HIGH-EFFICIENCY

DESIGN WITH CUSTOM

BACK-END WASTE
HEAT RECOVERY.

HIGH-PERFORMANCE
EMISSION CONTROLS –
FOR THE LOWEST LEVELS
OF CO AND NOX AS
LOW AS 2PPM.

COMPLETE SYSTEMS
CUSTOM DESIGNED
FOR THE MOST
STRINGENT CUSTOMER
SPECIFICATIONS.

RENTECH BOILERS.
AS TOUGH AS TEXAS.
PRODUCTS SOLUTIONS
Heat Recovery Steam Generators Refining and Petrochemical
Waste Heat Boilers Power Generation
Fired Packaged Watertube Boilers Manufacturing & Institutional
Specialty Boilers Food Processing
CHP
WWW.RENTECHBOILERS.COM

Select 53 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com

PLANT SAFETY
AND ENVIRONMENT
Is it time for a new paradigm in safety?
Integrating fire and gas safety
with process control systems

MAINTENANCE
Improving plant performance
by changing a maintenance culture

VIEWPOINT
Reducing the sulfur shadow—
Who pays the price?

CATALYSTS
More residue processing
in FCCUs
Achieve More Achieve more from challenging feeds in your
Hydroprocessing operations with the new ULTIMet™

With ULTIMet™ catalyst. It’s Honeywell UOP’s most active catalyst,

used in hydrotreating and hydrocracking applications
to produce a higher product quality.

Learn more at www.uop.com.

© 2018 Honeywell International. All rights reserved.

Select 71 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 OCTOBER 2018 | Volume 97 Number 10
HydrocarbonProcessing.com

S–73

SPECIAL FOCUS: PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENTS

33 Building blocks of process safety 4 Industry Perspectives
H. Dutta
39 Built-up backpressure at the outlet flange of a pressure relief valve
8 Business Trends
G. O. Cordero 98 Onsite
47 Integrating fire and gas safety with process control systems: 100 Advertiser Index
Why, what and how
101 Marketplace
B. Crosley and M. Indgjer
51 High-reliability organizing for a new paradigm in safety 102 Events
P. Hanik and R. Hausmann
COLUMNS
MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY
7 Editorial Comment
55 Fouling mitigation strategies for process gas compressors in olefins plants HP Top Projects awards are back!
O. C. Eteng
13 Reliability
61 Importance of welding procedure software Defining process hazard analysis
A. Anwer and loss control advisory tasks
63 Amine pumps upgraded for improved operations and reliability 15 Engineering Case Histories
D. Yusoff and R. Aronen Case 103: Addressing
heat exchanger tube leaks
HEAT TRANSFER
67 Understand the installation of steam tracing 19 Viewpoint
New thinking to old problems
for long-term application success—Part 2
C. C. Hannah and T. W. Perry 23 Africa
New maritime emissions rules
71 Methodology for model-based, real-time prediction of corrosion
to impact Africa’s downstream sector
in heat exchangers
G. Holzer and E. Jeitler 25 Maintenance
Improving plant performance
SULFUR MANAGEMENT by changing a maintenance culture
S–74 Achieving operational excellence in sulfur management 27 Risk
A. Kelkar and J. Panigrahi Measuring margins:
Avoiding complacency
PROCESS OPTIMIZATION when the market is stable
83 Reconstruct a vacuum column injector system
using computer modeling—Part 1 29 Viewpoint
Reducing the sulfur shadow—
E. S. Telyakov, E. V. Osipov and D. Bugembe
Who pays the price?
CATALYST
89 More residue processing in FCCUs DIGITAL EXCLUSIVES
M. Genc, U. Karani, I. Emiroglu, I. Er and S. Kandaz Industry Metrics
Global Project Data
PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION
93 The road to successful plant modernization
H. Kang

GAS PROCESSING SUPPLEMENT

GP-1 Technology and Business Information for the Global Gas Processing Industry

Cover Image: Marathon Petroleum Corp.’s refinery in Detroit, Michigan, is implementing

several pollution-control measures. Photo courtesey from Marathon Petroleum Corp.

www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
P. O. Box 2608
Houston, Texas 77252-2608, USA
Phone: +1 (713) 529-4301
Fax: +1 (713) 520-4433
HPEditorial@HydrocarbonProcessing.com

PUBLISHER Catherine Watkins

Industry Perspectives EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER Lee Nichols

EDITORIAL
Executive Editor Adrienne Blume
New downstream project Managing Editor
Digital Editor
Mike Rhodes
Stephanie Cano
announcements surge 43% Technical Editor
Reliability/Equipment Editor
Bob Andrew
Heinz P. Bloch
over the past year Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Alissa Leeton
ARC Advisory Group
Contributing Editor Anthony Sofronas
According to the Hydrocarbon Processing Construction Box-
MAGAZINE PRODUCTION / +1 (713) 525-4633
score Database, more than 320 new downstream capital proj- Vice President, Production Sheryl Stone
ects have been announced over the past year (FIG. 1). This total Manager, Advertising Production Cheryl Willis
represents a 43% increase in new project announcements year Assistant Manager, Advertising Production Krista Norman
Manager, Editorial Production Angela Bathe Dietrich
over year. Since September 2017, new project announcements Assistant Manager, Editorial Production Lindsey Craun
have averaged nearly 25/mos. Most of these new projects Artist/Illustrator David Weeks
(80%) are within the gas processing/LNG and petrochemical Graphic Designer Andreina Keller
industries. A breakdown of each sector includes: ADVERTISING SALES
• Gas processing/LNG—41% (133 projects) See Sales Offices, page 100.
• Petrochemicals—39% (127 projects) CIRCULATION / +1 (713) 520-4498 / Circulation@GulfEnergyInfo.com
• Refining—20% (61 projects). Manager, Circulation Suzanne McGehee
With more than 110 projects, the Asia-Pacific region contin- SUBSCRIPTIONS
ues to lead in new project announcements. The US follows the Subscription price (includes both print and digital versions): One year $399,
Asia-Pacific region with a 26% market share in new project an- two years $679, three years $897. Airmail rate outside North America $175 addi-
tional a year. Single copies $35, prepaid.
nouncements. Both the gas processing/LNG and petrochemi-
cal industries in the US have benefitted greatly from domestic Hydrocarbon Processing’s Full Data Access subscription plan is priced at $1,695.
This plan provides full access to all information and data Hydrocarbon Processing
shale gas production, which has created a boom in the develop- has to offer. It includes a print or digital version of the magazine, as well as full
ment of new natural gas gathering and processing capacity, in- access to all posted articles (current and archived), process handbooks, the
frastructure buildouts, LNG export capacity and a renaissance HPI Market Data book, Construction Boxscore Database project updates and more.

in the country’s petrochemical sector. A breakdown of market Because Hydrocarbon Processing is edited specifically to be of greatest value to
people working in this specialized business, subscriptions are restricted to those
share in new project announcements over the past year includes: engaged in the hydrocarbon processing industry, or service and supply company
• Africa—4% (14 projects) personnel connected thereto.
• Asia-Pacific—35% (113 projects) Hydrocarbon Processing is indexed by Applied Science & Technology Index, by
• Canada—6% (18 projects) Chemical Abstracts and by Engineering Index Inc. Microfilm copies available through
• Western Europe—6% (18 projects) University Microfilms, International, Ann Arbor, Mich. The full text of Hydrocarbon
Processing is also available in electronic versions of the Business Periodicals Index.
• Eastern Europe, Russia, CIS—8% (27 projects)
• Latin America—4% (13 projects) DISTRIBUTION OF ARTICLES
• Middle East—11% (34 projects) Published articles are available for distribution in a PDF format or as professionally
printed handouts. Contact Foster Printing at Mossberg & Co. for a price quote and
• US—26% (84 projects). details about how you can customize with company logo and contact information.
The Middle East has increased its market share, as several For more information, contact Jill Kaletha with Foster Printing at
nations have announced capital intensive projects to diversify Mossberg & Co. at +1 (800) 428-3340 x 149 or jkaletha@mossbergco.com.
their product portfolios from the reliance on crude oil sales. In Hydrocarbon Processing (ISSN 0018-8190) is published monthly by Gulf Energy
total, the Asia-Pacific, Middle East and US regions represented Information, 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020, Houston, Texas 77046. Periodicals post-
approximately 72% of total new project market share in 2018. age paid at Houston, Texas, and at additional mailing office. POSTMASTER: Send
address changes to Hydrocarbon Processing, P.O. Box 2608, Houston, Texas 77252.

350 Copyright © 2018 by Gulf Energy Information. All rights reserved.

2018 321 Permission is granted by the copyright owner to libraries and others registered
300 2017 with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy any articles herein for
2016 the base fee of $3 per copy per page. Payment should be sent directly to the CCC,
New project announcements

250 21 Congress St., Salem, Mass. 01970. Copying for other than personal or internal
214 reference use without express permission is prohibited. Requests for special
permission or bulk orders should be addressed to the Editor. ISSN 0018-8190/01.
200 188

150
125 120
100 82 88
President/CEO John Royall
65 60 68 61 CFO Alan Millis
50 38 Vice President Andy McDowell
Vice President, Finance and Operations Pamela Harvey
0 Vice President, Production Sheryl Stone
Refining Petrochemicals Gas processing/LNG Total
Publication Agreement Number 40034765 Printed in USA

FIG. 1. New project announcements, September 2015–September 2018. Other Gulf Energy Information titles include: Gas ProcessingTM, Petroleum Economist ©,
World Oil ®, Pipeline & Gas Journal and Underground Construction.

4 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Select 94 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Select 59 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 Editorial LEE NICHOLS, EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
Comment Lee.Nichols@HydrocarbonProcessing.com

HP Top Projects awards are back!

It’s that time again! Hydrocarbon Pro- Petrochemicals: INSIDE THIS ISSUE
cessing has announced the nominees for its • 2014—Saudi Aramco and
annual Top Project awards. The editors of
Hydrocarbon Processing have identified 10
Dow Chemical’s SADARA
Petrochemical Complex 32 Special Focus.
The most important
aspect of the downstream processing
projects that will contribute significantly • 2015—Sasol’s Ethane Cracker
industry is safety. This month’s Special
to the expansion of the hydrocarbon pro- and Derivatives Complex
Focus provides best practices on
cessing industry, whether through con- • 2016—Dow Chemical’s Oyster
increasing safety in HPI operations.
tributing capital expenditures, satisfying Creek PDH unit project

or increasing domestic or regional de-
mand, diversifying product offerings or
adding to the resurgence in refining and/
or petrochemical processing capacity.
These 10 projects span the globe and
represent more than $80 B in total capital
expenditures. The winners of this presti-
gious award over the last 2 yr include:
Refining:
• 2014—Saudi Aramco and Total
Refining and Petrochemical Co.’s
(SATORP) Jubail refinery
• 2015—SOCAR’s Turkey Aegean
Refinery (STAR)
• 2016—KNPC’s Clean Fuels Project
• 2017—KNPC’s Al-Zour refinery
TABLE 1. Top refining project nominees
Operator Project
Saudi Aramco Jizan refinery
Egyptian Refining Co. Mostorod refinery
Dangote Industries Ltd. (DIL) DIL Refinery and Petrochemical
integrated complex
North West Redwater Partnership Sturgeon refinery
• 2017—Petronas’ Pengerang
Integrated Complex
This year’s refining nominees (TABLE 1)
represent more than 1.2 MMbpd of new
refining capacity by the early 2020s and a
total investment of more than $30 B. The
six petrochemical nominees (TABLE 2) cost
more than $50 B and represent several mil-
lion tons per year of additional petrochem-
icals production by the early 2020s.
Beginning October 1, readers of Hy-
drocarbon Processing can make their voices
heard in an exclusive online poll at Hydro-
carbonProcessing.com. The winners will
be revealed in Hydrocarbon Processing’s
December issue.
Location Capacity
Saudi Arabia 400,000 bpd
Egypt 95,000 bpd
Nigeria 650,000 bpd
Canada 80,000 bpd
55 Maintenance
and
Reliability. Having a
process gas compressor (PGC) fouling
mitigation strategy that is uniquely
designed to fit the plant’s configuration
is vital to ensuring the profitability
of a petrochemical facility. Eleme
Petrochemicals Ltd. discusses its cracker
plant operations and how actions
taken by personnel have doubled
PGC runs between two shutdowns
(maintenance and cleaning) and
reduced frequency of rotor jamming.
S–74 Sulfur. Refiners
are continuously
focused on optimizing operations, while
complying with stringent energy and
environmental regulations. This article
focuses on how Bharat Petroleum Corp.
Ltd.’s Mumbai refinery has evolved and
adapted its business process for sulfur
monitoring through digitalization.
The primary focus is to optimize the
sulfur recovery envelop and determine
the optimum operational parameters.

TABLE 2. Top petrochemical project nominees

Operator
Rongshen Petrochemical Co.
Oman Oil Refineries and
Petroleum Industries Co. (ORPIC)
Sibur
ExxonMobil
Dalian Hengli Petrochemicals
Chevron Phillips Chemical
Project Location Capacity
93 Process Controls and
Instrumentation. Anyone
working in a refinery or petrochemical
Zhoushan Island integrated China 2.8 MMtpy plant with “vintage” automation
complex equipment is aware of the effects a
LIWA Plastics project Oman 800,000 tpy decades-old distributed control system
can have on operations. Unscheduled
ZapSibNeftekhim (ZapSib-2) Russia 1.5 MMtpy outages caused by failures of old
project components threaten plant efficiency
Baytown ethane cracker project US 1.5 MMtpy and even operational viability. Those
launching projects often do not go far
Liaoning province China 400,000 tpy
enough with potential improvements,
petrochemical complex
and huge opportunities are lost as a
Cedar Bayou ethane US 1.5 MMtpy result. Why is this the case, and what
cracker project
can be done to alleviate the situation?

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 7

 | Business Trends
Industry leaders have indicated that the biggest obstacles to achieving
operational excellence are the complexities of company operations
and a limited understanding of available improvement tools and
techniques. The most successful operational excellence initiatives
resemble missions more than projects. A program driven from the top
with company resources and management working together must be
in place. This month’s Business Trends focuses on how companies and
organizations can increase their operational excellence.

Photo: Chemical technicians perform equipment inspections in the L-Menthol

production plant at BASF’s Ludwigshafen site. BASF operates the world’s largest
production plant for L-Menthol. Photo courtesy of BASF SE.
A. FREE, Argo Consulting, Chicago, Illinois; and
CJ RENEGAR, Argo Consulting, Fort Worth, Texas
It is time to throw away your old
operational excellence playbook
Across the hydrocarbon processing industry (HPI), execu-
tives are buzzing about operational excellence. However, for
many, the operational excellence reality does not live up to the
hype. Why? Because they are doing it wrong.
Operational excellence strategies are often driven by a team
with little or no plant experience that thinks getting more em-
ployees Six Sigma Green Belt certified can solve their woes. It
is time to eliminate that model.
Why are the results not there? Did you know that there
are Fortune 100 companies that have an operations excellence
department, a continuous improvement team, a change man-
agement team and a strategic communications team? With all
these people focusing some of their time on driving and sup-
porting operational excellence, organizations should be making
headway. However, an industry survey1 showed that more is not
always better. Several interesting results of this study included:
• One in four leaders said they strongly agree that
their company’s operational excellence program
is delivering the annual productivity improvements
and costs saving targets.
• Approximately 80% believed they have strong support
and buy-in at the CEO level, and 80% indicated that
their operational excellence program and initiatives
are linked to the corporate strategy.
• Approximately 60% indicated they have increased
spending on operational excellence programs.
• Around 46% of respondents were neutral or
disagreed that their company was achieving
operational excellence targets.
Why are leaders not seeing more results when they are increas-
ing investments, providing executive support and linking initia-
tives to corporate strategy?
Leaders indicated that the biggest obstacles to achieving op-
erational excellence are the complexities of company operations
and a limited understanding of available improvement tools and
techniques. These responses hint at the core of the issue. In their
first few years, operational excellence teams excel at achieving
quick wins and fixing the easy problems. The toughest problems
lie between organizational silos and require win-win solutions
delivered by savvy leaders to progress through the approval pro-
cess. These solutions require changing the way things are done.
Many operations excellence results depend on effective ac-
countability, as well. Do leaders hold process owners account-
able if they do not execute best practices? The authors have
Business Trends
reviewed many cases where correct best practices have been
implemented, but leaders fail to hold people accountable when
the correct action is not taken.
The authors believe the problem is that:
• Companies do not connect strategic company
goals to annual performance objectives for their
operations excellence teams.
• Many operational excellence teams are out fishing
for work from internal departments.
• Operational excellence teams are more pop-in advisors
and are not connected enough to departments on a day-
to-day basis to truly understand their issues.
• Many operational excellence teams are staffed
with individuals who have training certifications
but were hired from outside the organization
they are trying to improve.
• Operational excellence teams do not have the critical
relationships to drive substantial change. This can be
because they were hired from outside the organization
and did not take the time to build relationships, or
because they were promoted from within and do not
yet have the credibility with the organization.
• Significant improvements require significant change
to the status quo. Many internal operational leaders
will not take political risks to communicate what
is really happening or escalate above leaders who
are blocking improvements.
The authors worked with a large company that had more than
40 employees dedicated to operations excellence. They were di-
vided into teams aligned by business units. More than 60% of the
team was hired from outside the company and their continuous
improvement skills varied from poor to high. It was the opera-
tional excellence employees’ responsibility to go to the business
units and solicit projects. The strategy worked. They obtained
many administrative projects, such as managing monthly staff
meetings for the leaders. However, 40% of these projects were
considered non-value-added work that the team should not be
doing. Another 40% of the projects were non-value-added but
could potentially open the door for future value-added projects,
such as facilitating annual goal sessions for the department. In
total, only 20% of their projects were considered to add value
(e.g., reducing the maintenance time for expensive assets).
At a different company, a team spent 18 mos hiring and
training a staff of five operational excellence employees who
then trained 40 part-time plant employees in the basics of
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 9
 Business Trends
Lean and Six Sigma. When the authors reviewed the status of
their projects, 30 of the 40 had been in the define stage for the ing all departments with more than 10 different operational
last 9 mos, seven in the measure phase for last 5 mos, and three excellence resources. The team piloted a Kaizen approach,
in the analyze phase for the last 2 mos.
The most successful operational excellence
initiatives resemble missions more than
projects. The toughest problems lie between
organizational silos and require win-win
solutions delivered by savvy leaders to progress
through the approval process. These solutions
require a change in the way things are done.
As these two examples show, having an operational excellence countered significant obstacles, from, “We have never done
team does not mean that operational excellence is being achieved. this before,” to “How do we find waste in our preventive main-
So, how does a company achieve operational excellence?
Stop! If a company is doing any of the following, it needs to
stop immediately:
• Using operational excellence teams for staff support,
communication and/or project management.
• Having operational excellence teams train internal
resources who have full-time responsibility in tools
that they will not use in the next 30 d. Only train
others when you have an immediate assignment,
such as eliminating motion waste in your plant through
5S techniques. Train those who will be responsible
for implementing and sustaining 5S techniques.
• Having full-time resources working on projects that are
not highly linked to an annual improvement goal that is
then linked to an executive’s annual bonus.
The most successful operational excellence initiatives re-
semble missions more than projects. A program must be
driven from the top with resources and management cadence.
For example, a company’s continuous improvement leader
implemented improvements in the same way she managed
her contract resources for the company’s wastewater ponds.
The savings were greater than $1 MM/yr. She also realized
a larger opportunity existed across the entire company to re-
duce contractor spending by standardizing contracts, contract
terms and sharing resources. After several meetings, the leader
FIG. 1. An operational excellence framework.
10 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
gained executive support to create a site-wide mission involv-
creating a one-day boot camp where all parties to certain
contracts were brought together in the same room
to share best practices, and, more importantly, to
implement changes in the contracts that same day.
After 9 mos and 27 boot camps, the company real-
ized savings greater than $80 MM.
In another example, the plant manager laid out
clear objectives at the beginning of the year. He
wanted 30% of waste removed from preventive
maintenance work orders and wanted to implement
visual pull in the maintenance work flow. Resources
were dedicated to achieving these goals, along with
weekly updates to ensure progress. The teams en-
tenance work orders?” After 3 mos without results, the plant
manager was not discouraged. In fact, he was encouraged by
the progress. The teams had conducted pilot programs and
were learning what worked and what did not work, which set
the stage to achieve great success in the following months and
eventually exceed their goals.
How does a company start an operational excellence
program? Once old habits are broken, a company must create
good habits:
• Re-task teams to a specific challenge mission, such as
reducing production losses by a specific percentage,
improving reliability for a specific area, and reducing
routine maintenance costs and operating costs for specific
equipment or units (e.g., heat exchangers or crude units).
• Challenge the team to learn from failure. The goal is
to discover innovations and improvements—even if
they have to destroy methodologies.
• Ensure the mission has three critical leaders:
1. A mission champion (e.g., executive team sponsor)
2. A mission owner—The person who will own
the solution afterwards
3. A mission leader—The operational excellence
leader in charge of the team.
• Adjust the team members. Operational excellence team
members may need to be replaced with others better
suited for the challenge. It is imperative that leaders that
are unhappy with the status quo are selected, along with
personnel from supporting areas (e.g., finance or HR
departments). People with no knowledge of the processes
ask great questions like, “Why do we do it that way?”
• Embed team members into the organization they
are trying to improve. If they are tasked with reducing
production losses, they should be monitoring
production daily with resources such as overall
equipment effectiveness metrics. They should use
previous shift or day performance to drive their
observations every day for 30 d.
• Meet with team members regularly (weekly, monthly,
etc.) to learn from them and provide coaching. Convey to
team members the linkage between the goal and activities,
Just say:

When
Where &
hoW
W Many.
Solve. Respond. Deliver. It’s not just a slogan.
It’s the bedrock we’ve built our business on
since 1954 – delivering standard-setting cooling
solutions for gas compression and processing,
refineries, lube oil cooling and more.

harscoAXC.com 918.619.8000 (USA)

Select 88 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 Business Trends
how the team is doing vs. the goal, and provide progress
updates and overviews on issues the team is experiencing.
An issues list should be provided prior to the meeting.
• Support the initiatives with leadership team
communications. Any significant change requires
constant and repetitive reinforcement of why the
team is conducting activities. Personnel must be
repeatedly reminded of the initiatives, especially if the
operation will radically change. These initiatives are
great for monthly or quarterly town hall meetings with
employees. Communicate these initiatives, introduce the
leaders and ask the organization to support them.
• Link the challenges with annual goals from the
company’s business plan. By the beginning of February
each year, the team should be able to see a one-page
list of specific goals that are linked to the strategic goals
of the company. The left side of the page can list key
challenges to running the business, while the right
side of the page can detail challenges to improving
the business (e.g., reducing operating expense by 5%
through lean waste elimination in maintenance).
• Enable experiments and innovation. Break the challenge
down into experiments or pilot areas and create internal
competition. Amazing things can happen when a leader
gives a team a challenge.
• Evaluate the status of the challenge every 45 d and
remain patient.
Select 151 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
12OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
A company can get started with improvements by assessing its
program. A framework that a company’s operational excellence
team can reference is shown in FIG. 1.
Discover. Team leaders should find out what is happening in
their operations excellence area. This should not be conducted
by an email or meeting. Team leaders need to go and see the op-
erations excellence employee in practice. For example, complete
a “day in the life” of an employee. Ask open-ended questions to
maximize the learning experience. After this is completed, meet
with the operational excellence leaders and assess how you can
help in terms of accomplishing specific missions.
LITERATURE CITED
1
J. Chen and Westervelt, R., “Operational Excellence,” Chemical Week, October 2017.
ALAN FREE is Senior Vice President and Partner at Argo
Consulting. He regularly explores operational excellence
challenges and refinements with CEOs and COOs. Mr. Free has
helped several large companies restructure and revitalize their
operational excellence programs and front-line cultures,
realizing sustained double-digit results in higher productivity,
asset effectiveness, operating margins and cashflow.
CJ RENEGAR is Vice President of Argo Consulting. He has
been leading or coaching operational excellence teams in
the upstream, refining, chemicals, manufacturing, information
technology, distribution and transportation industries for
more than 20 yr. He has created four successful operations
excellence programs and has helped multiple clients improve
or start their own programs.
MIKE RHODES, MANAGING EDITOR
Mike.Rhodes@HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Industry Metrics

The US product market strengthened, mainly supported by higher Global refining margins, 2017–2018*
product exports, particularly to Latin America. In Europe, declining 20
ARA product inventories resulted in tighter product balances, providing
substantial support to refining margins. In Asia, refining margins 15

Margins, US$/bbl
strengthened on the back of lower refinery intakes caused by unplanned
10
shutdowns and bullish market sentiment.
WTI, US Gulf
5 Brent, Rotterdam
An expanded version of Industry Metrics can be found Oman, Singapore
online at HydrocarbonProcessing.com. 0

Aug.-17

Sept.-17

Oct.-17

Nov.-17

Dec.-17

Jan.-18

Feb.-18

Mar.-18

April-18

May-18

June-18

July-18

Aug.-18
US gas production (Bft3d) and prices (US$/Mft3)
100 7 Global refining utilization rates, 2017–2018*
6 100
80
Gas prices, US$/Mft3

5 95
Production, Bft3

Utilization rates, %
60 4 90
40 3 85
Monthly price (Henry Hub) 2 80 US EU 16
20 12-month price avg.
Production 1 75 Selected Asia
0 0 70
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A
Aug.-17

Sept.-17

Oct.-17

Nov.-17

Dec.-17

Jan.-18

Feb.-18

Mar.-18

April-18

May-18

June-18

July-18

Aug.-18
2016 2017 2018
Production equals U.S. marketed production, wet gas. Source: EIA.

Selected world oil prices, US$/bbl US Gulf cracking spread vs. WTI, 2017–2018*
80 50
40 Prem. gasoline Diesel
W. Texas Inter. Jet/kero Fuel oil
Cracking spread, US$/bbl

70
Brent Blend 30
Oil prices, US$/bbl

60 Dubai Fateh
Source: DOE 20
50 10
40 0
-10
30
-20
20
Aug.-17

Sept.-17

Oct.-17

Nov.-17

Dec.-17

Jan.-18

Feb.-18

Mar.-18

April-18

May-18

June-18

July-18

Aug.-18

Sept.-18
A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A
2016 2017 2018

World liquid fuel supply and demand, MMbpd Rotterdam cracking spread vs. Brent, 2017–2018*
106 7 30
104 Implied stock build 6
Stock change and balance, MMbpd

Cracking spread, US$/bbl

Supply and demand, MMbpd

102 Implied stock draw 5

World supply 15
100 World demand 4
98 3 Prem. gasoline Gasoil
96 2 0 Jet/kero Fuel oil
94 1
92 0 -15
90 -1
Aug.-17

Sept.-17

Oct.-17

Nov.-17

Dec.-17

Jan.-18

Feb.-18

Mar.-18

April-18

May-18

June-18

July-18

Aug.-18

Sept.-18

88 -2
2013-Q1 2014-Q1 2015-Q1 2016-Q1 2017-Q1 2018-Q1 2019-Q1
Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, September 2018 Singapore cracking spread vs. Oman, 2017–2018*
Brent dated vs. sour grades 20
(Urals and Dubai) spread, 2017–2018*
Cracking spread, US$/bbl

6 10
Light sweet/medium sour

Prem. gasoline Gasoil

crude spread, US$/bbl

4 Jet/kero Fuel oil

2 0

0 -10
-2 Dubai
Aug.-17

Sept.-17

Oct.-17

Nov.-17

Dec.-17

Jan.-18

Feb.-18

Mar.-18

April-18

May-18

June-18

July-18

Aug.-18

Sept.-18

Urals
-4
Aug.-17

Sept.-17

Oct.-17

Nov.-17

Dec.-17

Jan.-18

Feb.-18

Mar.-18

April-18

May-18

June-18

July-18

Aug.-18

Sept.-18

* Material published permission of the OPEC Secretariat; copyright 2018;

all rights reserved; OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report, September 2018.

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 12–A

LEE NICHOLS, EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
Lee.Nichols@HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Global Project Data

According to Hydrocarbon Processing’s Construction
Boxscore Database, more than 320 new projects have been
announced in the downstream processing industry over the
past year. With more than 110 projects, the Asia-Pacific region
leads in new project announcements. China and India are the
leaders in new capacity additions. However, other Asia-Pacific
nations are also investing heavily in downstream capacity
buildouts, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South
Korea and Thailand. The US follows the Asia-Pacific region with
a 26% market share in new project announcements. The US is
focused primarily on boosting domestic petrochemical and gas
processing/LNG capacity.

18

Canada
45
84
Europe

US 34
113
14
Middle East
Africa
13

Latin America Asia-Pacific

New project announcements in the past year

by region, September 2017–September 2018

32 31 32
29 30 30
25 25 24 25
23
21
19
36% Refining
15 16
29% Gas processing/LNG
35% Petrochemicals

July- Aug.- Sept.- Oct.- Nov- Dec- Jan.- Feb.- Mar.- April- May- June- July- Aug.- Sept.-
17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Boxscore new project announcements,

Active project market share by sector
July 2017–present

Detailed and up-to-date information for active construction projects in the refining,
gas processing and petrochemical industries across the globe | ConstructionBoxscore.com

12–B OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 HEINZ P. BLOCH, RELIABILITY/EQUIPMENT EDITOR
Reliability Heinz.Bloch@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Defining process hazard analysis
and loss control advisory tasks
The safety and reliability of fluid machinery has been the
subject of hundreds of columns, books and articles over the
past decades. Two recent books and an article have stressed the
importance of defining the role of machinery reliability profes-
sionals.1,2,3 All see fit to state that these professionals are not
performing their jobs in a stand-alone role. In fact, they have,
or should have, considerable involvement supporting other job
functions in a petrochemical plant or oil refinery. They commu-
nicate and cooperate—two indispensable actions leading to the
success of individuals and plants.
Because equipment reliability engineering touches on and
often overlaps the role of process hazard analysis/loss control
advisors (PHA/LCAs), it is easy to see that reliability profes-
sionals will benefit from understanding the responsibilities of
their PHA/LCA colleagues.
Perhaps the most appropriate brief task description for
PHA/LCAs is to map out pathways to eliminate waste in its
many forms. PHA/LCAs aim to increase system resistance
against loss of process containment (LOPC) incidents. It fol-
lows that increased business value is achieved by aligning risk
tolerance between corporate staff, site management, PHA
teams and employees. More specifically, the PHA/LCA:
• Introduces risk assessment references, tools and
guidelines to efficiently determine the tolerance
for hazards identified during PHAs.
• Analyzes equipment reliability history to define a
facility’s tolerance for chronic failures according to
API 581 principles.
• Supports the business in evaluating options to
adequately address PHA recommendations.
• Audits process operations regularly to detect and
correct risky maintenance procedure substitutions,
creative workaround solutions invented or discovered
by operations personnel, and shortcuts that might lead
to unplanned business interruption.
The role of the investigator-in-charge. A facility is best
served by designating a working team leader or group supervi-
sor whose primary responsibility is to guide all phases of major
incident investigation to a definitive conclusion. The task can be
summarized as a structured effort to offset business losses. The
PHA/LCA investigator-in-charge should focus on creating val-
ue by preventing recurring failures throughout the enterprise.
Responsibility and expectations. Whether formally or in-
formally, the investigator-in-charge is handed a role statement
that can also be expressed as assigned responsibilities and im-
plied expectations. In the relatively few instances where no
such role statement exists, PHA/LCAs should consider com-
piling the elements comprising their role and submit these to
the responsible manager for review and buy-in. Typically, the
important elements include actions and/or conduct such as:
• Organizing formal investigations according to approved
and recognized industry methods. These methods
may not necessarily follow the path previously followed
by traditionalists who pursue a particular agenda.
• Facilitating process safety failure investigations
according to 29 CFR 1910.119(m).
• Discussing expectations with legal staff prior to
organizing major investigations.
• Enforcing the investigation procedure until the
investigation is complete.
• Providing turnaround support by investigating the
causes for unanticipated equipment condition
found upon inspection.
• Obtaining all external knowledge needed to drive failure
investigations to an effective and actionable conclusion.
• Writing the final report and leading the team to
develop corrective actions that adequately address
the underlying causes of the incident.
• Developing learnings and knowledge retention
systems capable of communicating lessons from
previous incidents.
• Remaining independent from reliability department
influences (fixed, mechanical, instrument and
electrical).
• Maintaining basic and advanced investigation skills
training program(s), while keeping in mind that
developing competent individuals goes beyond
mere training.
• Networking with industry contacts at formal process
safety and incident analysis conferences.
• Communicating investigation findings and
industry-acquired knowledge to the organization.
This knowledge largely originates with attendance
at and participation in organizations that represent
industry professionals. From these events evolve
or arise informal networking contact with experts
and peers.
• Serving as a sounding board and adjunct source of
information in planning sessions relating to sheltering-
in-place. Supporting management through advocacy
of proactive strategies is a PHA/LCA’s role; he or she
provides and contributes detailed proposals to safely
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 13
 Reliability
ride out worst-case natural disasters anticipated
for the geographic area or location of the facility.
• Advocating for strengthening factors of safety
that have become marginal in view of progressive
increases in energy content (power) and/or
frequency of natural disasters.
Measures. The term measures is a catch-all for identifiable
procedures and the desirable format in which reports or tabu-
lations are submitted to responsible management personnel.
One can think of at least three separate measures that are com-
monly used by PHA/LCAs:
• API 754 event tracking
• PHA action item management
• Annual performance review.
However, additional measures are likely compiled, used and
submitted by the person supervising PHA/LCAs:
• Unplanned event category analysis
• Major investigation plan review
• Annual performance review.
It is reasonable to claim that organizations without well-
defined PHA and incomplete LCA tasks are likely to neglect,
or overlook, precautionary actions. Such actions represent
critically important elements of safety and control; these are
desirable in a reliability-focused environment. Those who have
given clarity to conscientious PHA and have appropriately de-
fined important loss control endeavors are encouraging com-
BE A SMOOTH OPERATOR.
OPTIMIZE LIKE NO OTHER.
Ensure competitivity at any market situation with NAPCON
Optimizer. Based on a dynamic, real-time optimization concept,
it allows you to maximize profits on a minute level by direct,
plant-wide optimization.
Learn more at napconsuite.com
Select 154 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
14OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
munication and cooperation among virtually all job functions.
In the interest of not overlooking human needs, consideration
is the third “C” in the chain of attributes needed for success.
Being considerate of others is extremely important in a busi-
ness world that tends to exhibit behavior that would have been
thought impossible not too long ago.
Companies employing value-adding personnel highlighted
in our advocacy of overlapping skills tend to uncomplicate mat-
ters. Overlap between equipment reliability professionals and
PHA/LCAs will benefit all. Organizations will be nudged to-
wards greater prosperity and will be less likely to encounter re-
peat incidents that negatively affect safety and profitability.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Bloch, K., “Rethinking Bhopal,” Elsevier, Inc., 2016.
2
Bloch, K. and B. Jung, “Understanding the impact of unreliable machinery,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, June 2012.
3
Bloch, H., “Petrochemical Machinery Insights,” Elsevier Publishing, 2016.
HEINZ P. BLOCH resides in Montgomery, Texas.
His professional career commenced in 1962 and
included long-term assignments as Exxon Chemical’s
Regional Machinery Specialist for the US. He has
authored or co-written more than 700 publications,
among them 20 books. Mr. Bloch holds BS and MS
degrees (cum laude) in mechanical engineering.
He is an ASME Life Fellow and was awarded lifetime
registration as a Professional Engineer in New Jersey.
 Engineering A. SOFRONAS, CONSULTING ENGINEER
Case Histories http://mechanicalengineeringhelp.com

Case 103: Addressing heat exchanger tube leaks

Heat exchangers have multiple tubes with fluid passing
through and over them that either heats or cools another
fluid. When a tube leaks, it may not always be cost effective
to replace the tube. A common practice is to plug the leaking
tubes, thereby stopping the fluid flow through them. This will
also change the process temperature. What can an engineer Tubesheet
contribute when asked if the 20 tubes plugged in a single-pass,
325-tube exchanger are too many?
Design programs are not always available to analyze the sit- L
uation when an immediate answer is required. In the situation
described above, removing and servicing the exchanger would
have caused a long delay, and the unit was due for a complete Single plugged tube
re-tubing in 2 yr. A few exchanger personnel thought that
plugging 10% of the tubes would be acceptable.
In such a scenario, several important factors must be con-
sidered. One is that the velocity in the remaining tubes should
not increase to a point that erosion becomes a concern. An-
Group of plugged tubes
other is that the heat transfer process should not be unfavor-
ably diminished. An additional question asked after observa-
tion of the plugged tubes was if the tube and tubesheet stress
would increase excessively.
Three equations can be used to help make a quantitative, FIG. 1. Grouped and isolated plugged tubes.
educated decision: the continuity equation, the convection
heat equation and a thermal stress equation.
In this exchanger, each tube is designed for a liquid flow this estimate, the velocity is proportional to the number of tubes
velocity (Vtube ) of 7 ft/sec. Reducing the flow below 3 ft/sec plugged. The velocity in a tube is calculated as shown in Eq. 3:
could cause fouling; at 15 ft/sec, erosion might occur, de-
pending on the tube material and fluid cleanliness. Tube vi- Vplugged = Vunplugged × Ntubes ÷ [Ntubes – Ntubesplugged] (3)
bration is not considered here.
The weight flow through each tube is calculated as shown Likewise, the effect on the heat transferred is shown in Eq. 4:
in Eq. 1:
qplugged = qunplugged × [Ntubes – Ntubesplugged] ÷ Ntubes (4)
Wtube = ρ × Atube × Ltube × Vtube lb/sec (1)
With a 325-tube exchanger and 20 tubes (6%) plugged, the
where ρ is fluid density, Atube is tube flow area and Ltube is tube increase in velocity and heat transfer loss can be calculated as
length, all of which are considered constant for this evaluation. shown in Eqs. 5 and 6:
The convection heat equation represents heat transferred
(q) from a heat exchanger.1 A convenient form for liquids flows Vplugged = 7 × 1.06 ≈ 8 ft/sec, or a 6% increase in velocity(5)
is calculated as shown in Eq. 2: qplugged = 0.94 × qunplugged , or 6% less heat transferred (6)
q = U × A × F × Tm Btu/hr (2) Another concern with the plugging of tubes is the effect of
temperature difference on this group of tubes and the force on
Here, q is the heat dissipated by the heat exchanger. The the tubesheet. The shell and tubes grow by approximately the
heat transfer constant (U), correction factor (F) and logarith- same amount, so the cooler plugged tubes will have a higher
mic mean temperature difference (Tm ) are considered con- stress since they do not grow by as much. They are stretched
stant. The surface area of a tube is A ft2. and produce a new load on the tubesheet and tubes. A simple
Keeping the weight flow the same while reducing the number equation is useful here.1 The force on one tube (Ftube ) of re-
of tubes increases the velocity in the unplugged tubes and reduc- strained parallel steel alloy tubes of equal length but different
es the heat flow, since the tube surface area (A) is reduced. For temperatures can be calculated as shown in Eq. 7:
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 15
 Engineering Case Histories

Ftube = 200 × Asection × [Tbulk – Ttube ] lbf (7) is much higher than on an isolated plugged tube, but it prob-
ably would not cause a catastrophic failure since the small
where A section in.2 is the cross-section area of the tube. displacements and stresses would be limited by yielding or
When one isolated plugged tube is at 400°F, the rest of tube flexing.
the tubes are at the design temperature of 500°F and A section = In the above example, the maintenance team reviewed the
0.33 in.2, use Eq. 8: data and decided to re-tube the exchanger early because of the
heavy pitting.
Ftube ≈ 6,000 lb-ft (8) The “rule of thumb” that up to 10% tube plugging is ac-
ceptable is shown to have merit. However, it is important that
The load on the tubesheet from a group of tubes is shown in a detailed analysis on the specific case is considered in the
Eq. 9: decision-making process when safety is a concern.
Ftubesheet = Ftube × Nplugged (9)
LITERATURE CITED
1
Sofronas, A., Analytical Troubleshooting of Process Machinery and Pressure Vessels,
The shear stress (Sss ) on the tubesheet can be calculated ap- J. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006.
proximately from Eq. 10: NOTE
Case 102 was published in HP in August. For past cases, please visit
Sss = Ftubesheet ÷ [L × tts ] (10) HydrocarbonProcessing.com.

TONY SOFRONAS, D. Eng, was the worldwide

Here, tts in. is the tubesheet thickness and L in. is the measured lead mechanical engineer for ExxonMobil Chemicals
metal ligament length between tubes (FIG. 1). before retiring. He now owns Engineered Products,
This 325-tube exchanger had 20 closely grouped tubes which provides consulting and engineering seminars
on machinery and pressure vessels. Dr. Sofronas
plugged, as shown in FIG. 1. This can be compared with an iso- has authored several engineering books and
lated tube. numerous technical articles on analytical methods.
The shear stress in the tubesheet on the perimeter (L) for
the grouped case was approximately Sss = 15,000 lb/in.2, and
for the isolated tube it was Sss = 2,000 lb/in.2. This stress level

Process safety starts with

API PSSAP.
TM

We don’t have to tell you that it’s critical you remain

compliant and competitive in your business. That’s
where API’s Process Safety Site Assessment Program
(PSSAP) comes in. API PSSAP ensures that your site’s
process safety systems conform to industry standards.
PSSAP is focused on evaluating the quality of written
programs and the effectiveness of field implementation.
For assurance of your site’s compliance, start from
a place of safety. Start at API.org/PSSAP.

Start from a place

of safety.™

877.562.5187 (Toll-free U.S. & Canada)

+1.202.682.8041 (Local & International)
sales@api.org | www.api.org
© 2018 – American Petroleum Institute, all rights reserved. API, API PSSAP, the API logo and
the “Start from a place of safety” slogan are trademarks or registered trademarks of API in the
United States and/or other countries.

Select 153 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

16 
HydrocarbonProcessing_Oct2018_PSSAP.indd
OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com1 9/5/18 6:59 AM
Hydrocracking - Refinery

Hydrocracking
performance optimized
to meet your needs
The Topsoe hydrocracking catalysts improve the middle distillate yield, product
properties and optimize the overall performance of your hydrocracker. Our comprehensive
range of catalysts and technologies can provide you with a complete solution to all your
hydrocracking requirements. With Topsoe, less is a whole lot more.

Select 93 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
topsoe.com
 PRESSURE IS KEEPING
YOUR PLANT RUNNING SAFELY.

Maintaining plant safety is critical to your operations, especially when you consider that up to
42 percent of safety incidents are due to preventable errors. When it comes to the safety of your
fluid system operations, Swagelok has you covered. With hands-on assembly and installation
training, as well as assistance with proper product selection, Swagelok helps your employees
operate safely and confidently. It’s just one more way we’re engineered to perform under pressure.

Visit swagelok.com/safety to download

“7 Tips for Building Safer Fluid Systems.”

© 2018 Swagelok Company Select 73 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS


Viewpoint
New thinking to old problems
YOUSSEF MESTARI is Program Director for the
Honeywell Connected Plant initiative within
Honeywell Process Solutions (HPS), a strategic
business unit of Honeywell’s performance
materials and technologies division.
Mr. Youssef is responsible for developing
offerings that focus on improving worker safety,
productivity and competency, and reducing
human error and unpredictability. He previously
served as Global Director of strategic marketing
for HPS, where he worked closely with five lines
of business and the mergers and acquisition
team. Prior to joining Honeywell, Mr. Youssef
spent 6 yr with McKinsey & Co., where he was
a senior manager based in Dubai, UAE. He also
spent 4 yr as a product marketing consultant in
the telecommunication industry.
He holds MS degrees in applied physics and
telecommunication from the École normale
supérieure and École nationale supérieure des
télécommunications, both located in Paris,
France. He also studied at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), where he was research
assistant in signal processing and analytics for
its Research Laboratory of Electronics.
The oil and gas industry is aging, and it
is time to get wiser when it comes to train-
ing and productivity.
More than a decade ago, World Pe-
troleum Council Director General Dr.
Pierce Riemer warned the industry that it
was on “the edge of a demographic cliff.”1
At the time, the average age in explora-
Y. MESTARI
Honeywell Connected Plant
tion and production was 50 yr old, and
the industry had already lost more than
1 MM employees.2 Many more are now
enjoying their retirement. Oil, gas and
energy recruitment specialist Petroplan’s
most recent Talent Insight Index 2017 re-
port found that more than 20% of oil and
gas professionals said the industry lacked
the right talent for its growth.3
This problem is only going to get
worse. In 2017, the youngest baby boom-
ers, on whom the industry has long de-
pended, were in their early 50s; the oldest
were over 70.4
As boomers retire, a new generation is
emerging to provide a vast potential pool
of recruitment: millennials, with 15 MM
more of them than baby boomers, now
constitute the largest generation in the
American labor force (> 33%), according
to Pew Research.5
The differences represented by this
new generation of workers have been
well documented. Crucially, they are said
to be job-hoppers. Consultant Deloitte’s
2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey found
that two-thirds of millennials expect to
have moved from their current employ-
ers by the end of 2020. Only 16% saw
themselves sticking around for the next
decade.6 Many typically stay in the same
job for just 2 yr. If it takes a year to train a
new plant employee, that does not appear
to be a promising investment.
Moreover, studies show that millen-
nials require new approaches to learning
and development:
• They are the “digital natives”7 and
have grown up in the Internet
age. They demand technological
solutions, and quick and ready
access to information with the
touch of a finger.
• Because they have been raised in a
connected, digital world, they are
more experiential learners.8
• They want jobs that are personally
fulfilling, enable them to grow
and learn new skills, and challenge
them with new and evolving
responsibilities.9
If businesses play to their strengths,
they might find that the growing num-
bers of millennials will work for them
surprisingly well.
Getting real. Virtual reality (VR) and
augmented reality (AR) should be a big
part of this conversation. Studies show
that experiential learning techniques are
up to seven or eight times more effective
than passive learning through listening
(lectures) or visualization (presenta-
tions). This is the basis of the learning
pyramid.10 Only teaching others is a more
effective way to retain information.
This is amplified for millennials, as
they learn best through practice. How-
ever, turning trainees loose to practice on
a live plant before they are ready is im-
practical and dangerous. AR and VR are
ideal substitutes.
The technologies are similar. VR re-
places our reality with another, using a
headset with a screen in front of the in-
dividual’s eyes to draw them into a digi-
tal world they can manipulate or walk
around in. AR, or mixed reality as it is
perhaps more helpfully called, projects
computer graphics into the real world. At
its simplest, this is accomplished by hav-
ing users look at the world through the
camera and screen of their mobile phone,
as with the popular Pokémon Go game.
More sophisticated solutions, such as Mi-
crosoft’s HoloLens, use headsets that al-
low the user to still see the real world as
well as computer-generated graphics.
Both technologies give trainees an im-
mersive experience, but the level of im-
mersion differs. With VR, the trainee in an
office may walk around a virtual plant to
locate and work on a controller cabinet or
flow meter. Using AR, trainees can work
on the same cabinet or meter projected
onto the conference room desk. Both so-
lutions, however, offer hands-on practice
without the associated risks of real life.
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 19
 Viewpoint

The technology is particularly power-

ful with millennials, especially those with
any experience in video games. It provides
training ideally suited to this generation,
significantly increases the speed of uptake
and can help rapidly close the skills gap
left by baby boomer retirements.
It is estimated that targeted learning
combined with this type of technology
can reduce the typical time it takes to get
workers up to speed and ready to work
from 6 mos to 2 mos.

Old distinctions wear thin. These tech-

nologies do more than just improve the
speed and retention of learning: they erode
the distinction between learning and do-
ing. Immersive competency solutions help
individuals learn by doing—not just at the
outset, but throughout their careers.
Consider a real scenario encountered
recently by a plant that identified that one
of its assets had a malfunctioning probe.
No onsite personnel had ever replaced
FIG. 1. Head-mounted displays use voice-recognition technology to offer users a wide range one before, and it was a relatively complex
of both productivity tools and guidance, capturing pictures and video, pulling live data and process. A VR training module was sup-
connecting to experts in the central control room or elsewhere who can see what the user sees. plied for workers to go through the steps

Your partner in stainless steel premium tubular solutions. tubacex.com

SHAPING OUR PRODUCTS TO DEFINE YOUR SOLUTIONS

At TUBACEX we take an inside perspective to define tailor-made solutions of high
technological value, offering the widest portfolio of seamless stainless steel
tubular products and a full range of services including design, manufacture and
after-sale operations.
This is possible thanks to our knowledge of the market, product and
technological processes, our commitment to R&D and our management model
based on continuous improvement.
Our fully-integrated manufacturing model offers total flexibility to cover the
most demanding requirements of the industry, assuring optimum quality and
product performance in the most challenging environments.

Tubacex group, sharing your challenge

One Group of leading companies:
Select 152 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 Viewpoint

in a virtual environment before doing it nesses know, learning never stops. AI can 04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/
5
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/
out in the plant later that same day, elimi- help build better practices and procedures 04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/
nating the need to call in a specialist or the more intelligently and efficiently. 6
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/
equipment manufacturer. Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/
LITERATURE CITED gx-millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf
As the line between learning and do- 1
www.world-petroleum.org/docs/docs/20th/WPC 7
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/
ing is blurred, we also chip away at the confull.pdf 10.1108/10748120110424816
distinctions between tools for productiv- 2
http://www.world-petroleum.org/docs/docs/ 8
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/03/under
ity and training. After all, training is ulti- speeches/wpc%20Presentation%20the%20Aging% graduates.aspx
20Workforce%202.swf 9
h t t p s : / / w w w. f o r b e s . c o m / s i t e s / k a y t i e z
mately designed to enhance productivity. 3
https://www.petroplan.com/about/talent-insight- immerman/2017/08/20/a-job-that-pays-the-bills-
With workers learning as they work and index-2017-report/ is-not-enough-for-millennials/#38e5a27a581a
working as they learn, and as we meet the 4
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/ 10
National Training Laboratories, Bethel, Maine.
demand for information to be constantly
available, the difference between these
productivity and training tools becomes
increasingly irrelevant.
New intelligent wearable technologies
are a prime example. Head-mounted dis-
plays, for instance, (FIG. 1) combine with
voice-recognition technology to offer us-
ers a wide range of both productivity tools
and guidance. These displays can capture
pictures and video, pull live data and con-
nect to experts in the central control room
or elsewhere who can see what the user
sees. Users can rapidly access information
on assets that they are examining or locate
devices using their voice. Soon, they will
be able to call up video clips from a library
of maintenance tasks.
The solution takes technology that is
increasingly common in the home, such
as Google Home and Amazon’s Alexa,
and applies it powerfully in the field.
The information from a truly effective
wearable device loses its value in the oil
and gas industry without access to plant
data. When connected, learning and guid-
ance can be automated. For example, a
spike in temperature or pressure requiring WE KNOW OUR WAY
a shutdown can automatically bring up a
step-by-step guide for that procedure. AROUND ENGINEERING
Proprietary intelligent wearable solu- Think about thousands of highly skilled
tions go further and draw from major en- professionals operating in the
petrochemicals, fertilizer and oil&gas
terprise resource planning systems, such refining industries: this is Maire Tecnimont
as SAP, Maximo and Sales Force, helping Group, a plant engineering leader
inform and contextualize decisions in the dedicated to providing consumers at the
field. More practically, the solution is in- end of the value chain with energy in its
trinsically safe for hazardous areas, and the different forms. We create value with
innovative products for a countless number
battery life is designed to last an entire shift. of industrial applications embedded in
An extensive range of applications is everyday life.
possible: Android-based platforms give
users and third-parties the ability to devel- 40 1500
op their own apps, and the range already COUNTRIES PROJECTS
being used and tested in the field is impres- 50 + 8500
sive. AI can facilitate the collection and OPERATING PROFESSIONALS
COMPANIES
analysis of data from existing applications
to identify patterns and learn from experi-
www.mairetecnimont.com
ence to enhance those applications, as well
as develop new ones. As best-in-class busi-
Select 155 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
21
PROTECT YOUR MOST IMPORTANT ASSETS:
YOUR PEOPLE, YOUR FACILITIES, AND YOUR BUDGET.

Heat-Flex® 3500 Thermal Insulative Coating from

Sherwin-Williams mitigates corrosion, enhances
personnel protection, minimizes CUI risk.
Heat-Flex® 3500 is a multipurpose insulative acrylic coating that enables
dangerously hot systems like piping and ductwork to stay cool to the touch.
Apply Heat-Flex 3500 directly to ambient or hot surfaces up to 350° F (177° C)
to reduce downtime during coating and recoating applications. Heat-Flex 3500
also insulates hot surfaces, helping industrial processes retain heat.

Structures coated with Heat-Flex 3500 can be removed from CUI inspection
protocols, substantially reducing costs.

Heat-Flex 3500 is suited for a wide range of environments, including oil and gas
refineries, chemical, power, water, wastewater, plus food and beverage plants,
pulp and paper mills, and marine and offshore structures.

