPA required report.
According to recent EPA public GHG emissions data, there
are more than 500 onshore facilities in the US conducting production, processing, transmission and distribution activities.
A facility can contain hundreds or thousands of well pads and
their equipment in a single hydrocarbon basin (per 40 CFR
98.238). The onshore segment is the largest contributor of
facilities, with the necessary reporting criteria of emissions
greater than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e). Among the prominent components of the GHG reporting program is Subpart W, dealing with the CO2-equivalent
emissions from the producing wellhead through transmission,
storage and distribution mains.
The initial Subpart W reporting excluded gas gathering lines
and boosting stations prior to the gas processing phase. These
systems move natural gas from the well to either larger gathering pipeline systems or to natural gas processing facilities. The
EPA plans to issue amended rules that are due to take effect by
January 1, 2016 for calculating, monitoring and reporting emissions for these additional sources, with 2017 as the first reporting data year.
More than just volume. More challenging than the sheer volume of data is the fact that much of the information is normally
tracked by separate functional groups for different purposes.

Data sources include:
Equipment inventory data, such as information on the
number of wells and their associated equipment (e.g.,
engines, compressors and separators) and their attributes
(e.g., horsepower)
Production data, such as gas and condensate production
by well
Operational and activity data, including all well
operating-related information, such as well operating
hours, engine run hours, well venting for liquids
unloading, gas pressure and gas analysis by well
Other non-system data, including well flowback events
with hydraulic fracture, workover activities without
hydraulic fracture, horizon and formation information, etc.
Most of these data are hosted in different formats and
systems. In addition, these data do not share the same terminology due to their intended functionalities. Environmental
groups within the organization must resolve how to make different data sets talk in a common language. Prior to initiation
of the GHG reporting rule, there had not been a pressing need
to thread the data to make a united and congruent delineation
about assets at the well level.
Rule section 98.237 states that records must be retained.
Among the required records is one explaining how company
records, engineering estimation or best available information
are used to calculate each applicable parameter under this
subpart. This requirement stipulates that business owners/
reporters must provide a consistent and systemic approach to
make assumptions when data discrepancies or gaps exist. This
specifically addresses the importance of data quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) in collection, integration
and reporting.
How to comply. To comply with EPA regulations, particularly
with Subpart W, natural gas producers have turned to a centralized data warehouse. This solution automates data collection,
integration and quality assurance. It first requires integration
of available data from multiple function groups with different
terms and reporting formats. Once accomplished, it is necessary to find a unique identifier to make data from multiple systems communicate in a common language.
According to the case study implemented for an ongoing
project of a major producer, 80% of the labor time has been
spent on data collection, integration and data QA/QC.
SPECIAL REPORT: PIPELINES, TERMINALS AND STORAGE

the structure where all data QA/QC and
emissions calculations can be performed
on the common data platform. These actions lay the foundation for the subsequent
1. Data
process of data QA.
collection
Data integration involves four steps. The
GHG
common global
80%
first
step assesses which data fields need to
data model
Reduction in
be integrated, and identifies the primary
labor hours due
fields. This requires mastery of the rule
to automation
2b. Find
2c. Identify
2. Data
2a. Data
2d.
Aggregate
requirements and detailed analysis of availcommon
relationships
integration
assessment
and integrate
identifier
and hierarchy
able data, their applicable ranges and their
limitations. Some data may be the direct input of the emissions calculation, and some
3d.
Take
3e.
Review
3a. Scan data
3b. Evaluate
conservative
before and after
may be indirect input data. The second step
using
logic
materiality
3. Data
action
comparison
quality
finds the common identifier that connects
Major
assurance
data pieces from different systems. The
3f. Send data
3c. Request
3g. Export
owners issue
common identifier could be embedded in
responsible
cleansed data
reports with
data owners
for emissions
a data field or even in additional mapping,
continuous data
to fix data
calculation
for improvement
but this is the most essential step.
The third step recognizes hierarchical or
non-hierarchical
relationships between data
4. Report
4a. Calculate
4b. File report
points.
For
example,
equipment covered by
filing and
End
emissions
in eGGRT
feedback
the reporting data requirements, such as
pneumatic pumps, engines, compressors,
FIG. 1. Workflow diagram of GHG reporting preparation.
etc., can be mapped hierarchically to the
well head at the well site, while the enginedriven compressor to its engine is a typical horizontal, or non-hiNon-system
Equipment
Production
Operational
data
inventory
data
and activity data
erarchical, relationship. Once the relationship is established, the
data aggregation and integration become easy. The fourth and
final step is the actual process of data aggregation of all annual
gas production, activity and equipment organized by each well.
GHG
Quality assurance (data QA/QC). The quality assurance
common global
process is perhaps the most significant action, tying directly
data model
back to the CFR 98.4 mandate. It ensures that the reporter
meets the compliance requirement that the report is true, acWellhead
curate and complete. This process can be the largest and most
critical time investment of all the processes in preparing the report when the following criteria are met:
Controller
Separator Compressor Engine
.....
Two or more disparate data systems are involved and were
not designed for environmental reporting
Two or more geographic assets are involved, with more
than 1,000 wells in total to report
There is no standard guideline pertaining to the data
FIG. 2. Equipment relationship within the GHG data model.
tracking in either system
Rigorous data entry is lacking in either data system.
FIG. 1 shows a workflow for GHG reporting preparation. It
All of these factors lead to incomplete, inconsistent and disalso demonstrates the four-stage process when data collection,
crepant information.
data integration and data QA/QC are automated.
The highest level of QA/QC requires a unique skill set.
Data collection. The main objective of this process stage
Combining upstream engineering knowledge and data analysis
is to identify sources that could provide data required by the
skills in the data validation of an ongoing project has proven to
GHG reporting rule. It is not uncommon for these data sources
be a high-yield exercise. Leveraging what data has been inteto be from completely disparate systems. However, the focus at
grated from previous processes, a series of business logics was
this step is to make sure data from these systems can be bridged
developed to perform data analyses and data validation. These
into a centralized database. In the example shown in Level 1 of
logics are compiled in the format of database scripts within the
the diagram, it is labeled GHG common data model for furcommon data model to perform several functions:
ther aggregation and integration. More detailed assessment of
Check individual system for duplicates, missing key
which data fields are necessary to integrate will be conducted in
information or discrepancies within its own dataset
the next stage, data integration.
Cross-check well list between equipment inventory,
Data integration. The role of data integration is to select
activity and production data systems
all relevant parameters/information and rearrange them into
Start
Equipment
inventory
Production
data
Operational
and activity data
Non-system
data
www.ConstructionBoxscore.com
Logon for a
FREE ONLINE
DEMO!
,
G
IN
IN
F
E
R
L
A
B
O
L
G
E
H
T
R
O
F
E
MARKET INTELLIGENC
S
IE
R
T
S
U
D
IN
G
N
/L
G
IN
S
S
E
C
O
R
P
S
A
G
D
N
A
L
A
IC
M
E
H
C
O
R
T
E
P
Hydrocarbon Processings Construction Boxscore Database,
the most reliable source to track active construction projects in the refining, petrochemical, gas processing,
LNG and solids industries throughout the world, now reaches further and is more powerful than ever before!
Welcome to the NEW

ase
Construction Boxscore Datab
Project details on thousands of active projects and global

construction contracts, including contact information for
key personnel
Advanced search that filters the listings by project type,
scope, region, investment and more
Daily updates for new and newly updated projects
The weekly Boxscore Update e-newsletter with new listings
and trends analysis
For more information, contact:

Norman Adams at Norman.Adams@GulfPub.com
or +1 (713) 525-4626
JNette Davis-Nichols at Jnette.Davis-Nichols@GulfPub.com
or +1 (713) 520-4426

Cross-check well and equipment operating status
between equipment inventory, activity and production
data systems
Cross-check equipment count based on their
relationships with one another.
In the project mentioned earlier, environmental personnel
can easily perform data QA/QC and generate a validated dataset that is ready for GHG emission calculation, along with a
feedback report of violations, to send to data owners.
Report filing and feedback. The final stage uses the output
from the previous QA/QC process, submits the report to the
EPA after emissions calculation, and sends the data issue report
to data owners for review and correction. This process takes the
remaining 20% effort of the full reporting preparation.
The project mentioned earlier focused on automating the
80% effort. The efficiency that automation provides to the environmental personnel is significant. Processes that once required
six weeks of labor have dropped to one or two hours of labor for
this large gas producer with 1.2 MM data points. In addition,
it provides a comprehensive and transparent methodology to
answer the requirement of rule section CFR 98.237 that records must be kept to explain how best available information or
engineering estimates are used to calculate emissions.
Benefits extend beyond the GHG reporting rule for Subpart
W production. This applies to the imminent Subpart W for gas
gathering. More importantly, with the feedback reports of data
issues to data owners, it creates a closed loop to drive for more
consistent and accurate data for environmental reporting and

for other business-related analysis. The long-term benefits deserve to be noted.
Recommendations. The EPA has continued to increase its
emissions data requirements and number of regulations. Additionally, they are scrutinizing submitted data for consistency,
with a focus on validation. As noted in the case of a major US producer, the solution involved the automation of data collection.
Quality assurance is a key component of the solution, coupling a skill set of upstream engineering knowledge with a modular database system design, systems integration and data analysis expertise. The systematic approach and consistent QA/QC
methodology aligns data with EPA reporting requirements,
helping ensure regulatory requirements.
The ultimate solution dramatically reduces labor time and
increases efficiency. Data is reusable for other federal and state
agencies, avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort. Additionally, the data accuracy allows the environmental staff to further
analyze operating data for maximizing production while minimizing air emissions. GP
HONG QIN has more than 15 years of experience in the software and professional
services industry. She has held leadership roles in multiple air emissions projects,
including recent work focused on developing advanced GHG solutions. Ms. Qin
is a civil engineering graduate of the Harbin Institute of Technology in China and
holds a masters degree in industrial engineering from the University of Houston in
Texas. She is a certified PMP member of the Project Management Institute.
1011 May 2016
Dusit Thani Lakeview - Cairo