1.800.524.5979 sherwin-williams.com/again

© 2018 The Sherwin-Williams Company Select 83 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

 S. OIRERE, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Africa Nairobi, Kenya
New maritime emissions rules to impact
Africa’s downstream sector
As the 2020 deadline set by the Inter-
national Maritime Organization (IMO)
for the implementation of low-carbon
shipping regulations inches closer, Afri-
can refineries are still grappling with the
question of how to finance the upgrading
of oil processing plants to enable them to
produce the required low-sulfur marine
fuels and reduce reliance on noncompli-
ant import fuels for powering the region’s
shipping industry.
MARPOL requirements for fuels and
vessels. A large share of the marine fuels
in the African market is imported from
other countries, such as those in the Mid-
dle East Gulf. Middle East refineries are of-
ten complex, with the capacity to produce
low-sulfur middle distillate fuels that meet
IMO requirements. Nine African coun-
tries—Benin, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria,
Sierra Leone, South Africa and Tunisia—
had, by early 2017, approved IMO’s Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex
VI on air pollution and energy efficiency.
The MARPOL rules are set to come into
effect in January 2020.
The MARPOL Convention was first
adopted in 1973. It has been updated by
amendments over the years to enable
compliance by oil producers, fuel buyers
and users, bunker fuel sellers and ship-
ping companies.
Although no precise figures are avail-
able on the number of vessels owned by
each of the African countries that are par-
ties to the MARPOL Convention, some of
these nations have crude processing oper-
ations that could directly contribute to, or
detract from, the drive by IMO to prevent
deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting
substances. The MARPOL rules limit ma-
rine fuel sulfur content to 0.5%, compared
to the present average of 3.5%, and sup-
port the retrofitting of existing marine ves-
sels with scrubbing equipment to reduce
sulfur emissions. When the IMO marine
fuel sulfur regulations come into force in
2020, spikes in distillate fuel demand and
scrubbing equipment are expected.
IMO compliance for non-refining
countries. Crude refining operations
have been halted in Kenya, Sierra Le-
one, Benin and Liberia, either because
of commercial considerations or destruc-
tive civil wars. These countries must rely
solely on imports to meet their marine
fuel requirements.
Liberia’s approval of the MARPOL
Convention is especially critical to Af-
rica’s strategy to eliminate maritime emis-
sions, as the country leads the continent
in Flag of Convenience business opera-
tions, which involve foreign-owned ships
being registered in the country. Liberia
had approximately 3,277 ships on its reg-
istry in 2017, according to the United Na-
tions Conference on Trade and Develop-
ment (UNCTAD).
Sierra Leone also relies on imports for
its maritime fuel supply due to the clo-
sure of Sierra Leone Petroleum Refining
Co. Ltd., in which the government held
a 50% stake. Other stakeholders in the
10,000-bpd refining facility included BP,
ExxonMobil, Texaco and Shell. The re-
finery was shuttered under a World Bank-
driven structural adjustment program for
the privatization of state enterprises in
the 1990s. The program was intended to
reduce public expenditures and spur eco-
nomic growth. With no local production
of fuel, Sierra Leone imports fuel from
Abidjan, Cotonou or Europe through To-
tal, Petroleum SL and Randlyn Petroleum.
Benin, another MARPOL Annex VI
signatory, has no refinery of its own and
relies on neighboring countries, par-
ticularly Nigeria, for its fuel supply. Two
years ago, a 45,000-m3 fuel storage depot
was constructed in Cotonou by State Oil
Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SO-
CAR) to help Benin meet its fuel require-
ments, including supply of marine fuels.
Kenya, the only signatory to the MAR-
POL Annex VI in East Africa, shut down
its sole crude processing plant in the
coastal city of Mombasa, and has since
converted the facility, owned by Kenya
Petroleum Oil Refineries Ltd., into a fuel
storage depot. The country’s national
pipeline operator, Kenya Pipeline Co.
(KPC), has signed a 3-yr lease agreement
for the facility and has commenced the
conversion of the former refinery into a
crude oil storage and export site.
For Liberia, Sierra Leone, Benin and
Kenya, meeting the MARPOL Conven-
tion specifications will depend largely
on whether the countries can ensure that
their marine fuel suppliers comply with
the low-sulfur marine fuel levels. If not,
they may need to shift to other provid-
ers of low-emissions fuels. In signing the
MARPOL Convention, these countries
have also committed themselves to ensur-
ing that their own marine vessels are fitted
with equipment that controls sulfur emis-
sions, such as scrubbers. They must also
enforce low-sulfur marine fuel regulations
on all vessels sailing on their waters.
IMO compliance for fuel-producing
nations. For MARPOL Convention sig-
natories with crude processing plants,
such as South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana,
Congo and Tunisia, a decision has yet to
be made by refinery operators on whether
to invest in upgrading their facilities to
produce cleaner fuels or to import sulfur-
free fuels over the medium- to long-term.
South Africa, for example, has four
crude refineries with a total capacity of
19 metric MMtpy. The country will re-
quire $4 B to upgrade its existing crude
processing facilities to start producing
the government’s own target of 10-ppm-
sulfur fuels. Ghana, meanwhile, will need
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 23
 Africa
an estimated $120 MM to upgrade its
45,000-bpd Tema refinery.
A 2017 report by the International
Council on Clean Transportation titled,
“Roadmap for clean fuel and vehicle stan-
dards in Southern and Western Africa,”
stated, “Decision-makers are reluctant
about cost increase burdens that will be
imposed on consumers following the
implementation of low-sulfur policies
… Worldwide excess refinery capacity,
MEG RECLAMATION,
TRUST THE PIONEER
15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN MEG
NOW AVAILABLE FROM PROSERNAT
PROSERNAT exclusively offers Monoethylene Glycol (MEG)
Reclamation Process developed by CCR Technologies Ltd.
The technology, based on patented vacuum distillation
process, removes glycol contaminants with very high MEG
recovery efficiency while minimizing waste effluent.
www.prosernat.com
Select 156 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
24
the growing supply of low-sulfur fuels
on the global market, and the declining
price premium make imports of clean fu-
els very attractive and put pressure on re-
fineries in Southern and Western Africa
to upgrade.”
More countries in Africa face various
challenges in implementing a low-sulfur
fuel regime in the medium term, such as
trying to enforce compliance in a market
where off-spec fuel is prevalent and future
demand for low-sulfur fuels is unpredict-
able because of policies that allow govern-
ments control of fuel pricing mechanisms.
IMO has also set limits on the emis-
sions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from
diesel engines. Additionally, MARPOL
Annex VI disallows onboard incineration
of ship products, such as contaminated
packaging materials and polychlorinated
biphenyls. Vessels that will be affected by
the new marine regulations include bulk
containers, tankers, gas carriers, LNG car-
riers, container ships, general cargo ships,
roll-on-roll-off cargo and roll-on-roll-off
passenger ships, and cruise passenger
ships with unconventional propulsion.
Complications of regulations. With
Africa projecting strong economic
growth over the medium term, increased
international trade and more marine traf-
fic to handle growth in exports and im-
ports are likely. The International Trans-
port Forum predicts that Africa and Asia
will see sharp increases in emissions due
to strong port traffic growth and limited
mitigation measures.
As Africa hurtles toward the MAR-
POL Convention deadline of January
2020, crude processors in the region will
continue to analyze the impact of the
marine emissions regulations on the con-
tinent’s crude refineries and on the struc-
ture of fuel import agreements.
The new emissions rules are expected to
lead to an oversupply of high-sulfur fuel oil
(HSFO) in the next 2 yr, which could se-
verely disrupt the worldwide refining sec-
tor. This disruption could extend through
2025 or longer, as fuel producers delay the
investments required to reinvigorate de-
mand for HSFO and normalize prices.
The profitability of Africa’s refining
sector is already low, and the impact that
the new IMO regulations will have on the
continent’s fuel producers will be seen
over the coming 2 yr–7 yr.
SHEM OIRERE is a freelance
journalist based in Nairobi, Kenya.
He has spent more than 10 yr
covering various sectors of Africa’s
economy, and has published
numerous articles in several
international publications and on
websites. Previously, Mr. Oirere worked for Kenyan
national newspapers, including the Daily Nation, Kenya
Times and The People Daily, where he served in various
capacities as correspondent, business reporter and sub-
editor. He earned a higher degree in journalism from
the London School of Journalism and is also a member
of the Association of Business Executives (ABE).
 Maintenance D. REED, Eastman Chemical, Longview, Texas;
and M. THOMPSON, Evolve Partners, Houston, Texas
Improving plant performance by changing
a maintenance culture
As a leader in maintenance, would you like to have the fol-
lowing results:
• Increasing a maintenance mechanic’s productivity
by more than 20%?
• Reducing use of onsite continuous contractor
labor by more than 20%?
• Coming in under budget for two consecutive years
(if you have not done that for several years prior)?
• Eliminating internal maintenance barriers to better
reliability performance, and building a solid partnership
with operations to address additional improvements
to reliability?
Over the last 2 yr, the plant maintenance department
(PMD) at Eastman Chemical Co.’s Longview, Texas site pro-
duced these significant improvements to plant performance.
Most of these results occurred due to a heavy focus on behav-
ior and culture, and not just on processes and tools.
The purpose of the journey. In January 2016, the leadership
team began a journey to enhance the credibility and value of
the PMD. Business conditions were changing, and the approach
that had been used was moving the department in the wrong di-
rection. The feedback from the operations group was negative, a
trend that could result in the elimination of the PMD.
The vision of the department was to re-engage the work-
force so they could drive improved performance from the
bottom up, and own that performance. A substantial cultural
shift was needed in the PMD to solidify the message that the
maintenance team cannot just ask operations for a partner-
ship—they must earn the right to sit at the table.
The challenge of a culture change. When this journey be-
gan, the PMD’s culture could be summed up in two sentences:
1. “I get paid the same if I work hard or not.”
2. “Why get better if operations is not going to change?”
Not only had the PMD alienated operations, but they had
created a culture of acceptance (e.g., “this is just how it is”).
The PMD also had a history of attempted improvement ef-
forts that were either quickly abandoned or failed to be sus-
tainable. The credibility of the PMD leadership was on the
line, because of a past in which they had no part.
The department had three difficult goals to accomplish:
1. Improve the way it presented itself to the
operations team.
2. Develop the leadership skills needed to lead the journey.
3. Manage the business of maintenance to sustain
the gains.
The approach to changing a culture. The first step was to
clean up the department’s shop, both figuratively and literally.
The PMD had existing processes but it had failed to imple-
ment and sustain them consistently. The maintenance facili-
ties had also become cluttered, which made it difficult to work
effectively. Armed with an aspirational vision statement, the
PMD set out to build credibility within the organization and
with the operations team.
The change began by redesigning four key customer inter-
face processes:
• The planning process
• The scheduling process
• The daily execution of regularly scheduled jobs
• The optimization of large, complex jobs.
One stark difference in the approach was that the PMD used
its own mechanics, planners and schedulers in designing, vali-
dating, refining and implementing these process changes. The
department also engaged operations management in the effort,
seeking and incorporating their feedback on the changes.
It was vital that these processes were tightly linked to re-
duce the silo effect that hampers so many organizations. This
was accomplished by more frequent and structured interac-
tions with the operations team in scheduling jobs. This pro-
cess reduced the schedule churn that impeded the ability to
meet commitments to operations—an essential component
of earning a partnership.
The work day of mechanics and/or craftspersons were re-
defined, as well. Instead of starting at 7 am, their day began in
the early afternoon of the previous day, when the PMD and
the operations team agreed on a schedule of jobs for the next
day. This process provided mechanics with an opportunity to
review the job the day prior, identify any issues and be better
prepared when they arrived to execute the work the next day.
Large and complex jobs involving the PMD, multiple con-
tractors and other refinery groups have a major impact on
plant availability. The mechanics came up with an approach
to greatly reduce—sometimes by up to 50%—the time to ex-
ecute certain jobs. Not only did this approach greatly satisfy
the operations team and increase the PMD’s credibility, but it
also began changing the behavior of many of the contractors.
Preparing leaders to lead. Expecting people to change
without demonstrating your own willingness to change is
a fool’s errand. The leadership team spent a considerable
amount of time learning about, and preparing for, the resis-
tance that would come. This preparation included not only
the resistance of employees, but the team’s resistance to get-
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 25
 Maintenance
ting out of its comfort zone and actually intervening in the
status quo. A commitment was made among the members of
the PMD that backing down was not an option.
An outside consultancya, which aided in this culture change,
challenged the leadership team with two key thoughts:
• Embrace the journey; do not just endure it.
• If a person is not making themselves uncomfortable,
then they are probably not making anyone else
uncomfortable. If they are not making anyone else
uncomfortable, then they are probably not changing
anything, and are surely not leading anything.
Embracing the journey meant that by facing the many
challenges and roadblocks, the leadership team would learn
more and internalize it better. Ultimately, this would enable
the team members to become better managers and leaders.
A key learning aspect was why people do, or do not do,
certain things that seem to be logical. The PMD armed them-
selves with tools to understand how to affect change. Process-
es and tools will only take a person so far, and the ultimate
success of any change is in learning—and regularly practic-
ing—effective leadership behaviors. Nothing else would mat-
ter without those foundational elements.
Lessons learned. By combining process improvement with
improved tools and metrics, and continuing to practice and
demonstrate effective leadership behaviors, the PMD has
produced outstanding results. This practice has had positive
 Globally certified Type Z / Ex pzc system for Div. 2 and Zone 2/22 applications
 Fully automatic control and pressure compensation in a low-cost, compact housing
 Touch screen display and pre-set purge programs for easy system setup
www.pepperl-fuchs.com/purge7500
Select 157 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
26OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
affects on plant performance and has established the PMD as
a partner with the operations team.
The leadership team accomplished something that it had
never done before—lead a major cultural change at the fa-
cility. The PMD learned that the skills required to manage
day-to-day operations are not the same as the skills required
to change the way you manage day-to-day operations. They
are complementary, but not the same. Changing people’s un-
derlying beliefs of how they do their work, overcoming their
fear of change and allowing them space to learn for themselves
(and permission to fail), allowed the PMD to step out of their
comfort zone and try a new way of working.
NOTES
a
Refers to Evolve Partners
DAVID REED is the Director of plant maintenance
for Eastman Chemical’s Longview, Texas operations.
Eastman is a global specialty chemical company with
approximately 14,000 employees and 50 manufacturing
sites around the world.
MARTIN THOMPSON is the Senior Client Partner at
Evolve Partners, an operations implementation and
change leadership consultency with offices in Houston
and Calgary.
Trusting in experience.
Relying on expertise.
Revolutionizing protection.
Bebco EPS® 7500 Series
Purge and Pressurization System
 J. LAMB,
Risk Allegro Development Corp., Dallas, Texas
Measuring margins: Avoiding complacency
when the market is stable
When top oil marketer Geneva Energy Markets LLC liq-
uidated its trading book holding1 “millions of barrels of open
interest across crude oil, refined products and natural gas,”
managing partner Mark Vonderheide emphasized the pres-
sures and potential damage of new market regulations. New
regulations are “seriously damaging the liquidity in the energy
market,” Vonderheide explained. With fewer large players in
the market, liquidity also decreases, bringing volatility con-
cerns to a head for the entire market, regardless of size.
From responding to regulatory changes and political uncer-
tainty to balancing supply and demand and being prepared for
disasters, market participants experience many factors that can
negatively affect margins. These factors become even larger
threats if they are not recognized and addressed correctly and
in a timely manner. However, it is possible for a company to
navigate the market, avoid margin decreases and remain com-
petitive at the same time. To do so, they must maintain con-
stant vigilance in evaluating risks and opportunities, while also
striving for new ways to drive efficiency along the supply chain.
Understanding risks and opportunities. While the re-
fined fuels market has experienced long periods of relative
price stability, there have also been periods of high volatility.
Fuel consumers often naturally become complacent between
periods of volatility, which can position them for unfavorable
outcomes if they are not prepared for a market shift. However,
not all change is bad. Volatility, when it occurs, can create op-
portunity for commercial fuel consumers and other market
players. The players who come out on top at the end are those
who can distinguish the risks from the opportunities and navi-
gate their choices wisely.
Volatility in the market can present opportunities to take
advantage of downturns to hedge fuel purchases and mitigate
the impact of an increase. If a large fuel consumer has limited
or no ability to pass price increases to customers, the company
has price exposure. In this case, to reduce exposure, the com-
pany may need to either reduce the impact of price increases
or reduce the volume of fuel exposed. Successful players can
maintain their price increases to boost their margins or choose
to lower prices against competitors’ pricing to gain a higher
share in the marketplace.
However, when it comes to the risk portion of the equa-
tion, fuel consumers must first define whether their end cus-
tomer has exposure to fuel price increases and the financial
terms of that exposure. If fuel price escalators are built into the
contracts, or any increases in fuel prices are easily passed on
to end customers through fuel surcharges or cost of services,
there is a degree of structural protection from the risk of mar-
ket price volatility. Even if this is the case, fuel price increases
are likely to affect transportation costs.
Taking cues from the market. During market price in-
creases, successful players understand when and how to take
advantage of hedging, but doing so requires careful applica-
tion and strong market predictions. Without proper hedg-
ing techniques, an organization may risk committing to high
fuel costs during a time of price declines—thus losing market
share to competitors who can offer lower costs to customers.
This scenario is precisely what has happened to some air-
lines during cycles when fuel prices have risen. Just this year,
the airline industry has seen jet fuel prices surge by more than
50%. While most carriers have been able to raise fares to cover
some of the increase and remain profitable, some costs have
not been passed on to the customer. As a result, margins are
being compressed and airlines have cut profit expectations.2
This scenario is where hedging comes into play—and it is
not just for fuel producers. Large fuel buyers and consumers
have found that hedging of products is essential for businesses
to retain stability and predictability to a large-cost item during
volatile fuel price swings.
When determining a hedging strategy, a company must
consider:
• Their competitors’ hedging strategy
• How competitors treat hedge gains and losses
• How gains and losses affect the price a competitor
offers to customers
• Whether competitors leverage fuel or are hedging cost
advantages to undercut other companies.
Successful fuel portfolio hedging requires accurate, real-
time information on fuel supply and demand, risk exposure
profiles and the ability to quantify the existing profile of ex-
posure to market price changes. If a large fuel consumer is
in the middle of a period of increasing prices and has not
made the decision to hedge, it must watch the market volatil-
ity closely, develop a plan and act swiftly to not only protect
itself from rising prices, but also to take advantage of any mar-
ket downturns.
Reducing inventory to reduce risk. No matter the state
of the market, proper inventory level management is a natural
hedge to market volatility. It is crucial to keep all business op-
erations supplied with an optimal amount of fuel to support
both current and future market demands. Simultaneously,
shutting down operations due to a lack of fuel is usually far
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 27

CHALLENGE
YOUR HORIZON
Do you want lower operating costs? It‘s really
quite simple: Compress the exact amount of
gas you need and save money! The eHydroCOM
stepless capacity control system makes it possible.
ehydrocom.hoerbiger.com
Select 158 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
28 
Risk
costlier than the cost of extra inventory. To strike this delicate
balance, companies must have real-time consistent availability
of inventory data, access to a system that supports visibility of
the entire distribution network, accurate inventory forecast-
ing and easy-to-use, self-service analytical tools to ensure that
the business has proper inventory levels that can better pre-
pare it for inevitable market shifts.
Furthermore, to meet these needs while also maintaining
optimized inventory volumes, a company must have a clear
strategy and definition of success that will set the foundation
for proactive supply chain management.
Answering the following questions at both the strategic
and operational levels requires actively tracking inventory
locations, products, levels and logistical movements across a
fuel consumer’s entire business portfolio:
• How are supply inventories measured with demand
to ensure there is not an undersupply or oversupply?
• What is the best way to ensure there is always enough
reserve supply to respond to supply disruptions and
natural disasters?
• What optionality exists to supply fuel to key operational
locations?
• In the event of a disruption, what is the optimal mix
of moving existing inventories, purchasing new supplies
and taking on supply at other locations?
• How reliant can a company afford to be on other
inventory volumes, including those of competitors?
Taking advantage of technology. The digital era has
brought a surge in data and interconnectivity, which means
that businesses need innovative commodity management
solutions to provide them with enhanced position and risk-
management capabilities, regulatory compliance and analyt-
ics. To reduce uncertainty and exposure in an often-volatile
environment, fuel companies must employ an integrated fuel
management solution that can capture, measure and report on
positions in real time across complex portfolios.
The good news is that recent technological advances can
make risk management processes and analyses easier than ever
before.3 Effective risk management, regardless of market sta-
bility, requires investment in flexible and extensible fuel man-
agement software that delivers instantaneous transparency
into portfolios from front-to-back offices and can respond to
today’s market needs, while changing and adapting for future
growth opportunities.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Blas, J. and C. Ngai, “Top oil market-maker closes after ‘damaging’ regulatory
changes,” Bloomberg, June 27, 2018.
2
Cameron, D. and A. Sidor, “Airlines raise ticket prices as fuel costs surge,” Wall
Street Journal, June 6, 2018.
3
England, J., “2018 oil and gas industry outlook: Trends, opportunities and predic-
tions,” Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions, 2017.
JESSE LAMB is the Director of Solution Consulting
at Dallas-based Allegro Development Corp. As part of
Allegro since 1999, he has worked with users of Allegro’s
commodity trading and risk management across the
commodity spectrum, including customers in crude oil
and natural gas production, logistics and refined fuels
distribution. He holds a degree in accounting fromSouthern
University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Viewpoint
Reducing the sulfur shadow—Who pays the price?
SIMON WRIGHT is the Executive Vice President,
Marketing, for KBC. He is responsible for KBC’s
business strategy and marketing functions. Mr.
Wright returns to KBC through Yokogawa’s
acquisition of Industrial Evolution, where he
was founder and CEO. He started his career with
Esso Petroleum (now ExxonMobil) in the UK
doing process control, process engineering and
planning. Mr. Wright then joined KBC’s process
automation division, which was subsequently
sold to Honeywell. At Honeywell, he had
various marketing and business management
roles globally, and eventually left to establish
Industrial Evolution, a pioneer in the use of the
cloud for industrial applications. Mr. Wright holds
a degree in chemical engineering from Imperial
College, UK and an MBA from INSEAD, France.
The International Maritime Organiza-
tion’s (IMO’s) 2020 regulation has been
described as the most disruptive change
to impact the oil industry in the past 30
yr. This regulation requires the shipping
industry to reduce sulfur gas emissions
from 3.5% to 0.5%. Ships can comply by
installing remediation equipment or by
limiting the sulfur content of their bun-
ker fuel. Compliant low-sulfur fuel oil is
approximately 50% more costly than ex-
isting higher-sulfur bunker fuel sources.
With the regulation due to become effec-
tive in 2020, low-sulfur fuel oil will likely
become even more expensive.
S. WRIGHT
KBC, Phoenix, Arizona
In a recent study commissioned by
KBC, it is apparent that consumers are
mostly unwilling to pay the price of fur-
ther reducing their personal ‘sulfur shad-
ow’ (the amount of sulfur emissions they
are responsible for) if it increases the cost
of imported goods and transportation
fuels, except in those countries where
consumers can already see the effect of
pollution on their lives.
The research revealed a difference in
consumer sentiment between the East
and West. Globally, 16% of consumers
would be willing to accept an increase
of more than 10% in the cost of a mo-
bile phone to reduce their sulfur shadow.
However, in China and India, this number
rises to 24%,1 while in the United King-
dom (UK), the US and Russia, it is only
9%.2 These results mean that refiners pro-
ducing for the US, European and Russian
markets (assuming the UK largely reflects
Europe), must be much more sensitive to
optimizing their operations and assets in
response to the IMO 2020 regulations
than those producing for Asia.
The assessment of most knowledge-
able observers is that most shipowners
will not (or cannot) invest in onboard
scrubbers or exhaust gas cleaning sys-
tems to continue using high-sulfur fuel
oil (HSFO). Most shipowners will opt
to switch to expensive low-sulfur fuels.
Therefore, the burden of shippers’ com-
pliance with the IMO 2020 regulation
has fallen on the refiners. Many refiners
have already started their investments,
but some have yet to decide on the best
course of action. While capital expen-
diture started recently may not result in
new refinery processes coming onstream
by 2020, it is not too late to act. Sensible
short-term actions can be taken so that
viable investments with a later startup
date can still be made. Our dealings with
oil refiners tell us they are up for the chal-
lenge. Those that get it right may reap
financial rewards, as well as the acknowl-
edgement of consumers. Those who do
not respond or get it wrong face a very
harsh and uncertain economic future.
Investment options. The IMO’s cap on
sulfur emissions means that oil refiner-
ies are facing two primary choices: they
can choose to produce marine fuel oil
that contains less sulfur, or they can seek
new markets for the HSFO they produce.
Either choice will potentially hit consum-
ers with price increases. In some regions
of the world, consumers are willing to
absorb some of these costs; however, in
others, the refiners are on their own.
The first option (producing lower-
sulfur marine fuel oil) will require most
refiners to make a significant investment
in new processing assets—a cost that will
inevitably be added to the price of low-
sulfur marine fuel oil, passed on to the
products the ships are transporting and,
ultimately, to consumers.
The second option (finding alterna-
tive markets for HSFO) has limited op-
portunity to be successful. New markets
are few and far between; therefore, with
an anticipated market surplus, the price
of HSFO will drop substantially, and re-
finers will need to increase product prices
to stay in business. In both cases, if prod-
uct prices rise, then the cost of motor,
truck, tractor and jet fuels will increase, as
well. This cause-and-effect will increase
prices for raw materials for petrochemical
plants, leading to an increase in finished
petrochemical products. All these things
will hit the consumer in the pocket.
Therefore, refiners walk a tightrope in
making their investment decisions. How
much should they spend, and on what,
to deliver the products their unique mar-
ket demands at a price their customers
(and customers’ customers) are willing
to pay? Over-invest and margins will be
thin; under-invest and the markets will
not emerge.
KBC believes there is also a clear case
for investing in refining technology to
minimize or eliminate high-sulfur resi-
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 29
 Viewpoint

due production. Refiners that invest in
upgrading are likely to benefit from the
wide residue-gasoil spread post 2020.
This can hasten the payback from expen-
sive capital investments. Refiners that
invest in residue destruction will boost
distillate yield and will not contend with
future bottom-of-the-barrel issues. This
route may also have a secondary benefit
by funding investment to lower energy
consumption and/or carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions.
Future proofing. IMO 2020 may pro-
vide a golden opportunity to future-
proof a refinery, even if the investment
is not completed until the mid-2020s.
Refineries are complex and have mul-
tiple interactions with crude and product
markets. When these new regulations
are fully implemented and enforced, a
key segment of global oil demand—ap-
proximately 3.5% of the world’s total
demand—will be running much cleaner.
Refiners, shipowners, bunkering compa-
nies and traders will all play a key role in
delivering this clean energy transition.
By rigorously analyzing all options
with rich and accurate modeling technolo-
gies based on first-principles physics and
chemistry, and not relying on simple, inac-
curate linear models, refiners can properly
understand their risks and opportunities.
Refining technology is not solely lim-
ited to process technology. New break-
throughs in digitalization, scheduling,
simulation and optimization will make it
easier for refiners to manage day-to-day
performance, respond to swings in mar-
ket pricing, operate closer to a true opti-
mum and reduce the gap between realized
and potential margins.
Traders and bunker blenders will also
be able to benefit from this technology,
allowing them to make smarter, real-time
decisions in trading markets, locking in
gains and making compliant, stable and
compatible fuels as profitably as possible.
Working with a consultancy that knows
how to reduce sulfur emissions by applying
such technologies appropriately, sensibly
and reliably, while simultaneously meeting
other regulatory requirements, will help
future-proof refineries. It will boost mar-
gins and deliver the cleaner fuels that the
shipping industry will continue to require.
With the IMO 2020 deadline fast ap-
proaching, the race is on for oil refiners to
supply what shippers need, and at mini-
mum cost. This is not just to protect the
oil companies, but also to avoid disrup-
tion of shipping transportation. The re-
sulting inevitable collapse in HSFO price
and refinery margins mean that refineries
are having to reconfigure their operations
and assets to respond to the change in
fuel demand; those that do not are at risk
of going out of business.
The switch to cleaner shipping fuels is
not a short-term decision by the IMO. It
is a long-term trend to which the refining
industry is facing and adapting. Shippers
will thank refiners that respond optimally
by buying their products. Perhaps con-
sumers will appreciate their efforts, too.
NOTES
1
This figure is the combined result for India and
China (India is 25%, and China is 23%).
2
This figure is the combined result for the UK, the
US and Russia (the UK is 8%, the US is 12% and
Russia is 8%).

LIVE WEBCAST:
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 | 10 a.m. CDT / 3 p.m. UTC

Mark Rosenberg
Vice President of Product
Management – Digital Inspections Gaining the Upper Hand in the Fight Against
BHGE
Corrosion: Installed Sensors, Predictive Analytics
and Artificial Intelligence
Ultrasonic sensors enable operators to measure and monitor interior wall loss due to
corrosion. Combining sensor data with BHGE’s cloud-based predictive wall loss and
Ionic analytics, operators - in particular, downstream operators - gain new abilities
Partha Natampalli
to manage and decrease corrosion risk. In this webinar, you will learn how BHGE is
Director, Technical Product
Management – Digital Inspections applying artificial intelligence-based analytics to improve your ability to define the
BHGE optimum operating envelope for increased feedstock flexibility, respond to changing
unit conditions for improved process reliability, increase capacity utilization for
increased profitability, and extend equipment life.

Register For Free: HydrocarbonProcessing.com/Webcasts

George Duggan
Director of Refinery and
Petrochemical Technology,
Downstream Chemicals Division
BHGE
30 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 ™

INNOVATING CAUSTIC TREATING TECHNOLOGY

®
Introducing FFC Plus™, the next generation of FIBER FILM Contactor technology. Merichem Company’s advanced FIBER FILM

technology with an integrated coalescer and treater pushes the boundaries of extractive technologies. With this latest
innovation, hydrocarbon treating rates can be increased by up to 150% through increased mercaptan extraction efficiency.

The integrated coalescing and treating device offers a simple installation, reduced chemical use, and reduced service and
maintenance complexity.

FFC Plus truly is mercaptan treating made better.

Select 84 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

www.merichem.com
 | Special Focus
PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
The hydrocarbon processing industry (HPI) is implementing
more sustainability practices that ensure a safe and
healthy workplace, as well as minimize the impact of facility
operations on the environment. HPI facilities depend on
the efficient operation of process equipment and employee
actions without failure or deviations from approved protocols.
The consequences of failure can be catastrophic. This month’s
Special Focus addresses critical safety and environmental
issues that impact HPI facilities around the world.

Photo: Saudi Methacrylates Co.’s (SAMAC’s) 250,000-tpy methyl

methacrylate (MMA) plant uses Lucite International’s Alpha MMA
Technology. Licensed by Dynea, the FASIL® silver technology, which
has the lowest total operational cost and regarded as the safest way
of producing formaldehyde, has already been successfully installed at
more than 40 plants worldwide. Photo Courtesy of Dynea.
 Special Focus
Building blocks of process safety
Major incidents continue to strike
the oil and gas industry at regular inter-
vals. Closer examinations and analyses of
these incidents show that the root cause
of many are alike and follow a pattern.
Learnings from each of the major inci-
dents have been circulated, documented
and shared, yet failures of a similar nature
continue to happen.
Process safety failures are rare, but
their consequences are severe. The Bho-
pal Gas tragedy, Piper Alpha disaster,
Deepwater Horizon, Buncefield terminal
fire, Jaipur terminal fire, etc., are some
of the tragic reminders of catastrophic
process safety failures. Customers, stake-
holders and society are impacted by con-
sequences that include loss of property,
loss of life and damage to the environ-
ment and to the reputation of the orga-
nization. One of the biggest setbacks of
any major process safety incident is the
demoralization of the workforce. It is
paramount to learn from such incidents
and take steps to avoid recurrence.
Causes of industrial accidents. Anal-
yses of major global incidents indicate
that accidents occur due to:
• A focus on a zero lost time incident
rate (LTIR) regime, but not
on process safety
• Normalization of risk, or the belief
that major incidents will not occur
• Reliance on lagging indicators
• A production-first syndrome
• Disregard for systems
and procedures
• Inadequate risk control
(e.g., dysfunctional barriers)
• Ignoring warning signals
• Faulty work practices and ethics
• Lessons unlearned.
Much of the industry remains pre-
occupied with how many accident-free
labor hours of operation are achieved,
focusing on a zero-LTIR regime and
Plant Safety and Environment
H. DUTTA, Nayara Energy Ltd.
lagging indicators rather than analyzing
leading indicators. Research shows that
most organizations devote 80% of their
time to reactive management (maintain-
ing and updating hazard register, accident
reporting, etc.) and only 20% to proac-
tive issues, such as work methods, safe
work practices, etc.
The false belief that an accident will
not happen leads to complacency, which is
one of the prime causes of major incidents.
Warning signals are often ignored,
and operations continue beyond the safe
operating envelope or with disfunctional
protection barriers. Signals must be heed-
ed, and competencies must be in place to
catch and process those warning signals.
Only those with adequate knowledge and
expertise can ascertain the “noises” ema-
nating from the plant.
The irresistible urge to achieve targets
is another area that causes accidents. A
“penny-wise, pound-foolish” mental-
ity can be demonstrated, and sometimes
little attention is paid to maintaining sys-
tem discipline and respecting standard
operating procedures (SOPs). In India,
almost 80% of incidents take place due to
a disregard for SOPs, violations of work
permits and poor supervision.
The swiss-cheese model dictates that
an accident takes place when holes in
protection barriers become aligned; in
other words, accidents happen due to
several violations. However, some pre-
dominant reasons for accidents remain.
This article illustrates some live cases
where accidents took place due to:
1. A production-first focus
2. Ignoring warning signals
3. Poor work ethics
4. Complacency.
Production-first focus. Overt concern
for production and achieving higher-
than-designed throughput can be called
“penny-wise, pound-foolish.” To achieve
FIG. 1. Fire in the gasoil draw-off line from
the crude distillation unit at the Richmond
refinery in California.
higher crude oil processing rates in pri-
mary crude oil distillation units, process
heaters are subjected to hard firing. This
results in the skin temperature of the heat-
er tubes overshooting the safe operating
limits. Continuing operations under such
extreme conditions can ultimately result
in furnace tube failure and accidents.
The fire in the gasoil draw-off line
(FIG. 1) from the crude distillation unit at
the Richmond refinery in California was
caused primarily by the impatience to
resume production post unit shutdown.
During the maintenance shutdown, the
inspection department observed consid-
erable thinning of the gasoil draw-off line,
necessitating line replacement. However,
the replacement of the line would delay
the startup and result in subsequent pro-
duction loss. The decision was made to
resume production.
The gasoil leak was noted in the insu-
lated gasoil draw-off line; gasoil is drawn
off from the column at approximately
300°C (572°F). The maintenance crew
wanted a close look at the exact location
of the leak. While they were removing
the aluminium-cladded insulation with a
metallic hook, the fire was sparked by fric-
tion. Smoke emanating from the incident
surrounded the entire refinery and neigh-
borhood. Luckily, there were no fatalities,
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 33
 Plant Safety and Environment
FIG. 2. The fire at the Jaipur oil terminal.
FIG. 3. The explosion in a natural gas pipeline
at Tatipaka, India was caused by leaks due to
corrosion and subpar repair techniques.
but 1,500 residents in the local area did
undergo hospital treatment (eye irritation
caused by emanating smoke, etc.). The
unit remained shut down for a consider-
able amount of time. After the incident,
it was found that a 70% metal loss in the
gasoil draw-off line was due to sulfonic
acid corrosion.
The unit was designed to process low-
sulfur crude but subsequently changed
over to processing high-sulfur crude to
improve gross refining margins (GRM).
The original specification of the piping
material for the gasoil draw-off line was
carbon steel. High-sulfur crude process-
ing required changing the pipe material
from carbon steel to a higher metallurgy
alloy steel, which was not done. The leak
in the gasoil draw-off line is attributed to
a phenomenon, sulfonation corrosion
(i.e., sulfur corrosion at high tempera-
34 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
ture in carbon steel piping). It is worth
mentioning that the inspection reported
considerable thinning of the carbon steel
pipeline. However, the most compelling
reason for the failure was the impatience
to resume production. Safety must not be
subservient to achieving targets, but do
incentive schemes encourage production
at the cost of safety?
Ignoring warning signals. The mul-
tiple-fatality incident at the Jaipur Mar-
keting Terminal in India occurred while
fuel was being transferred via a 12-in.-
diameter pipe from the Jaipur terminal to
the terminal of another company (FIG. 2).
Fuel from the finished product tank was
planned for transfer from the depot. The
positive isolation valve on the 12-in.-
diameter transfer line required the ham-
mer blind to be reversed for this opera-
tion. However, the motor-operated valve
(MOV) on the transfer line upstream
of the hammer blind was in the “open”
condition, while the hammer blind was
reversed. The operator was unaware that
the MOV was open, as standard practice
dictates that the MOV remain closed
until the hammer blind is reversed. This
resulted in a significant fuel spill in the
tank farm area. Inhalation of the fuel va-
pors left the operator immobile. A nearby
operator noticed this and informed the
control room. This operator tried to as-
sist the operator inside the tank dyke, but
also became incapacitated after inhaling
the fuel vapors.
A provision existed to close the MOV
from the control room, but the instru-
ment cable to the MOV had been cut/im-
paired for some time; this fact was known
but ignored. As a result, control room
personnel could not close the MOV and
the fuel spill continued in the tank dyke.
Fuel vapor soon engulfed the terminal
and picked up a source of ignition nearby.
A huge vapor cloud explosion took place,
resulting in destruction of the facility,
multiple fatalities and huge financial loss.
The incident occurred due to multiple
factors, including:
• Faulty operation
• Disregard for SOPs
• Use of obsolete equipment:
the hammer blind bonnet has
a large surface area and has
since been replaced with double-
block-and-bleed valves
• Impaired instrument cable.
Continuing fuel transfer operations
with impaired safety instrumentation
(i.e., ignoring the fact that the cable was
cut) was the prime cause of this disas-
ter. A healthy cable would have allowed
the control room personnel to close the
MOV, considerably reducing the damages
and loss of life.
Poor work ethic. An incident in the
high-pressure pipeline carrying natural
gas at Tatipaka near Andhra Pradesh in
India caused multiple fatalities and pro-
duction loss. Natural gas from the well-
head station is delivered via a gas pipeline
at a pressure of 50 bar to power plants, fer-
tilizers and other industries. The natural
gas from the well also contained traces of
water and carbon dioxide (CO2 ). The wet
natural gas flowing through the long-dis-
tance pipeline caused internal corrosion
in the pipeline at the lowest elevation.
The internal corrosion in the line was as-
cribed to weak carbonic acid corrosion.
The natural gas containing traces of CO2
and moisture formed low-pH carbonic
acid. Improper pigging of the gas pipeline
caused the accumulation of carbonic acid
in the lowest point of the gas pipeline.
The corrosion resulted in a leak in
the natural gas pipeline. Each time a leak
was detected, clamping (tightening with
a metallic collar around the leaky area of
the pipeline to arrest leakage) was used.
When a more significant leak occurred,
SUPERIOR SPRAY. SERIOUS RESULTS.
OPTIMIZE
PERFORMANCE
Let us assist with nozzle selection,
determination of injector placement
in the vessel and spray direction to
ensure optimal performance based
on your exact operating conditions.
VALIDATE
DESIGN
Prior to fabrication, we can use
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
to validate injector spray performance.
We can also use failure analysis
modeling to verify the injector design
will withstand process conditions such
as thermal stresses, heat transfer,
vortex shedding and more.
BUILD
TO ORDER
For applications such as water wash,
gas cooling, chemical injection, torch
oil and more, we can meet your needs.
Injectors can be equipped with a wide
variety of nozzles and are available in
both hydraulic and two-fluid versions
that use compressed air, steam,
hydrogen or nitrogen for atomization.

TALK WITH YOUR LOCAL SPRAY EXPERT

TO FIND OUT HOW WE CAN HELP

Companies like Technip, Mustang Engineering, Bechtel, Shell and many others rely on us to
manufacture B31.1, B31.3 and U-Stamp code-compliant injectors and conduct radiographic,
hydrostatic, ferrite tests and more. Let us do the same for you. Our local experts and
Spray Technology Centers are right where you need them – in your area.
For unmatched service and support, visit spray.com/localexpert or call 1.800.95.SPRAY.
Select 67 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 Plant Safety and Environment
the natural gas vapor spread to the sur-
rounding area and was ignited by a lo-
cal tea shop. An explosion, followed by
a massive fire, engulfed the entire area,
resulting in multiple fatalities and loss of
production (FIG. 3).
The primary cause of this major in-
cident was attributed to the repeated
clamping (an ad hoc measure to stop leak-
age) of the high-pressure natural gas line,
as well as:
• Failure to install a dryer before the
natural gas was fed to the pipeline,
as conceived in design
• Improper pigging of the pipelines
• Not analyzing the pig residue
• Failure to close the remote-
operated sectionalizing valves.
Analysis of pig residue would have
clearly indicated the presence of iron,
indicating corrosion in the line. While
an intelligent pigging survey (IPS) study
was conducted, the study was not prop-
erly reviewed. The IPS report indicated
substantial thinning of the pipeline that
necessitated the replacement of the cor-
roded portion of the pipe section.
Why was a frequently leaking, high-
pressure gas pipeline subjected to such
poor repair and maintenance practices?
The organization should have replaced
the corroded portion of the pipeline and
installed a gas dryer to ensure uninter-
rupted operation. A poor work ethic in
any organization can prove disastrous.
Complacency. The primary enemy of
smooth and reliable operation is compla-
cency. An organization with good safety
performance records must realize that
yesterday’s good performance does not
guarantee tomorrow’s safe operations.
Organizational leaders must remain vigi-
lant against signs of complacency that
creep into the organization and take time-
ly action to safeguard against them.
Seeking lagging indicators at the cost
of disregarding leading indicators results
in process safety failures. The drive to
achieve a million labor hours of accident-
free operation, a lagging indicator, is ad-
mirable. However, organizations should
not be content with that achievement as
a milestone.
The fatal incident at a pesticide plant
in La Porte, Texas (FIG. 4) suggests com-
placency as one of the prime reasons for
the safety breach. The uncontrolled re-
lease of methyl mercaptan in the plant
36 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
resulted in four fatalities. While starting
up the plant, it was observed that the
feed line to the reactor was choked due to
the formation of methyl hydrate (methyl
mercaptan and water). As per SOP, the
operator began spraying hot water on the
line to de-choke the hydrate. However,
since the de-choking process is time con-
suming, the operator continued to spray
hot water and left the work station, leav-
ing the drain valves on the mercaptan line
open to the sewer. By the time the op-
erator returned to the plant, the choked
line was completely free of hydrate and a
significant amount of mercaptan had es-
caped through the open drain valve in the
building. The operator inhaled the toxic
mercaptan and fell unconscious. Subse-
quently, two more workers and a supervi-
sor who tried to rescue the unconscious
worker also met with the same fate.
None of the workers, nor the supervi-
sor, were wearing breathing apparatus. An
investigation of the incident also revealed
that the exhaust system in the building
had not been in working condition for
several weeks. Among others, the root
causes of the incident were the failure
of personnel to wear proper breathing
apparatus while working in a toxic envi-
ronment, and the non-functional exhaust
system in the building. Even the gas de-
tection alarm limit was set above the per-
missible limit for workers.
Past facility safety performance records
were excellent, leading the organization
to become complacent. The simple step
of having onsite personnel wear personal
protective equipment (PPE) may have
prevented the fatalities, but this was not
done. Failure to attend to or repair non-
functional exhaust fans is yet another ex-
ample of the complacency that ultimately
led to the safety breach. When it comes
to safety, leaders with a sense of constant
vigilance are needed.
Moving forward. The highly flammable
and complex operations of the oil and gas
industry demand that even weak or in-
termittent signals are processed and ana-
lyzed to ensure smooth, safe and reliable
operation. These principles are what sep-
arate a highly-reliable organization from
an ordinary one. A strong response to
weak signals is the key, and any abnormal
situation must receive the highest-priori-
ty attention and action. Plant equipment
and machinery do not break down with-
FIG. 4. The uncontrolled release of
methyl mercaptan at a pesticide plant
in La Porte, Texas resulted in four fatalities.
out making noises. Is attention paid to
such noises? Are appropriate steps taken
to analyze and correct such breakdowns,
or do those noises and equipment abnor-
malities become the new “normal?”
Leaders in any organization must re-
main vigilant against complacency that
might creep into their organization. Hu-
man errors are inevitable; blaming an in-
dividual for an error does as much good
as suppressing systemic deficiencies. Even
minor errors are due to failures in the sys-
tems. Root cause analysis and prevention
go hand in hand. Leaders must lack any
sense of complacency.
Processes and practices are driven by
people. Leadership must ask the follow-
ing questions: Are employees motivated?
Are their voices heard? Are they engaged
in the decision-making process? Are they
inspired to work together as a team, or
are they allowed to work in siloes? Are
dissenting views valued when discussing
potential improvements? Every facility’s
safety culture can be improved, and lead-
ership’s role in this is paramount.
HIRAK DUTTA is the Head
Safety Adviser for Nayara Energy
Ltd. and the former Executive
Director of the Oil Industry Safety
Directorate (OISD) for the Indian
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, where he was responsible
for the development of safety standards and
for overseeing the safety implementation of the
country’s entire hydrocarbon sector, both for public
and private enterprises. Mr. Dutta has more than
37 yr of experience in process design and
engineering, operations, troubleshooting, safety
management, project management and human
resource management at various refineries and at
the corporate office of Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. He has
authored many papers on technical and safety
management that have been published in national
and international journals, and he has presented at
conferences around the world. Mr. Dutta earned a
degree in chemical engineering from Jadavpur
University and a condensed MBA at the Indian
Institute of Management in Ahmedabad.
 CUT
MECHANICAL
CLEANING TIME
BY DAYS

HARDWORKING
CHEMISTRY
Rezyd-HP Z71* ™

heat exchanger U-value recovery

heavy hydrocarbon deposit and coke removal
drastic reduction in mechanical cleaning time
100% decontamination for hot work & inspection
READ THE
CASE STUDY AT
GO.TRISTARGES.COM/HP
Biodegradable • Small footprint • Effective
Select 58 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
*European version G71
zymeflow.com ©United Laboratories International, llc. All Rights Reserved
 US Gas Processing

ACTIONABLE INSIGHTS
Into US Natural Gas Facilities
The web-based GIS application includes detailed data on more than 500
US gas processing plants, 400 natural gas underground storage locations,
and 58 natural gas market hubs.

In-Depth Data
Such as key contact details, gas plant project/facility data
(including plant type/flow, BTU content, infrastructure, storage
capacity, plant status and ownership) for the following layers:

• US gas processing plants • Natural gas:

• Natural gas pipelines - underground storage
- market hub
• Gas fields
• US Compressor Stations

Comprehensive
Functionality
• Custom reporting, charting • Production quality maps,
and graphing PDF exports
• Layer/attribute access and • Import external data
modification • Advanced spatial filtering
• Data exports and querying

DISCOVER MORE AT ENERGYWEBATLAS.COM

 Special Focus Plant Safety and Environment
G. O. CORDERO, Techint Engineering & Construction,
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Built-up backpressure at the outlet flange

of a pressure relief valve
Even for pressure relief valves (PRVs) discharging directly to 4st
the atmosphere through short tailpipes, API 520 Part 11 warns
that choked flow may develop at the outlet flange, resulting in 4
high backpressure. API 520 Part 21 provides the formula for the
reaction force on the pipe supports as a function of the back-
pressure, both for gas flow and two-phase flow. No procedure
is given, however, to estimate this pressure at the outlet flange 3
when the valve opens.
The design engineer normally defines the size of the dis- 2
F
charge manifold leading to the knockout drum and the flare,
and calculates the pressure drop under the worst scenario of
simultaneous relieving streams to keep the pressure at the dis-
charge point of each PRV sufficiently low to allow the use of 1
conventional PRVs, whenever possible. It may come as a sur-
prise that the pressure developed at the outlet flange when the
valve opens is sometimes higher than the total backpressure
calculated from the discharge system, requiring the use of a
balanced or pilot-operated PRV. Why is this possible? For the
FIG. 1. A PRV that is either discharging to the atmosphere or to a
relieving flowrate w to pass through the outlet flange cross-sec-
manifold collecting other streams.
tion (A3 in FIG. 1), the product of the density multiplied by the
velocity must equal w/A3 . Since the velocity cannot exceed the
velocity of sound, a minimum density is required at the flange, subscript st stands for stagnation conditions, i.e., the conditions
so that a minimum pressure (not usually checked) will develop reached by a moving fluid brought to rest via an isentropic path.
when the valve opens, regardless of the configuration of the API assumes that the process from the vessel to the outlet
discharge manifold. pipe discharge is adiabatic (heat exchange with the atmosphere
When comparing bids from several PRV suppliers, wide dif- has a negligible impact on fluid temperature) and that the path
ferences are often observed for the estimated reaction force (due from the vessel to the nozzle throat can be considered friction-
to the lack of an accepted formula for the outlet flange pressure). less (the adjustment to real conditions is done through the effec-
To provide a sound basis for the outlet flange pressure esti- tive coefficient of discharge Kd = 0.975 for preliminary sizing).
mation, the following will be developed: Under these assumptions, only two simplified balances need
• An accurate formula following the same principles to be considered to predict PRV performance and outlet condi-
applied by API 520 Annex B 3.1 for real gases with an tions:
approximately constant isentropic expansion coefficient. • The total energy balance for adiabatic processes, applied
• A simplified, conservative formula for ideal gases, from an initial point with zero velocity to any other point,
intended for those who prefer a quick approach. is calculated using Eq. 1:
• A procedure for two-phase flow. v 2f
Knowing the outlet pressure, the use of a conventional PRV h f − hi + = 0 (1)
can be confirmed. The velocity associated to the outlet pressure 2
is then easy to obtain, and an accurate estimate of the initial reac- • The thermal energy balance for adiabatic and frictionless
tion forces on the PRV and on the first elbow becomes available. (i.e., isentropic) processes, applied from point 1 to 2, 3st
to 3 and 4st to 4 (Eq. 2):
Basic balances. FIG. 1 represents any PRV, either discharging f dp
to the atmosphere or to a manifold collecting other streams. h f − hi = ∫ (2)
The main points for the analysis are 1, 2, 3, 3st, 4 and 4st. The i ρ

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 39

 Plant Safety and Environment

Formulas for a real gas. For a real gas, the isentropic expan- For a real gas, such as methane (CH4), the adiabatic expan-
sion coefficient n (Eq. 3) is defined as: sion implies cooling ( Joule-Thomson effect)—from 1 MPa
ρ ⎛ ∂p ⎞ absolute to atmospheric pressure, the cooling is approximate-
n = ⎜ ⎟ (3) ly 2°C, but from 10 MPa the cooling would be approximately
p ⎝ ∂ρ ⎠ s 35°C and should not be neglected.
Eq. 4 calculates the velocity of sound and Mach number as: A software program allowing gas mixtures properties estima-
tion can be loaded with stream data that include gas composi-
⎛ ∂p ⎞ np nZRT v tion and vessel relieving conditions (Point 1). The enthalpy
vS = ⎜ ⎟ = = Ma = (4)
⎝ ∂ρ ⎠ S ρ M vS should be registered and conserved, the temperature is deleted
and the pressure is replaced by a first trial for Point 3 stagnation
If coefficient n remains constant, for any point along the is- pressure (e.g., 500 kPa). The program will give a good first value
entropic path, Eq. 5 provides: for Point 3 stagnation temperature (at low pressures, ideal be-
p p havior is approached and the stagnation temperature does not
= ni (5) vary significantly with pressure).
ρn ρi The coefficient n can now be estimated at Point 3st: if entro-
Integrating Eq. 6: py, pressure and density are registered, temperature is deleted,
−1/n ⎡ n−1
⎤ pressure is reduced by 10 kPa and entropy is conserved, then a
f dp pi 1⎛ p⎞ ⎛ p⎞ n pi ⎢ ⎛ p f ⎞ n ⎥ new density will be provided by the program. From Eq. 3, n can
−∫ = ∫2 ⎜⎝ pi ⎟⎠ d⎜ ⎟ = 1− (6)
i ρ ρi ⎝ pi ⎠ ( n −1) ρi ⎢ ⎜⎝ pi ⎟⎠ ⎥ then be approximated by Eq. 12:
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
ρ ⎛ Δp ⎞
Eq. 7, replacing Eq. 2 and combining with Eq. 1: n ≅ (12)
p ⎜⎝ Δρ ⎟⎠ s
⎡ n−1
⎤ 2 2
n pi ⎢ ⎛ p f ⎞ n ⎥ v f n p f Ma f (7) Density at Point 3 can be obtained from the mass flowrate
1− = =
( n −1) ρi ⎢ ⎜⎝ pi ⎟⎠ ⎥ 2 2 ρf and from the equation of state in Eq. 13:
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
w p3 M w Z3 R T3
Eqs. 8, 9 and 10 are derived from Eq. 5 and Eq. 7: ρ3 = = ⇒ p3 = (13)
A3 v 3 Z3 R T3 A3 M v 3
n
pi ⎡ ( n −1) 2 ⎤ ( n−1) If the flow is choked at Point 3, temperature and velocity can
= ⎢1 + Ma f ⎥ (8)
pf ⎣ 2 ⎦ be replaced from Eq. 11, where i = 3st and c = 3 (Eq. 14):
w 2 Z3st R T3st
n p3 = (14)
ρi ⎡ ( n −1) 2 ⎤ ( n−1) A3 n ( n +1) M
= ⎢1 + Ma f ⎥ (9)
ρf ⎣ 2 ⎦ The compressibility factor is obtained from the property
package, providing a good estimate of the outlet pressure. If
Ti ⎛ Z f pi ρ f ⎞ Z f ⎡ ( n −1) 2 ⎤ higher precision is required, the outlet stagnation pressure can
= ⎜ ⎟= 1+ Ma f ⎥ (10)
T f ⎝ Zi p f ρi ⎠ Zi ⎢⎣ 2 ⎦ be calculated from Eq. 11 and Eq. 14 and one iteration per-
formed, using Eq. 15:
If sonic conditions are attained at the end of the path, then n
n +1 ⎞ n−1
critical flow conditions are obtained replacing Maf = 1 and us- p3st = p3 ⎛ (15)
ing Eq. 11: ⎝ 2 ⎠
n 1 Coefficient n should remain approximately constant be-
pc ⎛ 2 ⎞ n−1 ρc ⎛ 2 ⎞ n−1 tween 3 and 3st (if not, an average can be used in the formulas).
= =
pi ⎝ n +1 ⎠ ρi ⎝ n +1 ⎠ If the final value of the pressure at Point 3 is higher than (or
(11) equal to) the total backpressure pbp resulting from the discharge
Tc 2 Zi 2 n Zi R Ti system, then sonic conditions prevail at the discharge section;
= vc = pressure results from Eq. 14 and sonic velocity from Eq. 11.
Ti ( n +1) Zc ( n +1) M
For a conventional PRV to be acceptable, calling psc the con-
All equations applied by API 520 Part I 5.6 for gas/vapor stant superimposed backpressure compensated at the spring
service result from the previous formulas applied to the nozzle test (usually zero), the condition is p3 – psc – pat ≤ allowable over-
between Point 1 and Point 2. Note that Point 1 represents inlet pressure. This condition should be checked for the rated capac-
stagnation conditions, since velocity at the vessel is negligible. ity, following the recommendation in Table 8.2 in API 521.2
API adopts n = cp /cv for ideal gases, but in Annex B advises that On the other hand, if sonic pressure at Point 3 is lower than
the real gas isentropic coefficient should be used. pbp, the flow remains subsonic and the pressure at the discharge
Consider the pressure at the outlet flange (Point 3). The to- section is pbp. If the reaction force is to be calculated, then the out-
tal energy balance (Eq. 1) applied from Point 1 to 3st shows that let temperature can be obtained from Eqs. 10 and 13 (Eq. 16):
the final enthalpy coincides with the initial enthalpy (since final
p3 M A3 Z T ( n −1) M v32
velocity is zero). For an ideal gas, the enthalpy depends only on T3 = v3 = 3st 3st − (16)
the temperature, so that the stagnation temperature remains Z3 R w Z3 2 n Z3 R
constant for adiabatic processes. Reordered as a second-degree equation (Eq. 17):
40 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Safety and Environment

v32 n p3 A 3 2 n Z3st R T3st The outlet temperature results from Eq. 16 iterating on Z3
+ v3 − = 0 (17) (1 as first trial).
2 ( n −1) w ( n −1) M
Outlet Mach is obtained from Eq. 4 using Eq. 20:
Use Eq. 18 to solve for v3:
M
2 Ma3 = v3 (20)
np A ⎛ n p3 A3 ⎞ 2 n Z3st R T3st n Z3 R T3
v3 = 3 3 + ⎜⎝ ( n −1) w ⎟⎠ + ( n −1) M (18)
( n −1) w
Calculating p3st from Eq. 8 allows a new iteration of the above
⎡np A ⎤ ⎡ 2 ( n −1) Z3st R T3st w 2 ⎤ procedure to improve the estimation of the outlet stagnation
v3 = ⎢ 3 3 ⎥ ⎢ 1 + −1 ⎥ (19) temperature, but a much simpler method is proposed starting
⎣ ( n −1) w ⎦ ⎢⎣ n M p32 A32 ⎥⎦ with the formula for ideal gas.