EMGasConference.com
Save the Date

The fourth annual Eastern Mediterranean Gas Conference (EMGC) takes place in Cairo
on 1011 May 2016. The conference provides attendees with the latest information
on the region's developing natural gas industry, and the ability to gain entry to new
regional markets and seek potential new business partners.
Sessions will include:
The state of the Eastern MediterraneanLicensing rounds and tenders
The Eastern Mediterraneans resource potential
Resource development updates
Accelerated developmentPros and cons
Infrastructure
Investment and monetization
Hydrocarbons and public policyUnderstanding the regulatory environments effect
on the regions resources
The impact and future of the new energy resource on the Global Market
The Eastern Mediterranean as a gas hub
For agenda updates stay tuned to EMGasConference.com
Questions about speaking/sponsoring/exhibiting: Contact Melissa Smith,
Events Director at +1 (713) 520-4475 or Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com
SPECIAL REPORT: PIPELINES,

TERMINALS AND STORAGE
Minimize evaporation losses by calculating

boiloff gas in LPG storage tanks
S. SHIVA SHAMEKHI and N. ASHOURI, Faradast Energy Falat Co., Tehran, Iran
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is stored and transported

in tanks as a cryogenic liquid, at a temperature below its boiling point near atmospheric pressure. Due to heat entering the
cryogenic tank during storage and transportation, a portion of
the LPG continuously evaporates, creating a gas called boiloff
gas (BOG). BOG causes evaporation losses in the LPG supply
chain over time.
It is imperative to minimize vaporization and displacement
losses due to the economic and safety problems that can result
from such losses. The amount of BOG depends on the design
and operating conditions of LPG plants. In the LPG supply
chain, BOG can be reliquefied or sent to the flare and burned.
The evaluation of BOG in a storage tank in all operating scenarios is important for the correct selection and design of a BOG
compressor.
Different sources exist for the generation of BOG. These
sources include heat leaks from ambient air around the storage
tank, heat ingress due to the dissipation of pumping power inside the tanks, heat leaks from pipelines, flash vapor generated
by liquid rundown and displaced vapor from the tank due to
liquid filling (known as the piston effect).
In this study, boundary conditions and parameters have
been implemented to accurately estimate the amount of BOG
that evaporates at the C3 and C4 refrigeration and loading facilities at the Bandar Abbas gas condensate refinery in Iran.
Study outline. The produced propane and butane from propane/butane splitter units are cooled down in the propane/
butane refrigeration unit via open-cycle refrigeration, and then
run down to the associated refrigerated tanks and stored at atmospheric pressure before being exported to overseas markets
via propane/butane carrier ships.
As shown in FIG. 1, butane rundown is subcooled at the required temperature level in two exchangers in series, both utilizing propane. The chilled butane is then sent to the storage tanks.
Propane is divided into two streams. One stream flows to the
first exchanger and is flashed, and the other stream is sent to the
high-pressure C3 suction drums and then flashed in the second
exchanger. Liquid propane from the suction drum is utilized in
the second exchanger, and relevant flashed vapor is sent to medium-pressure C3 suction drums and then to the low-pressure
C3 suction drums.
Liquid propane flashes to lower pressure levels in mediumand low-pressure suction drums before being pumped to refrigerated storage tanks. Propane vapors result from the rundown
product pressure reduction, and flashes at the different pressure

levels are compressed in two parallel, three-stage centrifugal
compressors, before being condensed in a C3 air cooler and a C3
compressor condenser. Liquid propane is collected in a C3 accumulator and flashed again to the high-pressure suction drum
to restart the cycle.
Boiloff vapors from propane tanks are sent to the low-pressure suction drums and then to the first compressor stage. No
vapors develop from butane tanks due to the subcooling of the
stored liquid product.
Two tanks each are used for C3 and C4 storage. Since the boiloff calculation method can be used for both types of storage tanks,
calculations are described for only one of the C3 storage tanks.
Operating modes. To load propane and butane to the ship, it
is necessary to cool down the pipelines at the lowest possible
temperature, with the aim of reducing BOG production during
the entrance to the ship compartments. Three steps are needed: preloading, loading and holding. Pre-loading includes two
partsthe initial phase and the final phaseto achieve cooling of the pipeline with low flowrates and appropriate pipeline
temperature, respectively.
As a general rule, each tank follows three steps during normal operation:
Filling mode: The tank receives the product from the
process unit at rundown flowrates. During the filling
mode, it is necessary to prepare the tank for ship
loading; in project documentation, this operation
is called preloading.
Emptying mode: When the ship is ready to receive
the products (i.e., when the pipeline is at proper
temperature, parcels are at proper temperature,
loading arms are connected, etc.), then it is possible
to transfer the product from tank to ship. This
operation is called loading.1
Holding mode: The tank is full of product and ready
for ship loading, but the ship has not yet arrived or is
not ready for loading. This operation is called holding.
To load propane to the ship, it is necessary to cool down
the two pipelines at the lowest possible temperature, with the
aim of reducing BOG production when products enter the
ship compartments. Therefore, some days before the carrier
ship arrives, circulation from the storage tank to the jetty and
back to the tank is started. This process is applied when the
pipelines are in equilibrium with the external temperature.

4. Vapor displacement due to liquid inlet in the tank
5. Rapid variation of barometric pressure.
Total BOG flowrate can be calculated with Eq. 1:
The preloading mode is the most critical operating mode

from the point of view of BOG production, due to the great
quantity of hot fluid trapped in the pipeline. For this reason,
it is necessary to avoid a too-rapid displacement of the fluid to
prevent abnormal overdesign of the BOG compressor.
One of the major sources of boiloff production in liquefied gas handling is rollover, which can result in a boiloff rate
several times greater than normal, causing rapid over pressurization while venting a considerable quantity of vapors to atmosphere. When the liquid layer adjacent to a liquid surface
becomes denser than the layers beneath due to boiloff of lighter fractions from the tank, stratification develops and causes
rollover due to rapid mixing as a result of density inversion.
An effective solution is the mixing of the liquid in the tanks.
For this purpose, two circulating pumps are placed inside the
tank: one is always circulating the liquid and the other is used
for cooling the transfer line.
BOGTotal = BOGTank + BOGTransferLine + BOGLoadingSystem +

BOGElectricalMotor + BOGATM + BOGCirculationSystem +
(1)
BOGVaporDisplacement + BOGCompensationEffect
Note: The contribution of BOG due to rapid atmospheric
pressure variation is not considered, and is negligible when
compared to the other contributions. Also, the compensation
effect due to outflow of liquid from the tank is not considered.
BOG is calculated utilizing simulation software. The thermophysical properties of propane are collected in TABLE 1. Required information for the calculation of BOG is presented in
TABLE 2. Calculations for the contribution to BOG by heat absorbed in tanks are shown in Eqs. 2 and 3.
Calculation methods. BOG evaluation in all operating scenarios of the tank is important for the correct definition of the
flowrates to the BOG compressors.
BOG is produced under the following conditions:
1. Heat absorbed from ambient air by refrigerated storage
tanks
2. Heat absorbed from ambient air by lines
(rundown lines, pipelines)
3. Heat produced by the operation of pumps
(loading, circulation, rundown)
BOG =
K V 0.1%
=
24
VT =
D2
H=
4
31
581.2
24
31
4
21,737
28.8
= 526.4
Kg
h
= 21,737
(2)
(3)
Heat ingress by storage tank is equal in the three cases of

holding, preloading and loading. Equations for the contribution
to BOG by the transfer system are shown in Eqs. 49.
C4 Loading pipeline
C4 From tank
C4 Return pipeline
C4 From jetty
Quench makeup supply line

Quench makeup return line
T quench in
P quench in
BOG
Q C3
return
line
C3 Return pipeline
Ambient
Q transfer line
C3 Transfer T Fluid in
P Fluid in
line
C3 Air cooler/
compressor
C4 Return
line
C3 Loading pipeline
Q C3 loading line
Ambient
C3 BOG
compressor
Transfer
fluid in
HP
LP
Q Tank
Storage
tank
C4 From bl.
MP C3 /C4
exchanger
HP
HP C3
Suction
drum
BOG
compressor
MP
MP
MP C3
Suction
drum
C4 To storage
tank
C3 From bl.
FIG. 1. Propane refrigeration BOG production.
LP
T Fluid suction
P Fluid suction
Quench
Return
makeup
pipeline
fluid in
fluid in
Vapor displacement
due to pumping in
T Tank
Compensation effect
due to pumping in
C3 Storage tank
LP C3
Suction
drum
T Fluid suction
P Fluid suction
Transfer
pump
T loading
P loading
T Circ. out
P Circ. out
Ambient
C3 Quench C3 Loading Q tank

pump
pump
C4 From jetty
C3 From jetty
BOG =
(4)
WTransfer
Transfer line
Component
H Transfer pump H Transfer line

=
Fluid
P
liq.
H Transfer pump = 100
P=
(6)
(7)
(8)
1.05
Latent heat
(10)
QL =
1
h0r0
Nu =
(11)
(12)
Ts)
(T
h0D
= 0.3
Kf
(13)
1
2 4
3
Re
282,000
5
8
(14)
Calculations for the contribution to BOG by the circulation

system are shown in Eqs. 1520.
BOG =
=
Circulation
WCirculation
(15)
H Circulation pump H Circulation line

Fluid
H Circulation pump = 100
43
Density, kg/m
581.5
0.086
TABLE 2. Required information for boiloff rate calculation

Value
Propane
Density, kg/m
581.5
Storage tank operation pressure, barg
0.06
Storage tank height, m
28.8
Storage tank diameter, m
31
Inlet of ship operating pressure, barg
2.5
External heat from sun exposure, %
0.1
Ambient temperature, C
42/47
Rundown pressure, barg
0.06
Rundown temperature, C
42
Latent heat, kj/kg
398
Vapor pressure, barg
13.31
Wind velocity, m/s
13.5
Air thermal conductivity, W/mk
0.027
Air viscosity, kg/m/s
1.9 105
1,005
Insulation thickness for loading line, mm
89
Insulation thickness for return line, mm
102
Insulation thermal conductivity
1
Re 0.5 Pr 3
0.4
Pr
Flowrate, m /h
Specific heat of ambient air, J/kg/K
Ti
r0
ln ri
Kins
0.62
17
Major consumption
D
air
air
2 l
40
Pressure, barg
(9)
Cpair air 1005 1.9 10 5