TABLE 1. Example 1, gas outlet pressure (red for software input, orange for program output)
Data Formulas Results
Set pressure, pset kPag 6,800 6,800
Constant superimp, psc kPag 0 0
Atmospheric pressure, pat kPa abs 101.325 101325
Overpressure, ovp 0.1 0.1
Relieving temperature, T1_ K = 50 + 273.15 323.15
Molecular weight, M kg/kmol 16.04 16.04
Gas universal constant, R_ J/kmol K 8,314.4 8,314.4
Rated capacity, w kg/sec 52 52
ID outlet m = (6.625 – 2 × 0.109) × 0.0254 0.1627378
Outlet area, A3_ m2 = PI() × ID^2/4 0.0208001641626271
Total bp allowable (conv. PRV) kPag = ovp × pset + psc 680
Ideal gas
k 1.31 1.31
p3_ (for sonic flow) Pa abs = w/A3_ × (2 × R_ × T1_/k/(k + 1)/M)^0.5 831,812.220347591
kPag =p3_/1000 – pat 730.487220347591 Conventional rejected
p3st (for sonic flow) kPa abs =p3_ × ((k + 1)/2)^(k/(k – 1))/1000 1,529.27169068645
Real gas
p1 gage kPag = pset × (1 + ovp) 7,480
p1 absolute kPa abs = pset × (1 + ovp) + pat 7,581.325 Property package input
T1 °C = T1_ – 273.15 50 Lee-Kesler-Plocker
Molar enthalpy, H kJ/kmol –75,002.9395121254 –75,002.9395121254 Property package output
First trial Second trial
Molar enthalpy kJ/kmol =H –75,002.9395121254 –75002.9395121254
p3st kPa abs 1,461.5 1,500 1461.5
T3stC °C 28.2570557837489 28.4135124798397 28.2570557837489
M_ kg/kmol 16.0429000854492 16.0429000854492 16.0429000854492
Z3st 0.976650291744841 0.976089191120009 0.976650291744841
Density d3st kg/m3 9.57993283075327 9.83284301506127 9.57993283075327
Molar entropy S3st kJ/kmol K 199.58264281267 199.371560889931 199.58264281267
Molar entropy kJ/kmol K = S3st 199.371560889931 199.58264281267
p3st – 10 kPa abs = p3st – 10 1490 1,451.5
Density d3st_ kg/m3 9.5296882611872 9.78260309745198 9.5296882611872
n = d3st/p3st × 10/(d3st – d3st_) 1.30478491777929 1.30459140902479
T3st K = 273.15 + T3stC 301.56351247984 301.407055783749
p3__ (for sonic flow) Pa abs = w/A3_ × (2 × Z3st × R_ × T3st/n/ 796296.999639104 796,411.678077829
(n + 1)/M_)^0.5
kPag = p3__/1000 – pat 694.971999639104 695.086678077829
p3st kPa abs = p3__ × ((n + 1)/2)^(n/(n – 1))/1000 1461.45875368071 1,461.57573421946
Conventional rejected

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 41

 Plant Safety and Environment

TABLE 2. Example 2, gas force (red for software input, orange for program output)
Data Formulas Results
Set pressure, pset kPag 6,800 6,800
Constant superimp, psc kPag 100 100
Variable superimp, psv kPag 0 0
Atmospheric pressure, pat kPa abs 101.325 101.325
Overpressure, ovp 0.1 0.1
Relieving temperature, T1_ K = 50 + 273.15 323.15
k 1.31 1.31
Molecular weight, M kg/kmol 16.04 16.04
Gas universal constant, R J/kmol K 8,314.4 8314.4
Rated disch. coeff., KDR 0.864 0.864
Orifice actual area, Aact m2 0.00462 0.00462
ID outlet m = (6.625 – 2 × 0.109) × 0.0254 0.1627378
Outlet area, A3 m2 = PI() × ID^2/4 0.0208001641626271
PRV type (C, B or P) C C
Maximum initial flowrate
Max pop pressure PRV = C kPag = pset + MAX(0.03 × (pset – psc),15) + psv 7,001
Max pop pressure PRV = B or P kPag = pset + MAX(0.03 × pset,15) 7,004
Popmax Pa abs = (IF(PRV = "C",popC,popBP) + pat) × 1000 7,102,325
Initial compressibilty factor, Z1_ 0.922382705860801 0.922382705860801
Initial backpressure Pa abs = (psc + psv + pat) × 1,000 201,325
Backpressure ratio, rB = ibp/popmax 0.0283463513708539
Critical ratio, rC_ = (2/(k + 1))^(k/(k – 1)) 0.543927037565322
Subcritical Kbsc = rB^(1/k) × (((k + 1)/2)^((k + 1)/(k – 1)) × 2/ 0.216030984293433
(k – 1) × (1 – rB^((k – 1)/k)))^0.5
Backpressure factor, Kb = IF(rB< = rC_,1,Kbsc) 1
C_ = (k/R_ × (2/(k + 1))^((k + 1)/(k – 1)))^0.5 0.00733756278021416
wmax kg/sec = Kb × C_ × MIN(1.1/0.9 × KDR,1) × Aact × 55.8520185115318
popmax × (M/Z1_/T1_)^0.5
Ideal gas
p3_ (for sonic flow) Pa abs = wmax/A3_ × (2 × R_ × T1_/k/(k + 1)/M)^0.5 893,430.606326385
p3g (for sonic flow) kPag = p3_/1000 – pat 792.105606326385
Counter force, cF N = 1000 × (psc + psv + pat) × A3_ 4,187.5930500409
F sonic N = wmax × (2 × (k + 1) × R_ × T1_/k/M)^0.5 – cF 38,740.299525614
F subsonic N = k × cF/(k – 1) × ((1 + 2 × (k – 1) × R_ × T1_ × 51,074.2394355506
wmax^2/k/M/cF^2)^0.5 – 1)
Force, F_ N = IF(p3g < psc + psv,Fsub,Fson) 38,740.299525614
Outlet velocity m/sec = IF(F_= Fson,(2 × k × R_ × T1_/(k + 435.873043534214
1)/M)^0.5,Fsub/wmax)
p3st (for sonic flow) kPa abs = p3_ × ((k + 1)/2)^(k/(k – 1))/1,000 1,642.5559764881

The same formulas apply to Point 4. The calculation should Eq. 23 is used for subsonic flow at the outlet flange:
be repeated only if the pipe diameter is expanded downstream p3 = pbp + pat (23)
of the PRV. In that case, flow might be sonic at Point 3 and sub-
sonic at Point 4. From Eq. 19, Eq. 24 calculates:

Formulas for an ideal gas. Eqs. 21 and 22 are used for ⎡kp A ⎤ ⎡ 2 ( k −1) R T1 w 2 ⎤
v3 = ⎢ 3 3 ⎥ ⎢ 1+ −1⎥ (24)
choked flow at the outlet flange, from Eqs. 11 and 14: ⎣ ( k −1) w ⎦ ⎢⎣ k M p32 A32 ⎥⎦
2 k R T1
v3 = (21) For a real gas, a first estimate of enthalpy at Point 3, is ob-
( k +1) M
tained from Eq. 1, using v3 from Eq. 21 and enthalpy at Point 1.
w 2 R T1 The property package provides density at Point 3, using p3 for
p3 = (22)
A3 k ( k +1) M the ideal gas and h3. From Eq. 13, a new estimate of the veloc-
42 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Safety and Environment

TABLE 2. Example 2, gas force (red for software input, orange for program output) (cont.)
Data Formulas Results
Real gas
Max pop pressure kPa abs = popmax/1,000 7,102.325 Property package input
T1 °C = T1_–273.15 50 Lee-Kesler-Plocker
Molar enthalpy, H kJ/kmol –74,938.7111855898 –74,938.7111855898 Property package output
Sonic velocity First trial Second trial
Molar enthalpy kJ/kmol =H –74,938.7111855898 –74,938.7111855898
p3st kPa abs 1,574.7 1,650 1,574.7
T3stC °C 30.4219473189698 30.7224938983222 30.4219473189698
M_ kg/kmol 16.0429000854492 16.0429000854492 16.0429000854492
Z3st 0.975542132281251 0.974485487283266 0.975542132281251
Density d3st kg/m3 10.2599750222015 10.75160551981 10.2599750222015
Molar entropy, S kJ/kmol K 199.189528785028 198.810860137638 199.189528785028

Molar entropy kJ/kmol K =S 198.810860137638 199.189528785028

p3st – 10 kPa abs = p3st – 10 1,640 1,564.7
Density, d3st_ kg/m3 10.2100037994703 10.701644318267 10.2100037994703
n = d3st/p3st × 10/(d3st – d3st_) 1.30423695912368 1.3038526073516
T3st K = 273.15 + T3stC 303.872493898322 303.57194731897
p3__ Pa abs = wmax/A3_ × (2 × Z3st × R_ × T3st/n/ 858,129.216627469 858,367.69518583
(n + 1)/M_)^0.5
kPag = (p3__–pat)/1,000 858.027891627469 858.26637018583
p3st kPa abs = p3__ × ((n + 1)/2)^(n/(n – 1))/1,000 1,574.65531933745 1,574.89277716453
Outlet velocity, v3S m/sec = (2 × n × Z3st × R_ × T3st/(n + 1)/M)^0.5 416.846671725755 416.83963891673
Force (sonic flow) N = wmax × v3S + p3__ × A3_–cF 36,943.3635542543 36,947.9311508376

ity results as a function of density, flowrate and area, providing imposed backpressure with zero flow. The resulting initial force
quick convergence for all variables at Point 3. in the direction opposite to flow is then calculated with Eq. 25:
F = w v3 + (p3 – psbp – pat ) A3 (25)
EXAMPLE 1
A conventional PRV set at 6,800 kPag must relieve 49 kg/sec For a real gas, replacing pressure and velocity for sonic dis-
of methane at 50°C (122°F) into a discharge header with total charge at the outlet flange uses Eq. 26:
backpressure estimated at 200 kPag. For 10% overpressure, the
( )
supplier has quoted orifice P as a 4-in. 600# inlet, a 6-in. 150# 2 n Z3sf R T3st ⎛ 1
outlet and an informed 52 kg/sec rated capacity. Total backpres- F =w 1 + ⎞ − psbp + pat A3 =
( n +1) M ⎝ n⎠
sure at the outlet flange should not exceed 680 kPag to comply (26)
with ASME/API recommendations. TABLE 1 provides 730 kPag 2 ( n +1) Z3st R T3st
using the ideal gas formula (conservative) and 695 kPag (4.8% w
nM
(
− psbp + pat A3 )
lower) using the procedure for real gases, so that a conventional
PRV should not be applied (to ensure against chattering). This For a real gas, replacing pressure and velocity for subsonic
case occurs frequently with orifice T, less frequently with P and discharge at the outlet flange uses Eq. 27:
rarely with L, Q and R (because of the area ratio between nozzle
and outlet flange and API 526 pressure limits).
F = w v3 = ⎢
(
⎡ n psbp + pat A3 ⎤
⎥
)
⎢ ( n −1) ⎥
Reaction forces. In FIG. 1, an envelope including the valve, ⎣ ⎦ (27)
the horizontal pipe and the first elbow allows the analysis of the ⎡ ⎤
⎢ 1 + 2 ( n −1) Z3st R T3st w −1⎥
2
horizontal reaction force of the fluid on the solid walls owing
⎢
( ⎥
)
2
to pressure, friction and momentum. When steady-state condi- n M psbp + pat A32
tions are established, these forces are balanced. For flexibility ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
analysis and support design, the initial unbalanced force that For an ideal gas, with sonic discharge at the outlet flange
is suddenly applied when the valve pops is required. The usual (Eq. 28):
simplifying assumption is to consider that, at the outlet flange,
2 ( k +1) R T1
the built-up backpressure and the momentum react on the valve
walls, while the horizontal pipe and elbow remain at the super-
F= w
kM
(
− psbp + pat A3 ) (28)

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 43

 Plant Safety and Environment

TABLE 3. Example 3, gas force (red for software input, orange for program output)
Data Formulas Results
Set pressure, pset kPag 517 517
Constant superimp, psc kPag 379 379
Variable superimp, psv kPag 40 40
Atmospheric pressure, pat kPa abs 101.325 101.325
Overpressure, ovp 0.1 0.1
Relieving temperature, T1_ K 348 348
k 1.1068 1.1068
Molecular weight, M kg/kmol 51.105 51.105
Gas universal constant, R J/kmol K 8,314.4 8,314.4
Rated disch. coeff., KDR 0.878 0.878
Orifice actual area, Aact m2 = 1.1/0.9 × 11.05 × 0.0254^2 0.00871324422222222
ID outlet m = (8.625 – 2 × 0.109) × 0.0254 0.2135378
Outlet area, A3 m2 = PI() × ID^2/4 0.0358128933533278
PRV type (C, B or P) C C
Maximum initial flowrate
Max pop pressure PRV = C kPag = pset + MAX(0.03 × (pset – psc),15) + psv 572
Max pop pressure PRV = B or P kPag = pset + MAX(0.03 × pset,15) 532.51
Popmax Pa abs = (IF(PRV = "C",popC,popBP) + pat) × 1000 673,325
Initial compressibilty factor, Z1_ 0.9023552248901 0.9023552248901
Initial backpressure, ibp Pa abs = (psc + psv + pat) × 1000 520,325
Backpressure ratio, rB = ibp/popmax 0.772769464968626
Critical ratio, rC_ = (2/(k + 1))^(k/(k – 1)) 0.583255445037076
Subcritical Kbsc = rB^(1/k) × (((k + 1)/2)^((k + 1)/(k – 1)) × 2/ 0.897640446831387
(k – 1) × (1-rB^((k – 1)/gtk)))^0.5
Back pressure factor, Kb = IF(rB< = rC_,1,Kbsc) 0.897640446831387
C_ = (k/R_ × (2/(k + 1))^((k + 1)/(k – 1)))^0.5 0.00690676336882351
wmax kg/sec = Kb × C_ × MIN(1.1/0.9 × KDR,1) × Aact × 14.673540755509
popmax × (M/Z1_/T1_)^0.5
Ideal gas
p3_ (for sonic flow) Pa abs = wmax/A3_ × (2 × R_ × T1_/k/(k + 90,289.5864311037
1)/M)^0.5
p3g (for sonic flow) kPag = p3_/1000 – pat –11.0354135688963
Counter force, cF N = 1000 × (psc + psv + pat) × A3_ 18.634.3437340703
F sonic N = wmax × (2 × (k + 1) × R_ × T1_/k/M)^0.5 –11,821.9399285041
– cF
F subsonic N = k × cF/(k–1) × ((1 + 2 × (k – 1) × R_ × T1_ × 653.083580713917
wmax^2/k/M/cF^2)^0.5 – 1)
Force, F_ N = IF(p3g < psc + psv,Fsub,Fson) 653.083580713917
Outlet velocity m/sec = IF(F_= Fson,(2 × k × R_ × T1_/ 44.5075658013028
(k + 1)/M)^0.5,Fsub/wmax)
p3st (for sonic flow) kPa abs =p3_ × ((k + 1)/2)^(k/(k – 1))/1,000 154.802817872303

For an ideal gas with subsonic discharge at the outlet flange valid both for atmospheric discharge and for the vertical pipe
(Eq. 29): connecting to another elbow or tee.
Note that API 520 Part 2 covers only the case of sonic flow at

F= ⎢
( )
⎡ k psbp + pat A3 ⎤ ⎡
⎥ ⎢ 1 + 2 ( k −1) R T1 w
2
−1
⎤
⎥
the outlet flange when discharging to the atmosphere (for outlet
sonic flow, zero superimposed backpressure gives the maximum
⎥ (29)
( k −1) ⎥⎢ ( )
2 2
⎢ k M p + p A initial force).
⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎣ sbp at 3 ⎥⎦
Note also that for n = 1, starting from Eq. 3 new formulas
When the pressure wave reaches the first elbow, the vertical can easily be derived (pressure and density are related through a
downwards force can be estimated from the same formulas, re- logarithm), but a practical tip is to use the same formulas with n
placing the area if the pipe diameter is expanded. This tactic is = 1.00001 to avoid division by zero and obtain an accurate result.
44 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Safety and Environment

TABLE 3. Example 3, gas force (red for software input, orange for program output) (cont.)
Data Formulas Results
Real gas
Max pop pressure kPa abs = popmax 673,325 Property package input
T1 °C = T1_ – 273.15 74.85 Lee-Kesler-Plocker
Molar enthalpy, H kJ/kmol –111,382.824428819 –111,382.824428819 Property package output
Subsonic velocity Second trial
Outlet velocity, v3_ m/sec 40.87 44 40.87
Molar enthalpy kJ/kmol = H – M × v3_^2/2000 –111,432.294068819 –111,425.506223506
p3_ kPa abs = psc + psv + pat 520.325 520.325
Density, d3_ kg/m3 10.0236362011761 10.0235826833183 10.0236362011761
Outlet velocity, v3__ m/sec = wmax/A3_/d3_ 40.8763901829124 40.8761719370789
Force (subsonic flow) N = wmax × v3__ 599.801377287055 599.798174847923

Peng3 provides a useful remark to reduce the maximum
force estimated. The pop action is not instantaneous: the force
increases linearly during a time, to, in the order of 0.01 sec
(check with the supplier). The wave travels at sonic velocity
and requires a time, Δt, to cover the distance, L, to the next el-
bow. If the force at the origin has not reached its maximum, any
further increase is compensated by the increase at the elbow so
that the maximum force on the pipe segment is (Eq. 30):
Δt L L
Fmax = F =F if Δt = < to (30)
to v st o vs
This is valid for the pipe segment between the PRV and the
first elbow and for the subsequent pipe segments, if discharg-
ing to a header.
Which initial flowrate should be used to calculate the reac-
tion force? It is known that, initially, the rated capacity is usu-
ally exceeded, but an agreed criterion is unavailable. Using
ASME UG-131 to certify a specific design requires the man-
ufacturer to submit three devices to testing for each of three
different sizes.4 The coefficient of discharge KD for each test is
obtained using Eq. 31:
Actual flow
KD = (31)
Theoretical flow
All nine individual coefficients must fall within a range of
± 5% of the average. The average coefficient of the nine tests
is then multiplied by 0.9 to obtain the rated coefficient of dis-
charge KDR (which shall not be greater than 0.878) for any PRV
of that design. A 10% safety margin below the average is, there-
fore, adopted.
The usual procedure is to find the required area by applying
API 520 with the recommended discharge coefficient for gases
Kd = 0.975. From API 526,5 a standard orifice is selected with
an effective area, A, immediately greater than the required one.
Each supplier will provide an actual orifice area (greater than
the effective area), such that (Eq. 32):
K DR Aact ≅ K d A
(32)
If ASME requires a coefficient 10% below the average to
estimate the relieving capacity, then to estimate the force, the
maximum actual coefficient should be 10% above the average
(but not greater than 1), as determined by Eq. 33:
Kmax =1,1(KDR ÷ 0,9)=1,22 KDR or Kmax = 1
(33)
(the lesser value)
For balanced and pilot-operated valves, the maximum pres-
sure when the valve pops depends only on the set pressure tol-
erance per UG-126(d)—i.e., 3% or 15 kPa, whichever is greater
(Eq. 34):
ppop = pset + MAX [0,03 pset ; 15,000] (34)
For conventional PRVs, the tolerance applies to the spring
differential, but opening may further be delayed because of vari-
able superimposed backpressure, so that the maximum pressure
when the valve pops is calculated by Eq. 35:
ppop = (pset – psc ) + MAX [0,03 (pset – psc ); 15,000]
(35)
+ psc + psv + pat
The maximum initial flowrate should then be obtained by
applying API 520 formulas with Kmax Aact and ppop. If data from
the supplier are not yet available, use 1.22 Kd A. If the flow is
subcritical, the influence of the Kb factor from Figure 36 of API
520 must also be included.
The calculated value is greater than the process flowrate
(the only possible exception could be for fire requirements), so
the pressure immediately starts decreasing after popping.
Analyzing the derivative of the above formulas, maximum
force corresponds to minimum superimposed backpressure
(usually zero or close to zero), except for conventional PRVs
with the spring compensated for constant superimposed back-
pressure—the force increases with the variable superimposed
backpressure for subcritical flow at the orifice (see Example
3)—and also for critical flow at the orifice, if the ratio of ab-
solute superimposed to pop pressure is above a limit that falls
slightly below 0.5, depending on the specific data.
EXAMPLE 2
For the same case of Example 1, if the constant superimposed
backpressure is 100 kPag, then the spring force may be compen-
sated and a conventional PRV applied. Find the maximum initial
force if the supplier has informed KDR = 0.864 and Aact = 0.00462
m2. TABLE 2 shows critical flow and a force of 38,740 N. For the
real gas, the outlet stagnation pressure is obtained by rounding
down the ideal value for the first trial and adopting the resulting
value for the second trial. The force is 4.6% lower: 36,948 N.
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 45
 Plant Safety and Environment

EXAMPLE 3
An operational upset requires relieving 24,270 kg/hr of a
50/50 (by mole) mixture of n-butane and propane at 348 K.
The set pressure is 517 kPag, the constant superimposed back-
pressure is 379 kPag and the overpressure is 10%. By applying
API 520 formulas (see 5.6.4.2.2), orifice Q is adopted. Estimate
the maximum initial reaction force if maximum variable super-
imposed backpressure is 40 kPa. Before receiving suppliers’ in-
formation, the discharge coefficient is adopted as 0.878 and the
effective area (11.05 in.2) is increased by 1.1/0.9. The maximum
estimated initial flowrate is 14.674 kg/sec, the ideal force is 653
N and the outlet velocity is 44.5 m/sec. For the real gas, adopting
the ideal rounded velocity for the first trial, 40.87 m/sec is cal-
culated for the second trial, giving a 7.7% lower force of 600 N.

Two-phase flow. Recently, Chen6 has proposed a simple pro-

cedure for sizing PRVs for two-phase flow, which is also valid
for supercritical gases or gases having wide variations of the
isentropic coefficient. The conditions at Point 3 can then be
obtained considering that the outlet velocity must comply with
Eq. 1 and the first term of Eq. 13.
For subsonic outlet flow, the backpressure is known. Outlet
temperature is iterated to obtain outlet enthalpy and density to
match both calculated velocities. Sonic velocity is then obtained
from Eq. 4 using a pressure variation of 10 kPa and by reading
the isentropic variation of density to confirm subsonic flow.
If outlet flow is sonic, then the outlet pressure must be deter-
mined: sonic velocity, enthalpy and temperature present only
small variations. Pressure is the main variable to be increased to
obtain a density, such that the velocity calculated from Eq. 13
matches sound velocity (only minor temperature adjustments
are required). The reaction force is given by Eq. 25.

NOMENCLATURE
A Area in m2
cp Specific heat at constant pressure in J/kg K
cv Specific heat at constant volume in J/kg K
F Reaction force in N
h Enthalpy in J/kg
We oil and gas. k
Kb
Ideal gas cp/cv
Backpressure coefficient
Kd Effective discharge coefficient
KD Individual test discharge coefficient
Boldrocchi is a worldwide engineering KDR Rated discharge coefficient
& manufacturing company with over a L Pipe length between outlet flange and next elbow
M Molecular weight in kg/kmol
century of experience and hundreds of oil Ma Mach number
& gas projects around the globe. n Coefficient of isentropic expansion
p Absolute pressure in Pa
pbp Total backpressure (gauge)
ppop Pop pressure (absolute)
psbp Superimposed backpressure (gauge): psbp = psc + psv
Fans, Blowers & Compressors
Complete nomenclature available online at HydrocarbonProcessing.com.
Heat Exchangers & Coolers
Noise Protection LITERATURE CITED
Heavy-Duty Process Dampers Complete literature cited available online at HydrocarbonProcessing.com.

GUILLERMO CORDERO has been with Techint Engineering

& Construction for 49 yr at its Buenos Aires, Argentina
headquarters. He has been leading the process department
for 38 yr and presently works as a Process Consultant. His work
covers basic and detailed engineering for pipelines, refineries
Learn more at www.boldrocchigroup.com
and petrochemical units. He earned his degree in chemical
engineering from the University of Buenos Aires, where he
has been a Professor of unit operations.
Select 159 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
46 
 Special Focus Plant Safety and Environment
B. CROSLEY and M. INDGJER, Det-Tronics,
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Integrating fire and gas safety with

process control systems: Why, what and how
If a fire, smoke or gas leak is detected
in a hydrocarbon processing facility, pre-
scriptive actions must be taken by the fire
and gas (F&G) safety system, as well as by
the process control system (PCS), to miti-
gate and control the hazard. Using a certi-
fied, documented F&G safety system that
can communicate appropriate messages
to the PCS during an event is vital to the
safety of a facility and its occupants. How-
ever, specifying and integrating these two
systems are not simple matters (FIG. 1).
According to the Hydrocarbon Process-
ing Construction Boxscore Database, there
are 261 active downstream projects in the
US, with even more active downstream
projects in the Middle East and Asia-Pa-
cific regions (301 and 471, respectively).1 FIG. 1. A properly designed and certified F&G safety system provides information to the
Comprising both retrofits and new con- PCS to enable operations to consider both process and environmental conditions in
a hydrocarbon processing facility.
struction, these refining, petrochemical
and gas processing/LNG projects repre-
sent investments of millions or even bil- ments of both systems require validation
lions of dollars, and each of these projects that they can perform to the defined risk-
will require an F&G safety system. reduction target. Methods to help define
The complexities of hydrocarbon pro- the performance requirements are avail-
cessing projects—and the potential haz- able in standards, directives and recom-
ards they contain—make it vital to under- mended practices.
stand why and how to integrate F&G safety
with a production facility’s PCS. Worker Integrated, independent or both?
safety, plant output, code compliance and In the US, National Fire Protection As-
project implementation cost control all sociation (NFPA) standard NFPA 72: FIG. 2. Industrial processes, usually controlled
depend on using the right equipment and National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code by a PCS, must also be protected by an F&G
processes when integrating F&G safety (2016) dictates that an F&G safety sys- safety system that can detect and provide
a warning of hazardous conditions.
with a facility’s overall PCS (FIG. 2). tem cannot be dependent upon the PCS.2
Consider a chemical plant where flam- Alternately, the F&G system must be able
mable materials continue to be pumped to take immediate action to mitigate a wegian Industries; and the Health and
into an area where fire has been detected. detected risk and then report the action Safety Executive (HSE), an independent
In these settings, an F&G safety system to the PCS regarding any process actions regulatory body in the UK.
is the layer of protection responsible for required. Independence between these To fulfill the standards of both the Pe-
mitigating the consequences of a hazard- systems is also recommended by two troleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA)
ous event once it has occurred. In hazard- highly regarded international regulatory and the International Electrotechnical
ous situations like this, it is imperative bodies: NORSOK, whose standards are Commission’s IEC 61508 and IEC 61511,
that an F&G safety system communicate supported by the Norwegian Oil and Gas NORSOK requires “… independencies
with the PCS. The performance require- Association and the Federation of Nor- between safety systems, i.e., a failure in
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 47
 Plant Safety and Environment
one system shall not adversely affect the
intended safety function of another, no
interaction shall occur from the process
control system to any safety system, from
the process shutdown (PSD) system to
the emergency shutdown (ESD) system,
or from the PSD system to F&G.”3,4
HSE’s guide to the Control of Major
Accident Hazards (COMAH) regula-
tions refers to the Engineering Equip-
ment and Materials Users Association
(EEMUA) publication “EEMUA 191:
Alarm systems: A guide to design, man-
agement and procurement,” which states,
in part, that “the alarm system should be
designed in accordance with IEC 61508
to SIL 1 or SIL 2, with the designated
reliability,” and “the alarm system should
be independent from the process control
system and other alarms unless it has also
been designated safety related.”5,6
While standards and recommended
practices state that the two systems—F&G
safety and process control—must not in-
terfere with each other, these documents
do not prescribe methods for integrating
the two systems. The result is several pos-
sible approaches for F&G safety system
integration and PCS communications.
Process control encompasses the PCS
and the process instrumentation. The
overall safety system encompasses the
PSD, the ESD and the F&G safety system,
FIG. 3. An effective F&G safety system may include multiple types of detection devices plus
an F&G safety system controller with inputs and outputs for notification and suppression-
activation devices to contain or mitigate an event that may be threatening to personnel
or process operations.
48 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
which includes subsystems for flame, gas
and smoke detection, a safety system con-
troller, and notification and suppression/
activation equipment.
Why: The drivers for F&G safety sys-
tems. While the overall role of an F&G
safety system is to mitigate the results of
hazardous events, the system’s first role is
to detect hazards, quickly and accurately.
According to the literature, “the overall
objective of F&G detection systems is to
warn of possible impending events that
may be threatening to life, property or
continued business operations that are
external to the process operation.”7
The literature notes, “Process controls
and instrumentation only provide feed-
back for conditions within the process
system. They do not report or control
conditions outside the assumed process
integrity limits. F&G detection systems
supplement process information systems
with instrumentation that is located ex-
ternal to the process to warn of conditions
that could be considered harmful if found
outside the normal process environment.
F&G detection systems may be used to
confirm the reading of major process re-
leases or to report conditions that pro-
cess instrumentation may not adequately
report or be unable to report (i.e., minor
process releases).”7
Myriad regulations require F&G safety
systems, and some have already been men-
tioned. Common regulatory and legisla-
tive bodies, standards and industry codes
include UL, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), NFPA
and the American Petroleum Institute
(API). However, other global regulations
are in place to ensure the safety of the in-
dustrial workplace, including regional- and
industry-specific standards, such as NOR-
SOK and the internationally recognized
IECEx standards, which pertain to envi-
ronments with explosive atmospheres.
Insurance companies such as Factory
Mutual (FM) Global and Lloyd’s of Lon-
don provide guidelines for specific risks
found within industrial processes. Manu-
facturing companies may also draft and
enforce mandates related to safety, while
local authorities having jurisdiction often
enforce legislative and their own standards
specific to the location involved.
What: The flame and gas system. An
F&G safety system is comprised of sever-
al subsystems that can include, but are not
limited to, flame, gas and smoke detec-
tion; a safety system controller; and no-
tification and/or suppression-activation
devices (FIG. 3).
Detection—the backbone. Following
codes such as NFPA 72 and NFPA 70
and the National Electrical Code (NEC),
flame and gas detectors must be perfor-
mance-certified by product certifiers
and capable for use in hazardous applica-
tions. Third-party product certification is
critical, as it validates the expected perfor-
mance of the F&G safety system. Organi-
zations that certify product performance
include FM, UL and other Nationally Rec-
ognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs).
In addition to product performance
certification, functional safety product
certification is essential for validation
of product reliability for high-hazard
plant safety. Product certifiers must be
accredited to assess and audit products,
services and systems to ensure that they
meet functional safety requirements. The
following is an overview of the detector
technologies often used in hazardous in-
dustrial applications.
Gas detection technologies. Gas
leak detection is usually considered the
first line of defense in mitigating risk and
helping to prevent fire, explosions and
 Plant Safety and Environment

process downtime in hazardous indus-
trial settings. NFPA 72 (2016) defines a
gas detector as “a device that detects the
presence of a specified gas concentration.”
The gases detected may be combustible,
toxic or both. Multiple detector types
used for sensing gases exist, such as:
• Fixed-point detectors that employ
electrochemical, catalytic or infrared
technologies to detect the presence
of a toxic or combustible gas.
These detectors measure the gas
concentration at their location and
monitor for potential flammable
or toxic gas leak conditions.
• Line-of-sight gas detectors that
continuously monitor combustible
gas levels between two points at
ranges as far as 120 m (394 ft)
apart. These detectors are often
deployed in and around open areas
and harsh environments that are
typical of an industrial site, and are
perfect for perimeter monitoring
for gas clouds and for augmenting
point detectors for optimal
coverage in large open areas.
• Acoustic detectors that use
ultrasonic sensors to detect leaks
based on noise patterns. This
technology is ideal for areas where
risk exists for pressurized gas leaks.
These are suitable for harsh outdoor
applications, unmanned operations
and extreme temperatures, and are
unaffected by fog, rain and wind.
Each of these toxic and combustible gas
detection approaches have benefits and
limitations depending on environmen-
tal and application factors. Therefore, an
optimal protection solution may involve
using more than one type of technology
and placing selected detector types in lo-
cations that maximize their effectiveness.
The goal of gas leak detection devices
is to detect hazardous vapors before they
accumulate to an explosive or lethal level.
The information these devices send to
the F&G safety system controller can be
used in decision-making and communi-
cation with the process control/process
shutdown systems to take actions, such
as closing valves to limit the flow of gas to
the endangered area or curtailing electric
power near the leaking gas to reduce igni-
tion potential.
Flame detection technologies. Rath-
er than waiting to detect heat or smoke
from a fire, hazardous locations often em-
ploy optical flame detectors tuned to spe-
cific fire emissions that can be sensed from
a distance in a defined area of coverage.
As described in NFPA 72, these radiant-
energy-sensing detectors are line-of-sight
devices that can employ several sensing
technologies: ultraviolet (UV), infrared
(IR), ultraviolet/infrared (UVIR) and
multi-spectrum infrared (MIR).
In addition to providing rapid fire de-
tection when response times are critical,
these detectors are expected to be highly
resistant to false alarms, which can be
costly in terms of operation shutdowns
and plant and equipment damage caused
by fire-suppression materials.
Smoke detection technologies.
F&G safety systems may also employ
smoke detection to perform life safety
functions for occupied spaces, as re-
quired by OSHA. Using a variety of tech-
nologies, these devices detect particles

Idrojet s.r.l. & Idrokid s.r.l.

proudly presents...
NEW VERSION
...your full line of heat exchangers maintenance product

InstruCalc
CONTROL VALVES • FLOW ELEMENTS • RELIEF DEVICES • PROCESS DATA
AERIAL BUNDLE EXTRACTOR

InstruCalc 9.0 calculates the size of control valves,

flow elements and relief devices and calculates fluid AUTOJET E930 / I 930-5 SERIES 2000

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 STRADDLE CARRIER SERIES 20T
SELF PROPELLED BUNDLE EXTRACTOR
user to select the flowrate with optimum accuracy.

Updates include Engineering Standard

Upgrades and Operational Improvements
in InstruCalc Version 9.0
Please contact J’Nette Davis-Nichols TRUCK MOUNTED BUNDLE EXTRACTOR
for more information.
Idrojet s.r.l.
GulfPub.com/InstruCalc or call +1 (713) 520-4426. Via Luigi Pirandello s.n.
95040 Piano Tavola (CT) - ITALIA
Tel. +39 095 7131125 - Fax +39 095 391446
email:info@idrojet.com
website:www.idrojet.com
STUD PIGGING SYSTEM MACHINE
Idrokid s.r.l.
Via Luigi Pirandello s.n.
95040 Piano Tavola (CT) - ITALIA
Mobile +39 3356472562
email:info@idrokid.com
website:www.idrokid.com

Select 160 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

 49
 Plant Safety and Environment
produced by combustion, including
photoelectric, beam and video smoke.
To be effective, smoke detectors should
be located and spaced in anticipation of
airflow from sources likely to present fire
risks, but not to cause false alarms.
As NFPA 72 states, “The location of
smoke detectors shall be based on an
evaluation of potential ambient sources
of smoke, moisture, dust or fumes, and
electrical or mechanical influences, to
minimize nuisance alarms.” Smoke detec-
tors in occupied areas can be connected
to the overall F&G safety system, de-
pending on the capabilities of the safety
system controller.
When smoke alarms are connected
to the safety controller, any local annun-
ciation of the smoke detector would be
represented in the F&G safety system so
that personnel away from the incident
are alerted. Adding a timestamp from the
controller may also be valuable during in-
cident reconstruction.
Smoke detectors installed in hazard-
ous locations must be explosion-proof
and—like all detectors used in high-risk
locations—should have the necessary
performance and hazardous-location ap-
provals to ensure safe and effective opera-
tion, whether installed in defined areas or
inside ductwork.
The F&G safety controller—the brain
of the system. A complete F&G safety
system is an integrated set of inputs and
outputs consisting of flame, gas and
smoke detectors; alarm signaling and no-
tification; and extinguishing agent release
and/or deluge operations designed to
contain or mitigate an event that may be a
threat to personnel or process operations.
Unlike the PCS, which only reports on
conditions within the process system, the
responsibility of the F&G safety system is
to continually monitor and analyze data
collected by detectors in the process ar-
eas, make decisions to determine if/how
to contain or mitigate the hazard, provide
alarm notification and communicate the
event to the PCS.
The brain of the F&G safety system
is a certified safety controller, approved
by product certifiers to be compliant to
NFPA 72 for flame and gas detection and
releasing, and integrated with (but inde-
pendent from) the PCS.
This controller should do more than
just handle inputs and outputs; it should
50 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
also troubleshoot and provide real-time
F&G safety system status and diagnostics.
It should facilitate easy programming and
configuration of flame and gas detectors
and other field devices. The ideal F&G
safety system should be certified SIL 2
capable, with the proper documentation
that validates its performance capabilities
and fault diagnostics.
An NFPA 72-compliant F&G safety
controller for flame and gas detection and
release will be able to:
• Detect specialized hazardous
events, such as gases, vapors or fires
• Minimize responses to false events
• Provide automatic and/or
manual mitigation of detected
hazardous events
• Annunciate events to personnel
• Provide information on system
readiness/health
• Provide historical information,
including calibration, alarm
and fault logs
• Communicate with third-party
systems, such as the PCS and
ESD system.
How: Information sharing between
the F&G safety system and the PCS.
Integrating complex alarm control and
hazard mitigation is critical to life and
plant preservation. In the past, F&G
safety system controllers were limited to
being hardwired together by using ana-
log or contact closures in a conventional
(e.g., point-to-point) design. Although
still acceptable, this design provides lim-
ited diagnostics, is not inherently fault-
tolerant and is less flexible to configure.
While this configuration provides alarm
and fault information, specific details of
the event are not available to the control-
ler because of the simple, binary nature of
the communication path.
Conversely, an F&G safety system in
an addressable loop has the F&G devices
configured on a bidirectional, fault-toler-
ant loop topology, substantially increas-
ing the amount of diagnostic information
that can be shared with the F&G safety
controller. This configuration is more re-
liable, as the controller is in constant com-
munication with each device on the loop
for alarm and diagnostic information.
As previously mentioned, an effective
F&G safety system should include the
capability to provide detection device sta-
tus, in defined process areas, to the PCS.
This enables the process owner to know
exactly what, where and when events are
occurring. However, since the F&G safety
system and the PCS remain independent,
a failure by the PCS will not affect the op-
eration of the F&G safety system.
Takeaway. In hydrocarbon processing
facilities around the world, F&G safety
systems supplement PCSs by providing
critical functions, such as warning and
containing or mitigating a detected hazard.
Although required to operate indepen-
dently of the PCS, the F&G safety system
can be integrated with the PCS to allow
communication about an event that may
threaten personnel or process operations.
Whether part of a plant retrofit or an
all-new construction project, effective
F&G safety systems must be properly cer-
tified and able to provide real-time safety
system status and diagnostics. These
systems should also be scalable and con-
figurable, and have the ability to integrate
with the PCS. It is important to consider
all these features when selecting an F&G
safety system to effectively and efficiently
protect any downstream hydrocarbon
processing project.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Hydrocarbon Processing Construction Boxscore
Database, June 2018, http://www.constructionbox-
score.com/
2
National Fire Protection Association, www.nfpa.org
3
Petroleum Safety Regulatory Authority, www.ptil.no
4
“Application of IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 in the
Norwegian Petroleum Industry,” https://www.itk.
ntnu.no/sil/OLF-070-Rev2.pdf
5
Health and Safety Executive, http://www.hse.gov.uk
6
Engineering Equipment and Materials Users
Association, https://www.eemua.org
7
Nolan, D. P., Handbook of Fire and Explosion
Protection Engineering Principles for Oil, Gas, Chemical
and Related Facilities, 2nd Ed., William P. Andrew
Inc., Elsevier, 2014.
BILL CROSLEY is the Systems
Product Manager at Det-Tronics,
where he has held multiple positions
in marketing and business
development for the past 35 yr.
His in-depth marketing and technical
experience includes interpreting F&G
codes and standards, and applying F&G safety system
best practices in a variety of hazardous applications.
MARK INDGJER joined Det-Tronics
in 2017 as an Applications Engineer
for F&G safety systems. He has held
a variety of roles in the fire industry
for more than 25 yr. At present,
he provides systems applications
support and training for Det-Tronics.
Mr. Indgjer holds a BS degree in marketing and is
NICET Level II certified.
 Special Focus Plant Safety and Environment
P. HANIK, Pretium Innovation LLC, Houston, Texas;
and R. HAUSMANN, KingChapman and the University
of Houston, Houston, Texas

High-reliability organizing for a new paradigm

in safety
Should the chemical industry be satisfied with its existing
safety programs, or is change needed to create a new paradigm?
The chemical industry is one industry leading the development
of robust safety programs. Most chemical and refining compa-
nies have a stated, total commitment to safety first. However,
a percentage of the public has a hard time believing this state-
ment. Why would companies be unwilling to risk the safety of
their employees or the public if it meant increasing profits or
completing a project faster or at lower cost? The reality is that
the chemical industry has a serious and real commitment to
safety first. Management personnel throughout the industry
are justifiably proud of their safety performance.
Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) is a common measure
used to assess safety performance. A recordable injury under
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
guidelines is one that requires medical treatment beyond first
aid, as well as one that causes death, days away from work, re-
stricted work, transfer to another job or loss of consciousness.
TRIR is calculated as shown in Eq. 1:
TRIR = (number of recordable injuries × 200,000) ÷
(1)
number of hr worked
Over the past 20 yr, TRIR at most chemical companies has
declined. FIG. 1 shows the typical TRIR performance of a top-
tier chemical company. Twenty yr ago, TRIRs were 2–5 times
higher, or more. Today, top-tier TRIR performance is less than
0.5. A company with 1,000 employees and a TRIR of 0.5 has
only five injuries more serious than first aid during a year.
2.5
To achieve this level of performance, companies have insti-
tuted several programs and processes. Plants are designed to
strict safety standards using tools such as failure modes effects
analysis (FMEA), hazard and operability studies (HAZOP),
cold eye reviews and other techniques and standards. Plant
operating procedures are kept up to date, and all employees
are trained and retrained in proper startup, operating and shut-
down procedures. Safety systems and equipment are routinely
checked to ensure proper operation. Any changes to the physi-
cal plant are rigorously reviewed in a change management pro-
cess to ensure that no safety risks result. Regular safety meet-
ings are held with all employees. Near-misses are reported and
reviewed so that procedures can be improved and made more
robust. Managers are trained in behavioral safety to reinforce
behaviors that comply with safe operation and maintenance.
FIG. 2 illustrates how we attempt to prevent accidents to-
day. A process has a starting point (start) and a finishing point
where the desired end state is achieved. This is true even for
continuous processes that transform raw materials (start) into
finished products (desired end state). However, along the way,
unexpected events (initiating events) can occur. A transfer line
may break, or an external event like a power outage may occur.
When these initiating events happen, a change in the process
results, creating an unexpected mid-state such as an abnormally
high temperature or pressure. This mid-state leads to an unde-
sired end state, such as a plant shutdown or off-quality product.
Desired end state
Initiating events Desired end state
Mid-states
Undesired end states
Complete, %

2.0

1.5

1.0
Start
0.5

0.0
Time
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

FIG. 2. Process flow showing how companies attempt to prevent

FIG. 1. Typical TRIR performance of a top-tier chemical company. accidents today.

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 51

 Plant Safety and Environment
In designing plants and operating procedures, initiating
events must be anticipated, and safety systems and/or operat-
ing procedures should be built to mitigate or minimize their im-
pact, such as a controlled shutdown.
The reality is that the chemical industry
has a serious and real commitment to safety
first. Management personnel throughout
the industry are justifiably proud of their
safety performance.
Despite efforts to prevent them, accidents still occur, with
some involving major damages, multiple injuries and even loss
of life:
• July 6, 2013: 47 people were killed during the derailment
of an oil shipment train at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada.
• April 17, 2013: An explosion at the West Fertilizer Co.
storage and distribution facility in West, Texas resulted
in 15 fatalities, 60 injuries and damage or destruction
of more than 150 buildings.
• April 20, 2010: An explosion, fire and oil spill at the
Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig killed 11 workers
and created a massive oil spill.
• December 2, 1984: A runaway reaction in a tank at
a Union Carbide facility in India caused the pressure
relief system to vent large amounts of poisonous methyl
isocyanate to the atmosphere. Estimates of the death toll
range from 4,000–20,000.
In almost all catastrophic incidents like those described
above, strict safety policies and procedures were in place, and
management expressed surprise that such an event could hap-
pen. All too often, the cause is determined to be failure to follow
proper procedures and/or other human error. Is this simplified
explanation of the cause correct or sufficient? It seems clear that
a new paradigm in safety is needed if we are to move to a state
where such rare but serious safety incidents no longer occur.
Cognitive bias and safety. Cognitive bias is a systematic pat-
tern of deviation from normal or rational judgment.1 In making
Desired end state
Initiating events Desired end state
Initiating events influenced
by cognitive bias
Mid-states
Undesired end states
Complete, %
Start
Time
FIG. 3. Initiating events anticipated in safety design and procedures.
52 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
judgments, cognitive bias introduces a subjective element into
what would otherwise be a totally objective judgment. Cogni-
tive bias is a natural human psychological process. We can un-
derstand what cognitive bias is, and we can often recognize that
it is at play, but we can never escape the fact that it
colors our judgments to varying degrees.
Many cognitive biases have been identified over
the past 60 yr from research on human judgment and
decision.2 Cognitive biases can be useful when they
lead us to the right decision quickly; however, they
can also be dangerous when they, just as quickly, lead
to wrong decisions and actions. Individuals cannot
see their biases until after the fact, so training has little
impact. The best approaches to limiting the effects of
cognitive biases happen at the team and organizational level.
To achieve a new paradigm in safety performance, we need
to understand how and why accidents occur despite the robust
safety policies and procedures in place and the critical role that
cognitive bias can play. In FIG. 3, we see initiating events (indi-
cated by a black dot) that were anticipated in our safety design
and procedures. When one of these events occurs, we arrive at
an undesired end state (red dot). However, because such events
were again anticipated in our design and procedures, that end
state (e.g., a planned shutdown or a minor/temporary deviation
in product quality) can be controlled.
How, then, do we sometimes arrive at undesired end states
that are not controlled and that can result in injuries, equip-
ment damage or even loss of life? Initiating events (red explo-
sion symbol) can be influenced by cognitive bias and produce
undesired end states with serious consequences. Even if an initi-
ating event was not foreseen, management and operators might
still react appropriately and arrive at a relatively harmless end
state. However, unforeseen initiating events may also create un-
expected, undesired end states because of cognitive bias on the
part of those involved. Similarly, an initiating event that was an-
ticipated may also be misinterpreted because of cognitive bias,
leading to a serious undesired end state.
The following are several examples of cognitive biases and
how they might affect personal and process safety:
• Confirmation bias: Seeking information and opinions
that confirm an already-established belief. Example:
“That alarm is always going off. It is a false alarm,
so do not worry about it.”
• Loss aversion: The tendency to value avoiding loss
more highly than the potential risk, especially if that
potential gain far outweighs the perceived potential loss.
Example: “The relief valve line is partially blocked. We
would have to shut down to repair it. However, it is not
totally blocked, and that RV has never actually tripped.
We can take care of it at the next scheduled shutdown.”
• Self-serving bias: Thinking that one is the “exception to
the rule,” rather than bound by the same circumstances
as everyone else. Example: “I should report a near-
miss that just occurred, but I know I will not make that
mistake again, and if I report it, I may be disciplined.”
• Blind spot bias: The assumption that everyone else
is more susceptible to thinking errors than oneself.
Example: You mistakenly opened a drain valve on a
product tank but quickly closed the valve before any

product was lost. You fail to see this as an error on your
part, or as a near-miss, because you reacted quickly and
you believed you were in control of the situation.
• Fundamental attribution error: The tendency to
explain the actions of others as being due to internal
factors as opposed to the given situation, current
circumstance or completely unrelated factors. Example:
“I saw Employee A improperly shut down the reactor.
Employee A lacks the necessary skills. I improperly
shut down the reactor because there was an instrument
failure, not because I lack skills.”
Once we have learned about cognitive biases and recognize
how they affect human judgments, we can use this knowledge
to understand how and why unanticipated events can occur. If
we have broader knowledge about the source of failures, then we
can leverage this to make improvements in our safety programs.
High-reliability organizing for safety. A high-reliability
organization is one that successfully avoids major incidents
and catastrophes in an environment where accidents are nor-
mally expected due to risks and complexity. The study of high-
reliability organizations dates to the 1980s at the University of
California, Berkeley, where researchers studied aircraft carrier
operations, air traffic control and nuclear power plant opera-
tions to determine the factors and operating principles that al-
low these operations to run with extraordinary reliability.3 Over
the years, extensive research has identified five characteristics
that define high-reliability organizations:
1. Sensitivity to operations: Understanding that the
best picture of the current situation, especially an
unexpected one, comes from the front line. Constant
awareness by leaders and staff of the state of systems
and processes that affect operations. This awareness
is key to noting and preventing risks.
2. Reluctance to oversimplify: Simple processes are
good, but simplistic explanations for why things work
or fail are risky. Avoiding overly simple explanations
of failure (unqualified staff, inadequate training,
communication failure, etc.) is essential to understand
the true reasons why accidents happen.
3. Preoccupation with failure: When near-misses
occur, these are viewed as opportunities for system
improvements to reduce potential accidents. Rather
than viewing near-misses as proof that the system
has effective safeguards, they are viewed as
symptomatic of areas in need of more attention.
4. Deference to experience: Leaders and supervisors
are willing to listen and respond to the insights of
staff who know how processes work and the risks
faced. Experience is valued over authority.
5. Commitment to resilience: Leaders and staff
are prepared and know how to dynamically respond
if a system failure occurs.
An approach to high-reliability organizing. A first step in
the process of building a high-reliability organization is to build
functional models of the organization’s existing safety processes
(or incidents, or existing manufacturing processes). Functional
models, as used in value engineering, are useful for this pur-
Plant Safety and Environment
pose because they reveal how, why and when things happen in
a system.4 A team of subject matter experts from operations,
engineering, maintenance and management are assembled to
model existing safety processes and identify events and actions
that limit safety performance (harmful functions). Cognitive
biases that drive the harmful functions are identified to gain a
better understanding of cause and effect. In making judgments,
cognitive bias introduces a subjective element in what would
otherwise be a totally objective judgment. A project team brain-
storms ideas on how to counteract the harmful functions and/
or eliminate contradictions between useful and harmful actions.
Once brainstorming is complete and process-improvement
ideas are generated, the ideas are considered in the context of
high-reliability organization principles. Ideas consistent with
these principles can be considered for implementation. The
following is one example of how cognitive bias, combined with
the principles of a high-reliability organization, can positively
impact a safety process and lead to changes designed to im-
prove performance.
Almost all companies encourage employees to report near-
misses. However, most companies also have a zero-tolerance
policy for failure to follow established procedures. This can
lead to the reality that not all near-misses are being reported
due to employee fear of reprisal. FIG. 4 shows a functional
model that describes how near-misses are reported, the cogni-
tive biases that are at play and the resulting harmful effects that
limit performance.
FIG. 4 outlines the intent to report near-misses so that they
can be analyzed, so that corrective process improvements can
be made to avoid recurrence, and to provide feedback to em-
ployees. However, not all near-misses may be reported due
to perceived negative personal consequences. The function
“report near-misses” has both useful and harmful effects, cre-
ating a contradiction. Such contradictions can fundamentally
limit the performance of systems. It is common for engineers
to compromise or optimize around a contradiction. However,
if the contradiction can be resolved (i.e., gain all the benefit
without any of the corresponding loss), then a step change in
performance often results.
Several cognitive biases could be at play. Blaming employ-
ees could be due to blind spot bias or to fundamental attribu-
tion error. Self-serving bias could result in fewer near-misses
being recognized as such. The goal must be to keep the benefits
of reporting near-misses while eliminating the harmful effects.
Blaming employees Not all near-misses Self-serving bias
due to blind spot bias are reported colors perception
Blaming
Negative
employees due Report
to fundamental
personal
near-misses
consequences
attribution error
Analyze near
Provide feedback
misses, accidents
and consequences to employees
Useful function One function produces another
Harmful function One function counteracts another
FIG. 4. Functional model showing how near-misses are reported,
cognitive biases at play and resulting harmful effects.
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 53
 Plant Safety and Environment
TABLE 1. Score for brainstorming ideas in the context of high-reliability organization principles
Sensitivity
Ideas to operations
1 Increase training on the importance
of reporting near-misses
2 Have the CEO issue a statement
letting employees know that they are
required to report all near-misses and
that no negative consequences will
result from reporting near-misses
3 Increase the penalty for refusing
to report near-misses
4 Report near-misses to an employee
peer group, which recommends
changes to management
5 Provide an anonymous online portal
to report near-misses
6 Establish a recognition award
for reporting near-misses
Scoring for consistency with high-reliability organization principles: 0 = None, 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High
A sample of ideas that could come from a brainstorming ses-
sion might include:
1. Increase training on the importance of reporting
near-misses.
2. Have the CEO issue a statement letting employees
know that they are required to report all near-misses
and that no negative consequences will result from
reporting near-misses.
3. Increase the penalty for refusing to report near-misses.
4. Report near-misses to an employee peer group. All
employee peers have the same motivation—to be safe.
No disciplinary actions will come from the peer group.
The peer group recommends changes to management.
5. Provide an anonymous online portal to report
near-misses.
6. Establish a recognition award for reporting near-misses.
During the brainstorming session, ideas are not criticized or
evaluated. The brainstorming session should be open and free
to stimulate as many ideas as possible. Later, the ideas are evalu-
ated against the high-reliability organization principles to deter-
mine which ideas should be taken forward. TABLE 1 scores brain-
storming ideas in the context of high-reliability organization
principles. Ideas that will drive toward breakthrough perfor-
mance will score high in high-reliability organization principles
(e.g., ideas 4 and 5), while ideas that are incremental (e.g., ideas
2 and 6) or ineffective (e.g., ideas 1 and 3) can be passed over.
Recommendations. Combining high-reliability organizing
and an understanding of cognitive bias can be transformation-
al, leading to a true high-reliability organization in all aspects
of operation. Recognizing how cognitive bias affects safety per-
formance is a key component to move past limitations in safety
processes and procedures. More training, more enforcement
and more punishment will not bring organizations to the next
level of performance.
It is imperative to understand that cognitive bias provides
insight into harmful effects and contradictions that limit safety
54 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Reluctance Preoccupation Deference Total
to oversimplify with failure to experience Be resilient score
1 2 2 1 2 8
2 2 3 2 2 11
1 0 1 0 1 3
2 3 3 3 3 14
2 3 3 2 2 12
1 2 3 2 3 11
performance improvement. Focused brainstorming sessions
to eliminate harmful effects and resolve contradictions can
lead to important ideas for improvement. Ultimately, high-
reliability organizing for safety results in much higher levels of
safety performance.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Haselton, M. G., D. Nettle and P. W. Andrews, “The evolution of cognitive
bias,” in D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, John Wiley
and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2005.
2
Manoogian, J., “Cognitive bias codex,” 2016, online: http://ritholtz.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/1-71TzKnr7bzXU_l_pU6DCNA.jpeg
3
Weick, K. E. and K. M. Sutcliffe, Managing the Unexpected: Sustained
Performance in a Complex World, 3rd Ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken,
New Jersey, 2015.
4
Bolton, J. D., “Function analysis guide: A supplement to the SAVE body of
knowledge,” Interspiral Press, 2016.
PETER HANIK is President and Founder of Pretium Innovation, specializing
in intellectual property and team-based innovation systems to create sustainable
value. He has developed proprietary onsite and online services for innovation
methods in business strategy, business process redesign, capital efficiency
improvement, product concept development, intellectual property enhancement
and technology road-mapping. Mr. Hanik was also President of technology
at Reliance Industries in Mumbai, where he led research and development
programs in refining, petrochemicals and polymers. Prior to that, he worked
in various executive, managerial and sales positions at Millennium Chemicals,
Quantum Chemical and Northern Petrochemical. Mr. Hanik holds a BS degree
in chemical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology and an
MBA degree from the University of Chicago. He is a Registered Professional
Engineer in Nebraska.
ROBERT HAUSMANN is a Professor and Director of Graduate Programs in Health
Sciences Leadership at the University of Houston. He teaches graduate classes
in leadership development, change and diffusion of innovation, organizational
learning and business strategy. He is also on the corporate learning faculty for
Harvard Business School, where he develops and facilitates executive education
programs for Fortune 100 companies, and is also a Managing Principal of the
Houston-based consultancy Interaction Impact Inc. Dr. Hausmann was formerly
Managing Director at CNA’s Institute for Public Research, a non-profit think tank
in Washington DC, where he served as a senior research scientist. He has also
served as an advisor to senior leadership in the White House, the US Department
of Defense and the Intelligence Community. He holds a PhD in human and
organizational learning from George Washington University, a master’s degree
in social-organizational psychology from Columbia University and a bachelor’s
degree in psychology from the Honors College of the University of Houston.

Fouling mitigation strategies for process
gas compressors in olefins plants
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals’
olefins plant in Port Harcourt, Nigeria
is designed to produce 300,000 tpy of
polymer-grade ethylene and 126,000 tpy
of polymer-grade propylene through the
pyrolysis or thermal cracking of natu-
ral gas liquids (NGL). The NGL is first
fractionated in a column where C2–C4
hydrocarbons are recovered at the col-
umn overheads and sent for cracking in
the pyrolysis furnaces, while C5+ hydro-
carbons are the column bottom product,
sent to offsite facilities for storage. How-
ever, due to NGL feedstock supply con-
straints that adversely affected capacity
utilization, the olefins plant was modi-
fied in 2009 to handle liquid cracking of
C5 obtained from the NGL fractionation
column, to increase the ethylene and
propylene product yield.
Olefins plant cracking methodology.
The main cracking process is highly en-
dothermic and is carried out in tubes
located in the radiant section of the py-
rolysis furnaces at low pressures (approx-
imately 0.6 kg/cm2g–1 kg/cm2g) and
high temperatures ranging from 830°C–
870°C (1,526°F–1,598°F), depending on
the feedstock and desired product yields.
Byproducts including acetylene, methyl
acetylene, propadiene, butenes, butadi-
enes, pyrolysis gasoline, fuel oil and coke
are also formed from the thermal crack-
ing process.
To produce polymer-grade ethylene
and propylene, the pressure of the gas
phase pyrolysis furnace effluents is in-
creased for efficient product recovery to
be carried out in distillation trains at high
pressures and cryogenic temperatures.
This pressure increase is facilitated by
Maintenance
and Reliability
O. C. ETENG, Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd.,
Port Harcourt, Nigeria
the process gas compressor (PGC). In
this olefins plant, the five-stage centrifu-
gal compressor increases the pressure
of the cracked gas from 0.3 kg/cm2g to
approximately 40 kg/cm2g for effective
cryogenic product recovery in the cold
section of the plant.
Fouling in PGCs. Over time, PGCs be-
come susceptible to fouling because of
the presence of fouling precursors and
operating conditions that can enhance
polymer formation and fouling deposi-
tion.1 Diffusers, labyrinth seals and the
process side of interstage coolers (usually
shell-and-tube exchangers) are perfect
locations for fouling material to accumu-
late and cause limitations in compressor
performance. It is critical to understand
the mechanism of fouling so that the
appropriate mitigation strategy can be
implemented. The olefins plant has seen
a significant number of unplanned shut-
downs due to severe polymer deposition.
However, improvements have been made
to double the time between maintenance
overhauls of the compressors.
Numerous studies have shown that
free radical polymerization, aldol con-
densation and diels-alder reactions are
common fouling mechanisms associated
with PGCs. Compressor fouling has seri-
ous adverse effects on overall plant eco-
nomics, leading to increased maintenance
costs, reduced plant capacity utilization,
unplanned shutdowns and loss of revenue.
Fouling mitigation strategies. Many
factors can impact the overall perfor-
mance of the PGC. Based on the expe-
riences at this cracker plant in Nigeria,
guidelines can be established by con-
cerned engineering teams to help im-
prove PGC performance in olefins plants
cracking NGL or heavier feedstock.
These guidelines are discussed in the fol-
lowing subsections.
Injection of high-quality wash oil.
The continuous dosage of a high-quality
solvent into the suction of each compres-
sion stage is paramount. Continuous
compressor operation with poor wash oil
quality will lead to polymer formation in
the machine internals, which will limit
its performance and compression capac-
ity overtime. During the occurrence of a
compressor trip, there is also a chance that
jamming of the rotor (due to the sticky
polymer formations) may occur, which
will require an unplanned shutdown to
open and clean the compressor.
High-quality wash oil should be high
in C9+ aromatics. For wash oil to carry
out its polymer-deposit-removal func-
tion, it must not be vaporized during gas
compression. This is achieved by ensur-
ing that the initial boiling point (IBP) and
5% distillation cut of the wash oil are sig-
nificantly higher than the discharge tem-
peratures of each compression stage.
Due to inconsistency in NGL feed-
stock supply caused by external fac-
tors, along with outdated design wash
oil specifications, the production of
wash oil from the rerun column with
the distillation range required for effec-
tive polymer inhibition was difficult. As
mentioned earlier, the cracker plant was
adapted to allow several of its furnaces
to crack liquid feedstock. In addition
to increasing production volumes, the
cracker modifications helped expand
the production of high-IBP aromatics,
thereby loading the rerun column with
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 55
 Maintenance and Reliability
BFW
Cracked gas
Antifoulant
Wash oil
Compression
stage
Cooling water return
Cooling water supply
FIG. 1. Existing and modified wash oil, antifoulant and BFW injection configuration for fouling
mitigation at the olefins plant’s PGC.
FIG. 2. Spray nozzle test for BFW injection
into PGC second-stage suction.
heavies to produce better-quality wash
oil with higher boiling range. The rerun
column must be properly operated and
monitored to maintain an acceptable
distillation range and composition of the
wash oil side draw without affecting the
distillate properties of hydrotreated gas-
oline product. Wash oil and hydrotreat-
ed gasoline must be regularly analyzed
for distillation range and gums content.
Initially, wash oil was injected into
only the suction of each stage. After mod-
ifications were made, wash oil was also
injected intermittently, by shock-dosing
into the compressor casings via available
nozzle provisions, and in the inlet lines of
the interstage coolers. This method fur-
56 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
BFW
Wash oil
Existing design
Present modification
Future modification
Wash oil +
antifoulant
Cracked gas to
interstage cooler
Interstage cooler
Cracked gas to KO drum
ther reduced polymer deposition in high-
temperature zones of the compression
system (FIG. 1).
Atomized water injection. The pres-
ence of a water injection system for the
PGC can significantly increase the on-
stream time of the plant. The water being
injected into the suction lines or casings
of each compression stage is atomized
by using suitably sized spray nozzles that
produce an atomization effect, causing
the vaporized water to absorb the heat of
compression of the process gas. This re-
sults in reduced discharge temperatures
for the concerned compression stages
and lower rates of polymer formation.
The cracker plant had earlier expe-
rienced the problem of high discharge
temperatures, as is expected in the case
of severe fouling. Temperatures increased
up to 108°C (226.4°F), especially in the
second and third compression stages.
In-house engineering teams designed
and implemented a functional boiler
feedwater (BFW) injection scheme
(FIG. 2), which reduced the discharge tem-
peratures of all five stages to below 98°C
(208.4°F). Initially, until regular tappings
were taken, the wash water was injected
by an in-house spray assembly inserted
into the piping through existing low-point
drain valves in the suction piping.
Under these reduced temperature con-
ditions, the rates of polymerization reac-
tions by fouling precursors in the cracked
gas were significantly decreased, thereby
extending the compressor run length.
Water source. A holistic approach
to implementing the water injection
scheme was taken by the concerned en-
gineering teams. Properly demineralized
and deaerated BFW was the preferred
source for water injection into the PGC.
Apart from causing corrosion in piping,
the presence of dissolved oxygen above
allowable limits in BFW can increase the
formation of polymers in the PGC and
caustic tower when in contact with foul-
ing precursors like carbonyl compounds
and 1,3 butadiene.2 The regular moni-
toring of BFW for dissolved oxygen has
given insight into the effectiveness of the
mechanical and chemical deaeration sys-
tems installed in the cracker plant.
Water injection rates. The quantity
of water required to achieve the desired
discharge temperature reduction for each
compression stage was determined by
heat calculations. A process simulation
model of the PGC provided more insight
for appraising the overall effect of water
injection on the polytropic efficiencies
and power consumptions of each stage.
It is recommended to keep the maximum
BFW injection rates between 0.4 wt%
and 1.3 wt% (varies with stage/pressure
conditions) of the stage-wise PGC dis-
charge flows, since excessive injection
rates could introduce free water into the
PGC. Free water in the PGC can lead
to erosion of the impellers and limit the
discharge temperature to 90°C–92°C
(194°F–197.6°F).
Engineering design. Deploying an
effective water injection scheme for the
PGC requires a safe-to-operate engineer-
ing design that considers the suitability
of downstream equipment to handle the
extra quantity of water. The engineering
design should factor in the following:
1. Development of a process
simulation model for estimating
the quantity of water required
to achieve the desired
temperature reduction for
each compression stage.
2. Assessment of the effect of extra
water flow on the polytropic
efficiencies and the power
consumption of the compressor,
especially since the change in gas
composition brings about a change
in the specific heat ratio value.
3. Confirmation of the availability
of enough operating margin
for the steam turbine driver
to accommodate the extra
power requirement.
 Maintenance and Reliability

4. Identification of the BFW machine by responding to These hydrocarbons could eventually

injection tie-in locations. BFW
may be injected in the suction
lines to each compression stage
or in the compressor casings.
5. Proper sizing and selection
of spray nozzles for BFW
atomization.
6. Assessment of the effect of
extra water flow on interstage
cooler heat duties.
7. Evaluation of the suitability of
downstream liquid piping and
fittings for all suction drums to
handle the additional flow.
8. Review of the datasheets of level
control valves located on the
bottom liquid lines of the suction
drums to ascertain if the control
valves can handle the extra
water quantity. The LCVs and
associated piping may need to
be resized to safely handle the
extra flow.
9. Use of a water injection control
strategy that regulates the
quantity of water entering the
variations in compressor load.
10. Completion of a proper HAZOP
study for the modification.
11. Contact the compressor OEM
for advice, as the operating
conditions with water injection
differ from the guaranteed run
conditions given during the
factory acceptance test and
commissioning.
Cooling water flow distribution.
Ensuring proper cooling water flow dis-
tribution within a large facility, such as
an olefins plant, can be an uphill task.
Insufficient cooling water flow to one in-
terstage cooler can lead to higher suction
temperatures in the next compression
stage, and this abnormal operating con-
dition can lead to polymerization reac-
tions in the heat exchanger and compres-
sor. With process-side (shell-side) outlet
temperatures for interstage coolers rising
to 45°C (113°F) or higher, heavier hy-
drocarbons that should have condensed
in the exchanger remain in the gas phase.
be carried into the caustic tower, where
polymerization can occur by aldol con-
densation or free radical polymerization,
causing fouling of the distributor pipes
and trays in the strong, medium or weak
caustic sections and the water wash sec-
tion of the tower.
The performance of the cooling wa-
ter supply pumps at the utilities plant
can be evaluated regularly to ensure that
enough cooling water flow at design
pressure is supplied to the plant, espe-
cially during high-load operations, when
there is increased water demand.
Engineering teams can attempt to
solve flow imbalances in cooling water
distribution by:
• Carrying out cooling water
side flow measurements for
interstage coolers and other
critical exchangers using an
ultrasonic flowmeter for liquid
service. Simulation tools meant for
hydraulic studies of single-phase
piping networks can also be used
to check for the overall effect of

LIVE WEBCAST:
Tuesday, October 23, 2018 | 10 a.m. CDT / 3 p.m. UTC

UniSim Design for Refining: A Solution for the

Refining Sector Challenges
Rasool Barouni
Product Line Leader- UniSim Design The global refining sector has enjoyed a mini golden age of healthy margins in recent
Honeywell years. This is mainly because of an oversupplied crude oil market and lower oil prices.
The next big challenge for the refining industry is expected to be the implementation of
new tighter global bunker fuel specifications known as “IMO 2020”.
This disruptive change is just around the corner and UniSim Design for Refining provides
a solution for refineries whether the long lead investments for this change are completed,
underway, or just under evaluation.
UniSim Design for Refining makes it easy to build refinery-wide flowsheets to evaluate the
impact of crude oils and condensates available in the market for “IMO 2020” compliance.
Whether for a simple refinery or a complex one, UniSim Design provides an easy to use
tool to evaluate rerouting of intermediate products and blending scenarios to make this
Lee Nichols challenge an opportunity rather than a threat.
Editor/Associate Publisher
Hydrocarbon Processing
Register For Free: HydrocarbonProcessing.com/Webcasts

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 57

 Maintenance and Reliability

the piping configurations (lengths, shutdowns and production losses should estimate power consumption and ef-
bends and fittings) on the system be enough incentive for proceeding with ficiencies. Accounting for changes in
pressure drop. some of these strategies. the feed gas composition in multi-feed
crackers is very important,
since it may impact the effi-
Plant operations and technical services teams must identify ciency and power calculations.
The steam turbine would
as many potential sources of fouling in the compressor also require monitoring of ef-
as possible to ensure the optimal performance of the machine. ficiencies and power generated
This can be achieved by reducing the presence from the extraction and con-
densation stages. This can be
of fouling precursors to the barest minimum. achieved using process simu-
lation tools or energy calcula-
tions based on steam condi-
• Carrying out temperature surveys Antifoulant treatment program. In tions. Ultra-high-pressure (UHP) steam
for the interstage coolers. A lower- addition to wash oil dosing, an antifou- generation from furnace steam drums
than-design ΔT across the cooling lant treatment program can be beneficial during cracking, decoking and hot steam
water side for normal or high plant for dissolving polymer formations in the standby must be monitored to ensure
loads could be an indication of compressor, in the interstage coolers or that enough steam is available for the tur-
higher-than-required cooling in both. A proper antifoulant shock-dos- bine to perform optimally. It is impera-
water flow to that exchanger, ing program can be designed to fit plant tive that the UHP steam has the required
and is the most likely cause of requirements. superheat content so as not to introduce
inadequate cooling water in However, before implementing the wet steam into the turbine, which can
another exchanger within the chemical treatment onsite, the fouling damage the blades.
same cooling water circuit. mechanism(s) must be determined by
• Back-flushing of cooling water laboratory analyses. Samples of fouling Monitoring interstage coolers. Apart
lines to remove scaling or fouling material should be collected from differ- from measuring cooling water flows,
depositions that impose heat ent locations (e.g., during a plant shut- the interstage coolers’ process side ΔT
transfer limitations. The cooling down for compressor/interstage cooler can be measured and tracked. A decline
water quality must also be ensured cleaning) and analyzed based on chemis- in this trend for the same load indicates
by analyzing for pH, conductivity, try, physical appearance, etc. Antifoulant the likely presence of fouling deposits on
turbidity, silica, iron, etc. injection locations and dosage rates will the exchanger surface. These deposits
• Measuring the differential pressure be recommended by the chemical treat- will impede heat transfer. It is advisable
across the cooling water side of the ment specialist onsite, and regular peri- to compare the actual and design heat
exchangers. Interstage coolers are odic reviews should be carried out to as- transfer coefficients when operating at
usually within the same cooling sess the effectiveness of the program. full plant load, as this will give a better as-
water supply and return circuit, are sessment of the exchanger performance.
at proximity to one another and are Compressor and steam turbine per-
at grade level. Inlet cooling water formance evaluation. Several PGC Cracked gas and recycle streams
pressure to the coolers will likely be parameters require stringent monitoring quality improvement. The composi-
approximately the same. However, to quickly identify deteriorating perfor- tion of the gas being compressed in the
a higher ΔP across an exchanger or mance. In addition to monitoring the PGC is a critical factor to be considered
set of exchangers within this circuit suction and discharge operating condi- for ensuring smooth compressor opera-
may impose flow limitations for the tions, compression ratios, turbine speed, tions and developing strategies for foul-
concerned exchanger(s) because of thrust bearing temperatures, and axial ing mitigation in the compressor. It is
backpressure from other coolers with and radial displacements, the PGC’s imperative that the compositions of the
lower cooling water side differential polytropic efficiency and power con- following streams are monitored closely
pressures. Exchanger manufacturers sumption must be regularly monitored. to utilize the right operational strategy to
can provide recommendations to An increasing trend in stage-wise power reduce the effect of fouling in the PGC:
solve this problem. consumption for the same plant load, • Pyrolysis furnace effluent. The
Depending on the approach consid- in addition to decreasing polytropic ef- cracking process generates fouling
ered, solutions to problems associated ficiencies over a period, is suggestive precursors, such as 1,3 butadiene3
with cooling water distribution are criti- of fouling in the affected compression and styrene. The furnace effluent
cal to improving PGC performance, es- stage(s). A process simulation model streams and the gas from the
pecially with the integration of plant ex- should be developed to consider mea- quench tower to the PGC should
pansion projects that may be dependent sured physical parameters like suction be analyzed regularly. Also,
on existing utilities and water supply in- and discharge temperatures, pressures, thermocouples measuring the coil
frastructure. However, the monetary ben- flows and composition of the cracked outlet temperatures of the furnaces
efits from the elimination of unplanned gas. The model can be used to properly should be checked regularly
58 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Maintenance and Reliability

for consistency in measurements
to avoid overcracking, which could
give rise to higher coking rates in
the furnaces and the generation of
unwanted fouling precursors.
• Purge streams from polymer
plants. The purge streams from the
polyethylene and polypropylene
plants are normally recycled
back to the olefins plant. This
could be a potential source of
carbonyls, such as aldehydes,
ketones and trace catalysts/
oxygenates, which can polymerize
at higher temperatures in the
PGC, especially when dissolved
oxygen concentrations are high.
Purge streams should be regularly
analyzed for these compounds.
• C4 recycle to furnaces. The
C4 hydrogenation unit (C4HU)
includes primary and secondary
reactors to hydrogenate
unsaturated C4 hydrocarbons
(butenes and butadienes) to
butanes in the presence of a
palladium-based catalyst. If the
reactors are not regenerated on
time, then unsaturated C4s like
1,3 butadiene will be recycled
back to the furnaces and
subsequently end up in the PGC.
Timely C4HU reactor regeneration
will solve this problem.
Takeaway. Every cracker plant has
unique constraints and operating chal-
lenges. A PGC fouling mitigation strat-
egy that is uniquely designed to fit the
plant configuration is vital to ensuring
the profitability of the entire petrochemi-
cal facility. Indorama Eleme Petrochemi-
cals Ltd.’s modifications to its olefins
plant have doubled PGC runs between
two shutdowns (for cleaning and main-
tenance) and reduced the frequency of
rotor jamming.
Plant operations and technical ser-
vices teams must identify as many poten-
tial sources of fouling in the compressor
as possible to ensure the optimal per-
formance of the machine. This can be
achieved by reducing the presence of foul-
ing precursors to the barest minimum, by
eliminating the operating conditions that
allow these fouling precursors to polym-
erize, by adapting the chosen strategies
to fit operational requirements and by
continuously reviewing these strategies
based on best operating, maintenance
and HSE practices.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Harvey, S., “Centrifugal compressors in ethylene
plants,” CEP Magazine, AIChE, February 2017.
2
Cvetanovic, R. J. and L. C. Doyle, “Reaction of
oxygen atoms with butadiene,” Canadian Journal of
Chemistry, Vol. 38, 1960.
3
Li, Y., P. Watkinson, P. Herera, F. Fahiminia and M.
James, “Formation of gum and deposits in an oxy-
genated naphtha stream,” ECI Symposium Series,
Vol. RP5: Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Heat Exchanger Fouling and
Cleaning—Challenges and Opportunities, Tomar,
Portugal, 2007.
OKOI CHIDI ETENG is an
olefins plant Process Engineer
at Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals
Ltd., and is responsible for plant
performance monitoring, failure
analysis and process engineering
design for projects. He has more
than 10 yr of experience in the petrochemical industry.
He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering.

Expanding the Mediterranean 27-29

ITALY
Energy Sector: March 2019
Fuelling Regional Growth RAVENNA

OFFSHORE MEDITERRANEAN
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION

overall area
30.150
visitors
20.603
exhibition
halls
7 CONNECT WITH
THE MEDITERRANEAN
sqm

countries exhibitors sponsors

33 634 31 ENERGY KEY
supporters delegates papers
LEADERS
20 1.221 116 BOOK NOW!

Ph. +39 06 30883030 EXHIBITION ORGANISER CONFERENCE ORGANISER

www.omc2019.it / +39 0544 219418 exhibition@omc.it conference@omc.it

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 59

 2.0
OCTOBER 25, 2018
8:30AM CDT | 1:30PM UTC
GASPROCESSINGCONFERENCE.COM
A Webcast Symposium

Agenda
8:30 am CDT / 13:30 UTC
Welcome and Introduction

8:35 am CDT / 13:35 UTC

Register Today for GasPro 2.0
Keynote by NextDecade
The global LNG industry is becoming increasingly interconnected
9:05 am CDT / 14:05 UTC as grassroots export projects get off the ground. Another technology
Presentations by Linde Engineering, route for processing gas into fuels—GTL—is attracting renewed
Énergir, SNC Lavalin, Air Products & Chemicals attention due to improving economics. Small-scale solutions
for both LNG and GTL are at the forefront of new technological
10:10 am CDT / 15:10 UTC developments, while major projects using more conventional
technologies continue to start up around the world.
Break/MiniTech session: Chart Industries
During this webcast symposium, we will focus on LNG, GTL, gas
10:25 am CDT / 15:25 UTC processing technology developments and deployments, operations,
Presentations by ExxonMobil, Air Liquide, small-scale solutions, transportation, trading, distribution, safety,
regulatory affairs, business analysis and more.
INFRA Technology and Velocys
Questions about sponsorship?
11:25 am CDT / 16:25 UTC
For sponsorship information, please contact your
Closing Remarks
sales representative or Catherine Watkins at +1 (713) 520-4421.

Register for FREE at GasProcessingConference.com

 Maintenance
and Reliability
A. ANWER, Contributing Editor

Importance of welding procedure software

Welding is an ocean of substance, a
technique without which the joining of
metals is impossible. This technique is
the backbone of the petrochemical, oil
and gas, and refining industries, among
others, when it comes to assembling,
constructing, fabricating, erecting and
repairing metal through joining. Wheth-
er in a new installation or on an operat-
ing unit, welding stands as a core of most
activities. Globally, an estimated 70% of
major project installations depend upon
welding activities controlling the project
timelines, project planning and inspec-
tion activities. Quality control and assur-
ance personnel spend most of their time
checking welding works, their progress,
inspection and final approvals.
Welders, welding supervisors, inspec-
tors, maintenance engineers and inspec-
tion engineers cannot move forward
with welding of any pressurized or non-
pressurized part of any component until
they have a qualified welding procedure
with qualification records and a welding
performance qualification for the weld-
er. These two important documents are
required to proceed with any welding ac-
tivity, and they must be valid, up-to-date,
certified or signed off by the concerned
inspection engineer/authority in place.
In all levels of most companies, these
requirements are known. Welding pro-
cedures are written and qualified as per
acceptable codes, be it the American So-
ciety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
the American Petroleum Institute
each welding task is being performed by
the correct, qualified welder.
Referencing an approved and quali-
fied welding procedure or welding per-
formance record—and how frequently
these documents are referred to and by
which means—is the main objective of
this article. Examining the number of
welding procedures and welding perfor-
mance records indicates how referencing
can be managed. Hard copies of welding
procedures can be placed in a file, and soft
copies can be easily referred to via links.
However, in the case of an operating
plant with piping metallurgies ranging
from carbon steel and low alloys to cor-
rosion-resistant alloys (CRAs), including
stainless steel, nickel alloys, titanium and
special alloys, referencing is more com-
plex in these major groups where differ-
ent material classes and grades are also
being used. Most petrochemical plants
or refineries contain these materials, and
each process system can utilize multiple
metallurgies to deal with process condi-
M C
Material database Code compliance
tions. Carbon steel will serve well with
condensate and low-pressure steam, but
as the temperature and pressure go up,
even the steam requires certain low alloys.
Any leakage in piping systems with a
variety of metallurgies (FIG. 1) requires
welding for temporary and permanent
repairs, particularly for high-pressure,
high-temperature process piping repairs.
A welding procedure, welder and other
associated hardware are required to ad-
Special alloys
CRAs
Low alloys
Carbon steel
FIG. 1. Pyramid of metallurgies.
W
Welding documents storage

Q F E
(API) or the American Welding Society
(AWS), among others. Welding qualifi-
cation records are kept for future use and
reference. Similarly, welders undergo ex-
ercises and sessions where they are called
upon to testify their skills. That docu- Suggested quick welding procedure Filler materials database Essential variables check
mentation is also kept for each welder
and is referenced frequently to make sure FIG. 2. A sample welding procedure software.

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 61

 Maintenance and Reliability

dress the leakage, and operations want to
address the loss of containment through
positive isolation as quickly as possible.
Maintenance and inspection teams
must coordinate to suggest the correct
repair methodology and access the ap-
propriate records and historical files.
Commonly used repair methodolo-
gies at high-pressure and high-tempera-
ture facilities require welding. Therefore,
welding procedure software plays an
important role to ensure that the cor-
rect welding procedure is selected and is
easy accessible. If available, these records
readily support and speed up the entire
process of setting up a welding repair.
Utilizing software. Welding procedure
software provides vital information on the
materials to be joined, the approved and
qualified welding procedure, and records
of associated welders within the compa-
ny that are available and qualified to use
this welding procedure and complete the
task. The software allows maintenance
and inspection personnel to produce the
records and provide the welder with the
parameters for performing the welding,
finishing the job and proceeding for in-
spection and testing of the weld joint.
Multiple welding procedure software
programs are available in the market, and
the basic requirements for such software
include:
• A database of material, fillers/
electrodes, as per most
frequently used codes
• A mechanism to ensure that
a written welding procedure
complies with given code
requirements
• Storage of qualified welding
procedure
• Storage of qualified welding
performance records for welders
• Suggested welding fillers for
certain combination of materials
to be welded
• Recommended other essential
variables, as per code requirements.
These requirements help ensure that
any welding procedure software (FIG. 2)
saves time and effort through the man-
agement of welding procedures, espe-
cially in industries where engineers and
personnel work with a myriad of metal-
lurgies. Data and time management also
provide financial benefits when imple-
menting a new system.
Welding software can eliminate the
following risks during a welding process:
• Referring to an incorrect welding
procedure
• Appointing an unqualified welder
for a welding task
• Not following the correct
parameters during welding.
A welding software containing these
qualities will benefit welding supervisors,
maintenance supervisors, inspectors and
inspection engineers with their daily ac-
tivities and projects.
ASHFAQ ANWER is an Inspection
Professional with 13 yr of
experience in ammonia-urea
complexes, petrochemical
units, and oil and gas industries.
He has extensive expertise in
material selection, corrosion
mapping and control, fitness-for-service studies,
defining inspection framework and implementing
inspection plans for old and new units.

LIVE WEBCAST:
Thursday, October 25, 2018 | 9 a.m. CDT / 2 p.m. UTC
Sal Torrisi
Global Market Manager
for Hydrocracking
Shell Global Solutions How to Create Refinery Margin Opportunity
International B.V.
Through the Flexibility of the Hydrocracker
Every few years, there are changes in refining trends that create margin opportunities.
The common recipe for success has been the ability to adapt quickly to the new
economic incentives before good margins diminish. Past trends have ranged from
crude flexibility to Clean Fuels to maximum diesel production just to name a few.
Emerging trends include compliance with IMO 2020 to petrochemical integration to
production of higher value products.
John Baric
Technology Licensing Manager This webinar reviews how to create refinery flexibility and capture refinery margin
Shell Global Solutions opportunity by efficiently modifying Hydrocracker equipment, catalyst and/or
International B.V. operations. It describes several commercial examples of refiners who have successfully
adapted their Hydrocracker or high pressure Hydroprocessing unit to capitalize on
emerging opportunities, executing their plans in an expedient and cost-effective
manner. Be ready for future changes by recognizing the trends and creating the
flexibility in your Hydrocracker to capture the opportunities.

Register For Free: HydrocarbonProcessing.com/Webcasts

Mike Rhodes
Managing Editor
Hydrocarbon Processing
62 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Maintenance
and Reliability
D. YUSOFF, Petronas, Kertih, Malaysia; and
R. ARONEN, Boulden Intl., Ellange, Luxembourg

Amine pumps upgraded for improved

operations and reliability
A gas processing plant in Malaysia ing speed. During this ramp-up period, should be opened before startup and
eliminated a source of expensive failures the pumps produce insufficient head to then closed once full-speed operation of
in its acid gas removal unit (AGRU). generate any flow into the gas absorber. the pumps is established. With a steam
The amine recirculation pumps had suf- Therefore, the pumps must run on a turbine driver, ramping up to 4,500 rpm
fered from periodic pump seizures, caus- minimum flow bypass back to the suc- requires approximately 15 min, which is
ing operational difficulties and signifi- tion header. This flow is controlled by a far too long to run the pump at zero flow.
cant damage to the machines. To address minimum flow line valve (MFLV), which Periodically over the past 10 yr, the
the issue, the pump wear components
were upgraded to an advanced compos-
ite material and innovative design. This
upgrade has resulted in improved oper-
ability and reliability for these extremely
important machines.
The AGRU is the heart of the eth-
ane recovery production at the plant.
It removes carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from the feed
gas stream. The gas is fed into the gas
absorber, where a reaction occurs with
methyl diethanolamine (MDEA), re- FIG. 2. Center bushing with a proprietary
moving the CO2 from the feed gas. FIG. 1. Seized NDE throttle bushing. composite wear component design.
The MDEA is fed into the reaction by
five amine recirculation pumps—three
running, with two full-capacity spares.
The pumps are 2.7 MW (3,600 hp),
two-stage axially split casing, API 610
between bearing BB1 design, running at
4,500 rpm. Differential pressure across
the pumps is 64 barg (928 psi), and the
flowrate is 1,000 m3/hr (4,400 gpm).

Starting the pump. One challenge in

starting a pump of this size is that it must
always operate above the design mini-
mum flowrate. At insufficient flowrates,
the energy input into the pump will be
converted into heat, rapidly creating the
potential for premature failure and sig-
nificant damage to the machine.
The amine circulation pumps are con-
FIG. 3. Sequence during an unsuccessful startup.
trolled to gradually ramp up to operat-
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 63
 Maintenance and Reliability
MFLV has been opened too late during
the startup procedure, which has led to
the pump seizing at the center bushing
and non-drive-end (NDE) and drive-
FIG. 4. Successful startup sequence.
FIG. 5. Overall vibration before and after the upgrade.
FIG. 6. Orbit plots before (orange) and after (blue) the upgrade.
64 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
end (DE) throat bushings (FIG. 1). These
components have the tightest clearance
and are, therefore, the first metal-to-met-
al contact points inside the pump.
Searching for a better solution. In-
correct adherence to the startup proce-
dure was identified as the root cause of
failure during the investigation of these
failures. This was addressed with training
of relevant personnel and improvements
in communication.
Beyond these improvements, a further
upgrade was implemented to make the
pump more robust and resistant to dam-
age. This secondary upgrade involved
upgrading the center, NDE and DE
throat bushings with a proprietary com-
posite material,a which is a dimensionally
stable, non-seizing and non-galling, low-
friction composite material manufac-
tured from perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) and
long-oriented carbon fibers. Although it
is possible to reduce component clear-
ance using this material (because the pri-
mary motivation was to eliminate pump
seizures), the plant elected to use the
original design clearance.
The upgrade also implemented a
new design for the composite wear
component.b This technology is a pat-
ented design that uses a pattern of holes
drilled through the composite insert,
creating beneficial hydraulic effects dur-
ing the operation of the pump, such as
lower leakage across the component and
increased hydraulic damping (FIG. 2).
The upgrade delivers. While the op-
eration of the pumps has improved, hu-
man error remains a possibility. After the
first pump was upgraded, the MFLV was
opened too late during the startup proce-
dure. FIG. 3 shows this sequence of events
with the (grey) speed line and (green)
discharge pressure line rising before the
(yellow) MFLV flow line begins to rise.
The casing temperature rose to 105°C
(220°F) and the pump was stopped after
15 min due to low flow. Based on experi-
ence from previous events, without the
upgrade to composite wear parts, the
pump would have seized and required a
complete overhaul.
With the upgrade to the proprietary
composite material, the pump did not
seize. After it had cooled back to ambient
temperature, the rotor was still able to
turn freely. The pump was subsequently
restarted, with the MFLV opened, and
the pump returned to successful opera-
tion (FIG. 4). The upgraded pump has
now been operating for more than a year
without issue.
 Maintenance and Reliability

Lower vibration. One of the proposed
benefits of the composite wear compo-
nent design is the potential for lower
vibration. While this was not a primary
motivation for the upgrade, lower vibra-
tion on a high-energy machine generally
translates to longer component life and
greater reliability.
For this pump, the data showed an
overall vibration reduction of nearly
50%. FIG. 5 shows the overall vibration
readings, while FIG. 6 shows the orbit
plots of the vibration before and after
the upgrade.
Since the clearance at the compo-
nents was not changed and the pump
was otherwise overhauled to the original
design, it appears that this improvement
is a result of the composite wear compo-
nent design.
Further improvements. An ongoing
project is to achieve the plant objective
of a flawless startup procedure, requir-
ing that the MFLV be open to start the
pump. Until that project is completed,
the upgrade to composite wear parts will
help protect the machines from any po-
tential adverse conditions.
To further upgrade the pump, two ad-
ditional changes can be considered. The
case wear rings can also be upgraded to
the proprietary composite material and
the composite wear component design.
This will eliminate all metal-to-metal
contact points in the machine, essen-
tially eliminating any potential risk of
seizure in the future. Because the risk
of pump seizure will be minimized, the
running clearance can also be reduced,
thereby increasing the efficiency of the
pump and reducing the operating cost.
These options are under consideration
for future repairs of these machines.
Takeaway. The objective of the plant is
to achieve flawless, mistake-proof start-
up procedures and operation. What this
experience has shown, however, is that
advanced composite materials allow us
to design the pump to be more robust
and resistant to any adverse conditions
that may arise. Furthermore, given the
vibration performance with the com-
posite wear component design, potential
exists to explore further machinery reli-
ability and efficiency improvements for
many pumps within the plant.
NOTES
a
DuPont Vespel CR-6100
b
Boulden’s PERF-Seal high-efficiency components
DASUKI YUSOFF is a Staff Engineer
with Petronas Gas Berhad in
Malaysia. He has 12 yr of experience
in maintenance, condition
monitoring, troubleshooting and
reliability improvements of rotating
and turbomachinery equipment in
gas processing and utilities plants. He earned a Bch
degree in mechanical engineering from Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia. He is a certified vibration analyst
CAT-III from the Mobius Institute.
ROBERT ARONEN is the Managing
Director of Boulden Intl. in Europe
and Southeast Asia, and is
responsible for the distribution of,
and technical support for, the
composite material DuPont Vespel
CR-6100. He has been working in
the rotating equipment industry for 26 yr and is
co-inventor of Boulden’s patented PERF-Seal design.
He earned a BS degree in mechanical engineering
from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.

LIVE WEBCAST:
Tuesday, November 6, 2018 | 9 a.m. CST / 10 a.m. EST/ 2 p.m. UTC

Patrick Garrett
Product Marketing Manager
AspenTech

Maximizing Profits in the Current Olefins Market

Market volatility is an ongoing issue for olefin producers, as local and global
events drive rapid changes. Unprecedented capacity expansions combine with
feedstock and logistics constraints to create significant problems for operating
companies. This webinar will discuss key business challenges and solutions
Paige Marie Morse in the face of this volatility. With new world-scale crackers coming online, all
Industry Marketing Director
AspenTech cracker operators need to establish optimal operating envelopes to drive greater
efficiencies in an ever-evolving competitive environment.

Register For Free: HydrocarbonProcessing.com/Webcasts

Lee Nichols
Editor/Associate Publisher
Hydrocarbon Processing

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 65

BIGGER
BELONGING TO SOMETHING

NOW INCLUDES MORE

AIChE The Global Home of Chemical Engineers

Bigger ideas. Bigger networks.

Bigger paths to career advancement.
AIChE® membership means access to bigger ideas, bigger networks, and bigger opportunities for
career advancement and enhancement. To grow this community, we are offering an exclusive member-
ship offer specifically-designed for Chemical Engineers working within Fuels & Petrochemicals.

Become an AIChE member and join our Fuels & Petrochemicals Division to immediately access
these benefits valued at over $7,000 for the price of $209.

Download 17 Fuels & Petrochemicals Division Conference Recordings (2013-2017)

& Proceedings (2006-2017). Get access to new F&PD conference proceedings each
year with continued membership. More to come in the near future!

Downloadable curated Fuels & Petrochemicals CEP magazine article bundles

featuring the Henry Kister Distillation bundle.

Receive access to the AIChE eLibrary, powered by Knovel.

Access to 8 Fuels & Petrochemicals Division Webinar Bundles. Want more?

AIChE members receive 6 free annual credits to apply to purchasing live and archived
webinars and conference presentations.

Receive a subscription to CEP magazine, an invaluable resource for engineers.

Like to read on the go? Access the latest issues on the new CEP Mobile App,
for members only.

Belong to AIChE and the Fuels & Petrochemicals Division.

Join at www.aiche.org/JoinFPDHP

©2018 AIChE 3119_18 • 08.18

 Heat Transfer
C. C. HANNAH and T. W. PERRY,
QMax Industries Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina

Understand the installation of steam tracing

for long-term application success—Part 2
One of the most misunderstood and misused compo- further isolated from excessive air flow by a 4-ft-tall partition
nents of conductive steam tracing systems is heat transfer that was set up as the last physical component of the test.
compound (HTC). HTC is a viscous mastic designed to fill Saturated steam at 50 psig (approximately 298°F) is com-
small air gaps between the tracing element and the object to monly used to heat liquid and vapor sulfur lines, so it was used
be heated. HTC is considerably more effective at transferring as a heating medium for all tests.3 Steam was applied to the
heat than static air, but it has relatively poor thermal conduc- system until the thermowell interior at the centerline of the
tivity compared to the other components in a steam tracing apparatus reached a stable 100°F. Beyond this point in the
system. If used in very thin layers, however, HTC helps maxi- tests, the steam lines were left open for continuous heat input.
mize the performance of heating systems. In this article, the Thermowell interior, steam supply tube surface and ambient
authors discuss and demonstrate why the performance and air temperature were recorded from this point until the aver-
success of conductive steam tracing systems are highly depen- age thermowell temperature reached 250°F.
dent upon the proper installation and use of HTC. To minimize uncertainty and maximize comparability
To help understand how HTC thickness and installation of test results, the HTC needed to have a consistent layer of
quality affect tracing performance in critical operations, such verifiable thickness along the length of the tracing elements.
as those involving sulfur, two high-performance steam trac- Consistency was achieved by using sets of contoured spac-
ing technologies were tested: fluid tracing system (FTS) and ers between the tracers and process pipe at the banding loca-
carbon steel tracing (CST). Part 1, published in September, tions. Three sets of round spacers, with diameters of 1⁄32 in., 3⁄32
examined HTC testing design and methodologies. Part 2 dis- in. and 5⁄32 in., were fabricated. The spacers, shown in FIG. 5,
cusses testing with both tracing technologies, along with the were used to simulate the HTC-filled gaps between the tracer
resulting conclusions. and the pipe caused by uneven surfaces, weld beads, poorly
formed tubing and bowed tracers.
FTS and CST testing. Tests for both technologies were care-
fully set up, performed and documented to provide results
that were comparable and reproducible. The standard test
procedure started with the installation of each tracing tech-
nology on the testing apparatus, according to its respective
installation guidelines.4,5 Several optimal installations of FTS
and CST that followed the guidelines were repeated to first
establish an expectation for maximum performance (later
tests involved modifications to simulate the effects of non-
ideal installations).
An optimal installation for the purposes of these experi-
ments had an HTC thickness of 1⁄32 in. Trace elements were
installed on each side of the straight section and on the elbow
of the apparatus for all tests. During testing, steam was di-
verted to both “runs” of tracing from a single supply tube that
was well insulated and close to the boiler outlet. At the end of
the traced section, both runs were reunited to a properly sized
condensate header that drained to an inverted bucket steam
trap. After installing the tracing system, the apparatus was
covered with the fiberglass insulation kit. Both connection
heads of the thermocouple probes and the surrounding insu-
lation were then wrapped in plastic film to protect the sensing FIG. 5. Spacers for maintaining consistent HTC thickness. Shown left to
right: 1⁄32-in., 3⁄32-in. and 5⁄32-in. diameters.
elements from external convection. The entire apparatus was
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 67
 Heat Transfer
TABLES 1 and 2 list the tests that were performed with FTS
and CST systems, respectively. The tests only partially fol-
lowed the respective installation guidelines because of the in-
tentional spacing.
Several assumptions about the parameters of the tests and
characteristics of the equipment and environment needed to be
defined before results could be analyzed and conclusions drawn:
1. The melting point of the sulfur was considered to be
248°F for all tests to ensure a valid comparison of the
results. During testing, the sulfur melted between
238°F and 246°F, which was verified by briefly
removing the fume cap and visually inspecting the
sulfur; however, some variation was encountered.
This range is also encountered in the melt-out
procedures of sulfur recovery operations, usually
with monoclinic sulfur having varying concentrations
of S λ and Sπ allotropes. However, for the purposes
of maintaining consistency in the criteria for these
experiments, it was most accurate to assume that
the total volume of sulfur was melted when the
thermocouple probe measurements averaged 248°F.
2. The internal temperature of the thermowells was
considered to be synonymous with the temperature
of the sulfur. Statements about the sulfur temperature
during tests refer to the internal temperature of the
thermowells. It is unlikely that the temperature on
the inside wall of the thermowells was more than
2°F–3°F cooler than the sulfur, meaning the sulfur
was melted when the sensors reached an average
temperature of 248°F and were at least 245.5°F
individually. Since the sensors and thermowells
maintained their positions between tests and the
main objective of the tests was comparison, this
assumption was reasonable.
TABLE 1. Tests performed with fluid tracing system (FTS)
Test General description
FTS-A Optimal installation that partially followed manufacturer’s
guidelines; HTC thickness maintained at 1⁄32 in. (0.031 in.)
FTS-B Standard installation that partially followed manufacturer’s
guidelines; HTC thickness maintained at 3⁄32 in. (0.094 in.)
FTS-C Modified installation that partially followed manufacturer’s
guidelines; HTC thickness maintained at 5⁄32 in. (0.156 in.)
FTS-D Non-standard installation; no HTC used, and no intentional
space created between tracer and pipe (bare tracer on pipe)
TABLE 2. Tests performed with carbon steel tracing (CST) system
Test General description
CST-A Optimal installation that partially followed manufacturer’s
guidelines; HTC thickness maintained at 1⁄32 in. (0.031 in.)
CST-B Ideal installation that partially followed manufacturer’s
guidelines; HTC thickness maintained at 3⁄32 in. (0.094 in.)
CST-C Modified installation that partially followed manufacturer’s
guidelines; HTC thickness maintained at 5⁄32 in. (0.156 in.)
CST-D Non-standard installation; no HTC used, and no intentional
space created between tracer and pipe (bare tracer on pipe)
68 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
3. Steam was generated with a boiler that utilizes a
thermomechanical pressure switch to regulate heating.
The switch allows the boiler to heat in cycles, causing
the pressure to vary about the setpoint by +3 psig to
–4 psig. This translates to approximately +3°F to –4°F
about the target temperature of approximately 298°F, so
the average steam tube temperature varied between tests.
4. Tests took place over the course of a year, from
July 2016 to July 2017, and were performed in no
particular order once optimal installation results
were established. Several test factors were variable
over the course of a year:
a. The testing environment was subject to seasonal
variations in temperature. Testing was conducted
indoors, but not in a temperature-controlled
environment. Therefore, ambient temperatures
for each test fluctuated similarly to how they would
in the field. The custom insulation blanket of
11⁄4-in. thickness was used to mitigate the
effects of the changing ambient temperatures.
b. Variances exist in the thermophysical properties
of HTC because HTC is continuously
manufactured in batches. To prevent aged and
deteriorated HTC from affecting test results,
fresh compound was used for every test. Over the
course of a year, it is possible that the compound
between tests varied in thermal conductivity.
The same manufacturer and compound formula
were used for all tests to minimize these variations.
Measures and measurement devices. In all tests listed in
TABLES 1 and 2, the most critical measure was the temperature
of the sulfur at the center of the apparatus. Other measures of
concern were the temperature of the steam tube throughout
the melting cycle and the ambient temperature near the ap-
paratus. Two ungrounded, 20-gauge, J-type differential ther-
mocouple probes were used to measure the temperature of the
sulfur at the center axis of the apparatus.
Another 20-gauge, J-type differential thermocouple with an
exposed junction was used to measure the surface temperature
of the steam supply tube. The exposed junction was electrically
isolated from the stainless-steel tube with a polyimide film of
0.002-in. thickness, and well insulated from the environment
with high-density glass fiber.
A differential, 30-gauge, T-type thermocouple, also with
an exposed junction, was used to measure the ambient tem-
perature. The exposed junction was covered with low-density,
open-cell foam that allowed air contact but prevented convec-
tive effects from causing significant errors in measurement.
Temperature measurements were logged to Excel files with
a dedicated USB data acquisition (DAQ). All thermocouples
used have standard limits of error purity, and the DAQ has a
cold junction compensation with an accuracy of ±1.8°F.
Measurement locations and rates. The J-type thermocou-
ple probes were used to measure the sulfur temperature at the
locations specified in FIG. 6. The sensing portion of the probes
was protected from conductive and convective effects by the
thermowell, which encapsulated its entire length, and by the
 Heat Transfer

connection head. As previously mentioned, the connection
head and surrounding insulation were wrapped in plastic film
for further protection from air flow.
Steam tube temperatures were measured approximately
6 in. prior to a tee that diverted steam to both runs of trac-
ing. Six in. of thermocouple wire preceding the junction were
routed under the insulation of the steam supply tube to protect
it from environmental interference. The junction was secured
on a vertical section of tubing to prevent condensate drainage
from causing significant measurement errors.
Ambient temperature was measured outside of the 4-ft-tall
partition, but within 3 ft of the testing apparatus. Measure-
ments were taken at all locations simultaneously during every
test. These measurements were recorded at 60-sec intervals.
Data analysis. For all tests, temperature data at each location
was recorded from the time the sulfur stabilized around an av-
erage of 100°F to the time it averaged 250°F. For greater com-
parability, a normalized time frame was established for each
data set. This time frame started at zero, when the average sul-
fur temperature was 105°F, and finished when it reached 250°F.
It was verified for each test that when the average of both sulfur
temperature measurements was 248°F, each individual mea-
surement was at least 245.5°F.
The normalized data sets were compiled into separate doc-
uments for CST and FTS so that each technology could be
analyzed individually. A representation of the time required
by each system to melt the sulfur by heating it from 105°F to
248°F, dependent on the thickness of the HTC layer, was one
of the desired results. The development of a general linear re-
lationship for CST and FTS that demonstrates the increase in
sulfur melt time as HTC thickness increases was also a desired
ness had comparable effects on both CST and FTS, and indi-
vidual results for each system demonstrate the impact of those
effects on performance.
CST testing results. The temperature/time relationship of
CST tests A–D is shown in FIG. 7, and the melt time results are
tabulated in TABLE 3. When the HTC layer between the CST
tracers and the process pipe was 1⁄32 in., 2 hr and 24 min were
required for the sulfur to heat from 105°F to 248°F and melt.
Increasing the HTC layer thickness from 1⁄32 in. to 3⁄32 in. in-
creased the required melt time by 70% to 4 hr and 3 min. Fur-
ther increasing that layer to 5⁄32 in. caused the melt to require 5
hr and 12 min, 117% more time than an ideal installation. With
bare CST installed directly on the pipe, 4 hr and 7 min were
required to reach the melt-out criteria.
FTS testing results. The temperature/time relationship of
FTS tests A–D is shown in FIG. 8, and the melt time results are
tabulated in TABLE 4.
With an HTC layer thickness of 1⁄32 in. between the FTS
channel and pipe, 2 hr and 26 min were required for the sulfur
to increase in temperature from 105°F to 248°F and melt. At a
3
⁄32-in. HTC thickness, the time required for melt-out increased
by 43% to 3 hr and 29 min. Installing the FTS with a 5⁄32-in.
thick HTC layer caused the melt time to increase to 5 hr and
200
240
220
200
Temperature, °F

result of the analysis.

180

Results and conclusions. The results of CST and FTS sul- 160
fur melt testing verified that the thickness of the HTC applied 140 CST test A
during steam tracing system installation has a direct impact CST test B
CST test C
on the time required to melt sulfur by heating it from 105°F 0.0 CST test D
to 248°F. In general, increasing the HTC thickness caused a 0.0
proportional increase in melt time. Increases in HTC thick- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Time, hr

FIG. 7. Temperature with respect to time for CST tests.

Thermocouple probes inserted
to centerline of pipe
260

240

220
FIG. 6. Thermocouple probe measurement locations.
200
Temperature, °F

180
TABLE 3. Time to melt sulfur, using CST with various
HTC thicknesses 160
Time to heat sulfur 140 FTS test A
Test HTC layer thickness, in. from 105°F to 248°F FTS test B
120 FTS test C
CST-A ⁄32
1
2 hr, 24 min FTS test D
100
CST-B 3
⁄32 4 hr, 3 min 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Time, hr
CST-C 5
⁄32 5 hr, 12 min
CST-D No HTC; bare CST tracer on pipe 4 hr, 7 min FIG. 8. Temperature with respect to time for FTS tests.

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 69

 Heat Transfer
7 gaps that are caused by installation complications, typically
6
5 come a significant limiting factor of performance for an other-
Time needed for melt, hr
4 Long-term effects of using thick HTC layers can be more
3
2 compound is of the non-hardening variety. Thermal cycling
1 crumble and fall away. HTC that is not well compressed and
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
HTC thickness, in.
FIG. 9. Time required for sulfur melt-out as a function of HTC thickness.
TABLE 4. Time to melt sulfur, using FTS with various
HTC thicknesses
Test HTC layer thickness, in.
FTS-A ⁄32
1
FTS-B 3
⁄32
FTS-C 5
⁄32
FTS-D No HTC; bare FTS tracer on pipe
34 min, taking 129% longer than the ideal installation in Test
A. The FTS installed on the bare pipe with no compound re-
quired 4 hr and 36 min to melt the sulfur.
Conclusions. Based on the empirical evidence from testing
two high-performance steam-tracing technologies, it is ap-
parent that installing CST and FTS with a HTC layer just 1⁄16
in. thicker than an optimum thickness of 1⁄32 in. has a notice-
ably negative impact on the rate of heat transfer into a solid
sulfur process.
FIG. 9 is a graphic representation of the time required to
melt the sulfur in the testing apparatus using the FTS and CST
system with increasing HTC thicknesses. The trend in FIG. 9
suggests that, for each 1⁄16 in. added to the HTC thickness, the
time required to melt elemental sulfur in a 6-in. pipe will in-
crease by an average of 1 hr and 30 min. Using HTC to fill even
larger gaps than were tested, due to installation complications
or failure to follow installation guidelines, could easily cause
melt-out times to increase by several hundred percent com-
pared to an optimal installation.
Discussion. The theoretical implications of increasing the
thickness of conductive heat transfer components are under-
stood by engineers and heat transfer specialists, and it is their
responsibility to pass this conceptual understanding to the per-
sonnel that install and maintain steam tracing systems. Proper
installation of conductive steam tracing systems is compulsory
for achieving the designed level of performance, and one of
the most critical factors in installation is the correct use of heat
transfer compound. The use of HTC in thick layers, or to fill
70 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
stems from the misconception that HTC can conduct heat as
well as other system components. As a result, the HTC can be-
wise properly designed system.
harmful than the conduction issues discussed in this article.
Thick layers of compound can eventually dry out, even if the
and process vibrations can cause the dried compound to
contained by the tracing system is also susceptible to erosion
0.20 0.25 from moisture, which can displace it and leave an air gap be-
tween the tracer and the process vessel. Both scenarios effec-
tively transform the system from conductive to convective in
nature, dramatically decreasing its ability to transfer heat.
Providing education and thorough training to installers
about the capabilities of HTC is one of the most effective ways
of ensuring tracing system performance. While HTC can limit
performance, it can also maximize a tracing system’s effective-
Time to heat sulfur ness if used as a thermal bridge in thin layers. Hands-on train-
from 105°F to 248°F
ing workshops that utilize discussion of how HTC can affect
2 hr, 26 min tracing system performance from a conceptual standpoint, as
3 hr, 29 min well as familiarize installers with guidelines and best installa-
tion practices, are essential.
5 hr, 34 min
One provider has also revised its fabrication specification
4 hr, 36 min for CST. Welds on the trace cannot be modified or ground for
safety reasons, so a method of fabrication has been developed
to build CST tracers that are not subject to the standoff effect
of weld beads on contoured surfaces.
Key installation practices that maximize conductive steam
tracing performance are:
• Ensuring that the tracing elements are contoured to fit
the pipe/vessel surface as closely as possible
• Using the recommended HTC layer thickness;
if more than the recommended amount is needed
to fill a gap, an installation complication exists that
should be solved in another way so that performance
is not affected
• Avoiding installation of trace elements over weld
beads and uneven pipe surfaces that create gaps
between the tracer and the pipe.
LITERATURE CITED
3
Gas Processors and Suppliers Association, Engineering Data Book, 12th Ed., Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 2004.
4
QMax Industries Inc., “QMax FTS installation guide,” 2016.
5
QMax Industries Inc., “QMax CST installation guide,” 2016.
CARSON HANNAH is a Product Development Specialist at QMax Industries Inc.,
focusing on heat transfer, temperature measurement and temperature control.
He also manages new technology development and implementation at QMax
Catalytic LLC. Mr. Hannah co-holds one patent related to thermal maintenance
technology, with several more in the application phase. He received his mechanical
engineering training at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
THOMAS W. PERRY is the Founder and President of QMax Industries Inc.,
specializing in steam tracing. He is also the Cofounder and Chief Technology
Officer of QMax Catalytic LLC and President of Precise Thermal LLC. Mr. Perry
holds several patents in the field of heat transfer and has more innovations
on the way. He is a mechanical engineer from Clarkson University, with more
than 18 yr of experience in industrial heat transfer technologies.
 Heat Transfer
G. HOLZER and E. JEITLER, Prozess Optimal
CAP GmbH, Vorau, Austria

Methodology for model-based, real-time prediction

of corrosion in heat exchangers
In the chemical and process industries, 135
gases or vapor mixtures must be cooled to
130
temperatures near the water dewpoint in
a variety of thermal unit operations. Such 125 Temperature scenario 3
mixtures often contain substances that de- Temperature scenario 1
120
velop corrosive characteristics if the tem-
Temperature, °C

∆T ~ 22 k Pipewall temp. Sz 1, fouling 0.52 m2k/kW

perature falls below the water dewpoint. 115 Sz, 3 Pipewall temp. Sz 3, fouling 0.52 m2k/kW
In that case, depending on the gas com- ∆T ~ 19 k
∆T ~ 12 k
110 Sz, 1 Pipewall temp. Sz 1, without fouling
position, acids can be produced and may ∆T ~ 6 k Pipewall temp. Sz 3, without fouling
cause severe damage to a heat exchanger. 105
This kind of corrosion, called pitting, may
remain undetected for a long time and ul- 100
timately lead to sudden equipment failure. 95
One strategy to avoid pitting is to use 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10
Pressure, barg
corrosion inhibitors; however, such in-
hibitors require a significant increase in FIG. 1. Example of a rigorous, CFD-based heat exchanger calculation.
cost and can be difficult to dispense under
varying process conditions. Consequent-
ly, most processes operate with thermal
safety “gaps” of pressure and temperature
to the water dewpoint. A considerable
drawback of this approach is that the ca-
pacity of the heat exchanger equipment is
not fully utilized.