Pr =
=
= 0.71
Kf
0.027
U
Temperature, C
Viscosity, cp
where:
Q Normal = 21.3 m3/h
Q Max = 67.5 m3/h
Head = 88.2 m
= 0.68 (Shaft 0.75 Motor 0.9)
P = SG H
The H transfer line is calculated by HYSYS.
BOG pertaining to lines (circulation, loading and transfer
line) can be calculated manually using Eqs. 1014.2
Re =
5.03 1
= 1.28
581 0.68
BOG of line = 3.6 QL
Propane
Liquid fraction
H 0.581 88.2
SG
=
= 5.03 bar
10.2
10.2
Streams
(5)
Kp Ap
WTransfer
H Transfer line = 3.6
TABLE 1. Physical properties of C3 and C4 as refrigeration feed
P
liq.
0.038
Length of loading line from tank to jetty, km
23
Diameter of loading line from tank to jetty, in.
20
Length of circulation line from jetty to tank, km
23
Diameter of circulation line from jetty to tank, in.
20
H Circulation line = 3.6

3.6
Kp Ap
r line =
WCirculation
Kp Ap
WTransfer
H
SG
0.581 339
=19.3 bar
10.2
(19)
19.3
581
(20)
(16)
P =
(17)
10.2
(18)
1
= 5.3
0.68
TABLE 3. Results of BOG calculation during operating modes

Bog
Electrical motor
Tank
Transfer
line
Circulation
system
Loading
system
Loading pump
Circulation pump
Vapor
displacement
Initial phase
525.9
289.4
1,599.75
52,734.4
498
333.9
Final phase
525.9
213.6
1,571.15
30,986.8
869.1
332
222.5
Loading
525.9
1,559.9
142.7
869.1
332
109
Holding
525.9
141.1
1,506.55
332
107.6
Mode
Preloading
where:
Q Normal = 225 m3/h
Head = 339 m
= 0.63 (Shaft 0.7 Motor 0.9)
Calculations for the contribution to BOG by the loading system are shown in Eqs. 2126.
BOG =
=
Loading
WLoading
(21)
H Loading pump H Loading line

Fluid
P
liq.
H Loading pump = 100

H Loading line = 3.6
P =
Kp Ap
WLoading
(22)
(23)
(24)
H
SG
0.581 365.5
=
= 21 bar
10.2
10.2
(25)
21
1
= 5.02
581 0.68
(26)
where:
Q Loading = 1,250 m3/h
Head = 365.5 m
= 0.72 (Shaft 0.8 Motor 0.9)
Calculations for the contribution to BOG by electric motors
are shown in Eqs. 2728.
Q
BOG = Electrical motor
(27)
Fluid
1
Q Electrical motor = 3,600 Power 1
(28)

where:
Power of loading pump = 904.3 kw
Power of circulation pump = 172.7 kw.
The calculation for the contribution to BOG by vapor displacement is shown in Eq. 29.
BOGVAP = Rundown Vap
(29)
Rundown flowrate definitions include:

The normal flowrate is 21.3 m3/h on the transfer pump
when the system is in holding mode
The maximum pump flowrate is 67.5 m3/h for the

transfer pump when the system is in preloading mode
(initial phase)
is determined by the simulator and is derived from
flashing before entrance to the storage tanks.
The results for the different operating modes experienced
by storage tanks are shown in TABLE 3.
Takeaway. The calculations described represent a simple
approach for engineers to estimate produced BOG ratio in
cryogenic systems for LPG and LNG. The BOG ratio can be
calculated manually or with the use of a process simulator. GP
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author thanks the board of directors and the process division of Faradast
Energy Falat Co., the general contractor of Bandar Abbas Gas condensation refinery,
for its support.
W
Kp
Ap
H
Kt
Vt
Kf
Kins
NOMENCLATURE
Latent heat
Vapor fraction
Pump shaft efficiency
Mass flow
Average heat flux through the pipe, W/m2
Piping external surface area, including insulation, m2
Enthalpy
Vaporization coefficient, considered equal to 0.001 for C3/C4
Geometrical volume of tank, m3
Density
Thermal conductivity of ambient air, W/km
Thermal conductivity of insulation, W/km
LITERATURE CITED
Chen, C. C., Fine-tune refrigerated LPG loading line operation, Hydrocarbon
Processing, August 2005.
2
Wordu, A. A. and B. Peterside, Estimation of boiloff gas from refrigerated vessels
in liquefied natural gas plant, International Journal of Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2013.
3
Adom, E., et al. Modelling of boiloff gas in LNG tanks: A case study, International
Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2010, pp. 292296.
1
S. SHIVA SHAMEKHI is a process engineer in the process

engineering department of Faradast Energy Falat Co. She is
working on a mega-size project for a gas condensation refinery
in Tehran, Iran. She holds BSc and MSc degrees from Amirkabir
University of Technology in Iran. Her areas of specialization
include basic design of refrigeration plants and detailed
design of gas and petrochemical plants. She can be reached
at S.Shamekhi@fefalat.com or s.shamekhi@gmail.com.
N. ASHOURI is the process lead engineer in the process
engineering department of Faradast Energy Falat Co. He is
working on a mega-size project for the Bandar Abbas gas
condensate refinery in Iran. He has 16 years of experience
in the design of oil and gas refineries. Mr. Ashouri holds an
MSC degree in process engineering from the Iran University
of Technology. He can be reached at N.Ashouri@fefalat.com.
PLANT DESIGN
Efficiently design and operate

vertical gas/liquid separators
P. DIWAKAR and J. VALAPPIL, Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals Inc., Houston, Texas
Gas/liquid separators, or knockout drums, are used to eliminate liquid droplets from incoming multiphase flows and prevent
liquid carryover to downstream compressors and rotating equipment. Liquid in any quantity is a safety concern, since droplets
may cause erosion damage in blades and corrosion in other
downstream equipment, especially in the presence of water.
The mechanisms governing the separation of liquids and solids from gas include gravity, inertia, shear and turbulence. Most
separators use a combination of these mechanisms. The most
important principles in a liquid-gas separator are to ensure that:
1. Smaller droplets are not formed due to droplet shearing
or impingement, which would make it more difficult
for a mist-eliminator device to coalesce and separate it
from the gas
2. The velocity of the gas carrying the droplets and
particulates is low enough as it approaches the misteliminator device, as governed by the K factor
3. The superficial velocity is uniform over the entire area
of the mist-eliminator device, with the peak velocity not
more than 10% above the mean velocity.
The importance of the removal of liquids, particulates and
heavies is emphasized by the number of separation stages required before the feed gas reaches a compressor in the process
diagram shown in FIG. 1.
The dryer inlet filter separator may take a higher liquid load
and separate liquids of the order of 10 and higher. A filter coalescer as the next stage is capable of separating droplets in the
submicron range. Dehydrators made of beds of semi-permeable
absorbent can remove almost all liquid hydrocarbons or water.
The sizing of each of the components of a knockout drum is
not trivial, and advanced simulation tools must be used to ensure that the device operates as designed. In this article, design
guidelines for different separator sectionsstarting with the
upstream pipingare discussed. Validation and post-processing figures come from computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
combined with 1D calculations and empirical correlations.
Inlet and upstream piping requirements. FIGS. 2 and 3
show examples of liquid/gas separators. The multiphase flow,
which consists of gas and liquid, such as water and hydrocarbon from upstream, enters the vessel through the inlet nozzle.
The upstream flow regime is typically governed by the incoming mass flowrate; piping configuration such as bends, elbows,
vertical or horizontal pipe; mass or volume fraction of liquid or
solid in gas; and inlet momentum.
Taitel-Dukler flow maps for horizontal piping, and Hewitt

and Roberts flow for vertical pipes, may be used to determine
the flow regime of the incoming flow. Inlet piping should be
sized so that the multiphase flow is in the stratified wavy regime
to minimize the amount of dispersed liquid in the gas flow, and
to separate the bulk of the liquid entering the knockout drum.
The mist fraction of liquid increases while the maximum droplet size decreases. The increase can be quite substantial if the
flow regime moves into the annular-dispersed phase.
FIG. 1. Process schematic showing several liquid separation stages.
Gas exhaust
Gas/liquid in
Mist eliminator
Anti-climb ring
V-type diffuser
HHLL
FIG. 2. Dryer inlet separator and filter coalescers.
PLANT DESIGN
FIG. 3. Vertical and horizontal filter coalescers.