Calculation approach. To overcome

such limitations, this article suggests a
process prediction method for the real-
time estimation of the lowest possible heat
exchanger surface temperature. This can
help optimize the potential of the process.
The key features of the new approach
include the application of rigorous ther-
modynamics, consideration of all relevant
facility components needed for a complete
mass and energy balance, and a rigorous
FIG. 2. Velocity contours resulting from a CFD simulation interacting with a simulation model.
heat exchanger calculation that considers
surface temperatures and dead zone tem-
peratures for the thermodynamic state. 3. Determination of significant 6. Influence of the gas flow on the
The process includes several steps: factors influencing the dewpoint pipe wall temperature.
1. Simulation of the crude 4. Optimization of the simulation The thermodynamic calculation pro-
distillation unit (CDU) 5. Determination of the correlation vides the theoretical water dewpoint as
2. Connection with the distributed between process data and lowest a function of the process parameters.
control system (DCS) pipe wall temperature Considering that sensitive variables,
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 71
 Heat Transfer

such as the composition of the mul- the heat exchanger surface temperatures real-time transmissions of the process
ticomponent process stream, have a and dead zone temperatures (FIG. 1). The parameters to the model and the recom-
significant influence on the water dew- velocity contours resulting from such a mended process parameters generated by
point, the accurate thermodynamic de- simulation are illustrated in FIG. 2. the model back to the PCS. These recom-
scription of the complete system is one mendations can be used as guidelines for
challenge of the method. Model results. Both components are the operator or directly implemented as
The customized computational fluid combined into a process prediction PCS command variables in view of an au-
dynamics (CFD) simulation, which in- model, where an interface between the tomated optimal operation mode. Such
teracts with the simulation model, pro- process prediction model and the pro- an implementation is illustrated in FIG. 3.
vides the complete spatial distribution of cess control system (PCS) is used for
Takeaway. The proposed methodol-
ogy combines rigorous thermodynamics
with CFD simulation into a novel pro-
cess prediction model that significantly
enhances the overall availability of the
process, ensures the definite prevention
of pitting corrosion and increases the ef-
ficiency of the process.
GUENTHER HOLZER is a Managing Director for
Process Optimal CAP GmbH, which was founded
in 2007 and specializes in thermodynamic process
simulation. He has also lectured on process simulation
at Graz University of Technology in Graz, Austria.

ERICH JEITLER is a Managing Director for Process

Optimal CAP GmbH. He is experienced in the fields
of simulation-based engineering and heat exchanger
optimization. He also lectures at FH Joanneum
FIG. 3. Integration of the proposed approach in the process control system. University of Applied Sciences in Graz, Austria.

Unlock the Archives,

Data Handbooks and More
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING

nProcessing.com
MAY 2018 | Hydrocarbo

with a Full Access Plan

MAY 2018

MAINTENANCE Hydrocarbon Processing’s Full Data Access Plan

AND RELIABILITY
MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY

Three topics for operation

for a hydrotreating reactor
al excellence
provides subscribers with unlimited access to
optimization program

HydrocarbonProcessing.com—the HPI’s most

Advanced steam system
: A systematic approach
Instrumentation reliability

PROCESS CONTROL
AND INSTRUMENTAT
ION
The benefits of using valve
during asset startup
diagnostics powerful source of technical content, reference
ENGINEERING AND CONSTR
When MEGA goes GIGA—A
on the Sadara petrochem
UCTION
discussion
ical complex
information and market data.
PROCESS OPTIMIZATION
in complex process units
Create a network of DWCs

Highlights include:
• An online archive of issues and articles
dating back more than 16 years
• All process handbooks (refining,
gas processing, petrochemical)
• HPI Market Data 2019 (coming soon)
• Access to the latest Construction
Boxscore Database project updates.

Subscribe online at HydrocarbonProcessing.com or contact J’Nette Davis-Nichols

at +1 (713) 520-4426 or Jnette.Davis-Nichols@GulfEnergyInfo.com

72 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 SULFUR
MANAGEMENT

Special Supplement to

Achieving operational excellence CORPORATE PROFILES

in sulfur management Curtiss-Wright EST Group S–79
S–74 W. R. Grace & Co. S–81

COVER PHOTO
Open stockpile of Enersul GXTM Granulation
premium formed sulfur.
 SULFUR MANAGEMENT
ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
IN SULFUR MANAGEMENT
A. KELKAR, Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Mumbai, India; and J. PANIGRAHI, Helium Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Pune, India
Refiners are increasing focus on operational excellence by
optimizing operating conditions in real time, while complying
with stringent energy and environmental regulations. Compli-
ance is dictated by market dynamics, as well as local regulatory
requirements. This is leading to innovative efforts by refineries
to deliver on the promise by working with cutting-edge technol-
ogy to sustain their competitive edge. While many technologies
and applications have been around for a long time, integrating
these systems have been a challenge.
The following details how Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.’s
(BPCL’s) Mumbai refinery has evolved and adopted an inte-
grated business process for sulfur monitoring and control. This
process uses detailed analysis, prompt corrective actions and
emissions control in real time. The primary focus of the solu-
tion is to optimize—in steady-state conditions—the sulfur re-
covery process and find the optimum operational parameters
that enhance performance, while minimizing cost and process-
ing difficulties. This process, combined with a separate dynamic
online advanced process control (APC) solution, is expected to
make the refinery’s sulfur recovery process a model plant for
other facilities. Digitizing the entire business process—from
monitoring to controlling multiple processing units [e.g., amine
treatment unit (ATU), sour water stripper (SWS), sulfur recov-
ery unit (SRU) and tail gas treatment unit (TGTU)]—by using
multiple software applications on one single Industrial Internet
of Things (IIoT) platform helped improve the refinery’s eco-
nomic and environmental performance.
SRU
SWS Header
TGTU
SRU
To
atmosphere
Refinery
Sulfur
pit
SRU
Stack
TGTU
SRU
AGTU Header
Sulfur
pit
FIG. 1. The Mumbai refinery’s SRU system.
S–74 SULFUR MANAGEMENT | OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Refinery configuration and operating philosophy. BPCL’s
Mumbai refinery is one of the most versatile refineries in India. The
refinery was commissioned in 1955 with a crude oil processing
capacity of 2.2 MMtpy. The refining capacity has been augmented
to more than 12 MMtpy through progressive revamps, the addi-
tion of various processing units and the incorporation of advanced
refining technologies. From plant equipment to IT applications
(hardware and software), the Mumbai refinery is known for its
adoption of new technologies to utilize assets to their full potential.
Since its commissioning, the refinery has processed more
than 76 types of crude oils, making it one of the most flexible
refineries in the country. As part of its crude basket, the Mumbai
refinery processes various types of crudes—Bombay High, East
African, Malaysian, Kuwaiti, Arab grades, etc. In addition, the re-
finery can process opportunity crudes to achieve higher refining
margins. The refinery’s main products are LPG, naphtha, mo-
tor spirit (gasoline), benzene, toluene, hexane, special boiling
point (SBP) spirit, MTO, kerosine, jet fuel, diesel, light diesel
oil, lubes, fuel oil, low-sulfur heavy stock (LSHS) and bitumen.
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the refinery originates in acid
gas treatment units from various desulfurization processes such
as diesel hydrodesulfurization (DHDS), diesel hydrotreating
(DHT) and hydrocracking, etc., as well as from SWS facilities.
Since H2S is very harmful to the environment, is extremely flam-
mable and can dissolve in petroleum products (degrading its
quality), its removal from all streams and subsequent recovery of
sulfur as a product becomes a vital process. The sulfur recovery
process removes elemental sulfur from gaseous H2S and from
the byproduct gases derived from refining crude oil. The sulfur
that is recovered is sold as a valuable product.
The most common method of removing sulfur is the Claus
process. A typical modified-Claus SRU includes one thermal
stage—where free-flame oxidation of one-third of H2S to sulfur
dioxide (SO2 ) happens—followed by several catalytic stages
where SO2 and the remaining two-thirds of H2S reacts over a
catalyst, along with some form of tail gas cleanup.
BPCL uses technology from multiple process licensors.
FIG. 1 shows the Mumbai refinery’s SRU system that consists
of four trains followed by two TGTUs, targeting 99.9% as total
sulfur recovery.
Vision. As part of its continuous mission to achieve operational
excellence, BPCL’s Mumbai refinery envisaged implementing a
real-time process optimization around the SRUs for achieving
more efficient energy management, along with more effective
compliance to environmental norms.
Approach. To achieve this vision, various software applications
were implemented. At the heart of this integrated business process
 SULFUR MANAGEMENT

was process simulation, APC, real-time plant data and the planning Two challenges to this process included faulty measurements
application. A series of interactions were made with the technol- and regulatory control tuning. During the pre-test activity stage,
ogy and operating teams and a detailed action plan was prepared. all instrument calibration and tuning work was completed by
Since simulation-based process control is a new business process the plant instrument and BPCL APC team. The feed fluctua-
for the operating/technology teams, it was decided for the project tion was identified due to the upstream unit control fluctuation.
to be implemented in a phased manner. In the first phase, adaptive The ATU-SWS unit’s APC was completed with the dual goal of
process control technologya was implemented for all the units in stabilizing the feed and optimizing energy.
the sulfur recovery plant (e.g., the ATU, SWS, SRU and TGTU). The benefits of implementing the proprietary APC applica-
While the APC models were validated and deployed, the simula- tion included:
tion models were built in for all the processes using different appli- • Optimum control provides a better product specification
cations. Once the process models were validated, the technologies • Energy reduction
were integrated to achieve synergy between the processes and • Solvent optimization
applications. The refinery’s vision for efficient plant control, energy • Unit stabilization
conservation and environmental compliance is shown in FIG. 2. • Utility optimization.
The project, named Multi-application Based Optimization
for Sulfur recovery System (MbOSS), was implemented in
March 2018, with an implementation schedule of six mos. The
product applications for MbOSS included several proprietary
software solutions.a,b
A high-speed IIoT proprietary applicationc was used for all
integration and visualization of key performance indicators
(KPI) and analytics out of the process. Note: The integration
was deeper than just data integration, since it involved deep do-
main knowledge of all these applications to achieve the process
optimization in real time, as well as providing unprecedented FIG. 2. The Mumbai refinery’s vision for the sulfur recovery system.
ability for online analysis.

System architecture. The IIoT application serves as the back-

bone between multiple applications by integrating and delivering
value by using its data integration-validation-dashboard. The
application can connect to the plant/historian network and can
be integrated with multiple applications such as APC, simulation
and other technology used in the plant. At any given time, a maxi-
mum of 10 users can access the MbOSS system in the refinery’s
local access network (LAN). FIG. 3 depicts the IT framework
for this integrated business process.

Multiple application implementation. The simulation-based

APC control system was developed for two trains of the SRU,
along with the ATU and SWS in the initial phase of the project,
followed by developing simulation models. The entire project was
divided into three sections:
FIG. 3. IT framework for the integrated business process.
• Plant-calibrated simulation model development
• APC implementation and extending the APC application
to the ATU/SWS units APC
Real-time process control Inferential quality
• Integrated system using the IIoT application. and optimization
These steps posed a challenge since they were being attempt-
ed for the first time. All steps were started as parallel activities
through well-planned methodology and milestone schedules.
The individual applications were rigorously validated before
integrating as a single project. The integrated application was MbOSS dashboard
process optimization Real-time plant
Planning
tested and rolled out in a phased model, with revisions based on and emissions control data historian
timely inputs from users and the plant’s real-time performance.
Interaction between multiple systems is shown in FIG. 4.

APC. The APC system was implemented in both the SRU and
ATU-SWS units. The APC project implementation was com- Process engineering models
pleted using the plant adaptive and calibration technology of a
proprietary APC application.a FIG. 4. The multiple application integration.

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING | OCTOBER 2018 | SULFUR MANAGEMENT S–75

 SULFUR MANAGEMENT
Simulation. The plant-calibrated simulation model was imple-
mented for two trains of the SRU, along with the ATU-SWS unit.
The team implemented a proprietary sulfur recovery simulation
application.b This application utilizes empirical models validated
over hundreds of commercial configurations to accurately predict
thermal, catalytic and tail gas stages using more than 30 unit opera-
tions, specific sulfur properties and validated catalytic converter
models. The simulation implementation was done in three phases:
1. Two-train SRU and a TGTU design models
2. Two-train SRU and a TGTU plant-calibrated models
3. ATU-SWS model.
The challenges witnessed during the implementation of the
simulation model included:
• An unmeasured composition parameter in the plant
• Data fluctuation
• Unavailability of all the required plant data in the historian
• Plant configuration understanding.
The plant’s compositions data was not readily available in
the plant. The lab samples did not contain all the information
required for the model development. The plant design condi-
tion was taken as a reference point for the unknown composition
measurements. The design model was used as a starting point
for all the unknown measurements and then calibrated with
available measurements (or proxies) of the plant. The IIoT data
validation layer was used for data inputs to the model from the
historian. This process helps the model to fit with the plant data.
All required measurements for simulation to be run were
identified and data points were configured in the historian. The
running plant configuration was a little different from the de-
sign case in terms of routing and unit running information. A
discussion with plant technologist and operations helped iden-
tify the necessary changes that were validated in the simulation
model.
The benefits of implementing the proprietary sulfur recov-
ery simulation model included:
• Provided an estimation of true conditions of process states
• Helped to check overall heat and mass balance
• Provided a rich and risk-free environment to reproduce
scenarios quickly
• Allowed users to check the process optimization
condition through offline studies
• Made dewpoint data available for APC for online
integration.
Integration of multiple applications and business process.
The key value areas for integration were motivated by the fol-
lowing goals in achieving operational excellence:
• Allowing several pieces of data to be merged at one place
for easy use and investigation
• Graded use of plant and simulation information:
о Management teams for brining relevant information
in a single source
о Technologist for deeper root cause analysis (RCA) of
specific unit operations analysis and troubleshooting
о APC team to get specific inputs from the system
for making APC more robust
о Operations to use it as a dashboard to monitor
energy and emissions
• Use the simulation models for real-time plant conditions
S–76 SULFUR MANAGEMENT | OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
• Use plant vs. simulation results to validate potential
sub-optimal operations
• Analyze specific operating scenarios to examine
root causes of optimal operations:
о Better recovery closer to dewpoints at the
condenser outlet
о Operating the H2S:SO2 ratio closer to optimal,
preventing SO2 breakthrough
о Operating reactor inlets at higher temperatures
о Analyzing feed conditions and advising stabilization
handles to upstream units
• Within the best possible steady-state conditions,
generate qualities for the APC model where certain
important qualities were not measurable
• Provide limits guidance within ranges of feed
and compositions to the APC team
• Enable better planning models by providing inputs
to the LP vectors for the SRU.
The integration of multiple applications such as APC, simu-
lation, soft sensors and historians have been the key factor to
realize the refinery’s vision. The IIoT application provides data
integration with multiple applications, data validation and KPI
monitoring of a plant’s operation using the visualization dash-
board. This help to translate the actionable information into
decisions, leading to plant improvement.
This integrated system provides standard application sup-
port to multiple stakeholders in the refinery, including techni-
cal services, operations management and refinery management
teams to finalize an optimized solution, to identify opportuni-
ties for optimization, as well as detect early problems to avoid
costly unscheduled upsets.
Implementing the IIoT application was completed in two
phases: integration with multiple applications and deployment
of the KPI monitoring dashboard. The challenges in imple-
menting the IIoT application included:
• The required calculation was unavailable to the user
• The plant availability scenario.
The dashboard configuration was implemented using many
calculations. The shutdown scenario is important for the online
simulation to run, as well as to make the information available
in the dashboard for management.
MbOSS is set up to run reconciliation of all real-time data
every 2 hr. Once the reconciliation is completed, it moves into
the optimization process based on the process model built in
the system. The optimization results are a typical set of refer-
ences indicating potential areas for enhancing energy and oper-
ational performance. These sets of references from MbOSS are
published in the dashboard as KPIs for each run. The MbOSS
dashboard also indicates a comparison of actual plant perfor-
mance with design basis for each of the processes. Users access
MbOSS from the refinery LAN and refer references for appro-
priate operational actions.
Establishing an integrated business process. Using hi-fidelity,
plant-calibrated simulation models running in real time, the inte-
grated platform helps to view accurate data, enabling the personnel
responsible for the SRU plant to make faster decisions. The inte-
grated business process solution provides the user with an oper-
ations-focused performance management system. Cross-domain
 SULFUR MANAGEMENT

collaboration support for all functional teams helps to manage • Value add to APC dewpoint calculations. The Claus
the operational decision-making lifecycle, to facilitate corrective reactor conversion can be maximized, but care must be
actions and to sustain best practices and operational knowledge taken to ensure that the reactor bed is operated above
in the overall refining process. The following cases are illustrative the dewpoint of sulfur to avoid liquid sulfur physically
of the benefits outlined from the integrated MbOSS application: deactivating the catalyst. The dewpoint inferential was
• Dashboard performance monitoring. The unmeasured
parameters, such as plant efficiency and production,
can be viewed in the front page, which can be calculated
from the online plant-calibrated simulation model.
Management can view the full plant condition in terms of
production, emissions and cost (FIG. 5). The warning,
shutdown stage can be viewed from the color difference
shown in the strategic bar. The relevant information can
be found from single source. The plant’s total operating
cost can be viewed with potential optimized cost. The
potential gap in cost and emissions is shown in FIG. 6.
• Finding suboptimal operating conditions of the FIG. 5. The plant’s performance monitoring screen.
plant’s sulfur removal system. In the sulfur recovery
system, condensers are used to condense and remove
the sulfur product to allow more sulfur to be formed
in the next converter. The objective of the condenser
is to remove as much sulfur as possible—any residual
sulfur vapor will contribute directly to emissions. FIG. 7
shows the difference between the condensers outlet
temperature for the actual plant vs. the potential from
the simulation model. The recovery efficiency can be
directly related to the condenser temperature. FIG. 6. Total operating cost of the facility.

www.ConstructionBoxscore.com

O R T H E G LO BA L R E F INING,
MARKET INTELLIGENCE FPROCESSING/LNG INDUSTRIES
S
PETROCHEMICAL AND GA
The Future of Downstream Project Intelligence
Project details on thousands of active projects and global construction contracts, For more information:
including contact information for key personnel
Josh Allen at Josh.Allen@
Advanced search that filters the listings by project type, scope, region,
EnergyWebAtlas.com or
investment and more
+1 (713) 520-4456.
Daily updates for new and updated projects
The Weekly Boxscore Update e-newsletters with new listings and trends analysis.

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING | OCTOBER 2018 | SULFUR MANAGEMENT S–77

 SULFUR MANAGEMENT
FIG. 7. Condenser temperature profile vs. simulation.
FIG. 8. SO2 breakthrough with ∆T.
FIG. 9. Claus reactor performance.
created using data from the sulfur recovery simulation
model and integrated with the APC application for
avoiding the catalyst deactivation. Developing the
inferential requires regression against reference dewpoint
values, which are derived using a sulfur recovery
simulation application to control and optimize the
Claus reactor process.
Troubleshooting: RCA. The effects of an SO2 breakthrough can
disturb the TGTU, and can include dissolved quench column
piping, column internals failure, elemental sulfur plugging in
the quench water loop and high emissions. FIG. 8 depicts SO2
breakthrough in the unit. The SO2 breakthrough can be cor-
related from fluctuations in the reactor bed temperature. An
increased in excess air in the SRU can be a sign of an increase in
the outlet temperature from the TGU hydrogenation reactor. The
cold quench water pH variation can be correlated with the SO2
breakthrough. This helps to analyze the root cause of problems.
Higher inlet temperature in the Claus reactor. The Claus
process is limited in its conversion as the reaction equilibrium is
being reached. The operating temperature for the Claus reactor
is typically 315°C–330°C. Carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon
disulfide (CS2 ) formed in the furnace would not be converted
in the modified Claus process. The higher temperature in the
S–78 SULFUR MANAGEMENT | OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
first stage helps to hydrolyze COS and CS2 . The SO2 in stack
emissions can be directly related to this temperature, which may
not show up in the TGTU outlet. FIG. 9 shows the inlet and
dewpoint of the Claus reactor.
Benefits of MbOSS. Significant benefits exist from using
MbOSS, which include:
• Planning model accuracy. Updates on the ATU, SWS,
SRU and TGTU enhance the planning model accuracy,
enabling more accurate crude selection for the refinery
for achieving higher gross refining margins.
• Simulation model. The APC controller can be tested
in a wider range of operations. The small process change
condition could be evaluated using the online plant-
calibrated model, and the controller can be updated
accordingly.
Some processes experience atmospheric disturbances
or raw material variations that are difficult to identify in
the plant since they cannot be manipulated, and historical
data is drowned by other process changes. These variables
can be independently manipulated with a simulation
model. With any change in feed quality, the operating
condition can be evaluated using a sulfur recovery
simulation model to meet the specification.
The sulfur recovery simulation model can be used
to identify an optimized air flowrate to the reaction
furnace, along with the catalytic converter temperature
to maximize the overall sulfur recovery efficiency. Such a
scenario can be analyzed and implemented in the APC.
The simulation model can provide “what if.”
simulations to aid operators and engineers in identifying
and resolving process problem—feed change condition,
lower efficiency can be correlated with the Claus inlet
and condenser temperatures, and SO2 breakthrough and
absorber column performance can be studied.
The plant-calibrated simulation model can solve the
issue of mass and heat balance, and an accurate plant-
calibrated process simulation model will help to optimize
sulfur recovery efficiency at each stage of the process to
ensure that adjustments can be made to accommodate
changing feed quality and operating conditions.
• Process revamp/capacity studies. Process revamp
studies and further control analysis or improvements can
be quickly studied using MbOSS.
Future work. Once the input of sulfur in the crude oil being
processed is known in real-time, an expert system can be devel-
oped to track the downstream systems for energy efficiency and
environmental compliance related to the sulfur recovery system.
Combining an innovative process such as MbOSS with more
analytical and process data, a strong data model can be developed
for a refinery. This model can lead to a refinery-wide inferential
system, offering another competitive edge to a facility (e.g., the
Mumbai refinery) for increasing operational performance.
NOTES
a AspenTech’s DMC3 APC technology
b AspenTech’s Hysys-Sulsim, PIMS and IP21
c Helium’s Helium-IIoT application
 CURTISS-WRIGHT EST GROUP

ENGINEERING SAFETY AND RELIABILITY

FOR EXTREME SERVICE
Since 1968, Curtiss-Wright EST Group has
specialized in developing and manufacturing
tools and systems that vastly simplify the main-
tenance of shell-and-tube and air-cooled heat
exchangers. EST Group also engineers test plug
systems that expedite in-service inspection of pipe,
pipelines, piping systems and pressure vessels.
Their plugging and testing systems have saved
customers millions of dollars in maintenance and
downtime in industries including power genera-
tion, petrochemical/refining, oil & gas produc-
tion, fertilizers, engineering and shipbuilding.
POP-A-PLUG®–HEAT EXCHANGER
TUBE TESTING & REPAIR
The Pop-A-Plug Tube Plugging System is spe-
cially engineered to quickly prepare and plug
leaking or degraded heat exchanger, condenser
and boiler tubes. Pop-A-Plug Tube Plugs deliver a
permanent and cost-effective plugging solution.
Plugs are hydraulically installed with a unique
breakaway that eliminates welding, avoiding
labor costs and time associated with welding
tapered plugs. The Pop-A-Plug Tube Plugging
System includes CPI/Perma and P2 High Pres-
sure Tube Plugs, Pop-A-Plug Tube Stabilizers, and
G-160 Tube Testing Tools.
GRIPTIGHT®–TEST & ISOLATION
PLUGS
High-pressure pipe testing is safer than ever,
thanks to the GripTight family of test and isola-
tion plugs. Unlike other pipe testing plugs that
can loosen and eject under high pressure, Grip-
Tight patented gripper technology uses the sys-
tem’s own pressure to seal more securely against Installation of a 42 inch GripTight Isolation Plug
the pipe’s inner diameter. The GripTight Test &
Isolation Plug line includes GripTight, GripTight CONTACT INFORMATION
MAX, GripTight Elbow Test Plugs, and the Grip- Phone: 215-721-1100
Tight Isolation Plug. est-info@curtisswright.com

SUPERIOR
RELIABILITY
FOR CRITICAL PROCESSES

Pop-A-Plug® Heat Exchanger Tube Plugging System

Don’t trust critical processes to an inferior tube plugging method. Pop-A-Plug Heat Exchanger
Tube Plugs are pressure rated up to 7000 PsiG (483 BarG) and conform to ASME PCC-2-2015
recommended tube plugging repair methods, offering a permanent mechanical solution to
safely seal leaking heat exchanger tubes without welding. Hydraulic installation can make
circumferential cracking and other welding problems a thing of the past.
Maximize turnaround success by visiting cw-estgroup.com/hp1018 today! EST Group
Select 161 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Hyrdrocarbon Processing October Issue v2 8.28.2018.indd 1 9/7/2018 12:26:39 PM
SPONSORED CONTENT HYDROCARBON PROCESSING | OCTOBER 2018 | SULFUR MANAGEMENT S–79
 Let’s do
the math.
Grace custom catalyst solutions,
co-developed with you, are about more
than performance—and more than
chemistry. They’re designed to add to
your bottom line.

In some cases, the difference between

our refinery customers’ financial return
on Grace technologies versus the
alternative has reached into seven figures.

If you’re ready to put Grace chemistry to

work to strengthen your business, we’re
ready to show you how we can help. Call
us to get started with the calculations.

Tested. Proven. Valued.

grace.com/value
A collaborative effort to fight iron
poisoning improved yields and
increased profitability.

Watch our video to learn more

at grace.com/ironpoisoning.

Select 89 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

BUILT ON TALENT, TECHNOLOGY
AND TRUST
W. R. Grace & Co. is the global leader in developing and manu-
facturing process catalysts and related technologies used in refining,
petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing applications. Refining
Technologies, Specialty Catalysts and the ART Hydroprocessing joint
venture are managed in the catalysts technologies segment, as is the
UNIPOL® Polypropylene Licensing.
INNOVATIVE REFINING CATALYSTS AND ADDITIVES
FROM THE INDUSTRY’S BROADEST PORTFOLIO
Manufacturing excellence and industry leading technical service
have made Grace the world’s leading supplier of FCC catalyst and
additives. Grace is dedicated to helping refiners achieve success with
innovative catalytic solutions. Refineries stay competitive with Grace Fluid
Catalytic Cracking (FCC) technology because they can maximize the
yield of the most valuable products through use of the optimal catalyst
for their crude slate.
Understanding feed impacts earlier allows the refiner to optimize
operating parameters and catalyst management strategies for a more
stable and profitable operation. Grace developed the ACHIEVE® FCC
catalyst technology specifically to meet the challenges of opportunity
feeds. The expanded portfolio of ACHIEVE® products address current
market challenges to processing opportunity crudes and upgrade the
bottom of the barrel into light cycle oil (LCO) and lighter products to
maximize FCC unit value.
Grace’s portfolio of FCC additives allows refiners to reduce SOX,
NOX, and CO emissions from their FCC units, as well as lower sulfur
content in gasoline. The portfolio includes ZSM-5 additives, OlefinsUl-
tra®, OlefinsUltra® HZ, and the newest additive, OlefinsUltra® MZ,
which provide three levels of activity for LPG olefin maximization. Super
DESOX® OCI, a low-rare-earth catalytic SOX reduction additive was
introduced during the rare-earth crisis. Since that time, Super DESOX®
OCI has become a preferred product because it delivers equivalent
performance at lower cost to the refiner.
Patented GSR® (FCC gasoline sulfur reduction) technologies create
opportunities and options for refiners to drive profitability during routine
maintenance and unit upsets, while maintaining regulatory compliance.
Refiners around the world have shown that use of GSR® catalysts and
additives is a cost-effective component of a clean fuels strategy.
Our ART Hydroprocessing (ART) joint venture with Chevron leads
the market in hydroprocessing catalysts by combining the technology
expertise, world-class research and development, and global manufac-
turing footprint of its parents with a complete portfolio of hydroprocess-
ing catalysts. To meet the challenges of today’s refiners, ART combines
Grace’s material science, manufacturing, marketing and sales strength
with Chevron’s extensive experience operating its own refineries and
leadership in technology, design and process licensing.
CATALYSTS FOR POLYOLEFIN PRODUCTION
AND MARKET LEADING PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
Grace provides catalyst systems and supports for polyethylene and
polypropylene process technologies. Grace has a unique position as
SPONSORED CONTENT
W. R. GRACE & CO.
the only company currently supplying a complete portfolio of polyolefin
catalyst systems including, silica and magnesium based support systems,
metallocene components, key raw materials and intermediates, and
finished Chromium, Ziegler Natta and single site catalysts for essentially
all PP and PE process platforms and applications.
Last month, Grace signed an agreement to acquire the polyolefin
catalysts business of Albemarle Corporation for $416 million. The acqui-
sition includes a comprehensive series of highly optimized Ziegler-Natta
catalysts for polyethylene production. This move significantly strengthens
Grace’s catalysts technology portfolio, commercial relationships, and
manufacturing network with two operations in Louisiana and South Korea
adding flexibility and enhancing our ability to meet customer needs.
Our UNIPOL® PP Licensing & Catalysts, a proprietary gas phase
polypropylene process technology for the production of a broad range
of polypropylene products licensing and catalysts systems business,
offers industry-leading process technology. This includes the advanced
process control UNIPOL UNIPPAC® Process Control software, SHAC®
Catalysts Systems, and 6th Generation nonphthalate CONSISTA ®
Catalysts Systems.
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
The major trends expected in the refining industry including a grow-
ing demand for low-sulfur fuel, tightening environmental regulations, and
increasing use of heavy crudes, are causing major shifts in our customers’
businesses. Over the years, catalysts have evolved to be more active, to
be more selective, and to drive the right conversion to meet the changing
market demands. Grace prepares for this environment with its long-term
investment strategy.
As an example, opened the world’s first Equilibrium Catalyst Analysis
lab in the Middle East at Sohar University in Oman. A new lab team
has undergone intensive training at our facility in Worms, Germany.
Up-to-date and easily accessible E-cat analyses are a valuable, key
requirement for assessing the operation of FCC units. This first-of-its-kind
lab now provides more rapid support to refiners in the Middle East. This
is just one example of many investments we’ve made, and continue to
make, in both our service and product/manufacturing technology. With
investments like these, Grace continues to deliver value to the refining,
petrochemical, and chemical industries with our process catalysts through
customer focus and innovation.
CONTACT INFORMATION
7500 Grace Drive
Columbia, MD 21044, USA
+1 (410) 531-4000
catalysts@grace.com
www.grace.com
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING | OCTOBER 2018 | SULFUR MANAGEMENT S–81
 A Better Perspective
on Hydroprocessing Solutions

In the refining industry, market conditions are always evolving with new regulatory requirements,
global demand shifts, and the use of heavier feedstocks among other factors. ART Hydroprocessing
can help you take a better perspective on these challenges based on our deep understanding of
refinery operations and a full spectrum of hydroprocessing catalysts solutions that maximize profits
by balancing run length, severity, feed flexibility, contaminants, and operating constraints.

ART is a joint venture of Chevron and W. R. Grace & Co., created to bring you state-of-the-art
hydroprocessing catalyst solutions for petroleum refining applications worldwide. We collaborate
with the industry’s leading licensor, CLG, to provide complete solutions to address your needs to
extract more value from every barrel of oil. Combined with our unparalleled technical customer
service, we deliver results for you.

Contact your ART representative today for more information. arthydroprocessing.com

Select 55 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 Process
Optimization
E. S. TELYAKOV, E. V. OSIPOV and D. BUGEMBE,
Kazan National Research Technological University,
Kazan, Russian Federation

Reconstruct a vacuum column injector system

using computer modeling—Part 1
Steam ejector vacuum systems are
the most common means of creating
and maintaining a vacuum in the process
units of oil and gas processing facilities.
This is due to the simplicity of the struc-
ture, the lack of moving parts and low
repair and maintenance costs. On the
other hand, the main disadvantages of
steam ejector pumps (SEPs) are the large
component dimensions, noisy operation
and high consumption of high-pressure
steam and recycled cooling water.
The total consumption of energy re-
sources depends on:
• The parameters of water vapor
and circulating water
• The design of individual
elements of the vacuum-creating
system (VCS).
Also, the operation of the VCS is influ-
enced by the connection scheme between
the main pump components and their
connection to the main plant networks.1,2
To date, a number of practices have
been established for the design of new
construction, as well as the reconstruc-
tion of old VCSs. Organizations that de-
sign the main process equipment (evac-
uated object) determine the flowrate of
the incoming gas for suction in the VCS
gas (steam) at a certain level of residual
pressure, and then enter the require-
ments of which vacuum system should
remain operational at a load increase of
15%–20% of the nominal capacity.
However, this condition does not
always account for some features of
equipment operation in pressure rang-
es that are close to the nominal value.
Particularly when separating fuel oil
Displacement chamber
S A2 A3
A1
2 3
V
FIG.1. An ejector and its components.
under vacuum with increasing residual
pressure at the top of the column, it is
necessary to increase the temperature
of fuel oil heating in the furnace to cre-
ate the required steam flow along the
column cross-section. This leads to an
increase in the yield of light hydrocar-
bons due to the thermal destruction
process, and an increase in the load on
the VCS. The margin for performance
is not always enough to compensate for
this process. Therefore, the develop-
ment of models in which the techno-
logical object and VCS function as a
single entity is an urgent task.
An element-by-element investigation
of the system is inefficient, since all el-
ements of the system have individual
characteristics, the values of which are
established within the integrated char-
acteristic of a complex chemical-tech-
nological system. Therefore, to date,
the development of such models is best
done using mathematical modeling tech-
niques in the environment of universal
modeling programs (UMPs).
Throat Diffuser
Pc
4 5 C
In this study, the main elements of
the vacuum unit for separating fuel oil
from the primary distillation unit—the
main vacuum column (VC), furnace,
ejectors, intermediate capacitors, sepa-
rators, etc.—were simulated using a
proprietary software suite for process
simulation.a The use of the software in
solving problems of this kind is consid-
ered in detail in literature.1,2,3,4,5
Process theory. The ejector device is
shown in FIG. 1. The pumped medium
enters the inlet chamber and is com-
pressed to an intermediate pressure by
steam from the nozzle. The vapor under
pressure expires through the expanding
Nozzle 1 with supersonic speed in the
form of a turbulent jet. Due to turbulent
mixing of the vortex masses of the steam
turbulent jet with molecules of the evac-
uated gas, and viscous friction between
the boundary layers of the viscous jet
and the adjacent layers of pumped mix-
ture, the latter is entrained in the input
confusor for the facilitation of a more
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 83
 Process Optimization

complete mixing of steam with the gas. is completed. In the expanding output ments is carried out through pipelines,
This process is characterized by equaliz- diffuser, the kinetic energy of the jet is the characteristics of which significantly
ing all parameters of the mixture (pres- further transferred to the potential one, affect the flow of the technological pro-
sure, density, velocity and temperature) which is accompanied by a decrease in the cess. Thus, the vacuum distillation unit
along the flow section. velocity and an increase in the pressure of (VDU) can be considered as a complex
Due to the exchange of energies and the mixture to the outlet pressure.6,7,8,9 chemical-technological system (SCS).
the appearance of a shock wave, the pres- In accordance with the technological
sure of the evacuated gas increases and Modeling the main VC. The main el- scheme shown in FIG. 2, the calculation
reaches the static pressure of the mixture, ements of the distillation vacuum unit scheme of the vacuum rectification unit
and the flowrate decreases to sound pres- operating under vacuum (FIG. 2) are the of fuel oil was modeled (FIG. 3) using the
sure. In the throat of the mixing chamber, rectification column and the vacuum sys- software package.9
the alignment of the mixture parameters tem. Communication between these ele- The furnace (Apparatus 2) was simu-
lated using the fired heater module, which
Water vapor calculates the fuel consumption required
Returning water to heat the target stream to a predeter-
E-1/1 mined temperature.
E-1/3 Decomposition gases Modeling the VC (Device 1) in this
E-1/3 work was carried out using the accurate
T-35/1 Decomposition gases module tower plus column (TPLS), which
T-35-1/3 T-35-1/3 allows the calculation of mass exchange
columns of any type. In this case, side strip-
Decomposition gases
H-24
LVGO pers, circulation irrigation, steam supply to
Hydrocarbon the column cube and heat exchangers on
condensate
the side products withdrawal line are con-
H-25 E-33 sidered part of the TPLS module and are
TVGO calculated simultaneously with the main
Wastewater
column without recycling calculations.
H-31 Wash liquid The calculation of capacitors (Appara-
Fuel oil 6 tuses 10, 11 and 12) was carried out us-
Water vapor H-3 ing the heat exchanger (HTXR) module.
Water vapor 1
In Apparatuses 10, 11 and 12, the CGS is
divided into three phases: decomposition
H-27 Tar gases, diesel fraction and water. In addi-
tion, the heating process is accompanied
FIG. 2. Technological scheme of the vacuum processing block of fuel oil.
by thermal destruction of the feedstock
(fuel oil), so the following elements were

Boarhom nap 4
13 19 27
25 26
6 7 18 8 19 9 20
NRC 41 18 21 21
10 12 20 11 15 23 16 37
Water Water Water
29 39 40

3 14 34 22 36 28 35

Water
30

7 1 LVGO
4
2 3 13 17 15
Fuel oil HVGO
1 2 10 10 11 5 38
Gas
Gracing gas Wash liquid 16 31
8 17 Hydrocarbon condensate
32
Water condensate
33
Tar
6

FIG. 3. Model of a vacuum processing unit for fuel oil. Designations of apparatus: vacuum column (1), tube furnace (2), dividers (3, 4, 5, 6), steam
ejectors (7, 8, 9), vacuum condensers (10, 11, 12), mixers (13, 14, 15), separator (16), controller (17) and valves (18, 19, 20).

84 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com

introduced into the design scheme: di-
vider (3), mixer (13) and controller (17).
The mixer (13) simulates the ther-
mal destruction process by mixing the
initial stream (1) with decomposition
gases (8). To maintain the material bal-
ance, the initial flow (1) must be reduced
by the amount of the decomposition gas
flow, so a divider (3) and controller (17)
were introduced into the circuit. The di-
vider (3) withdraws from the stream (2)
flow after the furnace the amount of fuel
oil that is equal to the flowrate of the de-
composition gases, and its specification
is determined by the controller (17).
The rate of cracked gases is calculated
by the operating mode of the VC and,
primarily, by the heating temperature of
the feed stream, which depends on the
pressure in the bottom section of the VC.
In the modeling system,b the following
dependencies (Eq. 1) are given for deter-
mining the decomposition gas rates for
AVT vacuum columns:10
G = 2,86 × 0,15 × exp[0,0495 ×
(Tc –385)] × Fm (1)
where G is the flowrate of the cracked
gases (kg/hr), Fm is the vacuum column
supply rate (Nm3/hr) and Tc is the tem-
perature of the raw material heating in the
tube furnace (°C).
The rate of decomposition gases is
determined by the operating mode of the
VC and, primarily, by the heating tem-
perature of the feed stream, which de-
pends on the pressure in the bottom sec-
tion of the VC. In the modeling system,
the same dependencies as Eq. 1 are given
for determining the cracked gas rates for
AVT VCs.11
However, in this methodology, no
recommendations exist for submitting
appropriate changes. In literature,8,9 this
composition of the decomposition gases
depends on the type of oil and the heating
temperature of the raw material. There-
fore, the most suitable flow of these gases
is calculated by Eq. 1, and their composi-
tion is taken from experimental data.12,13
Simulation of the steam ejector. No
module in the software simulates the pro-
cesses taking place in the steam ejectors.
However, with the help of a set of mod-
ules included in the program database and
their specification by certain algorithms,
it is possible to synthesize a design mod-
Process Optimization
el that will most fully describe a steam
ejector. For this purpose, the ejector was
divided into three parts (nozzle, mixing
chamber and diffuser), and the processes
in them were calculated using MIXE mod-
ules (Apparatus 7, 8, 9) and valve (VALV)
modules (Apparatus 18, 19, 20). In this
case, the MIXE modules modeled the noz-
zle and the mixing chamber, and the VALV
modules simulated the output diffuser.9
In literature,14 a model was presented
that describes a steam ejector and is used
to solve a similar problem. This model
uses the following assumptions:
1. The working vapor is isentropic
in the nozzle. The working pair
and the injected vapor are also
isentropic.
2. The working steam and the
pumped mixture in the ejector are
saturated and run at a low speed.
3. The velocity of the mixed stream
leaving the ejector is very low.
4. The working steam and the
pumped mixture are regarded
as an ideal gas with a constant
specific heat (Cp) and a constant
adiabatic exponent (γ).  PROCESS GAS
5. Mixing of the working steam
and the pumped mixture in the COMPRESSORS
mixing chamber is carried out at a § Reciprocating Compressors
constant pressure in Section 4. API 618
6. The adiabatic index varies § Integrally Geared Centrifugal
insignificantly.
Compressors API 617 & 672
7. The equations completely describe
the behavior of vapor and gas.
8. In modeling, the ejector is divided
into three parts: a nozzle, a mixing
 MEMBRANE
chamber and a diffuser (FIG. 1). TECHNOLOGY
9. The pressure and temperature at
the nozzle section are determined
by Eqs. 2 and 3:  PRESSURE VESSELS
P1 γ −1
γ HEAT EXCHANGERS
= ⎡⎢1 + × M 2 ⎤⎥ γ −1 (2)
P2 ⎣ 2 ⎦ § Waste Heat Recovery Systems
§ Transfer Line Exchangers
T1 γ −1 § Scraped Surface Exchangers
=1+ × M2 (3)
T2 2
The main ratio used in simulating the
ejector is Eq. 4: www.borsig.de
γ1 + 1
⎡⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎤ γ1 – 1 BORSIG GmbH
⎢⎜ ⎟ × ⎥ Phone: + 49 030 4301-01
⎢⎝ 1 + γ 1 ⎠ ⎥ Fax: + 49 030 4301-2236
⎢⎛ (4)
γ1 – 1 2 ⎞⎥ E-mail: info@borsig.de
⎢⎝ 1 + M2 ⎥
⎠⎦
Egellsstrasse 21
A2 ⎣ 2 13507 Berlin
= 2
AC M2 Germany
Select 162 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 Process Optimization

The pressure at the nozzle outlet is cal- M v22 (γ 1 + 1) The speed of sound and the actual
culated with Eq. 5: M v∗2 = (13) flow are determined by Eqs. 21–24:
M v22 (γ 1 − 1) + 2
P1
P2 = γ1 C3 = γ 3 × R 3T3 (21)
⎡γ 1 − 1 2 ⎤ γ 1 − 1 (5) In modeling the mixing process, the
⎢ 2η × M2 + 1⎥ one-dimensional continuity equations,
⎣ c ⎦ C 4 = γ 3 × R 3T4 (22)
in combination with the equations of
The temperature at the outlet from the motion and the energy equations, can V3 = C3 M3 (23)
nozzle is calculated using Eq. 6: be combined into the following relation-
ships to calculate the critical Mach num- V4 = C4 M 4 (24)
T1 ber and the Mach number in the diffuser
T2 = γ1 − 1 (6) (Eqs. 14 and 15): The temperature and pressure at the
1+ × M22
2ηc exit from the diffuser are calculated with
Tv
M2∗ + wM v∗2 Eqs. 25 and 26:
The speed of sound at the nozzle exit T1
M 4∗ = (14) γ3 − 1
uses Eq. 7: ⎛ T ⎞ 1+ M 42
(1 + w)⎜ 1 + w v ⎟ T5 = 2 (25)
⎝ T1 ⎠ γ3 − 1
C2 = γ 1 × R1T2 (7) 1+ M52
2
Eq. 8 shows the actual flow velocity 2 × M 4∗
M4 = 1 + γ 3 × M 42
(cross-section 2): (γ 3 + 1) − (15) P5 = P4 (26)
2
1 + γ 3 × M52
V2 = C2 M2 (8) M 4∗ (γ 3 − 1)
Eqs. 27 and 28 can be used to calculate
The Mach number before mixing the To calculate the mixed active and eject- the outlet pressure from the ejector:
active and ejected streams in the nozzle is ed flow before the exhaust, Eq. 16 is used: 1
expressed by Eq. 9: ⎛ ⎞2
T2
T4 = (16) ⎜ ⎟
γ3 − 1 2 ⎜ ⎟
⎡⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎤ 1+ M4
⎢⎜ × ⎥ 2 Ac P ⎜ 1 ⎟
⎟
⎢⎝ γ 2 − 1 ⎠ ⎥ Ad
= 6⎜
P1 ⎜ (1 + w)
⎟ ×
⎢ γ2 − 1 ⎥ (9) ⎟
Eqs. 17 and 18 calculate the Mach ⎜ ⎟
⎢⎛ Pv ⎞ γ 2 − 1 ⎥
⎢⎜ −1⎥ number at the entrance and exit from the ⎜ ⎛ 1 + w × Tv ⎞ ⎟
⎟ ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝
⎣⎝ P2 ⎠ ⎦ diffuser, respectively: T1 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠ (27)
M v2 =
M22 1
2 1
⎛ γ2 − 1 2
⎞
M 42 + ⎛ P2 ⎞ γ1 ⎛ P ⎞ γ3
In the general case, to obtain the criti- γ3 − 1 (17) ⎜ ⎟
M5 = ⎜⎝ P ⎟⎠ × 1− ⎜ ⎟2
cal Mach number in any section, Eq. 10 2γ 3 ⎜ ⎝ P6 ⎠ ⎟
can be used: M2 − 1 6
⎝ ⎠
γ3 − 1 4 1

Mi2 (γ + 1) ⎛ 2 ⎞γ3 − 1
Mi∗ = (10) ⎜⎝ γ + 1 ⎟⎠ ×
Mi2 (γ − 1) + 2 2 2
M52 + 1
γ3 − 1 ⎛ 2 ⎞2
If Eq. 9 is considered, then the critical M3 = (18)
Mach number at the nozzle outlet is cal-
2γ 3
M2 − 1 ⎜⎝ 1 − γ + 1 ⎟⎠
culated by Eq. 11: γ3 − 1 5 3

γ3
M22 (γ 2 + 1) It should be noted that Eqs. 19 and 20 ⎛ η × γ 3 − 1 ×⎞ γ 3 − 1
M2∗ = (11) (28)
P6 = P5 ⎜ ⎟
d
2
M2 (γ 2 − 1) + 2 are used to calculate the temperature and 2
pressure at the entrance to the diffuser: ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ M5 + 1 ⎠
The ratio for the ejection coefficient is
obtained using Eq. 12: T2 Therefore, the output stream from the
T3 = (19)
m γ1 − 1 2 ejector uses Eq. 29:
w = v 1+ M3
(12) 2 m6 = m1 + mv (29)
m1
The critical Mach number of the mov- P2 Based on the above equations, a com-
ing vapor at the outlet of the nozzle before P3 = γ3 plete set of ratios participates in the work
mixing with the injected vapor is calculat- ⎛1 + γ 3 − 1 2⎞γ3 − 1
M3
(20) of the ejector, which can be written in the
ed with Eq. 13: ⎝ 2 ⎠ algorithm for various operating modes of
86 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com

the ejectors. A block diagram of the cal-
culation of the ejector is shown in FIG. 4.
Development of computer program.
Using this algorithm and the software
program complex, a program was created
for computer simulation of the ejector in
Microsoft Excel. To more accurately sim-
ulate the entire VDU, including vacuum
systems and other equipment, commu-
nication is necessary in connecting the
software system and the Microsoft Excel
block model, creating files between the
software system and Microsoft Excel and
sending the data on the VC back from
Excel to the software system. This kind
of communication between program
modules can be done through the tool
of the software package called the Data
Map. This subroutine allowed the set-
ting of the thermodynamic parameters of
the working and injected gases necessary
for the calculation of the ejector, as well
as the sending of further data back to the
software system for recalculation of the
vacuum unit.
The initial data for the calculation is
transferred from the calculation process
simulation model to the Excel file, and the
pressure in the diffuser (Section 4) is cal-
culated using Eqs. 19 and 20. This value
is transferred to the simulation model as
a specification of the mixer module. At
the output of the module, a mixed flow of
working steam and the pumped mixture
is formed, and the adiabatic coefficient γ3
is determined in the process simulation
model, the value of which is transferred to
Eq. 20. Then, the pressure at the exit from
the ejector is determined (Eq. 28), and
the ejection coefficient is calculated from
Eq. 27, which is compared with the value
determined in the process simulation
model—data on the streams of the work-
ing and pumped mixtures is transferred
to the user program in which the ejection
coefficient is calculated.
If these values do not match, then the
pressure at the inlet to the ejector chang-
es; since the pressure of the working vapor
and throat diameter of the nozzle do not
change, the stream of the working vapor
remains unchanged. As a result, the ther-
mos-physical parameters and the flowrate
of the pumped mixture change, and the
calculation is repeated. If the values are
the same, then the calculation ends.
An important parameter that deter-
mines the operability of a VCS is the
Design parameters calculation setting of
thermodynamic parameters of working and
injected steam, calculation in software platform
Calculation of the Mach number, nozzle exit
pressure and temperature using Eqs. 3–5
Calculation of V2, C2, M2, Mv2,
using Eqs. 6–12
Evaluation of the ejection coefficient
value of W:W1
FIG. 4. Flow chart of the algorithm for calculating the ejector.
backpressure at the output of the system,
as it “cuts off ” the environment from the
evacuated object. In this article, it has
been assumed that this pressure remains
unchanged over the investigated range
of VCSs. If, during the calculation, the
pressure at the output of the SEP 3-stage
condenser is higher or lower than the
fixed value, the pressure at the inlet to
the top of the VC changes, which leads
to a change in the flowrate of the medium
that is pumped out of the VCS. The pres-
sure was changed until the pressure at the
outlet from the VCS became equal to the
fixed backpressure.
Part 2 of this article will appear in the
November issue of Hydrocarbon Process-
ing and will detail the results and solu-
tions found in the simulations and mod-
els discussed here.
NOTES
a
CHEMCAD is Chemstations’ software suite
for process simulation.
b
Pro-II modeling system, Simulation Sciences Inc.
NOTATIONS AND SYMBOLS
VCS Vacuum-creating system
SEP Steam ejector pump
P Pressure, kPa
T Temperature, K
A Cross-sectional area, m2
γ Adiabatic exponent
η Efficiency
C Sound speed, m/sec
V Actual speed, m/sec
Process Optimization
Calculation of the injected steam flowrate
using software platform: mv
Calculation of M*4, M4, T4, M3, M5,
using Eqs. 13–17
Calculation of T3, V3, P3, V4, C4, C3, T5, P5,
using Eqs. 18–25
Calculation of the outlet pressure P5
from the ejector using Eq. 27
Calculation of W using Eq. 26
No
W1–W2 < ε
Yes
Pc
M Mach number
w Ejection factor
R Universal gas constant
LITERATURE CITED
Complete literature cited available online at
HydrocarbonProcessing.com.
TELYAKOV EDWARD
SHARKHIYEVICH is a Professor
in the Machines and Apparatuses
of Chemical Production department
of Kazan National Research
Technological University. His sphere
of scientific interests includes
regularities of multicomponent conjugate mass-heat
transfer in gas (vapor)-liquid systems, and the
development of rational schemes and methods for
the separation of industrial complex, non-ideal,
multi-component mixtures. Dr. Sharkhiyevich earned
his PhD in technical sciences.
OSIPOV EDWARD
VLADISLAVOVICH is an Associate
Professor in the Machines and
Apparatuses of Chemical Production
department of Kazan National
Research Technological University.
His scientific specialties include the
perfection of the technological design of vacuum-
creating systems of industrial objects, and system
analysis of complex chemical-technological systems.
Dr. Vladislavovich earned his PhD in technical sciences.
DANIEL BUGEMBE is an Assistant
Professor in the Process and
Apparatuses of Chemical
Technology department of Kazan
National Research Technological
University. His scientific interests
include system analysis of complex
chemical-technological systems.
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 87
 Liquefied Natural Gas

REAL-TIME LNG DATA

Any project. Any time. Any place.
Updated in real time, the Energy Web Atlas, a web-based platform,
enables users to access worldwide facility and project data.

Actionable Data
• Owner/Operator • LNG shipping/vessel
• Project status information

• Project storage and capacity • Global Shipping Ports

• Shareholder data • Global Natural Gas Pipelines

• Process method

Comprehensive
Functionality
• Import external data
• Custom annotation,
reporting and graphing
• Interactive data filtering
• Layer/attribute access
and modification
• Production quality maps,
PDF exports

• Data exports • Interactive charts/statistics

DISCOVER MORE AT ENERGYWEBATLAS.COM


More residue processing in FCCUs
Resid units have more than 2 wt% Conradson carbon resi-
due (Concarbon) in feed and more than 5,000 parts per mil-
lion (ppm) of nickel (Ni) and vanadium (V) on equilibrium
catalysts (Ecat). Processing residue influences catalyst, addi-
tive selection, unit equipment and operation. It is essential to
select higher-activity catalysts with metal traps to handle resi-
due, while keeping catalyst properties the same.
In 2010, China limited rare earth oxide (REO) exports,
which led to an increase in global prices. This action led to a
significant decrease in REO content in fluid catalytic crack-
ing (FCC) catalysts around the world. FCC operators that
produced more propylene preferred to use low-rare-earth and
high-matrix catalysts to avoid boosting hydrogen (H2 ) trans-
fer reactions and saturating the olefins. Although the average
REO in FCC catalysts decreased, higher total surface areas
(TSAs) compensated for the overall catalyst activity, since ac-
tivity is related to both REO and TSA.
The units can be limited from either coke or H2 , while
processing residues. Coke must be burned off to restore the
catalyst activity. Main air blower or wet gas compressor ca-
pacities may be exceeded with the increases in H2 and delta
coke. Upper boundaries for the temperature in the regenera-
tor and stripping efficiencies are other bottlenecks, since they
are strongly interrelated with the coke remaining on the spent
catalyst. If the hardware in the regenerator or regenerator de-
sign cannot cope with the temperature increase or afterburn,
this will also be a limiting factor.
Catalyst that can be used for the feed containing residue
must have a coke-selective matrix and an optimal zeolite-to-
matrix ratio to obtain selective cracking. Catalysts need to be
tailored according to the requirements of the refineries (e.g.,
maximizing conversion, and increasing metals tolerance and
distillate or propylene yield). Increased Ni content can be
mitigated by the addition of antimony (Sb) to the catalyst in-
ventory. When Ni on the Ecat exceeds 1,000 wppm, Sb can be
injected into the feed—the H2 /methane (CH4 ) ratio is conti-
nously monitored and kept below 0.8. Sb reacts with Ni in the
FCC feed and forms the Sb oxide NiSb2O4. An Ecat Sb:Ni ra-
tio of 0.2–0.4 is generally used. With this mechanism, the de-
hydrogenation activity of Ni is highly reduced. As a result, H2
yield and delta coke are decreased, resulting in lower wet gas
volume, lower regenerator temperature and better yields. Sb
can also inhibit the performance of carbon monoxide (CO)
promoters. Therefore, it is crucial to balance the Sb amount
Catalyst
M. GENC, Tupras, Korfez, Turkey; U. KARANI,
I. EMIROGLU and I. ER, Tupras, Izmir, Turkey;
and S. KANDAZ, Albemarle Corp., Amsterdam,
Netherlands
required for Ni tolerance and afterburn that can be increased
in the regenerator.
V is a mobile metal, in contrast to Ni, and can deactivate
the catalyst severely. V results in the formation of vanadic ac-
ids that can remove sodium (Na) from the zeolite framework
and be converted to sodium hydroxide (NaOH) via hydroly-
sis reactions. Hydroxyl groups in NaOH can cause zeolite de-
struction. Therefore, it is better to keep Na on fresh catalyst at
low levels so as not to enhance V poisoning. V traps can either
be incorporated into the catalyst matrix or added separately.
Traps must be effective in immobilizing V and hindering it
from reaching the acid sites.
Results and discussion. Tupras’ Izmir refinery’s FCCU
was designed in 1972 for a feedrate of 2,225 m3/d (14,000
bpd) of heavy vacuum gasoil (HVGO) and lube oil byprod-
ucts. The unit is a side-by-side configuration with a bubbling
bed regenerator operating in partial burn, a riser disengaging
system with rough-cut cyclones, and feed injection at the bot-
tom of the riser.
The Izmir refinery’s FCCU can process lube oil extracts,
HVGO with APIs between 20 and 22, sulfur up to 2.5 wt%, ni-
trogen between 1,000 ppmw and 1,600 ppmw, and total metals
around 2 wppm. The unit started using proprietary catalysts in
2012.a Ecat Ni and V can be approximately 1,000 wppm and
5,000 wppm, respectively, while 70 wt% micro-activity test
(MAT) can still be preserved in the unit. Ecat V and Ni can be
as high as in a resid FCCU, although no residue is used in the
Izmir refinery’s FCCU. One of the HVGO streams processed
in this unit can be very heavy, with a Concarbon of 2.5 wt%–
3.5 wt%, Ni of 1 ppmw and V of 3 ppmw–4 ppmw.
Ecat properties obtained during the trial are shown in
FIGS. 1–3. Although feed Concarbon is between 0.6 wt% and
0.85 wt%, heavy tails present in a feed with a 3.5 wt% Concar-
bon level can build up on Ecat, resulting in an increase in delta
coke. When an additive with high cerium oxide (CeO2 ) con-
tent or a catalyst with a high rare-earth (La2O3) amount is used
in partial-burn units, this promotes the formation of delta coke.
For units that have a high amount of V in the feed, V traps can
be incorporated, blended into the catalyst or used separately.
Therefore, it is important to control the rare-earth level in the
inventory so as not to increase the formation of coke. It is also
possible that V traps can become sulfonated in the regenerator
by attracting sulfur oxides because of their basic structure.
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 89
 Catalyst

Basic nitrogen in the feed can neutralize the active acid sites of treating units and additive consumption to decrease flue gas
of the catalyst, but it is a temporary poison. A basic nitrogen
Catalyst that can be used for the feed
containing residue must have a coke-
selective matrix and an optimal zeolite-to-
matrix ratio to obtain selective cracking.
amount is assumed to be one third of the total nitrogen content.
The riser outlet temperature and Ecat activity must be increased
to compensate for the increase in feed nitrogen. Nitrogen and
sulfur also influence flue gas emissions. Approximately 40% of
nitrogen ends up on coke and 25% of it is converted to nitric
oxide (NOx ), while 3%–5% of feed sulfur remaining on coke
leaves as sulfur oxide (SOx ). As the feeds get heavier, sulfur and riods for which feed properties, amount and operating condi-
nitrogen remaining in the products increase, along with SOx
and NOx . Consequently, catalyst consumption, operating costs
emissions increase with the increase in sulfur and nitrogen.
Processing residue also directly affects the coke
remaining on catalysts. Types of coke include cata-
lytic coke, additive coke, contaminant coke and
cat-to-oil coke. Additive coke is related to the feed
properties of basic nitrogen and Concarbon, while
contaminant coke is affected by dehydrogenation
metals, such as Ni, copper (Cu), V and iron (Fe).
Catalytic coke is affected by the cracking activity
of the catalyst, while stripper efficiency is associated
with cat-to-oil coke. Nearly 60% of the coke present
on Ecat results from catalytic coke, 25% from strip-
per coke, 10% from contaminant coke and 5% from the feed
coke. Therefore, it is important to keep Ecat activity at a certain
level and to refrain from sudden loadings of fresh catalyst that
may simultaneously increase catalyst activity and coke forma-
tion on Ecat. The goal is to keep Ecat activity at the same level
during the trial, since this may also affect the conversion. Pe-
tions (such as riser outlet temperature, pressure and feed inlet
temperature) are similar should be compared for a fair evalu-

4,500
4,000 TABLE 1. Proprietary catalyst performance compared to the
3,500 base catalyst
3,000 Base Proprietary
Ecat V, ppm

2,500 Catalyst feed properties catalyst catalystb

2,000
1,500 Density, kg/l Base Base
1,000 Base catalyst Conradson, wt% Base Base
500 Proprietary catalystb
0 Distillation, °C
July-6 Nov.-18 April-1 Aug.-14 Dec.-27 May-10 Sept.-22 5% Base Base
FIG. 1. Ecat V content. 50% Base Base
70% Base Base
1,400 Catalyst data
Base catalyst
1,200 Proprietary catalystb Ecat FST activity, wt% Base 4.8
1,000 Ecat Ni, ppm Base Base
Ecat V, ppm

800 Ecat V, ppm Base Base

600 Operating conditions
400 Feedrate, tph Base Base
200 Riser outlet temperature, °C Base Base
July-6 Nov.-18 April-1 Aug.-14 Dec.-27 May-10 Sept.-22
Regenerator dense phase Base 9
FIG. 2. Ecat Ni content. temperature, °C
Yields, cutpoint corrected
76 Dry gas, wt% Base 0.6
74
LPG, wt% Base 1.3
72
70 Gasoline, wt% Base 2.3
FST activity, %

68 Light cycle oil (LCO), wt% Base –1.6

66 Slurry, wt% Base –2.6
64 Base catalyst Coke, wt% Base 0
62 Proprietary catalystb
60 Conversion (100-LCO-slurry), wt% Base 4.2
July-6 Nov.-18 April-1 Aug.-14 Dec.-27 May-10 Sept.-22
Research octane number (RON) Base 0.5
FIG. 3. Ecat fluid simulation test (FST) activity. Octane barrels Base 1,245

90 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Catalyst

ation. Catalyst concentration in the inventory is preferred to
be above 70 wt% during the trials. During the period when a
proprietary catalyst was used,b a substantial increase in the gas-
oline yield (2.3 wt%) was seen, while the conversion increase
was 4.2 wt%. The octane barrel increase was 1,245 (TABLE 1).
This aided the blending of heavier streams to the feed blend
and converting more bottom-of-the-barrel to valuable prod-
ucts in one of the cracker units.
Takeaway. Refiners must take advantage of processing heavier
opportunity crudes, while meeting the challenges in processing
different feed types. Additional hydrotreating capacities, new
catalyst formulations and new investments are inevitable for res-
idue processing. The FCCU is the main cracking unit that can
handle more residue in refineries. Therefore, selecting the op-
timum zeolite-to-matrix ratio, coke-selective matrix, low fresh-
catalyst Na content and metal traps are important for determin-
ing yield requirements and decreasing delta coke production.
The other option is to conduct revamps in the reactor-regen-
erator internals or downstream equipment in response to the
expected increases in coke and H2 yields. Refineries that can
process more residue with gasoil will be able to supersede other
producers by increasing their overall profits.
NOTES
a
Refers to Albemarle catalysts
b
Refers to Albemarle’s GO-ULTRA catalysts
MIRAY GENÇ is a Process Superintendent responsible for troubleshooting,
process, operations, catalyst, additive changes, revamp and design projects
of FCC/Prime G units at Tupras refineries. Previously, she worked as a
Process Superintendent for hydrocracker, SMR, SRU, visbreaker, coker
and treatment units, and also as a chemical engineer at the Turkish Council
of Research and Development/Middle East Technical University (METU)
collaboration. She holds an MS degree in polymer science and technology,
and a BS degree in chemical engineering from METU.
UTKU KARANI is an Operations Superintendent of FCC, naphtha hydrotreater,
SR reformer, diesel/kerosine HT, LPG and gas treating units at Tupras’
Izmir refinery. He has been working in operations and process departments
in different roles for 10 yr. Mr. Karani received a BS degree in chemical
engineering from METU and an MS degree in engineering management
from the Izmir Institute of Technology.
IBRAHIM CAGRI EMIROGLU is a Process Superintendent responsible
for hydroprocessing units. He has been working at the Izmir refinery
since 2006. His scope of work is tracking key performance indicators
(KPIs) and optimizing the process conditions of the units. He earned
a BS degree in chemical engineering from METU and an MS degree in
industrial engineering.
ILAY ER is a Chief Operations Engineer of the FCCU in Tupras’ Izmir
refinery. She earned a BS degree in chemical engineering and an MS degree
in engineering management from METU. She is responsible for operations,
maintenance and troubleshooting issues. She previously worked as a
process engineer in the FCC and visbreaker units in the Izmir refinery.
SONGUL KANDAZ is a technical consultant for FCCUs in Europe. The
consultancy support includes catalyst performance and change, operational
problems, differences in feed, FCC-SIM and all other FCCU troubleshooting
areas. Trained as a chemical engineer, she has a 13-yr background as a process
engineer in FCC catalysts, FCCUs and related operations.

LIVE WEBCAST:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 | 10 a.m. CDT / 3 p.m. UTC

Mike Marsh
Product Marketing Manager
Honeywell UOP
Filling the Propylene Gap: Shaping the Future with
On-Purpose Technologies
Global demand for propylene continues to rise, and the market is projected to enjoy solid
growth rates for the foreseeable future.
With this increase, however, traditional sources of propylene no longer meet the demand.
On-purpose propylene solutions are necessary to fill the propylene gap.
Join Honeywell UOP’s team of experts as they discuss market trends and explore a variety
Jeff Wery of on-purpose solutions with a focus on propane dehydrogenation and UOP’s Oleflex™
Technology Manager Technology solution.
Honeywell UOP
You’ll learn what’s driving the market and gain insight to a variety of on-purpose technologies.
Plus, a cross-functional panel of UOP’s R&D, technology and business leaders will be available
to answer your questions in the Q&A session.

Register For Free: HydrocarbonProcessing.com/Webcasts

Lee Nichols
Editor/Associate Publisher
Hydrocarbon Processing

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 91

Inside intelligence for the
downstream industry
Hydrocarbon Processing provides cutting-edge operational and
technical information to improve plant reliability, profitability, safety
and end-product quality.

Sign up for a Free Trial

Visit HydrocarbonProcessing.com

.com
ocessing
rbonPr
Hydroca
H 2018 |
MARC
HYDROC
ARBON
PROCES
SING

FUELS
MARCH

A N
2018

CL E gasolin
e
LCO to
Convert
CLEAN

N
ith a high RO
w els
dual fu
FUELS

ng resi ts
Upgradi produc
-value
prod uce high
to
TIMIZ ATION
SS OP
PROCE operations
ng
Desalti crudes
rtunity
for oppo ENT
NAGEM a refinery—
CT MA
PROJE in demolition of rs
Flexibili
ty winne
h many
exit wit
A site
OINT creasing
VIEWP ion is key to in uctivity
italizat
Dig ’s prod
stry
ess indu
the proc

The road to successful plant modernization
Any personnel working in a refinery or
heavy petrochemical plant with “vintage”
automation equipment are painfully aware
of the effects a distributed control system
(DCS) from the 1990s, 1980s or even ear-
lier can have on operations. These old con-
trol platforms are built on long-obsolete
technology, which means that replacement
parts and people who understand how
they work are in short supply. These chal-
lenges are growing with each passing day.
Unscheduled outages caused by failures
of old components threaten plant efficien-
cy and even operational viability. However,
some plants are still postponing upgrades
to current platforms. Those facilities that
are actually launching projects often do
not go nearly far enough with possible im-
provements, and significant opportunities
are lost as a result. Why is this the case, and
what can be done to alleviate the situation?
Avoiding implementation of an in-
adequate upgrade. A plant launching
a DCS upgrade project will usually begin
by forming a venture team with members
representing different functional areas,
including operations, project execution
and the business unit. From these varied
viewpoints, this team determines what the
facility or process unit requires, performs
a preliminary field survey (TABLE 1) and
develops preliminary system architecture
drawings. The team often engages with
main automation contractors (MACs) to
understand their product offerings and
further develop a more detailed and ex-
tensive scope development.
Generally, the drivers for DCS upgrade
include:
• Obsolescence: Old automation
hardware and software operating
systems have passed into
obsolescence and create far
too much risk to production
Process Control
and Instrumentation
H. KANG, Yokogawa, Houston, Texas
and profitability. Automation demand a more drastic solution
equipment may be updated with a rip-and-replace approach.
incrementally, if necessary, for • Operational excellence: Updating
budgetary reasons, beginning with systems can enable numerous
the oldest/most troublesome and operational improvements with
gradually replacing everything. more sophisticated control
• Safety and regulatory strategies and other techniques.
compliance: Some situations Fortunately, upgrades often can be
where failures are chronic may implemented with most instrumentation
TABLE 1. Field survey checklist
☐ Field instruments, including control valve positioners, transmitters and manifolds
(and other field devices): Would new smart instrumentation be less expensive and
provide more information for the future (predictive maintenance) than the existing?
☐ Instrumentation process connections and piping tabs: Is the replacement of existing
manifolds and tubing required?
☐ Safety shutdown systems: Do they meet the upcoming regulations?
☐ Analyzers: Are they obsolete? Do they meet the emissions monitoring regulatory
requirements?
☐ Bypasses on valves: Are they in place, and will the bypasses hold? What infrastucture
is available for later cutovers?
☐ Field cabling: Assess the field cabling for UV and damage from the elements. This is a
central decision and could change the overall new systems architecture. How much room
is in the cable trays for additional cabling, if required?
☐ Control room equipment: How will the control room change with the new operator
consoles? Will new lighting be required, and how will the changeout occur?
☐ Rack room equipment: Is space available for the new equipment in the existing rack room?
How will this be staged during the conversion?
☐ At one of the preliminary steps, evaluate existing documentation and accuracy to better
identify scope/risk of the project. Review with operations the accuracy of loop diagrams,
instrument specifications sheets, building infrastructure drawings, field plot diagrams,
wiring diagrams, electrical diagrams, etc.
☐ Existing alarm panels: Will they be needed with the new system? What is the philosophy
for hardwired alarms?
☐ Existing subsystem interfaces/protocols: How will these interface to the new system?
☐ Third-party PLCs: Will some of these PLCs also be obsolete? Can someone at the plant
maintain these? Should the functionality be incorporated into the new DCS system?
☐ UPS sizing: Are they sized to support the new system?
☐ Building grounding drawings: How will the new system be grounded?
☐ Interfaces to plant/corporate IT systems: What interfaces are required to existing plant
and corporate IT systems, such as email and maintanence? Is the new system designed
to be cyber secure?
☐ Organization of process I/O from equipment: How is it now organized, and how can it be
improved? Are specific I/Os going across multiple controllers?
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 93
 Process Control and Instrumentation
and field wiring left intact and reused,
which is important:
• Replacing field wiring is
prohibitively expensive
• In addition to the hardware costs,
implementing and testing thousands
of terminations is an enormous task
• In most plants, much of the
instrumentation has been updated
incrementally and is in good
working condition.
The MAC may present these points as
facts, but instrumentation and field wiring
considerations should be examined more
closely. Running new wiring is expensive,
Wiring
I/O panels
Controllers
Workstation
Monitors
0 10
FIG. 1. The lifespan of various parts of an automation system are different, with some becoming
obsolete faster than others.
FIG. 2. System I/O becomes soft network I/O since it is configurable via software.
94 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
but the actual cost depends on how it is
approached. Some wiring practices, such
as traditional methods used with old plat-
forms, are indeed very costly, but alterna-
tives exist. Considering the age and condi-
tion of instrumentation, the belief that all
of it is reusable is often wishful thinking.
Fixating on cost. Naturally, plants seek-
ing to launch an upgrade project want to
keep costs as low as possible, while deliv-
ering enough benefits to justify expendi-
tures. The problem is understanding what
those budgetary figures should look like.
How much improvement is enough, and
20 30 40
Yr
what will it cost? Is there a direct link be-
tween realized improvements and price?
Referencing this article’s first list of
bullet points for drivers for DCS upgrade,
a different approach can be considered.
Some instrumentation, perhaps much of
it, may still be usable, but trying to reduce
the overall project cost by leaving old net-
working and wiring infrastructure in place
is often a serious false economy. The desire
to minimize cost also reduces potential im-
provements to be gained from the effort.
The result of a long and expensive migra-
tion project may be little more than like-
for-like, with the same capabilities as prior
to running on a more updated platform.
Lifetime limits of infrastructure. The
two main arguments in favor of an up-
grade project are logical: obsolete systems
interfere with effective production, and
they lack the capabilities that plants need
to improve overall performance. Prob-
lems emerge because evaluation teams
accept ideas for both arguments that are
incomplete or overly simplistic.
What equipment should be consid-
ered obsolete? How old is too old (FIG. 1)?
Little argument can be made against put-
ting items like human-machine inter-
faces (HMIs) and main DCS processors,
among others, on the list of equipment
needing replacement. However, as men-
tioned previously, some will suggest that
instrumentation and field wiring be left
as-is. Does infrastructure never wear out?
Does wire function forever? Can func-
tional improvements be gained by updat-
ing field device-level communication?
A typical field instrument [e.g., a dif-
ferential pressure (DP) transmitter in-
stalled in the process unit] has a cable
running back to the input/output (I/O)
cabinet of the DCS. Between the trans-
mitter and the I/O card, multiple cabinets
and approximately 20 termination points
can, if electrical contact is not complete,
interrupt communication and cause loss
of view for the transmitter. Is it unrea-
sonable to suspect that a screw might be
corroding unnoticed, or that insulation is
becoming brittle and deteriorating within
30-yr-old cables and cabinets?
Improvement has been made to con-
ventional single-pair cables carrying a
4 mA–20 mA analog signal. The major-
ity of field instruments in a process unit
are now equipped with at least HART 5,
but how many DCS platforms more than
 Process Control and Instrumentation

10 yr–15 yr old have HART capability
of any kind? Old platforms usually have
“dumb” I/O capable of handling an analog
signal, but that is the extent of their tech-
nology. Smart instrumentation working
with such I/O realizes little of the poten-
tial benefits. Workarounds exist, but they
are cumbersome and often ineffective.
Improving infrastructure. Many up-
grade teams accept the idea that infra-
structure can be left alone, because they
do not recognize the paths to improve-
ment available with today’s systems. Tra-
ditional field wiring uses a mix of indi-
vidual and multi-conductor cables to get
from an individual transmitter to the I/O
rack of the DCS. When a vibrating-fork
level switch is wired to the DCS, it is hard-
wired as a digital device. If a process im-
provement calls for that tag to be changed
to a 4 mA–20 mA pressure transmitter, it
might be easier said than done.
New DCS platforms have adopted
“smart” I/O. An I/O cabinet is placed
in the process unit, and cables run from
the cabinet to instruments and actuators
(FIG. 2). The cabinet has configurable in-
puts that can be changed individually to
match whatever device it is serving. So,
if the level switch just mentioned must
be changed to an analog device, it can be
done easily. Hard I/O becomes soft I/O.
Since the cabinets can be configured once
installed, they do not have to be made as
custom orders. The stock cabinet pur-
chased off the shelf is placed in the pro-
cess unit and can be configured as each
device is connected.
The soft and smart I/O sends data to
and from the DCS via fiberoptic cabling,
rather than via traditional home-run
multi-conductor instrument cables. This
smart I/O can send all instrument data to
the DCS, so diagnostic data and second-
ary variables are easily accessible. As an
added benefit, most of the hand-screwed
termination points between the device
and the DCS I/O card are eliminated.
Only four terminations may exist, which
makes troubleshooting easier and faster.
Modernization context. Process manu-
facturing plants have little incentive to
replace something that is operating well.
Age alone is rarely a primary consider-
ation, which is why so many plants have
such old automation equipment and in-
frastructure. However, the two main argu-
ments for migration—reliability problems
caused by obsolescence and functionality
limitations—are inescapable.
What does a modernization project
covering the whole distance, including in-
frastructure, look like?
The new DCS should be thought of
as a platform to improve production and
efficiency by removing the impediments
caused by the old, unreliable platform,
and to provide new tools to achieve bet-
ter performance, which can be defined as
higher production volumes, lower pro-
duction costs, reduced energy consump-
tion, increased regulatory compliance and
greater feedstock handling flexibility.
Safety is part of the discussion because
incidents cause production disruptions.
The capabilities of modernized automa-
tion technologies are designed around
three factors (FIG. 3):
• Improved advanced process control

Publishing in November 2018

Pre-Order
HPI MARKET and Save 10%

DATA 2019
Call +1 (713) 520-4426
or pre-order online at
Store.GulfEnergyInfo.com/
HPIMDB2019

What is the future of downstream

capital construction?
Discover how market conditions will impact Obtain HPI Market Data 2019 to:
spending and business activity in the global
• Plan strategically for 2019 and beyond
petrochemical, refining and natural gas/LNG
industries. HPI Market Data 2019 is the • Locate new opportunities in today’s
hydrocarbon processing industry’s most changing environment
trusted forecast of capital, maintenance and • Obtain regional and market analysis to
operating expenditures. Produced annually inform your planning
by the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing
• Discover how spending trends by sector
and featuring data provided by governments
will impact your company.
and private organizations, this comprehensive
resource gives critical insight into HPI market
trends, spending and activity.
 Process Control and Instrumentation
(APC) concepts planning and intentionality. One aspect
• Engagement with the changing that cannot be ignored is automation
workforce infrastructure. Field instrumentation
• Operation in a secure environment and actuators must perform flawlessly
with minimal cyber risks. to realize the ultimate benefits. Trying to
APC techniques encompass a wide implement APC on top of a crumbling
range of approaches and practices, as foundation of legacy field networks in-
shown in FIG. 4. Choosing the specific vites difficulties.
strategy for a given plant depends on a va-
riety of factors, which include some com- The great shift change. Many compa-
mon elements: nies are seeing large numbers of person-
• Improved process yields nel leaving in waves of retirements. One
• Increased throughput refiner lamented that a single site had lost
• Reduced energy consumption 2,500 yr of combined experience as 100
• Improved process stability. operators retired, each with more than 25
In the refining and petrochemical seg- yr in the plant. Any process unit that de-
ments, production gains of 2%–5% have pends on people to keep things running
been routinely realized after APC imple- smoothly with manual control, rather
mentation as processes are optimized. than effective automation, is in danger of
Achieving these gains requires careful reduced performance and efficiency.
Plants using modernized automation
technologies have fewer concerns. Effec-
tively implemented APC concepts do not
depend on constant human intervention.
Even procedures such as startups, shut-
downs and grade changes, among others,
can be automated rather than run manu-
ally. The retiring generation of workers
may find this idea a bit daunting, but
incoming personnel are often far more
willing to depend on proven automation
technology. They believe that anything
that can be automated, should be auto-
mated. This is the new reality, and it is
better to change the systems to embrace
FIG. 3. Realizing operational excellence it than to row against the current.
requires facing three major challenges As automation takes on ever-growing
of a modernization project. importance, security often becomes a
100 100
Optimization
80
80
Bennefit potential, %
Advanced process control (APC), %
60
Multi-variable
control (MVC)
40
30
Enhanced regulatory
control (ERC) 20
15
Basic control
0 polyethylene and subsea projects. Ms. Kang worked
0 20 40 60 80 100
Capital cost (including labor), %
FIG. 4. Multivariable control is one type of APC able to stabilize a process to increase productivity.
96 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
greater concern. Modernized plants are
connected enterprises, but the ability to
read process data on many types of smart
devices from virtually any location carries
cybersecurity risks. The same paths that
carry information can be attack vectors.
The most urgent questions plant own-
ers ask relate to protecting networks and
the information they carry. Is it possible
to keep out hackers and protect networks
from malware infections?
No system is completely impregnable,
but a modern system built with cyberse-
curity imported from the initial design is
far more reliable than an old DCS. Legacy
systems are far more porous attack surfaces
and are, therefore, subject to far more po-
tential damage if an attacker gains access.
Future-proof concepts. A process au-
tomation system installed today that fully
embraces the concepts of modern tech-
nology should never require a complete
replacement. Old DCS platforms must of-
ten be replaced completely because they
are so monolithic. Today’s systems are far
more modular, meaning that they can be
improved incrementally. More function-
ality is defined by software rather than
hardware, so it can be updated far more
easily. Smart I/O, where it is possible to
change the device type or communica-
tion method from an engineering station,
is just one example.
Major gains stemming from plant
modernization do not happen by acci-
dent, and they do not occur from a DCS
upgrade project where the primary con-
cern is cost. Such projects can produce
a like-for-like result, and possibly some
modest improvement in capability. How-
ever, such successes are usually short-
lived. Within a few years, another project
will need to be launched to compensate
for the lost opportunities. Modernization
is not a time for half measures, and follow-
ing the guidelines outlined in this article
will ensure that DCS upgrade projects are
performed correctly.
HYONSOOK KANG is an Industry
Consultant for Yokogawa Corp.
of America. She has 35 yr of
experience in the oil, gas and
chemical industries, working as
an Engineering Manager/Project
Manager for major LNG, ethylene,
for Shell for the bulk of her career before joining
Yokogawa, and she holds a BS degree in chemical
engineering from The University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
 ®

O U R S P I R I T O F I N N O VA T I O N D R I V E S
A W A R D - W I N N I N G T E C H N O L O G Y.
REAL-TIME, DIRECT FLARE MONITORING CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Go with the direct flare monitoring system that eliminates inaccuracies and delays. FlareGuardian™ complies with
Refinery RTR rule. It does not contact any corrosive waste streams and can be installed while the flare is in service.
If you want to enhance operating efficiency, reduce emissions, and accurately monitor key metrics like smoke index
and combustion efficiency in real time, go with FlareGuardian. Go Zeeco.

Winner of the 2018 HP Award for Best HSE Implementation

Zeeco.com/FlareGuardian
Zeeco Inc. | +1 (918) 258-8551 | Zeeco.com
Select 70 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

B U RN ERS | FLARE S | THE RMAL OXID IZERS | VAPOR CONTROL | RENTALS | AFTER MAR KET
® 2018 Zeeco Inc. All rights reserved.
LEE NICHOLS, EDITOR/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
Lee.Nichols@HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Onsite

1 Jenny Hebert and George Yaluris

of Albemarle accept the HP Award
for Best Catalyst Technology.

2 Representatives from DuPont

accept the HP Award for Best
Refining Technology. From left to
right: Mike Cherry, Joe Schwarzbach,
Shane Presley, Jeannie Branzaru
and Eli Ben-Shoshan.

3 MJ Rahman, Akash Desai and

Sanjay Singh of KBR pose with 1 6
their Best Refining Technology
and Best Catalyst Technology
finalist plaques.

4 A packed audience was on hand

at the 2nd annual HP Awards.

5 Senior members of LyondellBasell

celebrate the groundbreaking of
its $2.4-B propylene oxide/tertiary
butyl alcohol plant in Houston. 2
6 Eni’s OTE GT 15 lubricant received
the HP Award for Best Asset Integrity
Technology. From left to right:
Manuela Toscanini, Valter D’Angeli
and Anna Rita Carta. 7
7 Gary Freburger, President Process
Automation, Schneider Electric,
presented the opening keynote
address at the 2018 Foxboro User
Group Conference. 3

8 Great conversations and networking

highlighted Jacobs Engineering’s
event at the Engineering and
Construction Contracting (ECC)
Association’s 50th annual 8
conference. From left to right:
Kevin Syphard, Brent Schier,
Ana Roberson, David Sammonds
and Rafael Eduardo Rueda.
4

9 A delegation from Dow Chemical

came together to celebrate
Paul Duhon as a nominee for
Most Promising Engineer at
the HP Awards.
5 9
98 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 10 All the HP Award winners pose
for a silly photo at the end
of the night.

11 Todd Voight, Galip Guvelioglu,

Fred Yamin and Romain Lemoine
of McDermott accept the HP Award
for Best Gas Processing Technology.

12 “Adapting to change is crucial to

capturing opportunities” was the
message General Stanley McChrystal
(retired) presented during his
opening keynote at the ECC
PerspECCtives 2018 conference.
10
13 Siemens walked away with
two honors at the HP Awards—
Most Promising Engineer and
Best Modeling Technology.

14 Representatives of Sadara Chemical

Co.—Dow Chemical and Saudi
Aramco—accept the 2018 Spirit of
ECC award at the ECC PerspECCtives
11 2018 conference for the Sadara
chemical complex project.
15
15 A large delegation from Emerson
was on hand at the HP Awards.
The company was a finalist in
several categories—Best
Digitalization, Analyzer, Automation
and Instrument technologies
and Most Promising Engineer.

16 Martin Turk, Schneider Electric,

accepts the HP Award for
12 Best Automation Technology
from Adrienne Blume (left)
and Catherine Watkins of
16 Hydrocarbon Processing.

17 The 2018 ECC Chair, Julie Lambert,

Phillips 66, provided welcome
remarks at the ECC PerspECCtives
2018 conference.

13

14 17
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018 99
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 Page RS# Company Page RS# Company Page RS#
Website Website Website
Advanced Refining Technologies ..............S-82 (55) HP Circulation .................................... 72, 92 Pepperl+Fuchs ........................................... 26 (157)
www.info.hotims.com/70519-55 www.info.hotims.com/70519-157
HPI Market Data 2019 ............................... 95
American Institute of Chemical Engineers .... 66 Prosernat .................................................. 24 (156)
HP Webcast ........................30, 57, 62, 65, 91 www.info.hotims.com/70519-156
American Petroleum Institute ......................16 (153)
www.info.hotims.com/70519-153 Haldor Topsoe A/S.......................................17 (93) Sherwin Williams ....................................... 22 (83)
Axens .......................................................104 (51) www.info.hotims.com/70519-93 www.info.hotims.com/70519-83
www.info.hotims.com/70519-51 Harsco Industrial Air-X-Changers / Hammco 11 (88) Sinopec Tech ................................................6 (59)
BOLDROCCHI SrL .........................................46 (159) www.info.hotims.com/70519-88 www.info.hotims.com/70519-59
www.info.hotims.com/70519-159
HOERBIGER Wien GmbH .............................. 28 (158) Spraying Systems Co .................................. 35 (67)
Borsig GmbH ............................................. 85 (162) www.info.hotims.com/70519-158 www.info.hotims.com/70519-67
www.info.hotims.com/70519-162
Curtiss-Wright—Est Group .......................S–79 (161) Idrojet .......................................................49 (160) Swagelok ...................................................18 (73)
www.info.hotims.com/70519-161 www.info.hotims.com/70519-160 www.info.hotims.com/70519-73
ExxonMobil Chemical Company ..................... 5 (94) IES SrL ....................................................... 59 Tubacex..................................................... 20 (152)
www.info.hotims.com/70519-94 www.info.hotims.com/70519-152
Maire Tecnimont .........................................21 (155)
Gulf Energy Information www.info.hotims.com/70519-155 United Laboratories International, LLC ..........37 (58)
www.info.hotims.com/70519-58
Classified Pages ..................................... 101 Merichem Company.....................................31 (84)
Construction Boxscore Database............ S-77 UOP LLC ....................................................... 2 (71)
www.info.hotims.com/70519-84 www.info.hotims.com/70519-71
Energy Web Atlas ............................... 38, 97 Mitsui & Co., Ltd. .........................................12 (151) W. R. Grace & Co..................................... S–80 (89)
Events—WGLC .......................................103 www.info.hotims.com/70519-151 www.info.hotims.com/70519-89
Events—GasPro ......................................60 Neste Engineering Solutions Oy....................14 (154) Zeeco ........................................................ 97 (70)
Gulf Software.......................................... 49 www.info.hotims.com/70519-154 www.info.hotims.com/70519-70

This Index and procedure for securing additional information is provided as a service to Hydrocarbon Processing advertisers and a convenience to our readers. Gulf Energy Information is not responsible for omissions or errors.

RUSSIA/FSU INDONESIA, MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE, THAILAND

Lilia Fedotova Peggy Thay
Anik International & Co. Ltd. Publicitas Singapore Pte Ltd
Phone: +7 (495) 628-10-333 Phone: +65 6836-2272
Catherine Watkins, Publisher E-mail: Lilia.Fedotova@GulfEnergyInfo.com E-mail: Singapore@GulfEnergyInfo.com
Phone: +1 (713) 520-4421
TURKEY, WESTERN EUROPE JAPAN
E-mail: Catherine.Watkins@
HydrocarbonProcessing.com Hamilton Pearman Yoshinori Ikeda
www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com Phone: +33 608 310 575 Pacific Business Inc.
Hamilton.Pearman@GulfEnergyInfo.com Phone: +81 (3) 3661-6138
SALES OFFICES—NORTH AMERICA E-mail: Japan@GulfEnergyInfo.com
UNITED KINGDOM/SCANDINAVIA
EASTERN UNITED STATES, EASTERN CANADA KOREA
Patrick Djuma
Merrie Lynch YB Jeon
Phone: +44 20 3409 2243
Phone: +1 (617) 357-8190 Storm Associates Inc.
E-mail: Patrick.Djuma@GulfEnergyInfo.com
Mobile: +1 (617) 594-4943 Phone: +82 (2) 755-3774
E-mail: Merrie.Lynch@GulfEnergyInfo.com E-mail: Korea@GulfEnergyInfo.com
SALES OFFICES—OTHER AREAS
GULF COAST, SOUTH TEXAS AFRICA, MIDDLE EAST MEXICO, CENTRAL AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA
Austin Milburn Tanya Mbaluli Marco Antonio Monteiro
Phone: +1 (713) 525-4626 Twiga Media Partner Mobile: +55 21 99616-4347
E-mail: Austin.Milburn@ Phone: +254 722 376 972 E-mail: Brazil@GulfEnergyInfo.com
HydrocarbonProcessing.com Email: Mbaluli@GulfEnergyInfo.com
MIDWEST, NORTH TEXAS CLASSIFIED SALES
CHINA—HONG KONG
Josh Mayer Laura Kane
Iris Yuen
Phone: +1 (972) 816-6745 Phone: +1 (713) 412-2389
Phone: +86 13802701367 (China)
E-mail: Josh.Mayer@GulfEnergyInfo.com E-mail: L.Kane@GulfEnergyInfo.com
Phone: +852 69185500 (Hong Kong)
WESTERN UNITED STATES, WESTERN CANADA E-mail: Iris.Yuen@GulfEnergyInfo.com DATA PRODUCTS
Rick Ayer
INDIA J’Nette Davis-Nichols
Phone: +1 (949) 366-9089
Manav Kanwar Phone: +1 (713) 520-4426
E-mail: Rick.Ayer@GulfEnergyInfo.com
Phone: +91-22-2837 7070/71/72 E-mail: Jnette.Davis-Nichols@
SALES OFFICES—EUROPE Mobile: +91-98673 67374 GulfEnergyInfo.com
ITALY, EASTERN EUROPE E-mail: India@GulfEnergyInfo.com
REPRINTS
Fabio Potestá
Mediapoint & Communications SRL Jill Kaletha, Foster Printing at Mossberg & Co.
Phone: +39 (010) 570-4948 Phone: +1 (800) 428-3340 x 149
E-mail: Fabio.Potesta@GulfEnergyInfo.com E-mail: JKaletha@Mossbergco.com

100 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 MARKETPLACE / L.Kane@GulfEnergyInfo.com / +1 (713) 412-2389

Epoxy Resists
Harsh Chemicals
Epoxy Compound EP41S-1HT
Why should you
filter your water?
Scale formation reduces the
heat transfer rate and
increases the water pressure
drop through the heat
exchanger and pipes. In fact,
one study has shown that
Designed to Meet Specific .002" fouling will increase
Application Requirements
pumping needs by 20%.
• Fuel, alcohol & solvent resistant
• Serviceable from -60°F to +400°F

Hackensack, NJ 07601 USA

+1.201.343.8983 • main@masterbond.com

www.masterbond.com

Select 201 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS 2672 S. La Cienega Bl vd, Los Angeles, C A 90034 USA
(800) 336-1942 (310) 839-2828 www.t ekleen.com inf o@t ekleen.com
Flexware® Select 202 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Turbomachinery Engineers
®
Compressors Steam Turbines
• Performance analysis
• Efficiency enhancements — Aero mods
• Gas paths design, CFD, rerates.
• Troubleshooting & root cause failure analysis.
• Rotordynamic & stability analysis.
• Stress & Frequency analysis
www.flexwareinc.com sales@flexwareinc.com

Select 203 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

ARTICLES FOR
DISTRIBUTION
Repurpose editorial
content for distribution
• Electronic Reprints
• High-Quality Glossy Handouts
• Personalized Direct Mail Products
• Cross Media Marketing
• Plaques & Framed Prints Select 204 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

For additional information, please

contact Foster Printing Service, use this logo on white or lighter Detailed and up-to-date information
the official reprint provider for backgrounds

for active construction projects

Hydrocarbon Processing.
in the refining, gas processing,
and petrochemical industries
across the globe.
use this logo on black or darker
backgrounds. The Printing
Service is in white.

Call 866.879.9144 or ConstructionBoxscore.com

sales@fosterprinting.com
C: 56
M: 0

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2018101

Y: 100
K: 27
PMS 370 C
ALISSA LEETON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
Alissa.Leeton@GulfPub.com
OCTOBER
AFPM Operations & Process
Technology Summit,
Oct. 1–3, Atlanta Marriott
Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia
(See box for contact information)
Polyurethanes Technical
Conference, Oct. 1–3, Atlanta
Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia
online@americanchemistry.com
polyurethane.
americanchemistry.com
AIChE Southwest Process
Technology Conference,
Oct. 9–10, Moody Gardens
Hotel and Convention Center,
Galveston, Texas
www.aiche.org
GasPro 2.0, a webcast
symposium, Oct. 25,
Gulf Energy Information Events,
GasProcessingConference.com
(See box for contact information)
Women’s Global Leadership
Conference, Oct. 29–30,
Gulf Energy Information Events,
Royal Sonesta, Houston, Texas
WGLconference.com
(See box for contact information)
ISA Process Industry Event,
Oct. 30–Nov. 1, The Westin
Houston, Memorial City,
Houston, Texas
isaautomation.isa.org/2018-
process-control-safety-
symposium-and-exhibition//
NOVEMBER
Sulphur CRU, Nov. 5–8, Gothia
Towers, Gothenburg, Sweden
P: +44 0-20-7903-2444
conferences@crugroup.com
www.events.crugroup.com
API 13th Annual Cybersecurity
Conference for the Oil & Natural
Gas Industry, Nov. 6–7,
Marriott Woodlands Waterway,
The Woodlands, Texas
(See box for contact information)
Latin American Petrochemical
Annual Meeting, Nov. 10–13,
Grand Fiesta Americana Coral
Beach Hotel, Cancún, Mexico
P: +54 11-4325-1422
www.apla.com
102 OCTOBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition &
Conference (ADIPEC),
Nov. 12–15, The Abu Dhabi
National Exhibition Centre,
Abu Dhabi, UAE
P: +971 2-444-4909
adipec.delegate@
dmgeventsme.com
www.adipec.com
API Fall Refining and Equipment
Standards Meeting, Nov. 12–15,
Hyatt Regency Orlando,
Orlando, Florida
(See box for contact information)
Valve World Expo,
Nov. 27–29, Messe Düsseldorf,
Düsseldorf, Germany
P: +49 211-45-60-01
infoservice@messe-
duesseldorf.de
www.valveworldexpo.com
DECEMBER
Middle East Catalyst
Technology Conference,
Dec. 5–6, Four Seasons
Hotel Bahrain Bay,
Manama, Bahrain
P: +971 0-4-421-4642
office@europetro-me.com
europetro.com
JANUARY 2019
Future of Polyolefins Summit,
Jan. 16–17, Antwerp, Belgium
P: +44 0-20-3141-0632
lpardoux@acieu.net
www.wplgroup.com
FEBRUARY 2019
ARC’s 23rd Annual
Industry Forum, Feb. 4–7,
Renaissance Orlando at
SeaWorld, Orlando, Florida
P: +1 781-471-1158
www.arcweb.com/events/
arc-industry-forum-orlando
Egypt Petroleum Show
(EGYPS), Feb. 11–13,
Egypt International Exhibition
Center, Cairo, Egypt
P: +971 0-4-445-3726
egyps.conference@
dmgevents.com
www.egyps.com
MARCH 2019
ABB Customer World,
March 4–7, George R. Brown
Convention Center,
Houston, Texas
www.new.abb.com
Eastern Mediterranean
Gas Conference (EMGC),
March 6–7,
Gulf Energy Information Events,
Nicosia, Cyprus
EMGasConference.com
(See box for contact information)
CERA Week, March 11–15,
Hilton Americas–Houston,
Houston, Texas
ceraweek@ihsmarkit.com
ceraweek.com/registration/
AFPM Annual Meeting,
March 17–19,
Marriott Rivercenter,
San Antonio, Texas
(See box for contact information)
AFPM International
Petrochemical Conference,
March 24–26,
Grand Hyatt San Antonio,
San Antonio, Texas
(See box for contact information)
Corrosion 2019,
March 24–28,
Music City Center,
Nashville, Tennessee
P: +1 281-228-6413
Lesley.Martinez@nace.org
nacecorrosion.org/
StocExpo Europe,
March 26–28,
Rotterdam, Ahoy,
Rotterdam, Netherlands
www.easyfairs.com/
stocexpo-europe-2019/
stocexpo-europe-2019/
CIPPE, March 27–29,
New China International
Exhibition Center,
Beijing, China
P: +86 1058-2365-55
cippe@zhenweiexpo.com
www.cippe.com.cn/en/
AIChE Spring Meeting,
March 31–April 4,
Hilton New Orleans Riverside,
New Orleans, Louisiana
P: +1 800-242-4363
www.aiche.org
Events
APRIL 2019
International Conference &
Exhibition on Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG2019),
April 1–5, Shanghai World
Expo Exhibition & Convention
Center, Shanghai, China
+44 20-7978-0775
info@lng2019.com
www.lng2019.com/
International Aboveground
Storage Tank Conference,
April 2–4, Rosen Shingle
Creek Hotel, Orlando, Florida
Janelle@nistm.org
www.nistm.org/
MAY 2019
API Spring Refining and
Equipment Standards
Meeting, May 6–9,
Grand Hyatt San Antonio,
San Antonio, Texas
(See box for contact information)
SEPTEMBER 2019
Turbomachinery &
Pump Symposia,
Sept. 10–12,
George R. Brown Convention
Center, Houston, Texas
P: 979-845-7417
info@turbo-lab.tamu.edu
Hydrocarbon Processing/
Gulf Energy
Information Events
P: +1 713-520-4475
Melissa.Smith@
GulfEnergyInfo.com
EnergyEvents@
GulfEnergyInfo.com
American Fuel
& Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM)
P: +1 202-457-0480
info@afpm.org
www.afpm.org
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
P: +1 202-682-8195
registrar@api.org
www.api.org
 Register
Today

WOMEN’S

October 29–30, 2018 | WGLConference.com

Houston, Texas | Royal Sonesta

Leslie Beyer Joins

Featured Speakers Lineup
Join us at the 16th Women’s Global Leadership Conference in Energy
(WGLC) and discover how you can further develop your career in the
oil and gas industry.

Panel discussions include:

• Technology: Improving efficiencies through innovation in the
upstream and downstream
• Change agents: What role do men play in promoting women to
leadership positions?
• Downstream owner/operators and their project partners:
Working together to get the job done - on time and on budget

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

Leslie Shockley Beyer

President, Petroleum Equipment & Services Association
(PESA)

For information on sponsorship opportunities, please contact:

Hortensia “Tish” Barroso, Business Development Manager,
at Hortensia.Barroso@GulfEnergyInfo.com

2018 WGLC SPONSORS

Platinum Sponsor Gold Sponsors Silver Sponsors

Bronze Bronze Sponsor Program Print Young Women’s Mix and Mingle
Sponsor & Conference Bag Sponsor Preparatory Academy Networking Events
Sponsor Student Sponsor Sponsor
 Axens is a leading global
provider of technologies, OIL REFINING
catalysts, adsorbents,
services and equipment.
Axens solutions are used PETROCHEMICALS
at major industrial plants
around the world.

GASES
TOGETHER
RENEWABLES
& ALTERNATIVES
SUCCEED

WATER

axens.net/blog

Select 51 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
 Technology and Business Information for the Global Gas Processing Industry

GasProcessingNews.com | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018

LNG DEVELOPMENTS
Optimize control of mixed refrigerant composition
Opportunities and risks in the global LNG market

TREATING TECHNOLOGY
Operational considerations of side reactions
in gas sweetening systems
Behavior and effect of methanol
in amine treating systems
COMPRESSION
Prevent seal contamination and failure
with a reliable gas supply solution

Special Supplement to
Big LNG expertise.
Also available in small LNG plants.
Air Products has contributed to the success of more LNG operations than
any other company. And we bring our full capabilities to LNG projects of
any scale, from peak-shaving plants producing less than 0.1 MMTPA to
the largest base-load facilities, on land or off-shore. Our LNG team can
help you get a plant up and running at the highest efficiency—on time,
on budget, and in any climate. To learn more, call 1-800-654-4567 (US),
1-610-481-4861 (worldwide) or visit us online.

tell me more
airproducts.com/LNG

©2017 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

 EDITORIAL COMMENT
CONTENTS
As of 2Q 2018, a total LNG capacity GasProcessingNews.com | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018
of 369.4 MMtpy of LNG export capac-
ity was in place in 18 countries around
the world, according to the International 4
Gas Union (IGU). Although the wave of
major LNG projects sanctioned between
2009 and 2014 was anticipated to result in
a glut of LNG supplies starting as early as
A. BLUME, the 2018/2019 time frame, very little ex-
Editor cess LNG has emerged. The reason is that
actual LNG exports have come onstream slower than planned
due to technical issues. The surplus LNG supplies that did
emerge met with low prices, which also served to discourage
the production of excess supply.
Many of the LNG projects coming onstream from 2017–
2019 took final investment decision (FID) in 2012–2014, prior SPECIAL FOCUS: LNG
to the collapse in energy demand and prices that caused a slow- 19 Optimal control of mixed refrigerant
down in new investments. However, FIDs made in 2018 and composition at Sakhalin LNG plant
2019 will contribute to a steady and more cohesive expansion
I. Nemov
in global LNG trade that will help offset a predicted shortfall of
LNG in the first half of the next decade. TREATING TECHNOLOGY
Approximately 92 MMtpy of LNG export capacity is under
27 Operational considerations of side reactions
construction at present, including 12.1 MMtpy of FLNG capac-
ity. A further 875 MMtpy of proposed and postponed capacity in gas sweetening systems—Part 2
is targeted for startup in the 2020s, including 180.5 MMtpy of J. Cantrell, G. McIntyre, C. Daniels and E. Stewart
floating capacity across 24 projects. Australia and the US ac- 33 Behavior and effect of methanol
count for more than 70% of the total capacity under construc- in amine treating systems
tion, while the US and Canada make up approximately 66% of R. Weiland, A. Goethe and R. Ackman
the proposed capacity. GP
COMPRESSION
P. O. Box 2608 37 Prevent seal contamination and failure
Houston, Texas 77252-2608, USA
Phone: +1 (713) 529-4301 with a reliable gas supply solution
www.GasProcessingNews.com
Fax: +1 (713) 520-4433 G. Schmidt
Editorial@GasProcessingNews.com

PUBLISHER Catherine Watkins COLUMNS

Catherine.Watkins@
HydrocarbonProcessing.com Business Trends ....................................................................7
EDITORIAL Opportunities and risks in the global LNG market
Editor Adrienne Blume
Managing Editor Mike Rhodes Industry Trends ....................................................................11
Editor/Associate Publisher, Lee Nichols Five trends shaping the North American gas market to 2030
Hydrocarbon Processing
MAGAZINE PRODUCTION Executive Interview ............................................................ 15
Vice President, Production Sheryl Stone BHGE enhances LNG, process plant services
Manager, Advertising Production Cheryl Willis with digital portfolio
Assistant Manager, Advertising Production Krista Norman
Manager, Editorial Production Angela Bathe Dietrich EWAnalysis .......................................................................... 17
Assistant Manager, Editorial Production Lindsey Craun
Impact of technology on gas processing plants
Artist/Illustrator David Weeks
Graphic Designer Andreina Keller
ADVERTISING SALES DEPARTMENTS
See Sales Offices, page 42. Gas Processing News .......................................................... 4
Copyright © 2018 by Gulf Energy Information LLC. All rights reserved. US Industry Metrics ............................................................. 9
Global Project Data ............................................................10

President/CEO John Royall

CFO Alan Millis Cover Image: A rendering of the Cameron LNG liquefaction
Vice President Andy McDowell project under construction near Hackberry, Louisiana.
Vice President, Finance and Operations Pamela Harvey Photo courtesy of Cameron LNG.
Vice President, Production Sheryl Stone
Other Gulf Energy Information titles include: Hydrocarbon Processing ®, World Oil ®,
Petroleum Economist ©, Pipeline & Gas Journal and Underground Construction.
 GAS PROCESSING NEWS
A. BLUME, Editor

Sempra receives Appalachia, Permian, Haynesville drive US gas growth

FERC notice for
Port Arthur LNG
Sempra Energy received
a notice of schedule from the
US Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) that sets
January 31, 2019 as the planned
completion date of the final
environmental impact statement
for siting, construction and
operation of the proposed
Port Arthur LNG natural gas
liquefaction export project in
Jefferson County, Texas.
The FERC issued its notice
for the proposed Port Arthur LNG
project on August 31. The project
is expected to include two gas
liquefaction trains to enable the
long-term sale of approximately
11 MMtpy of LNG; feed gas
pretreatment facilities; NGL and
refrigerant storage; up to three
LNG storage tanks; two marine
berths; and associated facilities.
The ultimate decision to
construct the Port Arthur
liquefaction project is contingent
upon obtaining customer
commitments and financing;
reaching a definitive EPC
contract; securing permits;
and reaching FID.
Gross production of US natural
gas has generally been increasing
for more than a decade. This
growth has been largely driven
by production in the Appalachian
Basin in the Northeast, the Permian
Basin in western Texas and New
Mexico, and the Haynesville Shale
in Texas and Louisiana. These three
regions collectively accounted for
less than 15% of total US natural
gas production in 2007, but now
they make up nearly 50% of
total production.
Production in these regions
has increased in part because
of new drilling and completion
techniques, including longer well
laterals that have increased well
productivity. By contrast, the Gulf
of Mexico’s share of total production, which was 12% in 2007, has fallen to approximately 3%. The share of
production in the rest of the US has declined from 60% to 28%.
Growth in natural gas production in the Northeast has come mainly from the Marcellus and Utica shale
plays in the Appalachian Basin, which collectively accounted for approximately 29% of total production in
July 2018. Recent infrastructure buildout in the region has allowed natural gas to move out of the region and
has reduced the prevailing discount to the national benchmark price at Henry Hub and to regional prices.
Natural gas production in the Permian Basin has also grown in recent years, largely in the form of
associated gas accompanying the region’s rising crude oil production. Like the Appalachian Basin, natural
gas in the Permian trades at lower prices relative to Henry Hub due to regional infrastructure constraints.
New natural gas pipelines are planned or under construction that will help move natural gas out of the
region, and several of them will expand LNG export capability.
Production in the Haynesville region has also increased. After decreasing from its peak in 2012, rising
production in the Haynesville region since 2017 has been driven by improving initial production rates
and increasing rig counts. Higher rig counts are likely a result of recovering crude oil prices, which have
generally increased since early 2016. Together, the Haynesville and the Permian regions accounted for
nearly 20% of total US natural gas production in 2017.
In contrast to the Appalachian, Permian and Haynesville regions, the Gulf of Mexico has accounted for an
increasingly smaller portion of national production, which is a significant change from a decade ago. Older
wells in the Gulf tend to be more natural gas-rich, and newer wells tend to be more oil-rich. These factors
contributed to the overall decline in that region’s natural gas production.