10
1.0E+04
Annular-dispersed
liquid
Bubble
1
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
Slug (intermittent)
Stratified wavy
0.01
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E03
0.1
T or F
Case 1
Stratified smooth
1.0E02
1.0E01
1.0E+
00
1.0E+
01
1.0E+
02
1.0E+
03
0.001
1.0E+
04
FIG. 4. Taitel and Dukler maps for two-phase flow regime and various flow regimes in vessel and piping.
FIG. 5. Uneven incoming flow due to bends.
The sizing requirements are governed by the kinetic energy,

or the inlet momentum. The higher the energy of the gas flow,
the higher the velocity and the higher the tendency for larger
droplets to be carried against gravity toward the demisting device. For vane-type inlet devices, approximately 6,000 kg/ms2
are allowed, since the velocities are lowered and distributed as
the flow passes through the vanes. For other inlet devices that
may induce shear and shatter droplets, the momentum should
be approximately 1,500 kg/ms2.
Bends and elbows in the upstream piping play a significant
role in droplet shattering due to the impingement creating
smaller droplets that are more difficult to separate, since they
are easily carried by the gas stream. Further centrifugal forces
(due to flow turning at right angles) and swirl (due to rotational momentum) may force liquid to one side of the vessel, placing an uneven distribution of liquid into the vessel and going
up to the demisting device.
These forces can produce localized flooding, which leads
to larger liquid carryover at the outlet of the knockout drums.
The maldistribution in the flow field into the vessel is shown
in FIGS. 5 and 6. This situation may also lead to more liquid
stripped from the liquid-free surface if liquid is present in the
vessel. A diameter of at least 10 in. to 15 in. of straight piping
upstream is recommended for the flow to fully develop on approaching the vessel. Anti-swirl devices and turning vanes may
be placed upstream to even out the flow entering the vessel.
PLANT DESIGN
Inlet diffuser device selection. Inlet devices are equally important in determining the amount of liquid and droplet size
carried to the demisting device. Some of the most common
types of inlet devices are shown in FIG. 7. The main function of
the inlet device is to improve the separation of bulk liquid from
the gas and decrease the load on the demister. A properly sized
inlet device should reduce the feed gas momentum and ensure
a uniform distribution at the mist eliminator entry, as well as
eliminate local overloading or flooding.
Inlet conditions are determined according to properties of
the incoming media:
Physical properties of gas, such as density and viscosity,
determined by operating pressure and gas composition
Liquid-phase properties, including viscosity, density
and surface tension
Droplet-size distribution of the liquid phase
Gas-to-liquid ratio.
The requirements of the separation operation are determined according to:
The separation efficiency related to mist, slug, solid, etc.
Turndown ratio
Allowable pressure drop
Sizing constraints.
Other than these slotted T-type distributors, tangential inlet,
cyclone type, dual vanes and multi-vanes are used. In general,
the inverted half-pipe, sparger or V-shaped distributors are not
recommended, mainly due to liquid re-entrainment concerns.
Waves formed due to gas impingement on the free surface
may lead to smaller droplet formation, and these droplets may
be stripped from the waves and carried toward the mist eliminator. Flooding is a condition where the mist eliminator is
choked with liquid and leads to higher-pressure droplets and
large carryover of liquid at the outlet.
The Hinze1 criteria is used to determine the maximum
stable droplet size and whether shearing at the inlet device
will produce small droplets that will pose more challenge to
demisting operations, as shown in Eq. 1:
3
5
Dmax = 0.725 c 5

through a force balance equating capillary pressure in the

droplet to the dynamic pressure, as shown in Eq. 2:
FIG. 6. Swirling flow due to elbows in upstream piping.
(1)
where:
c = Gas density (continuous phase)
= Surface tension between liquid and gas
= Turbulent dissipation rate obtained from a CFD
FIG. 7. Common types of inlet devices.
calculation using standard
turbulence models,
as shown in FIG. 8.
The calculation of a relatively larger
droplet size will show that shearing of
droplets at the inlet device is not at a level
to create smaller droplets that will impart
an extra load on the demisting device.
The smallest droplets or bubbles that
can be created by dynamic forces in a
shear flow are equally important to determine the level of liquid entrainment
into the separator. The Weber number criteria by Kouba2 may be used for
this purpose. These criteria are derived FIG. 8. Turbulent dissipation rate obtained from a CFD calculation using standard turbulence models.
PLANT DESIGN
V 2 D
Wemin = c c min = 8
g
(2)
Water droplet flow, kg/s
0.040
HC droplet
flow
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.000
Weight fraction less

than droplet size
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512

Droplet size (microns) log scale
512, 1.00
128, 0.88 256, 0.96
0.030
0.020
64, 0.76
32, 0.60
HC droplet
fraction
16, 0.40
8, 0.24 4, 0.12
2, 0.04
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Droplet size, microns
Water
droplet
0.010
0.000
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Weight fraction less

than droplet size
HC droplet flow, kg/s
where:
Vc = Velocity of continuous phase
g = Gravitational constant.
Most systems are designed and tested for water/air systems. For liquid hydrocarbon with much lower density, viscosity and surface tension, appropriate derating must be done,
and the smallest droplet size calculated may be 7 to 10 times
2 10 20 40 80 160 320 6401,280

Droplet size (microns) log scale
1280, 1.00
320, 0.88 640, 0.96
160, 0.76
80, 0.60
Water droplet
40, 0.40
fraction
20, 0.24
10, 0.12 5, 0.04
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Droplet size, microns
FIG. 9. Differences between hydrocarbon and water droplet size

distributions.
Gas
Liquid
smaller than water. Therefore, hydrocarbon will govern the

design of both inlet diameters and all internals in the vessel.
To obtain an accurate estimate of the liquid loading at the
entry of a demisting device, multiphase CFD calculations are
performed. A less time-consuming steady-state approach is to
use a Lagrangian-Eulerian model, using droplets as discretephase massless particles in the gas phase dispersed in a lognormal distribution, using largest and smallest droplet sizes
calculated from Eqs. 1 and 2. This is Gaussian distribution of
the Log(n). A Rosin-Rammler distribution may be used only
if there are solid particles for solid-gas or solid-liquid separation equipment.
FIG. 9 shows the difference between hydrocarbon and water
droplet size distributions. The demisting device must be appropriately sized to take the entire load of liquid coming into
the vessel. The sizing must be conservative and help minimize
liquid carryover to the outlet of the vessel.
Criteria for droplet shear at free surface and re-entrainment. High-velocity gas over the surface of a liquid creates
waves. Liquid droplets are sheared from the free surface and
carried away by the gas stream. Most of the droplets are likely
to end up at the mist eliminator unless the droplets are heavy
enough to drop back down into the gravity section of the knockout drum. A schematic of a gas shear is shown in FIG. 10.
The Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) criteria can be used to calculate the sensitivity of the liquid-free surface and gas shear
based on the surface tension and densities of the two media.
For elevated gas speeds over liquid pools, if the flow is turbulent and the film Reynolds number exceeds 10,000, then re-entrainment will take place if gas velocity exceeds the following
criteria by three to four times (Eq. 3):
1
Roll wave
Gas
Liquid
Wave undercut
FIG. 10. Droplet shearing from liquid-free surface.
Vc =
2 (1g ) 2
g
(3)
where:
1 = Liquid density
= Surface tension
g = Gravitational constant
g = Gas density
Vc = Critical gas velocity for the onset of KH waves.
If liquid droplets are formed at the tips of the waves, then the
minimum size of the droplets (dmin) can be
calculated using Eq. 4:
dmin =
FIG. 11. Comparison of typical gas velocities produced at the free surface for a vane-type inlet
distributor and a sparger.
13
2
g Vmax
(4)
FIG. 11 compares typical gas velocities

produced at the free surface for a vanetype inlet distributor and a sparger. An
inlet distributor that reduces and distributes flow, and that also reduces KH
waves, should be selected. A height of
at least 300 mm from a high-high liquid
level (HHLL) to the bottom of the inlet
PLANT DESIGN
distributor is recommended by the Gas Processors and Suppliers Association.
The Steen Wallis criteria3 is also used to calculate the critical velocity Vc , as shown in Eq. 5:
Vc =C
1
g
(5)
where:
C = Constant in the range of 1.8E-4 to 2.46E-4
g = Gas viscosity.
It is possible to observe how high the re-entrained droplets
created by wave shear from the free surface will travel by injecting droplets from the free surface at the vertical upward velocity
computed using CFD. FIG. 12 shows larger-size droplets traveling a short distance before falling back. If the gas velocities observed or calculated exceed either of these two criteria, then it
is recommended that a wire mesh pad be placed below the inlet
flow device to prevent re-entrant droplet from being carried off
by the gas stream, or the HHLL from being lowered by the increasing tangent-to-tangent height of the vessel.
Sizing the gravity section. The separation efficiency of the
gravity section is calculated from the droplet force balance. Separation is governed by Stokes law, which states that the droplets
dispersed in a continuous phase will settle if the downwardacting force of gravity is greater than the sum of drag around the
assumed spherical droplet and greater than buoyancy, due to
thermal gradients (if present). This law is valid only for Reynolds
numbers from 0.1 to 0.3. Unless the K factors are extremely low, it
is very likely that there will be no liquid separation in this section.
The basic equation for terminal settling velocity, Vt , is given
in Eq. 7:
Vt =
where:
D =
=
l =
g =
g D2 1 g
18
Droplet diameter, ft
Gas viscosity, lb/ft/s
Liquid density
Continuous phase density.
FIG. 12. Liquid droplet re-entrainment from free surface not carried
due to lower velocities.
In most vessels, especially slug catchers where designs are

based purely on gravity separation, the diameter of the vessel
and the height of the gravity section should be determined
while keeping K factors to a minimum.
The Souders-Brown k-factor is given in Eq. 8:

1
g
Vmax = K
(8)
where Vmax = Maximum velocity.

A properly sized gravity section is typically the height of
one vessel diameter, and allows the flow to redistribute and
even out the distribution at the mist eliminator entry. The
flow fields at the mist eliminator entry for an undersized
gravity section, and for one of sufficient height, are shown in
FIG. 13. Vertical cross-section vectors are shown in FIG. 14.
Mist eliminator considerations. A mist eliminator may con-
tain several of the following elements:

A vane pack made up of corrugated plates with or
without pockets (pocketed vanes) to collect larger liquid
droplets
A wire mesh demister consisting of a wire mesh of
intertwined wires with high surface density and high
void fraction to collect smaller droplets
(7)
FIG. 13. Flow fields at mist eliminator entry for an undersized gravity
section (left), and one of sufficient height (right).
FIG. 14. Vertical cross-section vectors.

PLANT DESIGN
der of 10, and larger droplets without
any large pressure drop. Mist consists of
droplets in the submicron range (< 3),
while 10 and higher would be a spray.
Gap
A typical wire mesh pattern is shown
Flow direction
in FIG. 15, with droplet coalescing at the
Vane pack
junction of two wires. Also shown is a
Perforated plate
typical mist eliminator, consisting of a
coarse and fine wire mesh followed by
Typical wire mesh
Droplet coalescence and capture
Typical mist eliminator package
a vane pack and perforated plate (right).
FIG. 15. A typical wire mesh pattern (left), with droplet coalescing at the junction of two wires
Passing through the wire mesh, small(right).
er droplets adhere to the wire, coalesce
and form larger droplets. The larger
droplets are driven down by gravity and are collected by a
drainpipe, plates or V-shaped channels.
Grid and frame
Wire mesh 1
Wire mesh 2
FIG. 16. Pocketed vane pack and related flow field.
Liquid in any quantity is a safety

concern, since droplets may cause
erosion damage in blades and
corrosion in other downstream
equipment. ... The sizing of each of the
components of a knockout drum is
not trivial, and advanced simulation
tools must be used to ensure that the
device operates as designed.
A perforated plate to impose a pressure drop.
The wire mesh agglomerates small droplets into larger ones
and captures smaller droplets. The vane pack then captures
the larger droplets.
The droplet capture efficiency and the wire mesh/vane
pack droplet handling capacity and k-factors given in the device supplier hydraulic calculations are usually obtained from
test data using air/water systems at lower pressures and ambient temperatures.
Suitable derating parameters using Weber and Froude
numbers must be calculated for different fluids with different
gas/liquid density, viscosity, surface tension, operating pressure and temperature to re-estimate actual liquid carryover
and droplet removal efficiency of the mist eliminator system.
Typical mist eliminators take water liquid load of 1 gpm/ft2
derated to 0.5 gpm/ft2 for liquid hydrocarbon.
Mesh mist eliminator. With high void fraction, wire mesh
or knit mesh may reduce liquid carryover by 100th of the or-
Vane pack. Vanes can be engineered to operate at higher gas

velocities and flowrates relative to the mesh. The efficiency
may drop off drastically at low velocities, mainly due to the fact
that droplets will drift around the mesh filament and blades
without touching or adhering to the surface.
If the velocity is too high, then the droplets are captured;
however, the higher flow will essentially overcome the surface
tension forces of droplets adhering to the solid surface and
re-entrain them back into the gas stream. Vanes may be of the
corrugated variety, or they may even have pockets to capture
droplets, as shown in FIG. 16.
Enhancements for minimizing vessel size. For compressor
suction drums that use refrigerant, the low-, intermediate- and

high-stage units are usually designed as one vessel, with a unit for
each stage placed on top of one another. The vessel size is governed by the low stage due to larger flowrate and liquid content.
To keep the vessel diameter constant for all three stages,
the intermediate and high stages are most likely oversized and
will not require a stringent analysis to predict liquid carryover.
To conserve space, the low-stage mist-eliminator unit (usually a vertical box called four-bank housing) has four vertically
placed mesh pads, a vane pack and perforated plate combinations at each face, as shown in FIG. 17.
If the direction in which flow enters the vessel is taken as the
east direction (as referenced in FIG. 6), then there is more flow
to the north and south faces of the four-bank housing (FIG. 17A)
compared to east and west faces (FIG. 17C). Furthermore, the
cramped space between the housing and the vessel wall forces
flow toward the upper quadrant, causing a large velocity gradient across the face of the mist eliminator (FIG. 18). This situation leads to high peak k-factors and localized flooding. The
contour plots also show some flow redirected back into the vessel at the bottom of the housing, which has a negative effect on
liquid removal efficiency.
To mitigate the flaws in design, some improvements are recommended for four-bank housing:
Rotate the four-bank housing by 45 about its vertical axis,
which will result in the front faces of the mist eliminator
facing northwest, southwest, southeast and northeast
Change the dimension of the housing, allowing a total
gap area that is at least greater than three times the area
of the inlet nozzle, to reduce the approach velocities.
PLANT DESIGN
FIG. 17. Four-bank housing (a); side-to-side flow field (north to south) (b); crossflow field (east to west) (c) and variable-area perforated plates (d).
These changes alone may not be sufficient to provide a uniform velocity profile to each of the four sides. A third mitigating effort is to adjust the open area of the downstream distribution baffle. Each perforated plate may be split horizontally,
into as many as four sections, as shown in FIG. 17D. By using
less net-free-area (NFA) baffles at the top (thereby restricting
flow and higher velocities to the upper segment) and gradually increasing the NFA toward the bottom, a more uniform
flow distribution may be obtained at each face. This may even
reduce the reversed flow, which is highly detrimental to a liquids separation system.
The most effective method is to perform iterative CFD by
using various combinations of pressure drop vs. superficial
velocity, using the Ergun equation4 or Smith and Van Winkle
equation.5 Intermediate normal velocity contours may be plotted to check for optimally uniform intake flow fields. The calculated NFA are used to fabricate the perforated plate sections.
Exit nozzle considerations. The diameter of the outlet may
be sized so that the overall pressure drop does not exceed the
process design parameters, and the velocity of the gas flow
does not exceed the inlet pipe velocity as it exits the system. A
suggestion is to use a diameter that is at least three-fourths the
size of the inlet diameter.
The liquid outlet at the bottom head of the drum should
be sized so that the exiting liquid velocity does not exceed 2
m/s, to prevent vibration and surge-related issues. Sometimes,
a filter basket with grating, a bucket, and a weir and panel are
used if solids and heavy liquids are expected to be removed.
Takeaway. A number of guidelines and considerations are
available to meet design challenges encountered during the
design of liquid/gas separators. The key criteria are to ensure
uniform distribution at the mist eliminator entry and to maximize liquid removal efficiency.
Advanced simulation tools and empirical equations are
used to ensure that the device is sized appropriately and operates as designed. GP
LITERATURE CITED
Hinze, J. O., Fundamentals of the hydrodynamic mechanism of splitting in the
dispersion process, AIChE Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1955.
2
Kouba, G. E., Mechanistic models for droplet formation and breakup, Proceedings
of the ASME/JSME 4th Joint Fluids Summer Engineering Conference, Honolulu,
Hawaii, July 610, 2003.
3
Wallis, G. B., The onset of droplet entrainment in annular gas-liquid flow,
1
FIG. 18. Normal velocity contours at entry to each face of the mist
eliminator in four-bank housing.
Report No. 62GL127, General Electric Co., Schenectady, New York, 1962.
Ergun, S. and A. A. Orning, Fluid flow through randomly packed columns and
fluidized beds, Ind. Eng. Chem., June 1949.
5
Smith, P. L. and M. Van Winkle, Discharge coefficients through perforated plates
at Reynolds numbers of 400 to 3,000, AIChE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1958.
4
JALEEL VALAPPIL is a principal process engineer and team

lead for the advanced simulation group of Bechtel Oil, Gas
and Chemicals in Houston, Texas. His areas of expertise
include process engineering, simulation, control and
optimization. He is responsible for developing and deploying
advanced technical solutions during design, commissioning
and operation of various Bechtel projects, including LNG
terminals. Dr. Valappil holds a bachelors degree from the Indian Institute of
Technology in Kharagpur and a PhD in chemical engineering from Lehigh
University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
PHILIP DIWAKAR is a senior engineering specialist at Bechtel
with 23 years of experience in CFD, FEA and acoustic- and
flow-induced vibrations. He is a lead specialist in Houston,
Texas, responsible for providing solutions for warranty-,
environment- and risk-related issues covering several of
Bechtels business units. To his name, Mr. Diwakar has more
than 25 publications, six outstanding technical paper awards,
three journal publications and an innovation award for fluid-structure
interaction. He has also received technical grants for the design of buildings
to withstand explosions in LNG plants, thermal fatigue in dehydrators,
fume gas treatment and acoustically induced vibration.
AMERICAS
September 1314, 2016

Houston, Texas
Call for Participation

Now Open
Submit your abstract by March 17, 2016
The second GasPro Americas (GasPro) will be held September 1314, 2016, in
Houston, Texas. We invite you to be an integral part of the discussion, and join
engineering and operating management from the downstream, midstream and
upstream sectors of the oil and gas industry. If you would like to participate as
a speaker, please submit your abstract(s) for consideration.
GasPro 2016 will focus on gas supply, procurement, purchasing, transportation,
trading, distribution, operations, safety, the environment, regulatory affairs,
technology development, business analysis, LNG and more.
We encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to share your
knowledge and expertise with your fellow peers in the industry.
Submission guidelines: Abstracts should be approximately 250 words in
length and should include all authors, affiliations, pertinent contact information,
and the proposed speaker (person presenting the paper). Please submit via
email to EnergyEvents@GulfPub.com by March 17. For more information visit
Questions? Please contact Melissa Smith, Events Director, Gulf Publishing
Company, at Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com or +1 (713) 520-4475.
Specific topics to be
discussed include:
Petrochemicals/methanol/olefins
Catalysts
Small-scale and modular
gas processing
Plant design/revamp/grassroots
Offshore/stranded gas
Separation technology/NGL
Field processing/gas treating
Metering/custody transfer/
gas transfer
Gas compression
Operations/maintenance/reliability
Safety/environment
Pipeline infrastructure/storage
Legislative and regulatory
compliance (domestic
international)
Business and market perspectives
Economics and finance
Training and human capital
Integration of global gas markets
Project finance
Project management/delivery
Organized by:
Risk mitigation
LNG (outlook and exports)
Hosted by:
LNG supply chain
North Americas top gas processors

consolidate in 2015
J. STELL, Contributing Writer
By year-end 2015, activities by independent US gas processing companies proved to be nearly as volatile as oil and gas
prices. Mergers, dropdowns, acquisitions and divestitures were
planned, announced and completed, or scheduled for completion during the 2015 to mid-2016 time frame.
Among the slate of activities, upstream players sold off
midstream assets, midstream players expanded or contracted
and, in at least one event, a downstream player acquired a major midstream company. In another move, a gas processor was
forced to shut down a plant because the local gas producer shut
in its wells due to economics. Also notable was a midstream
operators move to export one of the first shipments of crude
from the US, thanks to new legislation passed in late 2015.
The sectors trend of moving service-contract agreements
away from percent-of-proceeds and into fee-based contracts
is continuing. Going forward, industry watchers predict more
changes in the midstream sector in 2016.
Here, a selection of the most notable deals and projects by
some of the top independent gas processors in the US is presented, in alphabetical order by company.
DCP Midstream Partners LP. DCP, co-owned by Phillips 66
and Spectra Energy Partners, continues to be the top-ranked
gas processor and liquids producer in the US. The company
gathers and processes more than 7.1 trillion BTUs of gas daily,
and its NGL production is approximately 410 Mbpd, representing more than 17% of all of the NGL produced in the US
and more than 12% of the nations gas supply. DCPs asset base
includes 63 plants and 66,400 mi of pipeline.
In late 2015, its owners gave the company a boost when
Spectra dropped down ownership interest in the Sand Hills and
Southern Hills NGL pipelines, and Phillips 66 contributed $1.5
B in cash. The transactions will help DCP pay down its credit
revolver and support its efforts to convert some of its percentof-proceeds processing contracts to fee-based agreementsa
critical step to reduce exposure to gas and NGL price declines.
Also in 2015, DCP completed construction of its
200-MMcfd Zia II sour natural gas processing plant (FIG. 1) in
Lea County, New Mexico, to serve producers in southeast New
Mexico and the West Texas regions of the Permian Basin. In addition to the Zia II plant, the project includes front-end treating for sour gas; two acid gas injection wells; a 50-mi, 20-in.
high-pressure trunk line that will intersect DCP Midstreams
existing New Mexico gathering system; and new, high-pressure
pipelines and compression assets in West Texas.
After startup, DCP signed a 10-year renewal contract with