INFRA and Greenway ink pact Nord Stream 2 on track,

Greenway Technologies Inc. and INFRA Technology LLC have entered
into a non-exclusive memorandum of understanding (MU) agreement
for the joint design, engineering and development of economical and
transportable GTL plants, using a combination of the two companies’
proprietary technologies.
As the industry for small-scale GTL plants evolves and the technology
becomes more readily available, companies have focused on only one
or two of the necessary components to build and deliver a turnkey,
profitable facility. INFRA is a leader in Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) reactor and
catalyst design. Greenway has developed and patented a transportable,
scalable and economic converter for synthesis gas generation needed to
feed an F-T reactor, called the G-Reformer.
In addition to these necessary components, building GTL plants
requires the leadership and financial discipline of an EPC to deliver against
top-level contracts for on-time and on-budget build programs. Greenway
has been working with Audubon Engineering for several years and named
the company its EPC firm in 2018.
As INFRA and Greenway combine their capabilities, they will reduce
the time to deploy plants capable of processing flared or vented gas.
GTL systems from the companies can also be used to process coal
and biomass assets, providing the ability to convert natural gas streams
into useable products including diesel, gasoline and jet fuel.
despite sanctions
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline to
transport Russian gas to Germany is
progressing on schedule, according
to its operator, with European
investors still committed to the
project despite Western sanctions.
In July, the US government
repeated a warning to Western
firms invested in the 1,200-km
(746-mi) pipeline that they were at
risk of sanctions, saying that Russia is using the project to divide Europe.
The pipeline will allow Russia to bypass Ukraine. Disputes between
Russian gas firm Gazprom and Ukraine over gas prices and transit fees
have led to several supply stoppages to Europe over the past decade.
Nord Stream 2 AG, which will double the existing Nord Stream 1
capacity from 55 Bm3/yr of gas, is owned by Gazprom, which is taking
on half of the planned pipeline cost of €9.5 B ($11 B). The remainder
of the CAPEX is divided between five European energy companies—
Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall, Anglo-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell,
France’s Engie and Austria’s OMV.
Gazprom and its European partners say the Nord Stream 2 project
will help ensure energy security in the region as gas production falls
in Europe. Pipe-laying in the Baltic Sea commenced in July.

4 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 TECHNOLOGY
INNOVATION
IS OUR DNA
We, at Shell Global Solutions, constantly create new tailored
solutions with our clients to exceed their expectations.
To learn more, please visit www.shell.com/globalsolutions

Shell Global Solutions

228646_GSTechnology_DNA_180x255_Advert.indd 1 06/03/2017 09:54

Customer:
Global marine-based LNG operator.

Challenge:
Develop a customized cryogenic expander to meet
unique offshore FLNG process requirements.

Result:
An Ebara Cryodynamics expander maximizes
LNG production and increases overall efficiency.

They turned to CRYODYNAMICS

to optimize liquefaction in a floating production environment.

The customer turned to Ebara Cryodyamics for unmatched expertise in cryogenic

applications for liquefied gas. Cryodynamic’s technology and quality ensures our
customers a competitive advantage in world markets. Who will you turn to?
TM

www.ebaracryo.com

Opportunities and risks
in the global LNG market
M. W. HINTON, Chief Strategy and Customer Officer, Allegro Development Corp., Dallas, Texas
Natural gas use has strongly increased around the globe, sup-
ported by higher demand and growing availability of gas. As a
result, a surge in LNG trading has been seen across the world,
and there is no indication of it slowing anytime soon. Accord-
ing to BP’s 2018 Energy Outlook, LNG trade will account for
around half of all globally traded gas in the next 17 yr alone.
Amid the opportunities that accompany LNG expansion,
major challenges must be addressed. The complex trading cycle
of LNG means that numerous processes and players must be
considered, from natural gas suppliers and liquefaction plants
to transport operators and storage facilities, to the financial pro-
cesses that keep the cycle moving.
To overcome the associated market challenges, industry
players must have the tools and capabilities to effectively man-
age risk while seizing opportunities for growth.
Responding to shifting contract structures. S&P Global
Platts and other leading industry experts have projected that con-
tinued growth in global LNG exports will mean more competi-
tion in the market and, in turn, more short-term options for buy-
ers who may decide to either renegotiate or completely do away
with long-term contracts. Those that hold existing long-term
contracts tend to respond to current oversupply conditions in
one of two ways: rush to renegotiate pricing or fail to meet con-
tractual commitments due to lack of demand. Regardless, both
producers and buyers are consistently reconsidering and renego-
tiating their traditional sales and purchase agreements (SPAs).
Additionally, present industry conditions not only alter the
structure of LNG contracts, but they also affect spot pricing and
trade margins. As a result, the industry is experiencing a shift
away from traditional producer/consumer relationships and
moving toward a more competitive trading market. At present,
market participants contract under an LNG master sales and
purchase agreement (MSA), specifically intended for use with
spot and short-term agreements. This structure allows the sub-
stantial flexibility necessary for the buyer and seller to custom-
ize the agreement to individual cases.
Due to this rise in short-term contracts, the number of par-
ticipants in the LNG derivatives market has increased signifi-
cantly. This increase enables enhanced optionality, as well as
added long-term market exposure to bring yet another layer of
complexity to global energy portfolio management.
For example, Indian gas utility GAIL has shifted its LNG
purchasing focus to short-term and spot deals to meet rising
demand, and it is making greater use of hedging against price
volatility, according to Reuters. By responding to the market
shift in this manner, the company is working to double its share
BUSINESS TRENDS
of gas from the present level in the next decade. Other compa-
nies have followed suit, signaling an uphill battle for produc-
ers as lower spot prices for global oversupply will bring about
more contract revisions.
Options leading to greater risk. The mobility of LNG car-
goes and their ability to be diverted in response to price signals
allows the gas market to become increasingly integrated. Charif
Souki, Chairman at US LNG developer Tellurian Inc., claims
that buyers are “never very far from a cargo,” and that in the next
2 yr, some 20 cargoes will be available every day on the spot mar-
ket—equaling approximately 5,000 cargoes/yr.
However, with additional logistics options come challenges.
For those in the energy market, increased trading and logistics
options come with a price: increased risk exposure. Producers
must now consider new transportation and storage options on
top of operating expenses, raw materials processing costs and
additional deductions that impact the bottom line.
Buyers, on the other hand, must consider the fact that recent
LNG market changes have produced competitive pricing as
more traders are taking proprietary positions and adding more
depth to the market. In an instance where demand outweighs
supply, for example, natural gas utilities and natural gas genera-
tors may find it possible to supplement their natural gas supplies
with LNG imports. However, due to the increased complexity
brought by additional available options and market competi-
tion, the tricky part for buyers is knowing when to purchase, how
much to purchase and from whom they should purchase assets.
Creating opportunity through global exports. LNG exports
from the US have already quadrupled in the last year. In the next
5 yr, exports are projected to increase enough to position the US
as the number-two global supplier of LNG. BP’s Energy Outlook
predicts that by 2040, US LNG exports could account for almost
25% of global gas production, ahead of both the Middle East and
the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
With the rapid increase in US participation in the expand-
ing market, the balance of supply and demand around the
globe has shifted drastically. As a result, traditional global sup-
plier/customer relationships in this market are changing. With
this shift in the global market comes vast opportunities, such
as increased accessibility and synchronized prices. At the same
time, the expanding US market adds even more complexity to
the portfolio management of energy companies that sell and
purchase on a global scale. A traditional domestic gas supplier
will see LNG cash cycles lengthen due to the time and logis-
tics required for global transportation. Throughout these cash
Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 7
BUSINESS TRENDS
cycles, energy companies must keep in mind the price fluctua-
tions in natural gas, credit risk on foreign entities, currency ex-
changes and other factors when executing trades and managing
assets. The ability to accurately track all of the aforementioned
variables may seem impossible, and many large energy compa-
nies have still not mastered this ability.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
claims that the LNG business can be considered “an arbitrage
between low domestic prices and high global prices,” despite
its expensive nature. Due to rising gas production, domestic
prices have fallen, and a competitive advantage has become
available for US companies to export LNG to global buyers.
However, these increasing exports of LNG from the US
also mean that global forces will have a greater impact on the
country. With increased exports, domestic natural gas prices
will come under greater pressure, thereby exposing the North
American market to global market dynamics. As such, indus-
try participants are expanding their businesses to gain effi-
ciencies in logistics and operations to have more control over
margins. With a greater presence in the LNG market comes a
more complicated logistics chain and longer pay cycles, which
results in more hedging and credit risk analysis capabilities that
companies must prepare to address.
The need for an energy management platform. The al-
ready complex natural gas and LNG portfolio value chain has
become even more complicated with the growth of the global
At RedGuard, we build the world’s safest blast-resistant
buildings because we know what’s on the table.
8 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
market, increased market competition, oversupply and shifting
contracts from long-term to spot or short-term agreements.
Depending on how proactive industry participants are, these
market changes can either provide businesses with growth op-
portunities or spell out a recipe for disaster. It is more impor-
tant now than ever to prepare for drastic changes in portfolio
management and supporting software infrastructures.
Industry players who do not respond adequately to market
shifts or pursue strategic insights may be limited in their abil-
ity to correctly identify opportunities or potential challenges
that must be overcome. As a result, decisions might be made
without thorough historical information, real-time insights
or forecasting, leading to increased risk exposure and missed
growth opportunities.
To effectively manage portfolio risk and take advantage of
opportunities created in a constantly evolving energy market,
a company can take advantage of enterprise software platforms
that not only provide real-time, full value chain management, but
also advanced quantitative risk analytic capabilities. The use of
a comprehensive commodity management software can address
energy market opportunities and risks by integrating all physical
and financial aspects to manage the entire LNG lifecycle. GP
MICHAEL W. HINTON is the Chief Strategy and Customer Officer at Allegro
Development Corp., a global leader in commodity trading and risk management
software for companies that buy, sell, produce or consume commodities.
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Allegro has offices in Houston, Jakarta, Singapore,
Dubai, London and Zurich.
 US INDUSTRY METRICS
A. BLUME, Editor

Prior to 2013, ethane prices trended higher than natural gas prices.
However, from 2013–2016, when ethane supply exceeded demand,
ethane spot prices were generally lower than Henry Hub gas
spot prices. Since mid-2017, ethane prices have been higher than
natural gas prices as domestic and foreign demand for US ethane
has increased. US ethane demand growth has accelerated as new
and expanded ethylene crackers began operations in early 2018.
Meanwhile, ethane exports averaged more than 280,000 bpd
in May 2018, a year-on-year increase of 48%. GP

US gas production (Bft3d) and prices ($/Mft3)

100 7
6
80
5

Gas prices, $/Mft3

Production, Bft3d

60 4
40 3
Monthly price (Henry Hub) 2
20 12-month price avg.
Production 1
0 0
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A
2016 2017 2018
Production equals U.S. marketed production, wet gas. Source: EIA.

US natural gas spot prices at Henry Hub

and NGL spot prices at Mont Belvieu, $/MMBtu
25
Natural gasoline
Isobutane
20 Butane
NGPL composite
Propane
Ethane
15 Natural gas spot prices (Henry Hub)
$/MMBtu

10

CHALLENGE
5

0
Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept.
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018
Source: US EIA
YOUR HORIZON
US natural gas plant field production of NGL, Do you want lower operating costs? It‘s really
LPG, ethane and propane, Mbpd quite simple: Compress the exact amount of
gas you need and save money! The eHydroCOM
50 stepless capacity control system makes it possible.
US gas plant field production, Mbpd

ehydrocom.hoerbiger.com
40

30
NGL
LPG
Ethane/ethylene
20 Propane/propylene

10
April- May- June- July- Aug.- Sept.- Oct.- Nov.- Dec.- Jan.- Feb.- Mar.- April-
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018
Source: US EIA

Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 9

 GLOBAL PROJECT DATA
LEE NICHOLS, Editor/Associate Publisher, Hydrocarbon Processing

Energy Web Atlas is tracking more than 215 active LNG
projects around the world. These projects include grassroots
projects and brownfield expansions of existing LNG export
and import terminals, floating vessels (FLNG) and storage
facilities. As host to nearly 40% of active LNG projects, the
Asia-Pacific region (primarily China and India) is investing
heavily to build up its LNG import capacity to meet increas-
ing demand for natural gas. Additional natural gas imports
will help Asia-Pacific nations provide cleaner-burning fuel for
power generation, cooking, etc. At nearly 20%, the US has the
second-highest amount of active LNG projects. The region
continues to invest in its LNG export capacity buildout. GP

New gas processing/LNG project announcements, Active LNG project market share
August 2017–present by activity level
17

14
13 24% Under construction
12 12
11 11 11
10 10
42% Proposed/planned
8
7
6 8% Engineering
18% FEED
Aug.- Sept.- Oct.- Nov.- Dec.- Jan.- Feb.- Mar.- April- May- June- July- Aug.-
8% Study
17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Detailed and up-to-date information for active construction projects and operational assets
in the gas processing, LNG and pipeline industries across the globe | EnergyWebAtlas.com

10 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com

Five trends shaping the North American
gas market to 2030
Y. ZHU, Wood Mackenzie, Houston, Texas
The shale revolution has changed the
game for the North American natural
gas market over the past decade. In 2008,
North America was believed to be short of
natural gas resources and in need of LNG
imports. Now, 10 yr later, the region has
transitioned to a gas exporter with LNG
import terminals converting to exports,
and new pipelines shipping gas to Mexico.
This change was enabled by the meteoric
rise of shale, accounting for more than
50% of total gas production.
Looking ahead to 2030, we expect
North American gas demand to grow at
2%/yr, fueled by the attractiveness of US
LNG exports and the retirement of coal
power plants. On the supply side, we ex-
pect shale gas to continue dominating,
with the Permian and Appalachian ba-
sins supplying approximately 55% of the
North American gas market by 2030. The
rapid development of shale could mean
that more than $150 B of gas-related mid-
stream investments will be needed by
2025 to enable abundant, inexpensive gas
to reach demand centers. Overall, market
conditions indicate that North American
gas prices are expected to stay below $3/
MMBtu for decades to come.
LNG will play a major role in support-
ing demand growth for North American
gas, accounting for more than 50% of
growth to 2030 (FIG. 1). As LNG is becom-
ing increasingly important to global gas
markets, the US has undergone extensive
LNG terminal reconfiguration and con-
struction to capitalize on the opportunity.
The first LNG export cargo from the lower
48 states came from Cheniere Energy’s
Sabine Pass terminal in 2016; today, LNG
exports have grown to 3 Bft3d. At pres-
ent, Sabine Pass and Dominion Energy’s
Cove Point LNG terminal are in operation,
while another four terminals (Cameron,
Freeport, Elba Island, Corpus Christi) are
under construction. By 2020, Wood Mack-
enzie expects a total of 10 Bft3d of capacity
INDUSTRY TRENDS
to come online, equivalent to 13% of total
US domestic gas demand.
After the buildout of existing projects
reaches final investment decision (FID),
the taking of FIDs for new North Ameri-
can LNG projects is expected to be chal-
lenging over the medium term (2021–
2024), mainly due to the global LNG
market being oversupplied. However, the
potential remains for attractive projects
to take FID during this period if they can
beat the global cost curve with high finan-
cial and operational efficiency.
Post-2024, depending on how Asian
demand levels evolve, the global LNG
market will begin to rebalance. US brown-
field projects could be the first to come
online, as pre-FID US projects are among
the most attractive due to low CAPEX,
outside of those in the Middle East. In its
base case, Wood Mackenzie expects US
LNG exports to grow to 16 Bft3d by 2030.
Coal use declines. In the near term, gas
is expected to replace coal generation, al-
though it will face competition from re-
newables over the long term. A total of 58
GW of coal-fired power capacity has been
retired since 2010, representing 20% of ex-
FIG. 1. North America gas demand growth by sector, Bft3d, 2017–2030.
isting coal capacity. This trend will contin-
ue, with another 26 GW of coal-fired pow-
er capacity to be retired soon. This leaves
room for an anticipated 67 GW of new
gas-fired capacity to fill the gap in power
supply. Therefore, power demand for gas is
expected to grow at 2%/yr until 2022.
Post-2025, as their economics become
more favorable, renewables could com-
pete with inexpensive combined-cycle
gas plants, even without subsidies. This
will encourage some power generation
to switch from gas to renewables—so-
lar, in particular. As a result, gas demand
growth in the power sector is expected
to slow to 0.3%/yr from 2022–2030 as
renewables become more competitive,
eventually accounting for approximately
21% of power generation by 2030. Never-
theless, gas will continue to play a crucial
role in power generation from a reliability
standpoint, if battery technology is not
available at scale.
“Shale gale” in North America con-
tinues. North America has two major
advantages when it comes to consistently
producing plentiful and low-cost natural
gas. First, technological improvements
Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 11
INDUSTRY TRENDS
and increased efficiency have driven
down breakeven prices for natural gas
production in North America, making
areas like the Marcellus and Utica more
profitable. Thanks to pad drilling and ad-
vanced completion technologies, these
two shale plays have seen new gas produc-
tion per rig grow by a factor of 10 since
2008. By 2030, the Permian and Appala-
chian basins are anticipated to supply ap-
proximately 55% of the North American
gas market, while production from the
Marcellus and Utica shales is anticipated
to account for approximately 40% of total
North American gas supply (FIG. 2).
Second, the availability of associated
gas also drives down costs. Given the
recent surge in oil prices and increased
drilling activity in the Permian, effectively
zero-cost associated gas will flood the
market and put downward pressure on gas
prices. Associated gas is produced regard-
FIG. 2. North America natural gas production by basin, Bft3d.
FIG. 3. North America half-cycle breakeven price curve, $/MMBtu.1,2
12 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
less of gas price levels, and its supply will
increase by approximately 12 Bft3d from
2018–2030. Around 60% of this supply—
equivalent to 15% of US gas production
in 2030—will come from the Permian.
Midstream investments needed. More
than $150 B of gas-related midstream in-
vestments will be needed to debottleneck
and move shale gas from supply basins
to demand centers by 2025. This newly
produced shale gas will need somewhere
to go, and existing takeaway capacity is
inadequate for the increasing gas supply.
Significant additional midstream infra-
structure is necessary to move gas from
the Permian and Appalachian basins to
demand centers.
The Permian’s takeaway capacity is al-
ready constrained. Since gas is a byprod-
uct of oil in the Permian, its production
will rise along with oil prices regardless of
in-basin gas prices. In response, the basin
will need an additional 6 Bft3d of pre-FID
pipeline capacity by 2025.
Alternatively, operators in the Marcel-
lus and Utica shales are investing in re-
gional projects like Atlantic Coast, Atlantic
Sunrise, Mountain Valley and Nexus to de-
bottleneck and move shale gas to the Mid-
west and Mid-Atlantic markets. Beyond
these projects, pipelines with expanded
capacity are needed to ship gas to the Gulf
Coast to feed the LNG facilities. Conse-
quently, more than $150 B will be needed
in growth and maintenance CAPEX for
gas pipelines and processing facilities over
the next 7 yr. For example, large interstate
pipeline projects alone account for approx-
imately $35 B of Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission (FERC) approval filings
to come online in the next 5 yr. However,
the probability of these coming to fruition
will be dependent on how the regulatory
landscape and regional policies develop.
North America can produce enough
gas to meet 25-plus yr of demand at prices
below $2.8/MMBtu. Expected coal plant
retirements, increasing exports to Mexico
and new LNG terminals coming online
in the near term could help sustain a gas
price of $2.50/MMBtu–$3.00/MMBtu.
However, that is expected to change af-
ter 2020. The development of renewable
energy and an oversupplied LNG market
could mean slower growth on the de-
mand side, while huge volumes of associ-
ated gas and debottlenecked Appalachian
shale supply will flatten the cost curve
from the supply side. Considering these
factors, long-term gas prices below $2.80/
MMBtu are likely (FIG. 3).
The outlook for the gas market in
North America is complex. Although it is
tempting to oversimplify and focus only
on demand growth, many other factors
are at play. Developments in shale, infra-
structure and renewables will have lasting
effects on North American gas produc-
tion and prices. GP
YASMINE ZHU is a Senior Analyst
with McKinsey Energy Insights,
the market forecasting and
analytics arm of McKinsey & Co.’s
oil and gas practice. She joined
McKinsey’s Houston, Texas office
in 2015. Her expertise lies in
North American natural gas economics, gas
processing and midstream, LNG fundamentals
and petrochemical asset valuation. Ms. Zhu holds
an MS degree in chemical engineering from
Stanford University in California and a BS degree
in economics from Peking University in China.
LNG peak shaving...are you ready?
The Linde Group, a world leader in LNG technologies, has We deliver:
applied product standardization and modularization to → Pre-engineered process designs
the LNG industry. We address your complete plant needs, → Modularized plant layouts
including pre-treatment, core liquefaction, LNG product → Short delivery time
storage and loading, and LNG vaporization. → Minimal on-site construction
→ Safe, simple and robust technologies
→ Optimized energy efficiency
→ Capacity expansions
→ Upgrades, revamps, repairs and replacements
of existing equipment - liquefiers, plate fin heat
exchangers, vaporizers

Learn more!
www.leamericas.com/peakshave

Linde Engineering North America Inc.

sales@leamericas.com
 More ways to measure moisture
in natural gas than anyone else.
It’s in your pipeline and we’ll find it.
AMETEK offers the industry’s widest array of natural gas analyzer technologies
to meet your exact application needs—including quartz crystal microbalance,
tunable diode laser absorption, electrolytic sensors and chilled mirror dew point
moisture analyzers. We also offer analysis solutions for hydrogen sulfide, carbon
dioxide, BTU content, specific gravity and gas density.

Eighteen technology platforms in all—backed by AMETEK’s global service and

support. With so many proven scientific instruments at hand, why settle for
anything less than the optimum solutions for your application needs.

ametekpi.com © 2018 by AMETEK, Inc. All rights reserved.


BHGE enhances LNG,
process plant services with digital portfolio
MARIA SFERRUZZA, President, LNG and Global Service Turbomachinery and Process Solutions,
Baker Hughes, a GE Company
MARIA SFERRUZZA is President, LNG and Global
Services for BHGE’s Turbomachinery and Process
Solutions (TPS) business, based in Florence, Italy.
She took on this role in July 2017, after the merger
between GE Oil & Gas and Baker Hughes formed
the first digital fullstream oil and gas company.
With more than 20 yr of oil and gas experience
covering multiple roles, from sales to operations,
Ms. Sferruzza is responsible for driving growth and
profitability in the LNG segment, along with the
global TPS service strategy and operations, including
digital services.
Directly prior to this position, she served as
General Manager for the Turbomachinery Solutions
Contractual and Maintenance Services business.
During this time, she was instrumental in laying the
foundation for developing a digital offering designed
to help oil and gas customers optimize and enhance
their operations. She joined GE as an Application
Engineer in the GE Nuovo Pignone Centrifugal
Compressors Division in 1995. Since then, she has
held other positions within GE including Project
Engineer; Account Manager (Houston, Texas);
CEO Analyst; Marketing and Strategic Alliances
Manager, GE Oil & Gas Upstream; GE Oil & Gas
Strategic Alliances Manager; Southern Europe
Region Manager, Global Services Sales; Processing
Services P&L Leader; and General Manager, Sales.
Ms. Sferruzza has also been a GE Corporate
Leadership Staff coach and is a Member of the
Board of Nuovo Pignone SpA and the Al Shaheen
Qatar Joint Venture. She was born in Palermo, Italy,
where she graduated with a degree in industrial
engineering. She and her husband have two children
and live in Italy.
EXECUTIVE INTERVIEW Q&A
Gas Processing & LNG spoke with Ma-
ria Sferruzza, President of LNG & Global
Service Turbomachinery and Process
Solutions for Baker Hughes, a GE Com-
pany (BHGE), about the company’s in-
novations in the LNG and turbomachin-
ery spaces, as well as the direction of the
global LNG market.
What innovations is BHGE studying
in the LNG/gas processing and
turbomachinery spaces?
Innovation is the heart of what we do
at BHGE, to provide our customers with
solutions that can drive cost-effective pro-
duction in the LNG segment. Today, high
efficiency, low emissions, flexibility and
reduced footprint are key requirements
in our industry. This is why we recently
launched the LM9000 aeroderivative gas
turbine, a 43% efficiency engine that of-
fers the highest availability and best-in-
class total cost of ownership, as well as the
high pressure ratio compressor (HPRC),
which allows our LNG customers to re-
duce the number of compression units in
their process.
We do not limit our developments to
gas turbines and compressors, but we do
focus on enhancing the plant configuration
to maximize the reliability of the systems
while minimizing the installation time (i.e.,
with pre-assembled modules). BHGE’s 30-
plus years of experience in the LNG indus-
try, coupled with the data collected through
our monitoring and diagnostic centers, al-
low us to develop new technologies.
Since you started working in
the LNG space at BHGE, what
technology innovations have you
overseen in this area? Specifically,
how has virtual reality been
implemented as a training platform
across BHGE business units?
At BHGE, virtual reality has been ex-
ploited in the last few years. It is used to
design, and to incubate into the design,
the serviceability and the ergonomics
of maintenance operations, as well as to
train more than 1,000 field service engi-
neers and customer operators (FIG. 1).
Focusing on the learning aspect, vir-
tual reality allows us to replicate plant
environments, giving engineers the op-
portunity to simulate onsite work from
disassembly to assembly of equipment,
including the preparation and execution
of maintenance activities.
What upcoming trends do you see
in the LNG/gas processing industry
that will be addressed or assisted
by digitalization technologies
and/or automation?
Digital is the new mean for us to help
our customers to enhance plant avail-
ability and reliability while maximizing
efficiency. We are strongly investing in
sensors and software to drive preventive
maintenance, as well as condition-based
maintenance online.
What is BHGE’s medium- to long-
term view on the development
of LNG supply/demand and trade?
On which regions does the company
plan to focus in the next 5 yr–10 yr?
We expect LNG demand to more than
double to 500 MMtpy by 2030, growing
at a pace of 4%/yr–5%/yr. We saw de-
mand growth well above that projected
pace in 2017 as global imports grew 11%,
or nearly 30 MMt vs. 2016.
The increasing demand for LNG,
coupled with only one project receiving a
final investment decision—the third lique-
faction train at Cheniere’s Corpus Christi
liquefaction project—points to the LNG
supply-demand balance tightening. Mar-
ket data suggests that new LNG capacity
will be required in early to mid-next decade
to meet demand, which should translate to
intense project FID activity in 2019/2020.
Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 15
EXECUTIVE INTERVIEW Q&A

From a geographical perspective, we
are focused on all regions. We forecast
new plants in North America, Asia, Af-
rica and Russia. Regarding small-scale
LNG, Europe, China and Latin America
will play key roles in the future, since new
infrastructure will be needed to make up
FIG. 1. Virtual reality on a PGT25+ aeroderivative gas turbine.
for weak pipeline networks and support made this transition possible,
growing demand for transportation. and how will the company continue
to innovate and develop its
BHGE has made a significant digital portfolio?
transition from a traditional service The implementations of the iCenter
provider to a fully digitally equipped and the R&MD technology have been the
service provider. What key elements key enablers to shift our service model
from a traditional to a digital model, com-
bining analytics with personnel expertise.
Our BHGE iCenters in Florence, Italy;
Houston, Texas; and Kuala Lumpur, Ma-
laysia provide remote engineering work
around the clock to support our custom-
ers, to prevent assets failure and to opti-
mize performance and operations. Thanks
to the hundreds of parameters from the
field, and to leveraging the extensive use
of analytics, we manage operational issues
proactively, we perform troubleshooting
and we solve problems virtually, by con-
necting engineering with onsite teams.
The extensive experience developed on
our own machinery is helping us move be-
yond approaching the entire plant in simi-
lar form, to ensure that our customers can
achieve the same level of availability of our
trains (98%-plus) at plant level. GP

Start from a place of safety.

REFINE YOUR EXPERTISE

2018 FALL REFINING & EQUIPMENT STANDARDS MEETING

Join us at the 2018 Fall Refining and Equipment Standards Meeting

November 12-15, 2018 and have access to technical committee meetings covering API
standards. Learn about the latest research and development on
Hyatt Regency Orlando, FL
refining process equipment and obtain the latest information
Register at www.api.org/fallrefining from industry suppliers while making contacts with your
colleagues and establishing new business connections.

Copyright 2018 – American Petroleum Institute, all rights reserved. API and the API logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of API
in the United States and/or other countries.

16 
2018-241 2018 FALL REFINING
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ADS - HYDROCARBON PROCESSING.indd
2018 | GasProcessingNews.com 1 9/4/18 8:01 PM
 EWAnalysis

Impact of technology
on gas processing plants
B. ANDREW, Senior Data Analyst

The gas processing industry has modernized and em-

braced technology throughout boom and bust cycles. As
with refining and petrochemicals, gas processing has migrat-
ed from analog control to digital control, and from paper-
chart recorders to process historians. Improvements in the
ability to view information across a plant have enabled op-
erations staff to achieve better insights into upsets, efficiency
and troubleshooting. However, gas processing operations
differ in that there is no site storage, except for natural gas
liquids (NGL) and condensate. Short-term gas storage op-
tions include packing transmission pipeline or recoverable
injection underground. The compounds in NGL are increas-
ingly sought after as higher-value petrochemical feedstock.
In real time, the gas plant and its associated compressor sta-
tions must respond promptly to demand for more, or less,
treated gas from the gas transmission network, or respond
to supply disruptions from gathering field well sources. Ad-
vances in telecommunications, networks, sensors and wire-
less technology have enabled gas plant operations to receive FIG. 1. The US natural gas transmission network has grown to include
earlier warning of imminent disruptions from the gathering more states in the continental US, with more plants planned.
systems. How supply and demand are best managed and op-
timized is the topic of this column.
The natural gas transmission network has grown to include fered by licensors with process guarantees and technical sup-
many more states in the continental US, with more planned port. The choice of which amines depends upon the acid gas
(FIG. 1). States that used to only have truck-delivered LPG or species to be removed.
fuel oil as fossil energy options have seen natural gas distri-
bution networks developed. Data from Energy Web Atlas is Cryogenic technology. To meet the Btu content require-
used to show the locations of plants (FIG. 2) and the range of ments for rich gas, operators can choose to dilute with nitro-
gas processing capacities (FIG. 3). Energy Web Atlas is a web- gen; more commonly in the US, however, the gas is cooled to
based map application focused on visualizing energy data. condense out NGL. This can be as simple as expansion across
a Joule-Thomson valve, most commonly at gas field gather-
Treatment technology. The minimal treatment require- ing sites. Within a processing plant, if the gas pressure is high
ments are set by gas transmission system requirements: enough, turboexpanders are used to cryogenically cool and
treatment must bring gas below the dewpoint to avoid con- condense NGL. At lower pressures, mechanical refrigeration
densation of water or hydrocarbons, and to meet the heat- can be used.
ing value. At the consumer level in the US, natural gas is
lean—almost entirely methane. Some smaller gas plants do Analyzer technology. Process analysis is key to operating
produce a richer gas, but this does not reach residential cus- close to target composition, which can be changed depend-
tomers. In addition, acid gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2) ing on the operating envelope set by market economics. Tra-
and sulfur compounds, should be removed for corrosion and ditionally, high-quality analysis has been done by laboratory
safety reasons. Earlier technologies used solid absorbents, technicians. Improvements in sample conditioning, analyzer
but these do not scale up well and have problems with con- manufacturing and conditioned analyzer shelters have en-
taminated solids disposal. abled continuous process analyzers to be more robust and
Dehydration is achieved with solid desiccants and mem- reliable, with occasional calibration and self-cleaning cycles.
branes in swing vessels. Larger-capacity plants may use re- The adoption of communication protocols to control sys-
generable glycol systems optimized for water removal. Acid tems and remote operations centers supports real-time diag-
gas removal is dominated by amine systems, which are of- nosis and exception flagging.
Gas Processing & LNG | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 17
EWAnalysis

Operations technology. Materials engineering has enabled sample the DCS data with increasingly high fidelity, enable
longer life of plant components in severe situations, such as ero- process engineers and instrument technicians to diagnose on
sion, corrosion or vibration. Three-dimensional manufacturing a parallel network, impacting control integrity. Suppliers have
is enabling new control valve internals using sintered metal or developed increasingly useful tools to analyze plant historian
ceramic components in new geometries. Turbine manufactur- data, which allows them to observe the impacts of changed
ers have combined CAE, CAD and CAM to optimize blade de- throughputs on process performance.
signs that have resulted in larger machines with longer reliability.
One of the best improvements in operations technology has Integrity technology. The next development was to integrate
been enabling personnel with different roles to obtain real-time process monitoring with equipment condition monitoring,
views of critical elements. The development of the distributed aided by new sensor types that help calculate declines or devia-
control system (DCS) enabled the control of all units in a plant tions. Monitoring of asset health indicators and the develop-
through a single control room. Plant historian systems, which ment of equipment-level baseline performance have enabled
proactive intervention, packaged as asset
Wyoming 36 management systems.
West Virginia 17
Utah 15
Texas 213
Multisite operations. Increased reli-
Tennessee 1 ability of process plant operations has
Pennsylvania 11 enabled operating companies to layer di-
Oklahoma 81 rect control on the local plant from an op-
Ohio 7
North Dakota 19 erations center that is also responsible for
New Mexico 30 monitoring gathering fields, compressor
Montana 6 stations and pipeline operations. This op-
Mississippi 5
Michigan 14 portunity has seen a flourishing of offer-
Louisiana 56 ings from major control system vendors
Kentucky 3 of wall-size dashboards that provide an
Kansas 9
Illinois 2
overview of each asset and allow for quick
Florida 1 response to timely opportunities.
Colorado 47
California 25 Resources: learn more. Readers wish-
Arkansas 3
Alabama 17 ing to learn more in-depth information
0 50 100 150 200 250 on the aspects discussed in this overview
can find it in the articles published by
FIG. 2. Numbers of gas processing plants by US state. Gulf Energy Information’s publications, as
well as networking with industry peers at
300 Gulf Energy Information events. We also
recommend signing up to receive publica-
273 tions from the GPA Midstream Associa-
tion, and monitoring useful reports from
250
the US Energy Information Association.
Also, watch for future midstream indus-
try reports by Gulf Energy Information on
200 different regional topics. These reports
will provide coordinated coverage across
the value chain of production, processing
Number of plants

and delivery. The series will cover explora-

150
tion and production, processing, logistics,
storage, feedstocks and downstream oper-
ations. They will be available in digital ar-
97
100 ticle and on-demand webinar formats. GP
72 BOB ANDREW is Senior Data
62 Analyst in the Data Services Division
50 44 of Gulf Energy Information, where
he coordinates all research into
29 content for the Construction
21
10 Boxscore Database. He analyzes
5 1 4 the quality of major datasets before
0 they are added to Gulf Energy Information’s Energy
(0, 50) (50, 100) (100, 150) (150, 200) (200, 250) (250, 300) (300, 350) (350, 400) (400, 450) (450, 500) > 500
Capacity, MMsft3d Web Atlas. He also serves in a downstream and
midstream technical advisory role for Gas Processing
FIG. 3. US gas plant capacity, as of 2017. & LNG, Hydrocarbon Processing, Petroleum Economist
and Pipeline and Gas Journal.

18 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 SPECIAL FOCUS: LNG TECHNOLOGY

Optimal control of mixed refrigerant

composition at Sakhalin LNG plant
I. NEMOV, Sakhalin LNG, Sakhalin Energy Investment Co. Ltd., Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia

A technique for the optimization of refrigeration cycle performance. This transformation effectively
mixed refrigerant (MR) composition was The invariance is a crucial feature linearizes and decouples the
developed and successfully applied at the of the factor that enables the system of controlled variables,
Sakhalin LNG plant on Sakhalin Island, comparison of cycle performances contributing to higher control
Russia. Indirect control of the MR com- in different plant operation cases. performance and, thereby, more
position was implemented via calculated • Clear correlations were observed efficient plant operation.
inventories, replacing direct control of between the Carnot factor and the
component concentrations and maximiz- MCHE temperature approaches, Process description. The Shell DMR
ing the LNG plant’s performance. as well as between the temperature process applied at the Sakhalin LNG
approaches and the concentrations plant uses a PMR cycle and an MR cycle
Introduction. The MR cycle is used for of MR components. From these to liquefy natural gas.1 The MR cooling
liquefaction and subcooling of natural gas correlations, functions of optimal cycle—in which the refrigerant is a mix-
in most large LNG trains based on technol- MR composition setpoints were ture of nitrogen, methane, ethane, pro-
ogies such as AP-C3MR, AP-X and Shell derived and implemented in the pane and traces of butane—provides the
DMR. The varying composition of MR plant’s control system. cooling duty for the liquefaction of gas
cycle technology is its major advantage • To maximize control effectiveness, within a temperature range of –40°C to
over the Cascade process. This advantage a new MR composition control –150°C (FIG. 1).
comes from the fact that MR composition strategy was applied. It is based MR vapor exiting the shell side of the
can be adjusted to fit the natural gas con- on calculated component MCHE’s E-07A/B section is compressed
densation curve and maintain an optimum inventories rather than on in MR compressors K-01 and K-02. Inter-
temperature approach between cold and component concentrations. cooling and initial discharge cooling are
warm streams inside the main cryogenic
heat exchanger (MCHE) for a wide range
of NG inlet temperatures, depending on
propane or precooling MR (PMR) cycle
duty. Additional degrees of freedom re-
lated to MR composition help increase the
efficiency of the refrigerant cycle. The cor-
rect setup of MR composition setpoints, as
well as their robust control, are key prob-
lems that must be solved to maximize the
efficiency of any MR cycle.
The MR composition optimization and
process control solutions described in this
article were developed and implemented
in-house at the Sakhalin LNG plant oper-
ated by Sakhalin Energy Investment Co.
Ltd. The research results were success-
fully applied on the MR circuit of the Shell
DMR process, but they are generally valid
for any MR cycle, irrespective of specific
LNG technology details. The results are
summarized in the following points:
• The Carnot factor was used as
FIG. 1. MR cycle of Shell double mixed refrigerant process.
an invariant parameter to assess
Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 19
SPECIAL FOCUS: LNG TECHNOLOGY
achieved by air coolers E-01, E-02, E-03
and E-04, while further cooling and par-
tial condensation are achieved by cooling
against PMR at two different pressure
levels—the E-05 high-pressure PMR pre-
cooler and the E-06 low-pressure PMR
precooler. Cooled and partially con-
densed MR is separated into light mixed
refrigerant (LMR) vapor and heavy mixed
refrigerant (HMR) liquid in MR sepa-
rator vessel V-02. The HMR and LMR
high-pressure streams are subcooled sepa-
rately inside the MCHE and returned to
the shell side after expansion, providing
cooling duty for gas liquefaction.
The separation of MR in V-02 creates
two cycles with different compositions
and circulation rates. The composition of
refrigerant in different sections of the MR
cycle is far from uniform, which is a chal-
lenge for tight control.
Changing process conditions for two-
phase MR mixture flashing in V-02 are the
main source of variability in MR compo-
sition measurements. The flashing is de-
fined by three parameters:
• The MR temperature in the E-06
outlet, which depends on PMR
cooling duty
FIG. 2. Real (A) and ideal (B) refrigeration cycle diagrams showing compression with
inter-cooling and after-cooling in air coolers (points 1–2); MR cooling in the PMR cycle
(points 2–3); MR self-cooling in the MCHE (points 3–4); Joule–Thomson expansion
(points 4–5); and MR boiling in the MCHE (points 5–1).
FIG. 3. Correlations between the Carnot factor of the MR cycle and the MCHE temperature approaches (Tcp slice from –47°C to –48°C).
20 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
• The LMR to HMR mass ratio
(LMR/HMR), which is maintained
by the control system
• The MR composition, which
depends on the V-02 separation
temperature and LMR/HMR, as
well as on component inventories in
the MR system.
The pressure in V-02 results from
vapor-liquid equilibrium. A two-phase
mixture with a given composition at a
given temperature splits the vapor and
liquid phases with a given ratio between
them, but only at a certain pressure. In
this system of mutually dependent pa-
rameters, the MR component concentra-
tions are subject to the influence of many
factors, and the component inventories
are the only invariants. In general, the
inventory of an MR component in the
system can be changed in a controlled
way by adding a certain component and
removing either the HMR mixture or the
LMR mixture. Changes in pressure and
temperature in different parts of the MR
circuit affect the MR holdup in those
parts, while the total inventory is fixed
and the HMR liquid level in V-02 serves
as a buffer for those fluctuations.
Optimization of MR composition
setpoints. Most MR composition opti-
mization techniques deal with an offline
process model, rather than with a running
plant.2,3 Usually, such techniques repre-
sent a combination of a relatively simple
model of a liquefaction unit and a fully or
partially automated optimization routine.
However, at Sakhalin LNG, this meth-
od was found not to work well for the opti-
mization of a running plant. Any mismatch
between process equipment models and
actual plant operation resulted in a sub-
optimal solution where the actual plant
performance did not reach the predicted
level, or even decreased. The adoption of
a rigorous, model-based MR optimization
of a running LNG plant has potential, but
this depends on the further development
of modeling techniques.
Statistical treatment of past opera-
tional data is the most prevailing method
adopted by the LNG industry for the
optimization of MR composition at run-
ning plants. It provides credible results
if the data population is large enough to
represent the variations of MR composi-
tion and cycle efficiency. The method is
based on the extraction of top efficiency
data from the total data population, as
well as the development of correlations
between PMR or propane cycle cooling
temperature and optimum MR compo-
nent concentrations. The main challenge
of this method is deriving an invariant
performance indicator that is sufficient
to describe cycle efficiency. The estima-
tion and application of the Carnot fac-
tor for MR composition optimization at
Sakhalin LNG is described in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
If PMR cycle capacity is given and
fixed, the total flowrate of LNG measured
just downstream of the MCHE’s E-07A/B
unit depends on several factors:
• Gas temperature on the E-07A/B
inlet (i.e., cutpoint temperature,
 SPECIAL FOCUS: LNG TECHNOLOGY

or Tcp) as defined by PMR cycle The minimum specific work of the dqNG = λ(T) × dT (7)
operating conditions ideal cycle can be derived from the basic
• LNG temperature on the E-07A/B principles of the Carnot cycle3 (Eqs. 3, where:
outlet (i.e., LNG rundown 4 and 5): λ(T) = Natural gas specific heat func-
temperature, or Trd) as defined by tion of absolute temperature.
the control system dwid = dqPMR − dqNG (3) Finally, after integration of Eq. 6, mini-
• The available power of MR dqPMR = Tcp × dS (4) mum specific work Wid can be expressed
compressor drivers (KT-01 and as a function of Tcp and Trd and then used
KM-01) dqNG = T × dS (5) for Carnot factor estimation (Eq. 2), as
• MR cycle coefficient of shown in Eq. 8:
performance, which is the ratio of where:
λ(T)
cooling duty provided to the gas NG = Natural gas Wid = ∫dwid = Tcp × ∫ TTrdcp
stream over the compressor drivers’ dqNG, dqPMR = Amount of heat removed T (8)
total power. It can vary depending from the gas stream and transferred to a × dT − ∫ TTrdcp λ(T) × dT
on MR cycle process conditions, as high-temperature reservoir (PMR cycle)
well as on equipment availability. dS = Entropy change corresponding to
The actual performance coefficient of dqNG heat removed from the gas stream at
the MR cycle can be calculated as shown absolute temperature T.
in Eq. 1: Combining Eqs. 3, 4 and 5, Eq. 6 can
be obtained in differential form for ideal
FLNG × ∆H LNG
COPact = (1) specific work:
PMR
dq
where: dwid = (Tcp − T) NG =
T
FLNG = LNG flowrate (6)
∆HLNG = NG enthalpy change over the dqNG
Tcp × − dqNG
temperature range from Tcp to Trd T
PMR = Power of MR drivers delivered Condensation heat removed from the
to MR compressors. gas can be obtained in numeric form from
The MR cycle coefficient of perfor- a thermodynamic package and then con- FIG. 4. MCHE temperature approaches
corresponding to top 15% efficient operation
mance is a value invariant to the changes verted into an analytical form as a func-
vs. historical operation data variance.
of available power, since the LNG pro- tion of temperature (Eq. 7):
duction rate is a function of the power
(1). The ratio of actual COP to ideal
COP (Carnot factor) was used to obtain
a value that is also invariant to Tcp and Trd,
as shown in Eq. 2:
COPact FLNG × ∆H LNG
ψ= = ×
COPid PMR
Wid F × Wid (2)
= LNG
∆H LNG PMR
where:
Wid = Minimum specific work/1 kg of
gas required to cool it from Tcp to Trd in an
ideal refrigeration cycle.
Two assumptions were made when de-
fining an ideal refrigeration cycle for gas
liquefaction (FIG. 2):
• The ideal cycle can be represented
as the number of Carnot cycles,
each operating between a specific
cold reservoir temperature
(gas condensation curve) and
a hot reservoir temperature,
which is common for all the cycles
• The hot reservoir temperature
and the gas inlet temperature FIG. 5. MR composition corresponding to the optimum MCHE temperature approaches (error
are the same. bars correspond to standard deviations of the correlations) vs. historical operation data variance.

Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 21

 SPECIAL FOCUS: LNG TECHNOLOGY

A major advantage of the Carnot fac-
tor is its invariance, which allows for the
comparison of MR cycle performance
based on a single scale, irrespective of the
PMR cycle capacity, the available power
of MR compressor drivers and varia-
tions in LNG rundown temperature.
Therefore, the yearly probability dis-
tribution of the Carnot factor can help
estimate the available room for cycle
efficiency increases, as well as confirm
positive effects after the implementation
of optimization-related changes. Several
operations were performed on historical
operation data, including Carnot factor
values array:
• Instrumentation bad data and
periods of turndown or transient
operation were filtered out, along
with equipment unavailability and
malfunctions
• Carnot factor inaccuracies due to
instrumentation noise, as well as
natural variance from suboptimal
plant operation, were estimated
• The maximum possible increase in
MR cycle efficiency was estimated
• Data was checked for correlation
between several process parameters
and the Carnot factor
• Functions of optimal MR
composition setpoints were
derived based on top-performance
operational data
• Derived optimum functions were
validated by applying them to all
data populations and estimating an
expected economic impact.
The list of process parameters checked
for correlation with the Carnot factor in-
cluded the MCHE’s superheat margins and
temperature approaches, the MR compres-
sor pressure ratio, the LMR/HMR mass
flow ratio, the LMR and HMR composi-
tions, the MR component concentrations
and inventories.
Clear correlations were found only be-
tween the MCHE temperature approach-
es and the Carnot factor, and between the
MR component concentrations and the
MCHE temperature approaches. This ob-
servation is important, since it confirms
the theoretical conclusion that MR cycle
efficiency strongly depends on MCHE
temperature approaches (FIG. 3). At the
same time, real plant data indicate that the
minimum possible temperature approach
does not correspond to the highest ef-
ficiency, likely because of limited heat
transfer area and developing temperature
pinch. Moreover, it was found that MR
component inventories do not correlate
with the cycle efficiency. This is the rea-
son why the inventories cannot be used
in an MR composition control strategy
as self-sufficient optimization targets. In
other words, a wide range of component
concentrations (including optimum and
sub-optimum sets) can correspond to a
single set of component inventories.
Operational data was sliced by Tcp val-
ues with a 1°C interval, and the slices were
treated to extract cases with a high Carnot
factor (top 15%) with corresponding
MCHE temperature approaches. The av-
erage values of extracted temperature ap-
proaches were used to derive optimal ΔT
functions (FIG. 4). Finally, the functions
of optimum temperature approaches
were used to extract the corresponding
MR component concentrations data and
build correlations between Tcp and opti-
mum MR composition (FIG. 5). Those
correlations could then be used for con-
tinuous scheduling of MR composition
setpoints in a control system.

Indirect MR composition control via

component inventories. Statistical
treatment of operational data and MR
FIG. 6. Schematics of MR direct concentrations control. cycle efficiency provides valuable infor-
mation about minimum MR composition
control compliance required to achieve
TABLE 1. Multiple input/multiple output (MIMO) model structure for direct the expected increase in performance.
concentration control Standard deviations of MR component
Controlled variables concentrations corresponding to the top-
C1 C2 C3 N2 L V-02 P V-02
performance operation from the derived
functions of MR optimum composition
C1 makeup ++ – – – + +
Manipulated variables

were used as control compliance bench-

C2 makeup – ++ – – ++ – marks (see error bars on the trends in
C3 makeup – – ++ – ++ – FIG. 5). This makes sense, since compo-

N2 makeup – – – ++ + ++
sition control tightness must be at least
as good as the correlations between MR
HMR drain – –– –– – – 0 composition and cycle efficiency. Main-
LMR vent –– – – –– 0 – taining MR component concentrations
22 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 SPECIAL FOCUS: LNG TECHNOLOGY

within a ±0.3% target window is a chal- The combination of listed features While refrigerant composition control
lenge, since measured MR composition makes tight control impossible with the is traditionally implemented with the use
continuously experiences disturbance ef- described scheme. of multivariable predictive control tech-
fects from several factors: From a process control point of view, niques, the decoupling of the controlled
• Adjustment of LMR/HMR by the inventory of each component is more variables provides more freedom in the
control system suitable for control than its concentration selection of control technology. An exam-
• Variation of PMR capacity resulting in the MR mixture. The inventories are ple of a simplified control scheme for the
in Tcp changes invariant to process changes (Tcp, LMR/ two-component system is shown in FIG. 7.
• Adjustment of MR compressor HMR, etc.) and completely decoupled While pressure and temperature con-
suction pressure by control system from one another, which simplifies the ditions and volumes are known for most
• Variation of MR circulation rate model structure from multiple input/ of the MR circuit sections, the continuous
• Possible MR composition drift multiple output (MIMO) to multiple in- online estimation of component invento-
due to passing valves and leaking put/single output (MISO) (TABLE 2). ries accumulated in the refrigerant loop is
MCHE tubes. The transformation of actual and tar- still not a straightforward operation (Eq.
The most straightforward method of get MR component concentrations into 9). Complexity comes from the non-uni-
MR composition control relies on the actual and target inventories involves the form refrigerant composition across the
direct use of component concentrations input of V-02 level measurement and the circuit (varying gas compressibility and
in the control scheme (FIG. 6). The V-02 level setpoint. It results in the indirect liquid density), as well as the presence of
level and pressure protective controls control of not only MR composition, two-phase mixtures in some sections of
must be involved in that scheme, since but also the V-02 level. V-02 temperature the MR circuit.
the level does not depend on concentra- changes are realized in smaller variances
tions but rather on a measure of compo- in V-02 pressure, due to the higher perfor- m Pi × Vi
n j = R × ∑i=1 Cij × (9)
nent inventories and must be controlled mance of the inventory control scheme; Zi × Ti
separately. At the same time, variations therefore, the use of a V-02 pressure pro-
in the pressure allowed by that control tective control loop can be avoided. where:
scheme must be moderated by protec-
tive control.
A general analysis indicates that no con-
trollability issues are anticipated, since the
numbers of controlled and manipulated
variables are equal and each component is
independently controlled (TABLE 1). How-
ever, several crucial features still limit the
control performance of this scheme:
• The ramp character of process
models between all manipulated
and controlled variables
• Strong mutual dependency of the
controlled variables
• Non-linear gains, depending on
LMR and HMR composition
• N-1 degrees of freedom in
the system of N component FIG. 7. Simplified example of base-layer inventory control scheme for a two-component system.
concentrations, which make
independent control impossible.

TABLE 2. Multiple input/single output

(MISO) model structure for inventory
control
Controlled variables
C1_i C2_i C3_i N2_i
C1 makeup + 0 0 0
Manipulated variables

C2 makeup 0 + 0 0
C3 makeup 0 0 + 0
N2 makeup 0 0 0 +
HMR drain – –– –– –
LMR vent – – – –– FIG. 8. Schematics of MR inventory control.

Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 23

SPECIAL FOCUS: LNG TECHNOLOGY
FIG. 9. Calculation schematics for gas-liquid equilibrium in V-02 for actual and target MR
concentrations.
FIG. 10. MR composition offset and variation before and after the implementation of an inventory
control scheme based on plant operational data.
nj = Amount of substance of j compo-
nent in mixture
R = Universal gas constant
Cij = j component concentration in i
section of MR system
Pi, Ti = Pressure and temperature in
the i section
Vi = Volume holdup of the i section
Zi = Compressibility of real gas in the
i section.
A common solution for the outlined
problems is to use the equation of state
(EOS) solver for the continuous estima-
tion of gas, liquid or two-phase mixture
properties in all MR cycle sections. This
approach was successfully applied at the
Sakhalin LNG plant to estimate MR com-
ponent inventories corresponding to ac-
tual and target concentrations.
The Peng-Robinson EOS solving algo-
rithm4 was implemented at the distribut-
ed control system (DCS) as a structured
text program developed in-house. It is ro-
bust against abnormal process conditions,
like quick changes of parameters or trips,
as well as instrument signal abnormalities.
24 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
Several estimators were implemented
for different sections of the MR circuit,
linked with corresponding inventory
calculations based on volume holdups
of equipment and pipelines. The calcu-
lations provided estimates of actual and
target inventories across the MR circuit,
which are used for control (FIG. 8).
V-02 temperature is assumed to be
the same for the actual and target condi-
tions, since the temperature is an external
parameter depending only on the PMR
cycle cooling capacity. Pressure and flash
rate, in combination with temperature and
mixture composition, completely define
two-phase equilibrium. In the inventory
control of MR separation, flash rate is a
fixed variable since it is directly related to
the controlled LMR/HMR; therefore, the
calculation of EOS for target conditions is
supplied with an LMR/HMR target value
that matches the operating conditions,
and the pressure is adjusted to match the
ratio. Note: The calculation of gas-liquid
equilibrium in the V-02 vessel must be
time-synchronized for actual and target
MR compositions, as shown in FIG. 9.
This ensures that calculation outputs will
be delivered to inventory estimates at the
same time and will correspond to the same
process parameters. This point is crucial
for minimizing the effect of measurement
noise on parallel actual and target inven-
tory estimates.
The implementation of MR inventory
control has delivered excellent results in
terms of MR composition compliance
with optimum targets. An analysis of one
month of post-commissioning opera-
tional data showed that MR composition
had been maintained inside the specified
target windows for approximately 98.5%
of controller uptime, while the windows
were specified at ±0.3 mol%, on average
(the correlation error bars in FIG. 5 refer to
the specified target windows).
The average offset between MR com-
ponent concentrations and dynamically
set targets was reduced to zero, and the
variance of the error was decreased by sev-
eral times (FIG. 10). The inventory control
scheme was also found to be sufficiently
robust to work autonomously, without
any adjustments by the control room op-
erator, as opposed to the previously used
direct-concentration control scheme that
required 8–10 manual operator actions
per day. These results show that inventory
control is the correct strategy for improv-
ing MR composition control, resulting in
increased LNG plant efficiency.
The methods of MR composition opti-
mization and control described here have
been patented in Russia (RU 2640976
C1). Similar patent applications have been
submitted in six other countries (Australia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar and
the US) and are under review. GP
LITERATURE CITED
1
Dam, W. and S.-M. Ho, “Unusual design consider-
ations drive selection of Sakhalin LNG plant facili-
ties,” Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 40, 2001.
Complete literature cited available online at
GasProcessingNews.com.
IVAN NEMOV is a Senior Process
Control Engineer who worked at
Sakhalin Energy Investment
Company Ltd. from 2012–2017,
mainly supporting Sakhalin LNG
plant operation. In 2017, he joined
Shell Australia Pty. Ltd. for
commissioning and startup of the Prelude FLNG vessel.
He earned his ME degree from Gubkin Russian State
University of Oil and Gas in Moscow, Russia in 2012 and
teaches as an Assistant Professor at Astrakhan State
Technical University in Astrakhan, Russia.
 SOUR GAS LO-CAT®

THIOLEX™
NGLs REGEN®
MERICAT™
SPENT CAUSTIC
MANAGEMENT
CONDENSATE MERICAT™C
LIGHT CRUDE

Merichem Company offers the patented LO-CAT wet scrubbing, liquid redox system that converts H2S to innocuous,
elemental sulfur. The LO-CAT process is applicable to all types of gas streams. To treat NGLs and other liquid
hydrocarbon streams, Merichem’s FIBER FILM® Contactor offers a variety of caustic and amine treating processes
including THIOLEX, REGEN and MERIC AT.