one of its largest producer-clients in the Delaware Basin. The
contract has been converted from percent-of-proceeds to 100%
fee-based, and covers approximately 1 MM dedicated acres.
The Zia II plant and new gathering systems add to DCPs existing footprint in the Permian basin, where the company owns
and operates 18 gas processing plants.
Energy Transfer Equity LP. At press time, Energy Transfer
Equity is moving to acquire The Williams Cos. Inc., with a

proposed $37.7 B of financial transactions. In 2015, Energy
Transfer Partners merged with Regency Energy Partners in an
$18-B deal. The company owns and operates roughly 6,700 mi
of gas and NGL gathering pipelines, four natural gas processing plants, 15 natural gas treating facilities, and two natural gas
conditioning facilities.
EnLink Midstream LLC. During late 2015, EnLink announced

plans to acquire gathering and processing assets in the West
Texas Delaware Basin from a subsidiary of Matador Resources
Co. for $143 MM. This move by Matador, an upstream producer, is an effort to gain cash in light of low oil and gas prices.
As a result, Matador will become a customer of the midstream
facilities on 15-year fixed-fee agreements.
EnLink plans to spend up to $500 MM during 2016 to expand its Delaware Basin processing and gathering systems, including the installation of a 120-MMcfd processing plant and
more gathering lines. Also, the company plans to expand its
processing capacity in the Cana-Woodford play in Oklahoma.
Artesia
Pecos Diamond
NEW MEXICO
Zia II Hobbs
Linam Ranch
E. Carlsbad
Antelope Ridge
Goldsmith
Roberts Ranch
Pegasus
Ozona
Guadalupe Pipeline
SW Ozona
TEXAS
Eunice
Fullerton
Spraberry
Benedum
Rawhide
N
E
W
S
Crockett Pipeline
Sonora
Owners
Asset types (vary by color indicating owner)
Gathering areas
DCP Midstream
DCP Midstream
Natural gas plant
Fractionator
DCP Midstream partners
Plant under construction
and plant
Joint venture with others
NGL pipeline
Intrastate natural gas pipeline
FIG. 1. DCP completed construction of its 200-MMcfd sour natural gas

Zia II processing plant in Lea County, New Mexico, to serve producers
in the Permian Basin. Map courtesy of DCP Midstream Partners LP.
The sectors trend of moving servicecontract agreements away from

percent-of-proceeds and into fee-based
contracts is continuing. Going forward,
industry watchers predict more changes
in the midstream sector in 2016.
Enterprise Products Partners LP. In 2015, Enterprise Products Partners signed an agreement with Occidental Petroleum
to jointly develop a new 150-MMcfd cryogenic processing plant
pipeline in the Delaware Basin. The JV, Delaware Basin Gas
Processing, is targeting a mid-2016 startup date.
On December 23, 2015, Enterprise Products Partners announced that it had agreed to provide pipeline and marine terminal services to load its first crude oil export cargo of oil produced
in the US (believed to be the first significant oil export shipment
from the Gulf Coast in 40 years), now allowable under a law enacted earlier that month. The 600-Mbbl cargo of domestic light
crude oil loaded at the Enterprise Hydrocarbon Terminal on the
Houston Ship Channel during the first week of January 2016.
Keyera Corp. In November 2015, Keyera announced that it
will suspend operations at its Caribou gas plant due to a producers decision to shut in gas production wells on December 1,
2015. The Caribou gas plant is Keyeras only gas plant located
in northeast British Columbia, where producers receive NGX
Spectra Station No. 2 pricing that has been affected by low
North America natural gas prices and regional sales gas pipeline
constraints. As a result, gas production in the area has become
uneconomical, and several producers have chosen to shut in
production until pricing improves.
The Caribou gas plant was constructed in 1997 and purchased
by Keyera in 2004. In 2015, due to declining throughput, the
plants contribution to Keyeras adjusted earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation and amortization became unsustainable.
Kinder Morgan Inc. The company gained processing capacity
in 2015 with its $3-B acquisition of Hiland Partners. The deal in-
cluded fee-based gathering and transportation pipelines, as well

as processing assets in the Bakken shale play in North Dakota.
Marathon Petroleum. In an unusual move, downstream player Marathon Petroleum acquired midstream assets in an effort
to move up the value chain. In December 2015, MPLX LP and
MarkWest Energy Partners LP completed a merger by which
MarkWest became a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX.
The deal combines the nations fourth-largest crude oil refiner and one of the Appalachian Basins largest gas processors,
creating the fourth-largest MLP in the country based on a market capitalization of $21 B. The transaction provides Marathon
with increased vertical integration and a direct supply of NGL
for its refining business.
The new business combination will help Northeastern upstream producers place the overabundance of NGL into the
ready market of Marathon downstream operations, as well as
remove the wet gas drilling constraints, thereby allowing producers to support drilling down to a lower price deck.
MarkWest plans $1.5 B of annual investment through 2020
to expand its cryogenic processing, fractionation and other
midstream assets in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Texas and Oklahoma (FIG. 2). MarkWest is the nations
second-largest natural gas processor and fourth-largest fractionator, with 34 processing facilities representing around 6.8
Bcfd of processing capacity and 380 Mbpd of fractionation
capacity, and more than 7,500 mi of pipeline. The company
plans to construct an additional 18 plants in the coming years,
including the new Hildalgo plant in the Delaware Basin that
will be operational in 2Q 2016.
Meritage Midstream Services. Meritage Midstreams Canadian affiliate, Meritage Midstream Services III LP, entered into
definitive agreements with Canadian International Oil Corp.
(CIOC) to build natural gas gathering, compression and processing assets, and crude oil gathering assets, to support the
development of CIOCs Montney and Duvernay shale play positions in west-central Alberta.
Meritage III will provide 75 MMcfd of gathering and processing capacity, which will be expandable to 225 MMcfd.
Construction of both systems began in May 2015. The 42-km
high-pressure gas gathering system will deliver rich gas to the
new processing plant to be built approximately 60 mi south of
Grand Prairie, Alberta. The plant is expected to come into service in April 2016 and will offer connections for residue gas to
the TransCanada Pipeline and other delivery points.
Navitas Midstream Partners LLC. In September 2015, Navitas Midstream Partners LLC acquired gas gathering and processing assets serving Martin, Midland and Glasscock counties
in Texas, from a subsidiary of DCP Midstream LLC. The assets
include more than 1,000 mi of pipeline and a 60-MMcfd processing plant in Midland County, Texas.
ONEOK Partners LP. By year-end 2016, ONEOK plans to
FIG. 2. MarkWest, which was acquired by Marathon Petroleum, sells all

of the NGL purity product produced at its fractionators, including from
this plant in Siloam, Kentucky. Photo courtesy of MarkWest.
construct its 100-MMcfd Bronco processing plant in southern Campbell county, Wyoming, which will take gas produced
from the liquids-rich Turner, Frontier, Sussex and Niobrara
shale formations in the Powder River basin. The $305-MM

facility will include a 65-mi NGL pipeline to connect the facility to ONEOKs Bakken NGL pipeline lateral. ONEOKs
Williston basin gas processing capacity is expected to increase
to 1.2 Bcfd in 3Q 2016.
Paramount Resources. In late 2015, Paramount Resources
commenced activities to seek a buyer for its midstream assets.
The Calgary-based company is working with the Royal Bank
of Canada on possible sales or partnerships for facilities that
include gas processing plants. First-round bids were submitted in 2015.
Potential interest has been discussed, but not formalized,
with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Wolf Infrastructure, as well as with Apollo Global Managements CSV
Midstream Solutions.
When completed, the deal will serve as another example
of upstream companies shedding midstream assets to manage
cash flow in the low-commodity-price environment.
PennTex Midstream Partners LLC. In September 2015,
PennTex began operations at its new 200-MMcfd Mount Olive
gas processing plant (FIG. 3) and related residue gas and NGL
pipelines, increasing the partnerships processing capacity to
400 MMcfd in the Terryville complex in northern Louisiana.
Sited near Ruston, the facility consists of the processing plant
with onsite liquids handling facilities for inlet gas, as well as for
additional residue gas and NGL pipelines.
The 14-mi residue gas pipeline has throughput capacity of
approximately 400 MMcfd and provides market access for residue natural gas from PennTexs processing plants. The 41-mi
NGL pipeline has throughput capacity of more than 36 Mbpd
and provides transportation to downstream markets for NGL.
It also marks the completion of the second phase of the companys Terryville complex assets.
The first phase of development, which was completed in May
2015, included the 200-MMcfd Lincoln Parish cryogenic natural gas processing plant and 31 mi of related natural gas gathering and residue gas transportation pipelines. PennTex provides
midstream services under long-term, fee-based agreements.
Phillips 66. At year-end 2015, Phillips 66 began operations at

its new 100-Mbpd NGL fractionator at the companys Sweeny
complex in Old Ocean, Texas. Sweeny Fractionator One supplies
purity ethane and LPG to the petrochemical industry and heating markets, and is supported by 250 mi of new pipelines and a
multimillion-barrel storage cavern. The company will have the
capability to place the LPG into global markets upon completion of its 150-Mbpd Freeport LPG export terminal in 3Q 2016.
Tall Oak Midstream LLC. Early in 2015, Tall Oak Midstream
reported that initial gas gathering operations were underway
on the Tall Oak STACK (which stands for the Sooner Trend,
the Anadarko basin, and Oklahomas Canadian and Kingfisher
counties) systems system. Tall Oak gathers gas on its STACK
system for multiple customers, and it commissioned the systems
first processing plant, named the Chisholm plant, in 3Q 2015.
The system is anchored by long-term gathering and processing
agreements with Felix Energy LLC and PayRock Energy LLC.
Targa Resources Partners LP. In November 2015, Targa
Resources Corp. (TRC) announced plans to roll up its limited
midstream partnership, Targa Resources Partners LP (TRP),
into the corporation. When completed, all of the outstanding
common units of TRP will be owned by TRC and will no longer be publicly traded, and the incentive distribution rights of
TRP will be eliminated. All of TRPs outstanding debt and Series A preferred units will remain outstanding. GP
FIG. 3. PennTex began operations at its new 200-MMcfd Mount Olive

gas processing plant in 2015. Photo courtesy of PennTex Midstream
Partners LLC.
InstruCalc
CONTROL VALVES FLOW ELEMENTS RELIEF DEVICES PROCESS DATA
New Version
Available
InstruCalc 9.0 calculates the size of control valves, flow elements and
relief devices and calculates fluid properties, pipe pressure loss and liquid
waterhammer flow. Easy to use and accurate, it is the only sizing program you
need, enabling you to:
Size more than 50 different instruments,
Calculate process data at flow conditions for 54 fluids in either mixtures or
single components and 66 gases, and
Calculate the orifice size, flowrate or differential range, which enables the
user to select the flow rate with optimum accuracy.
Updates and Whats New in InstruCalc Version 9.0

ENGINEERING STANDARD UPGRADES
NEW VERSION
Control Valve Revisions:

Updated to ANSII/ISA 75.011.01-2012
Calculation accuracy changed for critical flows
Viscosity correction factor changed
Pressure drop calculation revised to agree with Crane
Technical paper No 410.
Option of Cv Units (English) or Kv units (Metric) added.
Option of either aerodynamic noise calculation by ISA 75.17
method or InstruCalc method
Calculation accuracy added (input data within acceptable limits)
Relief Devices:
Pressure Relief Devices Program follows API 520 Pt 1, 9th edition dated 7/14
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The ability to have more than one calculation open at a time has been added.
Each instance of the program is framed in a different color. The user can have
multiple what if scenarios displayed for making engineering decisions.
Order Direct from the Publisher.

GulfPub.com/InstruCalc or call +1 (713) 520-4426.
NEW IN GAS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY

A. BLUME, Editor
Bunkering ship
concept approved
Optical sensor for gas analysis
Classification society Bureau

Veritas (BV) has granted approval
in principle (AIP) to a 4,000-m3
bunkering ship concept developed
by French LNG containment
manufacturer GTT. The concept
is for a bunker tanker that could
deliver LNG as ship fuel, using
tanks with a GTT Mark III Flex
cargo containment system of
up to 2 barg.
Combining the membrane
containment system with the
ability to store LNG at pressures up
to 2 barg allow the bunker vessel
to have a higher capacity and
increased operational flexibility.
The pressurized membrane
tank concept means that LNG
bunker tankers can manage boiloff
gas (BOG) better, and increase
loading and delivery flowrates.
Under GTTs system, BOG
management during loading and
bunkering operations is made
more flexible because of the
wide vapor pressure operating
range. Vapor can be buffered and
condensed in the tanks to help
the fueled ship or feeding facility
handle the vapor.
Condensation may be
performed by spraying LNG into
the vapor phase. The higher
pressure also means that, during
voyage and standby mode, a
longer duration is seen before
gas pressure in the bunker
tankers tanks reaches the upper
limit. This improves the holding
time when BOG is not being
consumed and reduces the use of
the reliquefaction plant, thereby
diminishing costs.
Gas composition can change

as LNG undergoes treatment and
transportation; unaccounted-for
changes will negatively impact
downstream operations, such as
refining and power generation.
Therefore, LNG composition must
be measured at many points in
the supply chain, including gas
pretreatment facilities, LNG export and import locations, storage tanks,
and vaporization/condensation facilities. Fast, online hydrocarbon
composition analysis for C1C5 alkanes (methane, ethane, propane, etc.)
is needed to determine gas quality in LNG transport applications.
Gas chromatography (GC) has been the dominant analytical tool
for the speciation and compositional analysis of C1C5 hydrocarbon gas
mixtures. GC analytical measurements require between 90 sec and
5 min, and a continuous supply of high-purity carrier gas. As well, the
comparative nature of GC requires regular calibration of the analyzer.
These characteristics make online deployment of GC tools difficult at
best, and frequently impossible.
Infrared (IR) spectroscopy is an optical technique that measures the
wavelength-dependent absorption of infrared light passing through
a sample, and then uses the absorption data to determine sample
speciation and composition. It has a long and successful history in
industrial online gas/liquid measurement applications.
IR spectroscopy is fast (seconds or sub-second measurement time)
and provides a direct, first-principles (not comparative or correlative)
measurement by using simple, flowthrough sampling configurations that
do not require carrier gas or other consumables. These characteristics
make it eminently suitable for online analytical applications.
At present, IR spectrometers that use discrete optical filter elements
(known as nondispersive infrared, or NDIR, spectrometers) are widely
used in online applications. NDIR analyzers are robust and effective
analytical tools; however, they are not capable of differentiating or
speciating hydrocarbon mixtures, such as those in LNG, due to the fact
that compound-specific IR absorptions strongly overlap in such mixtures.
MKS Instruments has introduced an improvement to conventional
NDIR instrumentation: Precisive TFS Tunable Filter Spectroscopy. TFS
uses a proprietary tunable Fabry-Perot optical assembly to enable
wavelength scanning in preselected regions, coupled with a chemometricbased pattern-recognition algorithm that deconvolves and quantifies
multi-component spectra, such as those existing in LNG spectra.
This TFS engine has been implemented in the new, standalone
Precisive 5 hydrocarbon gas analyzer, available in a NEMA4X, IP66rated, Division 2-/Zone 2-certified enclosure for use in various natural
gas processing applications. It provides speciated concentration values
for methane, ethane, propane, iso-butane, n-butane and pentanes,
and uses this data to report calorific values and Wobbe indices for the
analyte gas. Optional CO2 and H2S direct measurement channels are also
available. The Precisive 5 analyzer is permanently calibrated; requires
no consumable gas; and can sample gas at a wide range of pressures,
temperatures and flowrates.
www.bureauveritas.com
www.mksinst.com
Gas-block terminal
design approved
The Dresser-Rand business within Siemens Power and Gas recently received an order from Elizabethtown
Gas for two LNGo natural gas liquefaction systems. The order includes installation and commissioning at the
Elizabethtown Gas site. The systems will be sized to produce approximately 13,500 gpd of LNG.
Dresser-Rands LNGo natural gas liquefaction system is a modularized, portable LNG plant designed to
provide onsite liquefaction. This point-of-use production plant is a standardized product made up of four
packaged skids: a power module, a compressor module, a process module and a conditioning module.
LNGo natural gas conversion plants enable the distributed production of LNG on a small scale. The
technology eliminates the need for the costly trucking of LNG long distances.
ABS has granted approval in

principle (AIP) for the design of
the China National Offshore Oil
Co. (CNOOC) Gas-Block (CGB)
terminal.
The CGB unit functions
as an offshore LNG receiving,
storage, regasification and
bunkering terminal, comprising
a concrete caisson structure
with a steel roof and steel skirt.
The overall structure includes
the caisson deck, external
transverse bulkheads and external
longitudinal bulkheads.
The terminal will house
horizontal LNG storage Type C
tanks and additional processing
equipment topside. It is expected
to be installed on the seabed with
a design water depth of 10 m to 20
m. The storage volume of a single
block can vary from 5,000 m3 to
50,000 m3, and the total storage
volume can be up to 300,000 m3
when several blocks are combined.
According to CNOOC Gas and
Power Group, the CGB terminal
offers a number of advantages,
including modularized construction
and installation. The hull, LNG
tanks and topside facility can be
constructed in a dry dock and then
wet-towed to the installation site.
Since the steel skirt can be
lowered onto and extracted from
the seabed, the terminal can be
easily relocated from one site to
another. Designed-in safety means
that the concrete box is capable
of sustaining LNG liquid in case
of tank leakage, and it features
a high load-carrying capacity
against wind, wave, current and
seismic loads.
The AIP scope for the CGB
terminal concept included
reviewing the feasibility of the
structural design of the equipped
concrete hull and the global
performance in accordance with
ABS rules and guidelines for
gravity-based LNG terminals.
It also provides the parallel
main structure analysis of the
terminal hull for construction,
transportation, operations,
seismic, and accidental LNG
leaking loading conditions.
ABS has been supporting
clients involved in gas-related
projectsincluding LNG and LPG
transportation, LNG and LPG as
fuel, and emerging offshore LNG
terminal technology projects
for more than 60 years.
www.dresser-rand.com
www.eagle.org
Order received for small-scale LNG
NEW IN GAS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY

A. BLUME, Editor
Canada opens
Sealing parts for gas sweetening
largest CNG station
Today, refineries and gas plants around the world are processing crude oil and natural (sour) gas containing
An Emterra compressed
natural gas (CNG) truck cut the
ribbon during the grand opening
ceremony, in late October 2015,
for the new GAIN Clean Fuel CNG
station located in Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada. It is the largest
public CNG station in the
country and was built through
a partnership among C.A.T. Inc.,
Emterra and US Venture Gain Fuel
Canada ULC, which owns the GAIN
Clean Fuel brand.
The station will fuel C.A.T.s
fleet of 100 CNG trucks and
Emterras fleet of more than 100
vehicles. All GAIN Clean Fuel
stations are said to provide easyaccess, fast-fill capabilities.
higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) than ever before. At the same time, global environmental
standards demand progressive reduction of H2S content in gas- and oil-based end products. As a result,
the hot amine sweetening treatments used to remove H2S are becoming much more aggressive to the
materials used to seal pumps, valves and other vital process equipmentto the extent that commonly used
fluoroelastomer (FKM) and perfluoroelastomer (FFKM) seals are failing more frequently, risking toxic leakage
and potentially costly downtime.
DuPont Kalrez Spectrum 6380 perfluoroelastomer sealing parts are said to offer outstanding resistance
to amines and strong oxidizers at high temperatures in gas sweetening processes. The Kalrez Spectrum 6380
parts exhibit 10 to 15 times lower swell than FKM, and four times lower swell than general-purpose FFKM,
in such environments.
A major chemical company in France, processing a mix of amines, ethylene oxide and other chemicals
at 150C, has reported a seven times longer seal lifetime when switching to a Kalrez Spectrum 6380 O-ring
from a competitive broad-resistance FFKM-grade O-ring. In this actual case history example, the conventional
FFKM O-ring survived the hazardous and highly aggressive process conditions for only 15 days before requiring
replacement, while the Kalrez Spectrum 6380 part survived for 3.5 months.
According to the company, the benefits of installing Kalrez Spectrum 6380 parts have been seen in
increased system efficiency, significantly extended mean time between repairs (MTBR), greater reliability,
and enhanced safety from the reduced risk of potentially dangerous chemical leaks. Ultimately, this has led
to valuable annual savings in reduced total system cost.
The use of the Kalrez Spectrum 6380 parts in amine gas sweetening applications can extend mean time
between repair for valves and mechanical pump seals, reduce leakage and contribute to reduced maintenance
costs and lower emissions. Furthermore, the Kalrez 0090 parts represent another option for this application
when high pressure resistance is needed. In laboratory testing for rapid gas decompression resistance,
Kalrez AS568-312 O-rings received the best possible rating as per the NORSOK M-710 Revision 2 standard.
www.gainfuel.com
www.dupont.com
SALES OFFICESEUROPE
FRANCE, GREECE, NORTH AFRICA, MIDDLE EAST,
SPAIN, PORTUGAL, SOUTHERN BELGIUM,
LUXEMBOURG, SWITZERLAND, GERMANY,
AUSTRIA, TURKEY
Bret Ronk, Publisher

Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4421
www.GasProcessingNews.com
SALES OFFICESNORTH AMERICA

IL, LA, MO, OK, TX
Josh Mayer
Phone: +1 (972) 816-6745
Fax: +1 (972) 767-4442
E-mail: Josh.Mayer@GulfPub.com
AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID,
IN, KS, KY, MI, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NM,
NV, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY,
WESTERN CANADA
Ryan Akbar
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4449
Mobile: +1 (832) 691-6053
E-mail: Ryan.Akbar@GulfPub.com
CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH,

NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, VA, VT, WV,
EASTERN CANADA
Merrie Lynch
Phone: +1 (617) 357-8190
Fax: +1 (617) 357-8194
Mobile: +1 (617) 594-4943
E-mail: Merrie.Lynch@GulfPub.com
DATA PRODUCTS
JNette Davis-Nichols
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4426
E-mail: Jnette.Davis-Nichols@GulfPub.com
Catherine Watkins
Phone: +33 (0)1 30 47 92 51
Fax: +33 (0)1 30 47 92 40
E-mail: Watkins@GulfPub.com
Jim Watkins
Phone: +33 (0) 1 30 47 92 51
Fax: +33 (0) 1 30 47 92 40
Cell: +33 (0) 6 76 35 11 52
Jim.Watkins@GulfPub.com
ITALY, EASTERN EUROPE
Fabio Potest
Mediapoint & Communications SRL
Phone: +39 (010) 570-4948
Fax: +39 (010) 553-0088
E-mail: Fabio.Potesta@GulfPub.com
UNITED KINGDOM/SCANDINAVIA,
NORTHERN BELGIUM, THE NETHERLANDS
Michael Brown
Phone: +44 161 440 0854
Mobile: +44 79866 34646
E-mail: Michael.Brown@GulfPub.com
SALES OFFICESOTHER AREAS

CHINAHong Kong
Iris Yuen
Phone: +86 13802701367 (China)
Phone: +852 69185500 (Hong Kong)
E-mail: Iris.Yuen@GulfPub.com
INDIA
Bret Ronk
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4421
JAPANTokyo
Yoshinori Ikeda
Pacific Business Inc.
Phone: +81 (3) 3661-6138
Fax: +81 (3) 3661-6139
E-mail: Japan@GulfPub.com
ADVERTISER INDEX
Cosmodyne...................................................... 5
Gas Innovations..............................................31
Construction Boxscore..............................15
EventsEMGC.............................................16
EventsGasPro..........................................28
EventsGTL................................................35
Market DataBook......................................... 7
Software.......................................................32
Jonell, Inc.......................................................... 2
NISTM................................................................. 8
Pentair..............................................................36
This index and procedure for securing additional information are
provided as a service to advertisers and a convenience to our readers.
Gulf Publishing Company is not responsible for omissions or errors.
2016
August 23, 2016

Houston, Texas
Final Call for Participation

Call for Abstracts Extended
Gulf Publishing Company, publisher of Hydrocarbon Processing and Gas Processing, is pleased
to announce that the fourth annual GTL Technology Forum will be held in Houston, Texas
on August 23, 2016. If you would like to participate as a speaker, we invite you to submit an
abstract for consideration by our advisory board. This years program will focus on economics
of scale and the dynamics of GTL in a low-cost environment.
Suggested topics and areas of interest include:

GTL: Fischer-Tropsch
GTL: MTG/methanol
GTL products: fuels, lubes, specialty products, etc.
Economics, properties, performance, etc.
Floating GTL
Financing of GTL projects by owners, equity, banks
Permitting issues (requirements, thresholds, timing, etc.)
Waste heat recovery
Maximizing wax and chemicals production
Upstream and downstream integration
SynGas generation (SMRs, ATRs)
And more.
For a full list, visit GTLTechForum.com
Dont miss this unique opportunity to share your

knowledge and expertise with your peers in the industry.
Submission Deadline: March 4, 2016.
Abstracts should be approximately 250 words in length and should include
all authors, affiliations, pertinent contact information, and the proposed
speaker (person presenting the paper). Please submit via e-mail to
EnergyEvents@GulfPub.com.
Speaker/Sponsor/Exhibitor Inquiries: Please contact Melissa Smith,
Events Director, Gulf Publishing Company, at Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com
or +1 (713) 520-4475.
GTLTechForum.com
APEX
INNOVATION IN SEPARATION
PENTAIR Oil and Gas Separations designs and manufactures high
performance separation products and systems for the capture of
particulate, liquid, and soluble contaminants from liquid and gas
streams.
The original UltiSep Separator technology was developed more
than twenty-five years ago to address the inherent deficiencies of
conventional gas-liquid separators, proving that it was possible to
more effectively remove liquids and aerosols from gas streams.
A culture of continued innovation and engineering lead to the
development of Apex element technology inside of the UltiSep.
Apex made it possible to further increase separator performance,
with efficiencies that could exceed 99.97%.
APEX+ has been developed to further optimize these advanced
separation technologies
,QWHUFHSWLRQRIVXEPLFURQDHURVROV
&RDOHVFHQFHLQWRODUJHUDQGODUJHUOLTXLGGURSOHWV
Mass Transfer of the captured liquids out of the gas
stream
(936) 788-1000
www.pentairseparations.com

Hydrocarbon Processing 02 2016 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Hydrocarbon Processing 02 2016 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

HARNESS THE POWER

OF ADVANCED HRSG TECHNOLOGY

The industry leader in Heat Recovery Steam Generators for gas

HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS

FEBRUARY 2016 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com

MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY

INDUSTRY LEADERS FORECASTS

CLEAN FUELS AND

FEBRUARY 2016|Volume 95 Number 2

Add power to environmental real-time data through analytics

Build a solid GHG BACT cost-effectiveness calculation

OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY LEADERS VIEWPOINTS

PROCESS ENGINEERING AND OPTIMIZATION

Troubleshoot operation of a steam ejector vacuum system

MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY

PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION

Enhance PSM design with metrics-driven best practices

GAS PROCESSING SUPPLEMENT

for storage and shippingPart 2

Combine metallurgical, structural

Processing.com, 81% of respondents said they did not agree

EPA ordered US refiners to blend a record 14.5 Bgal of ethanol

MAGAZINE PRODUCTION / +1 (713) 525-4633

CIRCULATION / +1 (713) 520-4440 / Circulation@GulfPub.com

EUROMONEY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR PLC

THE BRAINS BEHIND AIR QUALITY EXCELLENCE

Generates timely alerts before incidents occur

Maximizes operational efficiency by delivering information for robust KPI management

Integrates seamlessly with all leading EMIS packages

LEE NICHOLS, EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER

The refining industry has already

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Nations around the world

With the right tools and

A case study, wherein the

LEE NICHOLS, EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER

dards will begin in 2017, which coincides

country has set aggressive fuel economy

TABLE 1. EU emissions standards for passenger vehicles (gasoline)

TABLE 2. EU emissions standards for passenger vehicles (diesel)

Hydrocarbon Processing|FEBRUARY 20169

due to new regulations to curb air pollution

reduction in NOx emissions. Cars sold in

Difficult sites with soft soils?

Select 151 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

JET FUEL TREATING

MERICAT J is an advanced liquid treating technology that removes

ppm and 150 ppm, respectively. To meet

OIL & GAS SEPARATIONS

Select 152 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

DONT LET JUST ANY SUPPORT

Keep your catalyst safe and supported with Denstone media

zene and aromatics concentrations will

the regions middle class, Latin America

Multiple refinery upgrades, expansions

IT ALL STARTS WITH

Select 153 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

Zyme-Flow tough. Refinery and petrochem process unit decontamination.

Shorten your turnaround using Zyme-Flow chemistry.

Save Time. Increase Safety. Choose Zyme-Flow.

A Tristar Global Energy Solutions Company

response, Russia launched a $55-B program in 2011 to modernize its existing

sulfur content reductions for marine fuels.