In addition to our large portfolio of licensed treating technologies, Merichem provides industry leading spent caustic
management services that utilize Beneficial Reuse options to create a non-waste solution for spent caustics.

For fast, effective treating solutions, choose Merichem.

www.merichem.com
For more information about our technologies
please contact us at 713.428.5000
IS WHO WE ARE
Ariel’s knowledgeable
aftermarket workforce is
what makes us the number
one authority in natural
gas compression.
 TREATING TECHNOLOGY

Operational considerations of side reactions

in gas sweetening systems—Part 2
J. CANTRELL and G. McINTYRE, Bryan Research & Engineering Inc., Bryan, Texas;
and C. DANIELS and E. STEWART, INEOS GAS/SPEC, Freeport, Texas 

In sour gas treating systems, several potential side reactions in an amine treating system, or at least reveal the benefits to be
produce unwanted byproducts. These reactions depend on re- expected at different operating conditions.
actant concentrations, reactant absorption rates, temperature, COS can undergo several reactions (Eqs. 4–7) that are
kinetic rates and residence times. Appropriate prediction of somewhat analogous to CO2:
the rates of these side reactions can give greater insight into Reaction with water:
the process, in terms of degradation rate and impact of operat-
COS + H2O → CO2 + H2S (4)
ing conditions.
Three reactions are examined in the context of a typical amine Reaction with hydroxide:
treating process: (1) conversion of hydrogen cyanide to formic
acid, (2) hydrolysis of carbonyl sulfide (COS) in methyldietha- COS + OH– → CO2 + HS– (5)
nolamine (MDEA) and (3) carbon dioxide (CO2) degradation Reaction with water, base-catalyzed by MDEA:
of diethanolamine (DEA). The authors explore the occurrence
COS + MDEA + H2O ←→ MDEAH+ + HCO2S– (6)
of these reactions throughout the process and the effect of oper-
ating conditions through use of simulation. Part 1, published in Reaction with primary or secondary amine:
the July/August issue, covered cyanide hydrolysis, while Part 2
discusses COS hydrolysis and CO2 degradation of DEA. COS + 2R2NH ←→R2NCOS– + R2NH2+ (7)
The reaction in Eq. 7 is an abbreviation of a zwitterion for-
COS hydrolysis. With tightening regulations on the total sul- mation with multiple deprotonation paths.
fur content of treated products, increasing attention is being These reactions occur at very different rates. For compari-
paid to organic sulfur contaminants and to what extent they are son, we can define an apparent rate constant kapp for the forward
removed by amine solvents. A significant organic sulfur compo- reaction in Eq. 8:
nent is COS. As with CO2, the rate of absorption of COS can be rCOS = –kapp [COS] (8)
influenced by chemical reactions occurring in the liquid phase.
Accurately accounting for the impact of the reaction kinetics This form assumes that the effect of the concentration of
can allow for better prediction of the rate of COS absorption any co-reactant, such as hydroxide or MDEA, is wrapped into
0 0

2 2

4 4

6 6

8 8
Tray number

Tray number

10 10

12 12

14 14

16 16

18 18
20 20
0 10 20 30 40 110 130 150 170
COS conversion, % Temperature, °F

FIG. 10. COS conversion in absorber.

Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 27

TREATING TECHNOLOGY

kapp. In this form, it is possible to compare the relative rates for In the case of the reacting absorber, we are interested in whether
the various reactions using a nominal value for the co-reactant a reaction will take place in the timespan of a tray. The criterion
(TABLE 2). Similar to the CO2 reaction series, the H2O and OH– for negligible reaction is shown in Eq. 9:
reaction rates are nearly negligible compared to the amines. kapp τ ≪ 1 (9)
MDEA is notably faster than those two. The primary and sec-
ondary reactions are significantly faster than MDEA. where τ is the residence time of the liquid on the tray.
Danckwerts2 offers criteria for when a gas absorption reac- With a typical value of 1 sec, the left side corresponds to the
tion will be significant to the timescale of a specific location and third column of TABLE 2.3–6 Based on this criterion, the water and
whether it will impact the absorption of a reacting component. hydroxide reactions can be neglected on a tray. The MDEA reac-
tion may be on the border, but it should not be inconsequential.
If a component being absorbed reacts fast enough, it will not only
TABLE 2. Relative rates of COS reactions react in the bulk of the liquid but will also change the concentra-
Concentration, kapp (120°F),
tion profile in the liquid film near the interface, enhancing mass
Reactant wt% 1/sec Reference transfer. A criterion for negligible film reaction is shown in Eq. 10:
H2O 50 0.00041 Thompson3 DA kapp
≪1 (10)
OH -
0.002 0.079 Sharma4 k L2
MDEA 50 0.57 Littel5 where DA is the diffusivity of the absorbing reactant in the liq-
MEA 20 720 Littel5 uid, and kL is the liquid film mass transfer coefficient.
TABLE 3 shows the values for several amines considered to
DGA 50 1900 Littel5
assume a diffusivity of 2 × 10–9 m2/sec and a mass transfer co-
DEA 30 210 Littel5 efficient of 2 × 10–4 m/sec. The primary and secondary amine
PZ 10 1600 Huttenhuis6 reactions are clearly fast enough to impact the film profile,
while the MDEA reaction is unlikely to have a sizeable impact
0
on mass transfer.
2 Calculating the impact of the enhanced mass transfer due
COS
4 MTC to film reaction is beyond the scope of this work. However, the
6 MDEA reaction has been shown to be non-negligible on the tray
8 and slow enough to be handled as a “bulk” reaction. The MDEA
Tray number

10 reaction in Eq. 11 is the first of two (Eq. 12) interacting reactions:5

12
14 COS + MDEA + H2O ←→ MDEAH+ + HCO2S– (11)
16
18 HCO2S– + MDEA + H2O →
20 (12)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 MDEAH+ + HCO3– + HS–
Concentration, mM
The first reaction to form protonated MDEA and monothio-
FIG. 11. Liquid concentration of COS and monothiocarbamate by tray. carbamate (MTC) is reversible. The second reaction is the con-

35

DEA CO2 DEA CO2

30 HEOD THEED+ 30 HEOD THEED+
HFO HEP

25
Concentration, wt%

Concentration, wt%

20 20

15

10 10

0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time, days Time, days

FIG. 12. Comparison of model to data4 (248°F at variable pressure).

28 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 TREATING TECHNOLOGY

ventionally thought of “hydrolysis” forming H2S and CO2. This
reaction is essentially irreversible. The first reaction is faster
than the second by about a factor of 30, so the MTC will build
up and the first reaction will eventually slow down. This effect is
shown in FIG. 10. The solvent enters the absorber with no COS,
and the reaction rate is relatively high. As the solvent saturates
in COS, the forward rate speeds up. Since the second reaction is
slower, the intermediate product accumulates (FIG. 11) and the
forward reaction slows down significantly, until there is almost
no net COS reaction at the bottom of the absorber, despite rela-
tively higher temperature. Also, as the solvent loads up with acid
gases, the molecular MDEA diminishes as it is protonated.
TABLE 4 shows the net effect of the reaction on the absorp-
tion of COS into the MDEA. The main observation is that COS
absorption by 40 wt% MDEA is low; approximately 0.5% is ab-
sorbed in the case of no reaction. When the reaction is added,
the absorption is increased by a factor of four to more than 2%.
While this low solubility may seem surprising considering the
none of them change the behavior significantly further rein-
forces the concept that the reaction is becoming equilibrium-
limited at the bottom of the column.
Once again, the incorporation of the reaction kinetics answers
an important question in the amine gas treating system. Namely,
with the consideration of hydrolysis, how much more will MDEA
absorb COS above physical solubility? The answer is that it im-
proves significantly, but the net “solubility” is still not large.
DEA degradation. Primary and secondary amines are suscep-
tible to degradation at higher temperature in the presence of
CO2. Understanding the kinetics of these reactions can allow
amine plant operators to troubleshoot the source of the amine
degradation and potentially modify their process to reduce its
3.0 30
2.5 HEOD 25

Byproduct concentration, wt%

THEED
behavioral analog between COS and CO2, it is important to re- 2.0 DEA 20
member that the solubility of molecular CO2 is not large. It is only

DEA, wt%
when the CO2 reaction products HCO3– and CO32– are included 1.5 15
does the CO2 solubility appear more significant. Since the COS 1.0 10
reactions occur approximately two orders of magnitude slower
than CO2, this may not show up as a solubility increase in the bulk 0.5 5
of the solvent, let alone in the mass transfer across the liquid film. 0.0 0
If greater COS reaction is desired, several steps can be taken. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TABLE 5 shows the impact of several possibilities. The fact that Time, days

FIG. 13. Time profile of DEA system degradation. DEA is represented

TABLE 3. Criterion for film reaction on the secondary axis.

Reactant Film indicator

3.5
MDEA 0.028
3.0 Fresh
MEA 36 20 days
DEA reaction rate, mol/hr

2.5
DGA 93
2.0
DEA 11
1.5
PZ 82
1.0
0.5
TABLE 4. Effect of reaction on COS absorption
0.0
Stream COS flow, lb/hr Removal, lb/hr Removal, % Total Bottoms Flash Lean/Rich Total Reboiler Surge Total
Absorber Regen Tank
Feed 9.896 – –
Treated, 9.85 0.046 0.5% FIG. 14. Comparison of DEA degradation reaction by location
no reaction at two times.

Treated, 9.684 0.211 2.1%

with reaction 4.0 0.024
3.5 0.021
TABLE 5. Modifications for COS removal 3.0 0.018
Loading, mol CO2/mol DEA
Degradation rate, mol/hr

Case Variation Removal 2.5 0.015

2.0 0.012
Base None 2.1%
1.5 0.009
More liquid residence 6-in. Weir 2.4%
time 1.0 Rate 0.006
0.5 Loading 0.003
Increase MDEA 50% MDEA 2.2%
concentration 0.0 0.000
0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25
Increase circulation rate 150 gpm 2.5% Reboiler duty ratio, MBtu/gal
Increase absorber 130°F/120°F 2.3%
temperature FIG. 15. Effect of duty on DEA degradation.

Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 29

TREATING TECHNOLOGY

impact. Several resources describe the major steps of the mech- to the degradation process. FIG. 12 shows how the degradation
anism of degradation for diethanolamine (DEA) as: model compares to the data of Kim and Sartori.7 The DEA and
1. DEA + CO2 ←→ DEA carbamic acid CO2 concentrations follow the experimental data very closely.
2. DEA carbamic acid ←→ 3–(2-hydroxyethyl) The model HEOD value does not rise as high as the data, but
oxazolidone (HEOD) + H2O the initial rise of THEED matches quite well. In the model, the
3. HEOD + DEA → N,N,N’-tris(2-hydroxyethyl) THEED represents all permanent degradation products; in the
ethylenediamine (THEED) + CO2 data, the THEED later reacts to other components.
4. THEED → N,N’-bis(2-hydroxyethyl) To demonstrate the predictive nature of the reaction model,
piperazine (BHEP) + H2O simulations were configured to represent data from other au-
The later degradation products THEED and BHEP are thors. The comparisons to literature laboratory degradation
formed by irreversible reactions that permanently diminish studies9,10 are shown in TABLE 6. While the simulation model
the solvent’s performance. They do have the capacity for hold- slightly overpredicted DEA degradation with the results of other
ing CO2 in solution through protonation and forming carba- studies,9,10 it was reasonably close.
mates; however, they are less effective per mass of amine than This kinetic model has been applied to the standard simula-
the original DEA. In addition, BHEP and THEED are sus- tion, using 30 wt% DEA with no starting degradation products.
pected of enhancing corrosion in process equipment. Finally, The results are shown in TABLE 7. DEA is consumed in both the
THEED also has the potential to form polymeric materials HEOD formation and the THEED formation reactions. TABLE 7
leading to fouling. Obviously, the capacity to predict this be- shows the net forward rate of the HEOD formation reaction (Rate
havior in the wide range of reaction locations would be useful 1) and the rate of the THEED formation reaction (Rate 2). The
for an amine plant operator. final column is the combined rate, indicating total DEA loss.
Kim and Sartori7 provide a kinetic model for this process. FIG. 13 shows the progress of the reactions over time, includ-
The kinetic parameters not provided in the original paper were ing the accumulation of HEOD and THEED. One can observe
regressed from the experimental data of Kennard,8 as shown in that HEOD approaches a near-steady-state value of 0.25 wt%
Eqs. 13 and 14: after approximately 20 d.
Once this initial buildup profile is established, the reaction
DEA + CO2 ←→ HEOD + H2O (13) rates change. The net forward reaction of the DEA ←→ HEOD
HEOD + DEA → THEED + CO2 (14) reaction slows down with more product HEOD, while the
second reaction accelerates with more reactant HEOD. FIG. 14
The first reaction consumes CO2, while the second reaction shows this change, comparing the fresh solvent with the system
produces CO2. In this manner, CO2 acts somewhat like a catalyst after 20 d of operation. Most of the prior locations are domi-
nated by the first reaction; as such, there is little change between
5.0 300 the fresh solvent and the solvent used for 20 d of operations.
4.5
4.0 240 TABLE 6. Comparison of model with literature data.
Loading and temperature
Degradation rate, mol/hr

3.5
3.0 180 Source Lepaumier9 Eide-Haugmo10
2.5 Conditions 42 wt% DEA, 284°F 30 wt% DEA, 275°F
2.0 120
275 psig CO2, 15 d 0.5 mol CO2/mol DEA, 35 d
1.5 Rate
Loading, mmol/mol Degradation 93% 95%–96%
1.0 Temperature, °F 60
0.5 Model 94.5% 96.9%
0.0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Regenerator pressure, psig
TABLE 7. Conditions of DEA degradation model
FIG. 16. Effect of regenerator pressure on DEA degradation.
Temperature, CO2, Rate 1, Rate 2, Combined,
Location
°F mM mol/hr mol/hr mol/hr
3.5 0.021 Absorber 1 120 47.7 0 0 0
3.0 0.018 Absorber 20 143 770.9 0 0 0
Loading, mol CO2/mol DEA
Degradation rate, mol/hr

2.5 0.015
2.0 0.012 Bottoms 143 770.9 0.026 0.012 0.038

1.5 0.009 Flash 145 770.6 0.111 0 0.111

1.0 0.006 Lean/rich 210 770.5 0.652 0 0.652

Rate Reflux 120 1.7 0 0 0
0.5 CO2 loading 0.003
accumulator
0.0 0.000
20 22 24 26 28 30 Regen 20 249 69.3 0.016 0 0.016
DEA, wt%
Reboiler 250 47.7 0.989 0.017 1.006
FIG. 17. Effect of DEA strength on degradation. Surge tank 186 47.7 0.1 0.002 0.103

30 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 TREATING TECHNOLOGY

One noticeable difference is the reboiler, where the second re-
action (HEOD → THEED) increases significantly at the higher
HEOD concentration.
Like the HCN reaction examined earlier, most of the reac-
tion is occurring in the reboiler and regenerator. As with that
reaction, two possibilities for reducing the degradation are to
increase the reboiler duty to drive off CO2, or to reduce the re-
generator pressure, thereby reducing temperature and possibly
lowering CO2 concentration. FIG. 15 shows the effect of reboiler
duty on the combined loss of DEA. As the reboiler duty in-
creases, the CO2 content of the solvent decreases and reduces
the reaction rate of the first reaction. Reaction data is chosen at
the quasi-steady-state HEOD level.
FIG. 16 shows the impact of regenerator pressure. As the pres-
sure increases, CO2 concentration decreases, but the net reac-
tion rate increases due to the increase in reboiler temperature.
One other possibility for managing the degradation rate is
decreasing the DEA concentration. FIG. 17 shows this effect.
The circulation rate is increased to maintain similar rich load-
ing. Since both forward reaction rates are linear in DEA, one
would expect the reaction rate to drop by approximately one
third as the DEA concentration drops from 30% to 20%. How-
ever, the reaction rate drops by more than 50%. As the DEA
strength decreases, the lean loading at the reboiler remains
about the same, so the CO2 concentration drops along with the
DEA. This slows the first reaction and, consequently, lowers the
quasi-steady-state value of the HEOD.
In the case of the DEA degradation reactions, the “instiga-
tor” of the reaction is not a contaminant that can be scrubbed
out or avoided, but rather the process itself (CO2/DEA) that
is causing the damage. The reaction-enabled simulation offers
a view as to how the process conditions impact the long-term
health of the amine treating system.
Takeaway. The utility of combining experimentally deter-
mined reaction kinetics with a commercial simulator has been
demonstrated for a variety of reactions relevant to gas treating.
Some specific observations about the reactions include:
• Hydrogen cyanide will convert to formic acid, primarily
in the regenerator column and surge tank. To reduce the
reaction, the reboiler duty is kept high while the reboiler
temperature is kept low.
• COS is reactive in MDEA/water solutions, but the
solubility is low enough that absorption is small.
• DEA degradation in the presence of CO2 happens
primarily in the regenerator reboiler. The degradation
rate accelerates for the first few weeks of operation,
beginning with a clean solution before stabilizing. As with
cyanide, reducing regenerator pressure and increasing
reboiler duty reduce the reaction rate. In addition,
lowering amine strength lowers the degradation. GP
LITERATURE CITED
Complete literature cited available online at GasProcessingNews.com.

US Gas Processing

ACTIONABLE INSIGHTS
Into US Natural Gas Facilities
The web-based GIS application includes detailed data on more than
500 US gas processing plants, 400 natural gas underground storage
locations, and 58 natural gas market hubs.

In-Depth Data
Such as key contact details, gas plant project/facility data
(including plant type/flow, BTU content, infrastructure,
storage capacity, plant status and ownership) for the
following layers:

• US gas processing plants • Natural gas underground

storage
• Natural gas pipelines
• Natural gas market hub
• Gas fields
• US Compressor Stations

Discover more at EnergyWebAtlas.com Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 31

 MODULAR BUILDINGS
FOR SALE OR LEASE

Protect
your people

Protect
your equipment

BUILT TO PROTECT
from 1.0 PSI to 10.0 PSI
At HUNTER, we have always made it our goal to value your employees
and assets the same way we value ours. We understand that keeping
your employees and assets safe is your top priority and that is why we
have made it ours as well.
Duration
of 200 MS HUNTER offers a level of safety and service unmatched by other modular
building manufacturers, designed to protect what matters to you.

Low to Medium
HUNTER is the leading manufacturer of modular, blast-resistant
response buildings, and has one of the best safety records among blast-resistant
building providers.
Choose a company that you can depend on to keep your employees and
assets safe when dangerous situations arise. Choose HUNTER.

Design / Manufacture / Customization / Installation / Site Services / Leasing

........ ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14935 Jacinto Port Boulevard / Houston, Texas 77015 / +1 281.452.9800 / HunterBuildings.com

Behavior and effect of methanol
in amine treating systems
R. WEILAND, Optimized Gas Treating Inc., Coalgate, Oklahoma; A. GOETHE, Enterprise Products LLC,
Houston, Texas; and R. ACKMAN, Dow Chemical Co., Freeport, Texas
To prevent the formation of hydrates,
methanol is commonly added to wellhead
gas before it enters pipelines for transport
to processing units. Perhaps under the
mistaken notion that more is better, copi-
ous amounts of methanol are sometimes
added, amounting to many tons of metha-
nol per day. Almost invariably, a large pro-
portion of the methanol is removed from
the gas in the amine unit, where it tends
to build up to high levels in certain areas,
especially the amine regenerator.
Eventually, the absorbed methanol
finds its way at high concentrations into
the acid gas entering the sulfur plant,
where it acts as a diluent. This absorbed
methanol can significantly lower flame
temperatures in the furnace, and it has
a deleterious effect on Claus unit cata-
lyst performance. However, not all the
absorbed methanol is stripped from the
solvent in the regenerator; a sizeable
part remains in the lean solvent, which
returns to the top of the absorber and
sometimes causes high methanol levels
in the treated gas.
NGL produced from the treated gas
sourced from shale plays often contain
large ethane and propane fractions. These
fractions are used as cracker feeds for pro-
duction of ethylene and propylene. Meth-
anol is a serious poison to cracking cata-
lysts; in fact, crackers sometime specify
zero methanol content in ethane and pro-
pane feedstocks, despite the physical and
economic impossibility of total removal.
Enterprise Products operates 15 NGL
fractionation trains throughout the US.
This article reports operating data col-
lected by Enterprise Products from one
of these trains. The liquids in the train
are first amine treated in separate mixer-
settler units to remove residual acid gases,
mainly CO2. Spent amine is regenerated
in conventional regenerators. Samples
TREATING TECHNOLOGY
were analyzed by Enterprise Products and
by Dow Chemical. Comparisons between
simulated and measured methanol levels
in various locations in the plant are includ-
ed. Finally, recommendations are made to
alleviate methanol contamination prob-
lems in fractionation train products.
Introduction. Hydrate inhibitors used
in the gas industry are either methanol
or a glycol, such as monoethylene glycol
(MEG). Methanol is quite effective at
preventing the formation of gas hydrates.
It is usually injected at the wellhead,
where it mixes with the gas. As the gas
flows along a subsea pipeline, for exam-
ple, it cools (typical seafloor temperature
is about 39°F) and free water can start to
form, depending on the pressure. At such
a temperature, and above a pressure of ap-
proximately 300 psia, hydrate formation
is almost assured. As the water condens-
es, methanol dissolves into it. With a high
enough methanol concentration in the
water phase, gas hydrates cannot form.
Pipeline plugging must be avoided at
all costs. Perhaps for that reason, grossly
8 16
Tear
To dehydration
6
Flash gas
Contactor
11
10 9 15
LP flash
Y-grade feed
12
FIG. 1. Schematic of CO2 treater.
excessive amounts of methanol are some-
times used as a measure of absolute as-
surance. Apart from the unnecessary
cost associated with high use, none of the
added methanol will go away on its own.
Except for the methanol that is retained
as high concentration levels in separa-
tion equipment, such as absorbers and
solvent regenerators, the rest ends up in
feed streams to various units and product
streams from others.
In ethane and propane fractions,
methanol plays havoc with catalysts in
crackers. In conventional treating of sour
gas, it negatively affects furnace and con-
verter performance in sulfur plants. It
is important to keep methanol usage in
check at the wellhead, so that it can be re-
moved before it enters processing units.
Only a few tens of ppmv of methanol
can poison the cracking catalysts used to
convert ethane and propane to ethylene
and propylene.
Ethane and propane can be cracked to
ethylene and propylene either thermally
(750°C–900°C) or catalytically (typical-
ly 500°C), using a zeolite or other cata-
CB
Control-1
5
Trim cooler Acid gas
14
3
4
22-tray stripper
13 2
CrossX
1
7
Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 33
TREATING TECHNOLOGY
lyst. Catalytic cracking is done at lower
temperatures because it saves energy;
however, unlike thermal cracking, cata-
lysts are sensitive to, and poisoned by,
certain impurities. In particular, metha-
nol is a known catalyst poison. For this
reason, ethane and propane fractions in-
tended for cracking have stringent limits
on allowable methanol content.
This article presents the result of a
performance analysis of the CO2 remov-
al system of a fractionation train operat-
ed by Enterprise Products. The analysis
was carried out using a proprietary mass-
and heat-transfer-rate-based simulator.
Data were collected by Enterprise, which
also performed many of the stream com-
position analyses. Other stream analy-
ses were carried out by Dow Chemical.
Some of the simulation results suggested
that the contactor performed as less than
a single ideal stage, and that some car-
ryunder of hydrocarbon into the rich
amine from the contactor had likely oc-
curred. Overall, simulation results com-
pared remarkably well with measured
performance data.
Amine treating unit. The amine treat-
ing unit is shown schematically in FIG. 1.
The contactor is an inline static mixer
TABLE 1. Y-grade feed contaminants
Component
CO2
Methanol
0 0
5 5
10
Tray from top
15
Entering from reboiler
20
500 600
FIG. 2. Vapor and liquid distribution of methanol in regenerator.
34 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
(also known as a motionless mixer) fed
by the combined flow of Y-grade NGL
feed and the diethanolamine (DEA) sol-
vent used for treating. This is followed
by a separator-coalescer, which splits
the mixture into organic and aqueous
phases. The treated liquids pass to a de-
hydration unit while the CO2-rich amine
is regenerated in a conventional reboiled
stripper. The fate of the methanol is the
remaining question.
TABLE 1 shows the composition of the
NGL feed. In addition to residual CO2
not removed in the original gas treatment
step before transport to the fraction-
ation plant, the NGL contains 65 ppmw
of methanol, which comes from the
methanol injected into the wellhead gas
to prevent hydrate formation. Flow was
measured at 3,310 bph. The methanol
concentration rivals the CO2 concentra-
tion in the Y-grade feed.
The solvent concentration is held
within a certain range; it was 25.4 wt%
DEA as analyzed for this work. It con-
tains 1.25 wt% heat-stable amine salts
(HSAS). In DEA systems containing
anything but the smallest CO2 loading,
HSAS have no effect on treating per se,
although they may cause corrosion of
carbon steel. The foaming tendency of
the lean solvent was classified by Dow as
severe. The lean amine was reported to
contain 0.92 wt% methanol.
ppmw
The regenerator column had 22 con-
160 ventional, valve-type trays operating at
65 approximately 22 psia, with solvent feed
10
Tray from top
15
20
700 800 900 1,000 1,1000
Methanol in vapor, lb/h
to the top tray at 195°F (90.5°C). The re-
boiler used hot oil and had a known duty.
Simulation. Initial simulation work was
performed on the assumption that the
static mixer-separator combination acted
as a single ideal stage of contact. At all
times, however, the regenerator was simu-
lated on a strictly mass-transfer-rate basis,
in which methanol and CO2 stripping
were directly determined by their mass-
transfer rates and not through any kind
of ideal stage calculations. The treated
NGL composition was simulated to con-
tain less than 1 ppmw of CO2 and only a
few ppmw of methanol, in disagreement
with the measured composition of 40
ppmw–60 ppmw of CO2 and several tens
of ppmw of methanol.
Enterprise suggested that the static
mixer-settler unit was performing with an
efficiency of far less than 100%, and that
the rather high residual levels of CO2 and
methanol were a result of this inherent
inefficiency. In line with this assumption,
an efficiency of roughly 60% was found
to reproduce the measured treating levels
almost perfectly for both components.
The primary reason for the low efficiency
was the very small amine flow relative to
NGL (NGL to amine volumetric flow-
rate ratio of greater than 10). The inter-
facial contact area is necessarily small,
making good mass transfer much harder
to achieve. This small amine flow, com-
bined with the unusually low CO2 level
in the NGL feed (resulting from the high
Entering from condenser and
with rich amine feed
1.5 2.0 2.5
Methanol in liquid, wt%

amount of ethane rejection in the field),
caused lower efficiency of contact.1
One of the interesting learnings from
the simulation is that both residual CO2
and the more problematic methanol
levels can be considerably reduced by
improving the efficiency of contact with
the amine. It does not take a large inef-
ficiency to yield much poorer product
quality than can be achieved. More in-
tense mixing—achieved by using longer
mixers or multiple units, or by redesign-
ing the mixer—may be a way to encour-
age significant improvement.
On the other hand, more intense mix-
ing may emulsify the hydrocarbon and
amine phases, making phase separation
more difficult. A balance must be struck.
Yet another alternative is to recycle part
of the amine back to the contactor so that
a better volumetric flow ratio of NGL to
amine can be achieved and the interfacial
contact area can be increased.
The simulated flash gas rate was sev-
eral times lower than measured. Simu-
lation was done on the assumption that
the phase separation in the settler was
SAVE THE DATE
Presented by:
For information on sponsorship opportunities, please contact Karen Francis at +1 (713) 520-4450.
POC_Save the date_HLH.indd 1
100%. In liquid treating, the presence of
a rag layer at interfaces and the difficulty
in perfectly removing very fine drop-
lets of one phase from another are well
known. When the simulation was rerun
with approximately 0.07% entrainment
of NGL into the amine, the simulated
and measured flash gas make rates coin-
cided, as did the methanol content of the
flash gas.
Entrainment of hydrocarbon into the
solvent hardly affects treating; however,
it can have a significant impact on flash
gas rates, and it represents an avoidable2
loss from the product stream. At the lev-
els present, there may be some impact of
the methanol itself on the solubility of
other hydrocarbons in the amine. Previ-
ous studies by the GPAa,b were conduct-
ed with much lower levels of methanol.
At this juncture, all other simulated
performance parameters were found
to be in excellent agreement with mea-
sured data. Simulated methanol in the
lean amine and the lean amine loading
agreed with measured data. Methanol,
CO2 and total flowrate of the acid gas
April 9, 2019 | JW Marriott, Houston, TX
04.09.19
pipeline-opportunities.com
TREATING TECHNOLOGY
stream from the regenerator were also in
excellent agreement.
Note: A mix-up occurred between the
reflux and lean amine samples, and the
laboratory analysis of stripper reflux was
reported as 0.7 wt% methanol. However,
the concentration predicted by the simu-
lation was 16 wt%—a large difference.
The reflux water was resampled and rean-
alyzed, and was then found to contain 17
wt% methanol, in almost perfect agree-
ment with the simulation.
The fate of methanol. In a single stage
of high-efficiency contact, virtually all
the CO2 and most of the methanol can
be removed by amine treating. Contac-
tor inefficiencies, however, will result in
significant loss of product quality, with
an unnecessarily large fraction of the
methanol in the feed remaining in the
product stream.
Flash gas make (via pressure reduc-
tion in the flash drum) can remove only
1% or less of the methanol from the sys-
tem, so it is not a significant outlet for
methanol. Rather, it is a way to remove
STAY CONNECTED with
thought leaders from
government and energy
sectors at the nation’s only
conference dedicated
solely to pipeline projects.
Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 35
6/21/2018 8:27:02 AM
TREATING TECHNOLOGY
hydrocarbons from the amine before
they enter the regenerator. Most of the
methanol leaves with the gas from the
regenerator; however, the lean amine re-
circulates a substantial flow of methanol
compared with the flowrate of methanol
entering the system with the raw feed—
i.e., a substantial amount of methanol be-
comes trapped in the recirculating amine
flow. The use of hot stripping gas in the
flash drum may offer a way to improve
the quality of the treated NGL.
The concentration of methanol in the
reflux water is very high. This may offer
an explanation for methanol trapping, as
the condensate from the overhead con-
denser returns a significant amount of
methanol to the regenerator, along with
the condensed water. This makes it diffi-
cult for methanol to get out of the system
until it builds a substantial concentra-
tion in the regenerator, including in the
rich amine to the regenerator. Methanol
is returned to the lean amine stream and
prevents the treated NGL from achiev-
ing very low methanol levels. Note: High
methanol levels in reflux water may also
present the opportunity to remove meth-
anol from the system via blowdown, in
the same way ammonia is blown down in
refinery amine systems.
Methanol distribution in the regen-
erator. FIGS. 2A and 2B show the simu-
lated methanol distribution across the 22
trays in the regenerator in both the liquid
and vapor phases. Each point refers to
the stream leaving the tray. In the vapor
phase, the mass flowrate of methanol is
shown, rather than its vapor phase con-
centration, because the condensation of
water causes concentrations to change,
obscuring the process that is happening.
However, only near the bottom of the re-
generator does methanol strip from the
solvent in a significant way.
Equilibrium is reached quickly, as
methanol strips from the solvent over
the last few bottom trays. Near the top
of the regenerator, the methanol vapor
flow and liquid concentration both drop
again—now because of the reabsorption
of methanol into the cooler solvent on
and near the feed tray.
In other situations with much lower
levels of methanol in the stripper feed,
similar behavior was predicted in the
streams flowing between the feed tray
and the top of a regenerator—i.e., in the
36 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
reflux section.3 The methanol flow re-
turned in the reflux is almost as large as
its flow entering through the main recir-
culating solvent stream. Reflux returns
99% of the methanol from the overhead
vapor, so the condenser is a serious trap
for methanol.
At the levels seen in the regenerator,
methanol is well beyond a minor con-
taminant. It is possible that significantly
high methanol levels in the treating sol-
vent might drag additional hydrocarbons
into the amine and, as a result, contribute
to foaming. Research into this question
could be valuable to the industry.
Summary. Significant methanol removal
from NGL can be achieved by extraction
into the lean amine used for CO2 remov-
al, but it performs best with high-effi-
ciency contacting. Methanol is difficult
to squeeze from the treating system be-
cause of its high affinity for water; how-
ever, mass-transfer-rate-based simulation
can predict the performance of the CO2
removal system, including the distribu-
tion of methanol in the unit.
Mass-transfer-rate-based simulation
also reveals an interesting aspect of the
methanol distribution in the regenera-
tor; the regenerator struggles to remove
absorbed methanol because the over-
head condenser returns so much of it to
the tower. This suggests that a possible
way to remove more methanol from the
entering NGL is to operate the condens-
er at a considerably higher temperature
than in a conventional regenerator. In
this way, less methanol might be recir-
culated back to the contactor. Across the
bottom seven or eight trays, methanol
is readily stripped; however, as vapor
flows up the tower, equilibrium is soon
reached. Methanol removal in the regen-
erator is also difficult for this reason and
causes a high concentration in the recir-
culating solvent.
One way to remove a large fraction
of methanol from the system is to blow
down a substantial fraction of the reflux
water. This stream contains 16%–17%
methanol and represents nearly as high
of a methanol flow as the methanol en-
tering with the rich amine feed itself.
Returning it to the stripper, rather than
removing it from the system, can be con-
sidered a waste.
The presence of methanol in the re-
generator, even at such high levels, is not
expected to significantly impact the sys-
tem’s ability to remove CO2. However,
the methanol does affect the regenera-
tor’s hydraulic capacity because the va-
por volume is 10% methanol (i.e., the va-
por has a 10% higher flowrate than in the
absence of methanol). As a result, tower
capacity can also benefit from reflux
blowdown. The most important factor
is that high methanol in the regenerator
negatively affects the system’s ability to
remove methanol. GP
LITERATURE CITED
1
Ng, H.-J. and H. Schroeder, “Vapor-liquid equilib-
rium studies on water-methanol-MDEA-hydrocar-
bon systems,” Gas Processors Association, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, April 2003.
2
Courtial, X., E. Booneart, A. Valtz, P. Theveneau, P.
Stringari and C. Coquelet, “Methanol distribution
(as a contaminant) in fractionation products and
freeze-out boundaries,” Gas Processors Association,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 2013.
3
Govindarajan, A., N. A. Hatcher and R. H. Weiland,
“Methanol distribution in amine systems and its
impact on plant performance,” AIChE spring meet-
ing, Austin, Texas, 2015.
NOTES
a
High initial CO2 means that a larger fraction can be
removed more easily, although it may still not be pos-
sible to reach truly low residual levels in the treated
NGL stream.
b
As an example, mesh coalescers can effectively pre-
vent entrainment of either phase into the other.
RALPH H. WEILAND is a PhD
graduate in chemical engineering
from the University of Toronto
in Canada. More than 25 yr ago,
he formed Optimized Gas Treating,
and with Australian colleagues
developed the ProTreat mass-
transfer-rate-base gas treating simulator. Dr. Weiland
also developed the sulfur plant simulator SulphurPro.
He is presently the President of Optimized
Gas Treating.
ALBRECHT (AL) GOETHE is Senior
Director of Process Engineering at
Enterprise Products Operating LLP.
He oversees the execution of capital
projects and the application of
process technology. Mr. Goethe has
37 yr of process experience focused
on the midstream industry and is an active member of
GPA Midstream Association’s Research Committee.
He received a Diplom Ingenieur from RWTH Aachen
University in Germany and an MS degree in chemical
engineering from Rice University in Texas.
RICH ACKMAN is the Technology
Leader for Dow Oil and Gas, based
in Houston, Texas. He has more than
25 yr of experience in UCARSOL
specialty amine applications and
amine plant design, as well as plant
troubleshooting and problem-
solving. Mr. Ackman holds degrees in chemistry
and chemical engineering from the University of
Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania.
 COMPRESSION

Prevent seal contamination and failure

with a reliable gas supply solution
G. SCHMIDT, EagleBurgmann, Cambridge, Massachussetts

Centrifugal compressors are used in processes for produc- surization, startup, pressurized hold and other transient condi-
ing oil, petroleum, petrochemicals and chemicals, as well as for tions. At these times, dirty process gas is allowed into the seal
natural gas processing. These compressors are equipped with cavity, which affects the seal gap and the dynamic seal.
seals—typically dry gas seals—to ensure that the process gas Although the product in a compressor is typically considered
stays within the compressor. Seal leakage is monitored, and the to be clean gas, the cleanliness of the process gas is much different
compressor is often shut down and vented when high leakage than that required by the seal. When gas temperature or pressure
occurs, as this indicates a seal failure. changes, components in a gas can turn to liquid. Untreated pro-
To ensure the reliability of dry gas seals and prevent situa- cess gas negatively impacts seal operation and reliability. The seal
tions that lead to high seal leakage, the most important factor is cavity and seal become contaminated with gas that has particles
the supply of quality gas to the seals when gas pressure is pres- larger than 3 μ and gas components that are liquid or turn into liq-
ent or injected into the compressor. Studies performed on dry uid as the gas leaks through the seal gap; this leads to seal failures.
gas seal failures identified the leading cause as contamination Contamination for a dry gas seal is split into two categories:
due to insufficient or poor-quality supply gas. particle contamination and liquid contamination. The follow-
ing sections discuss the effects of seal contamination by each.
Contamination of dry gas seals through process gas. Two
key elements within a dry gas seal are significantly affected by
contamination. One is the 3-µ to 5-µ gap between the station-
ary and rotating seal rings. The rotating seal ring has integrated
grooves to generate a gap between the seal rings and to provide a
stiff gas film between them during operation. The second is the
dynamic seal used on the stationary ring to compensate for com-
pressor rotor axial movement in relation to the compressor case.
This axial movement is caused by varying loads on the compres-
sor rotor, as well as by vibration. Changes are also seen in axial po-
sition with case expansion from heat and pressure. It is critical to
effectively manage all of these factors with the dynamic seal. This FIG. 1. Dry gas seal components.
can be accomplished only when the stationary seal ring moves
unhindered to maintain the gap between the seal rings (FIG. 1).
For reliable, trouble-free operation of dry gas seals, the seal gap
and dynamic seal must not be contaminated. The purpose of the
seal gas is to provide quality gas to the seal. This gas cannot con-
tain particles that will expand the seal gap or clog the gas grooves,
and it cannot cause contamination that would affect the operation
of the dynamic seal. To ensure that quality gas is delivered to the
seal, a source gas is taken from the discharge of the compressor,
passed through filters or a gas conditioning system, and then sent
through a flow control system and into the seal cavity. The seal gas
creates an ideal environment for the seal to operate reliably.
Seal gas flow is simple to achieve during operation, due to
the higher discharge pressure compared to the suction pressure
typically present in the seal cavity. The challenge occurs during
other compressor operating conditions, where little to no dif-
ferential pressure exists between the discharge pressure and the
seal cavity pressure, disabling the production of sufficient seal
FIG. 2. Debris that will hinder axial movement.
gas flow. Such instances are common during compressor pres-
Gas Processing | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 37
COMPRESSION
Contamination by particles. When small-enough particles
(less than 3 μ) enter the seal, they blow through the seal. Larger
particles become trapped inside the grooves or seal gap. If the
particles become trapped in the grooves and build up, then the
seal loses its effectiveness to maintain the seal gap. When larger
particles are forced through the seal rings, they will open the
seal gap or damage the seal rings. All of these contamination
scenarios lead to high seal leakage.
In addition to the sealing gap, the dynamic sealing element is
also affected by particles. The dynamic sealing element is an O-
ring or an elastomer-free sealing device between the stationary
seal ring and a stationary sealing surface (balance diameter). If
there is any accumulation of debris around the dynamic sealing
element, then the stationary ring axial movement is hindered
(FIG. 2). A sticky dynamic seal will open a flow path around
the seal ring, which increases the seal leakage. The sticky dy-
namic seal also eliminates the seal gap, causing the rotating and
stationary rings to contact, thereby producing erratic leakage.
Eventually, sufficient damage is caused and the seal fails (FIG. 3).
Adequate seal gas filtration, conditioning and seal gas flow
are key factors to prevent this type of contamination from enter-
ing the seal. Whenever pressure is present in the compressor, it
is critical to maintain quality seal gas flowing into the seal cavity.
Contamination by liquids. As mentioned previously, if the
temperature or pressure of a gas changes, then components in
FIG. 3. Damaged seal due to poor axial movement.
FIG. 4. Liquids formed from components in gas.
38 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
the gas will turn into liquid. When a compressor is hot during
normal operation, the operating temperature ensures that the
seal gas remains in a gaseous state for most applications. All
components remain in a gaseous state as the gas flows from the
discharge tap through the seal gas system, into the seal cavity
and through the seal, decreasing from discharge pressure and
temperature to atmospheric pressure and temperature. As the
gas flows through the entire system, dropping in pressure, the
gas temperatures can decrease even more due to the impact of
the Joule–Thomson effect (FIG. 4).
A bigger concern arises when the compressor is not running,
as the gas in the seal cavity can cool to the ambient temperature.
At this lower temperature and suction pressure, the gas condi-
tions will cause some gas components to turn into liquids or
form liquids as the gas pressure drops across the seal gap to at-
mospheric pressure. To determine when components in a gas
turn into liquid, a dewpoint analysis must be completed on an
accurate gas composition.
When liquids enter the seal gap or form in it, high shear
forces that generate heat are created. The heat produced
leads to gap instability, causing contact between the rotating
and stationary seal rings, thereby damaging them and lead-
ing to a seal failure. If a failure does not occur during opera-
tion with the liquid contamination, then the seal will fail at
the next start due to increased shear forces on the seal rings,
or shortly thereafter due to the heat generated between them.
Liquid contamination occurs when gas dewpoint is not con-
sidered, when a dewpoint analysis is not completed, when an
inaccurate gas composition is used to complete the dewpoint
analysis, or when unconditioned seal gas is allowed in the seal
cavity during transient conditions.
Two key strategies to prevent seal failures related to liquids
are (1) effectively conditioning seal gas to ensure that no liquids
form in the seal cavity or seal gap, and (2) preventing process
gas that has the possibility of forming liquids from entering the
seal cavity. For both particles and liquids, it is of utmost impor-
tance to maintain seal gas flow into the seal cavity, so that the
ideal seal environment is produced. This ensures that particle or
liquid contamination will not enter the seal cavity or seal, which
would reduce its reliability.
Contamination in pressurized standstill conditions. One
condition associated with the loss of seal gas flow is pressur-
ized standstill. When a compressor is stopped, it is held pres-
surized for a specified length of time. This allows the com-
pressor to be placed back into operation quickly, if needed. If
no means are provided to maintain seal gas flow during this
time, then process gas leaks into the seal cavity, contaminating
the seal. To minimize the amount of process gas entering the
cavity, the compressor is vented after a short period of time.
As stricter environmental regulations make the venting of a
compressor more challenging without penalties, this proce-
dure has become more difficult. Instances are also seen where
a compressor must stay pressurized for extended periods of
time to ensure a quick restart to respond to varying demand.
If the seal is not effectively protected, then seal failures com-
monly occur and seriously affect the dependability of the
equipment for meeting production requirements, profitability
and environmental regulations.
19TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

HOSTED BY

SUPPORTED BY

SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL
PEOPLE’S GOVERNMENT

240+
SPEAKERS

11,000+
ATTENDEES

300+
EXHIBITORS

30,000m2
EXHIBITION

80+
COUNTRIES

EARLY BIRD 550+

REGISTRATION ORGANISATIONS
DEADLINE
2 NOVEMBER 2018

ORGANISERS

lng2019.com
REGISTRATION ENQUIRIES
Contact registration@lng2019.com or call +44 20 7978 0006
FOLLOW US
SPONSORSHIP OR EXHIBITION ENQUIRIES
Contact Jason Berman on +61 2 9556 7991 or at JBerman@etf.com.au
COMPRESSION

poor reliability and extreme maintenance requirements. Typi-

cally, piston-type boosters do not achieve a satisfactory safety
margin above the minimal flow, and sometimes they are even
challenged to provide even a sufficient flow. To deliver sufficient
flow, multiple units are typically required. Another downside to
piston boosters is the amount of instrument air consumed dur-
ing use. If multiple units are incorporated to meet sufficient seal
gas flow, the air demand becomes even more challenging.
To give an idea of the air requirement and how many units
should be provided to effectively support the application, an ex-
ample for a pipeline application encompasses:
• Shaft size: 150 mm (5.9 in.)
• Pressure: 70 barg (1,015 psig)
• Temperature: 23°C (73.4°F)
• Required flow for 5 m/sec (16.4 ft/sec) at twice the
labyrinth clearance: 389 Nm3/hr (229 sft3m)/seal–778
Nm3/hr (458 sft3m) for two seals on a beam compressor
• Output of piston booster at 90 cycles/min: 332 Nm3/hr
(196 sft3m)
• Drive air required for one unit: 62.6 Nm3/hr (36.8 sft3m).
Based on the size and operating condition for this example,
FIG. 5. Centrifugal seal gas booster.a
seal gas flow for each seal is more than the output flow produced
by one piston booster. To meet the recommended flow for two
5.00 7.00 seals, three boosters should be used. This provides a safety mar-
225L gin to ensure that even unforeseen circumstances are managed ef-
4.50 Required
System 6.00 fectively. The air utility needed for these three boosters to deliver
4.00 Operating point the recommended gas flow is 132.5 Nm3/hr (78 sft3m).
Power consumption
A centrifugal booster (FIG. 5) was developed to provide suf-
3.50 Power consumption at flow 5.00 ficient seal gas flow, reliability and simplicity to customers. As
the centrifugal booster is electrically driven, minimal capital
Power consumption, kW
Pressure increase, BarD

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Pressure increase and flow
0.50
0.00
0 500 1,000 1,500
Flow, Nm3/hr
FIG. 6. Centrifugal booster performance.b
As identified previously, particles in the seal gas or the seal
cavity, or liquids that form in a seal gas, are the root causes of the
majority of seal failures. To prevent these failures from occur-
ring, it is essential that a clean and quality seal gas is provided to
the seal. This maintains a reliable seal that will not fail because
of standstill conditions and that prevents failures when restart-
ing (or shortly after restarting) a compressor.
Seal gas flow must be maintained to prevent dirty or wet
process gas from entering the seal cavity. A common way to
maintain seal gas flow is with a seal gas booster. Typical seal gas
boosters are driven by air, but these boosters are not the correct
equipment for the application. As a minimum flow is required
to ensure a clean seal cavity, a piston-type booster at or beyond
its cycling capacity will deliver the required flow, which leads to
and space are required compared to a piston booster and its as-
4.00
sociated equipment for utilities to support its operation. The
performance of a centrifugal booster and utilities for supporting
3.00 the same application include 778 Nm3/hr (458 sft3m) of output
and power consumption of 4.1 kW (FIG. 6).
2.00
Takeaway. The industry has confirmed that contamination is
the leading cause of dry gas seal failures. As identified in this arti-
1.00
cle, if process gas or inadequately conditioned seal gas is provided
to a dry gas seal, it will affect the seal reliability and lead to failures.
0.00 The most effective prevention for failures is a reliable seal gas
2,000 2,500 booster. Piston-type boosters are characterized by costly support-
ing equipment, high maintenance and poor reliability. However,
the use of a centrifugal seal gas booster can help maintain a com-
pressor in an unlimited pressurized hold until venting or a com-
pressor restart is absolutely necessary, mitigating concerns of seal
failures. Centrifugal boosters are a reliable, cost-effective means
of supporting dry gas seals and improving compressor reliability,
increasing profits and preventing emissions. GP
NOTES
a
Photo courtesy of EagleBurgmann
b
The performance of the centrifugal booster is based on the EagleBurgmann
RoTechBooster 225L-120.
GLENN SCHMIDT is a Senior Sales Director for Turbomachinery
Solutions with EagleBurgmann. He provides technical and sales
support related to dry gas seals, wet seals and seal systems.
His 22 yr of experience with seals include assisting with the
development of products for sealing applications and providing
input as a member of the API 692 standard for dry gas seals.

40 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 2.0
OCTOBER 25, 2018
8:30AM CDT | 1:30PM UTC
GASPROCESSINGCONFERENCE.COM
A Webcast Symposium

Agenda
8:30 am CDT / 13:30 UTC
Welcome and Introduction

8:35 am CDT / 13:35 UTC

Register Today for GasPro 2.0
Keynote by NextDecade
The global LNG industry is becoming increasingly interconnected
9:05 am CDT / 14:05 UTC as grassroots export projects get off the ground. Another technology
Presentations by Linde Engineering, route for processing gas into fuels—GTL—is attracting renewed
Énergir, SNC Lavalin, Air Products & Chemicals attention due to improving economics. Small-scale solutions
for both LNG and GTL are at the forefront of new technological
10:10 am CDT / 15:10 UTC developments, while major projects using more conventional
technologies continue to start up around the world.
Break/MiniTech session: Chart Industries
During this webcast symposium, we will focus on LNG, GTL, gas
10:25 am CDT / 15:25 UTC processing technology developments and deployments, operations,
Presentations by ExxonMobil, Air Liquide, small-scale solutions, transportation, trading, distribution, safety,
regulatory affairs, business analysis and more.
INFRA Technology and Velocys
Questions about sponsorship?
11:25 am CDT / 16:25 UTC
For sponsorship information, please contact your
Closing Remarks
sales representative or Catherine Watkins at +1 (713) 520-4421.

Register for FREE at GasProcessingConference.com

 SALES OFFICES—EUROPE ADVERTISER INDEX
ITALY, EASTERN EUROPE
Fabio Potestá Air Products & Chemicals Inc. .................... 2
Mediapoint & Communications SRL
Phone: +39 (010) 570-4948 American Petroleum Institute ...................16
E-mail: Fabio.Potesta@GulfEnergyInfo.com
Catherine Watkins, Publisher Ametek Process Instruments ....................14
TURKEY, WESTERN EUROPE
Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 520-4421
E-mail: Catherine.Watkins@HydrocarbonProcessing.com Hamilton Pearman Ariel Corporation .........................................26
www.GasProcessingNews.com Phone: +33 608 310 575
Hamilton.Pearman@GulfEnergyInfo.com Elliott Group .................................................... 6

SALES OFFICES—NORTH AMERICA UNITED KINGDOM, SCANDINAVIA Gulf Energy Information

EASTERN UNITED STATES, EASTERN CANADA
Patrick Djuma Energy Web Atlas ......................................31
Phone/Fax: +44 20 3409 2243
Merrie Lynch E-mail: Patrick.Djuma@GulfEnergyInfo.com Events—GasPro .........................................41
Phone: +1 (617) 357-8190
Mobile: +1 (617) 594-4943 Events—POC ..............................................36
E-mail: Merrie.Lynch@GulfEnergyInfo.com SALES OFFICES—OTHER AREAS
Events—WGLC ...........................................43
GULF COAST, SOUTH TEXAS CHINA—HONG KONG
Austin Milburn Iris Yuen GP Circulation ............................................42
Phone: +1 (713) 525-4626 Phone: +86 13802701367 (China)
E-mail: Austin.Milburn@HydrocarbonProcessing.com Phone: +852 69185500 (Hong Kong) HOERBIGER Wien GmbH ............................ 9
E-mail: Iris.Yuen@GulfEnergyInfo.com
MIDWEST, NORTH TEXAS Hunter Buildings ..........................................32
INDIA
Josh Mayer
Manav Kanwar
Linde Engineering North America ...........13
Phone: +1 (972) 816-6745
E-mail: Josh.Mayer@HydrocarbonProcessing.com Phone: +91-22-2837 7070/71/72 LNG2019, Shanghai .....................................39
Mobile: +91-98673 67374
WESTERN UNITED STATES, E-mail: India@GulfEnergyInfo.com Merichem Company ....................................25
WESTERN CANADA
JAPAN Pentair Filtration & Process ..................... 44
Rick Ayer
Phone: +1 (949) 366-9089 Yoshinori Ikeda
E-mail: Rick.Ayer@HydrocarbonProcessing.com Pacific Business Inc. Redguard.......................................................... 8
Phone: +81 (3) 3661-6138
E-mail: Japan@GulfEnergyInfo.com Shell Global Solutions................................... 5
DATA PRODUCTS
J’Nette Davis-Nichols
This index and procedure for securing additional information are
Phone: +1 (713) 520-4426 provided as a service to advertisers and a convenience to our readers.
E-mail: Jnette.Davis-Nichols@GulfEnergyInfo.com Gulf Publishing Company is not responsible for omissions or errors.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY AND STAY AHEAD OF THE GAME

Industry
cessing
l Gas Pro
the Globa
tion for
s Informa
Busines
Techno logy and

2018
UGUST
/A
| JULY
ws.com
essingNe
GasProc

SCALE
SMALL- SSING
Through print, online, e-newsletters and PROCE utdowns of
Prevent sh asonal temperature
iss
LNG
small-scale ues
due to se LNG—
Small-scale ture?
associated events, Gas Processing & LNG covers A game-cha
nger for th
e fu

the latest advances in processing technology and

equipment developments, market insights and
trends in the global gas processing industry.

Claim your free subscription today! GTL project econ

Rethinking 18 and beyond
omics

for GTL in 20
Visit GasProcessingNews.com LNG and marke
t insights mand
de
Key projects owing gas and LNG
for China’s
gr nsport fuel ent to
pp or t for LNG as a tra Special
Supplem
su
Metrology
ctions
TREATING considerations of side rea
l
Operationa tening system
in gas swee

42 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 Register
Today

WOMEN’S

October 29–30, 2018 | WGLConference.com

Houston, Texas | Royal Sonesta

Preliminary Agenda Announced!

Join us at our 16th Women’s Global Leadership Conference in Energy
(WGLC) on October 29-30 at the Royal Sonesta in Houston, TX
and discover how you can further develop your career in the
oil and gas industry.

Panel discussions include:

• Technology: Improving efficiencies through innovation in the
upstream and downstream
• Change agents: What role do men play in promoting women to
leadership positions?
• Downstream owner/operators and their project partners:
Working together to get the job done - on time and on budget
• The human-side of change management
• Super Basins and new frontiers

For information on sponsorship opportunities, please contact:

Hortensia “Tish” Barroso, Business Development Manager,
at Hortensia.Barroso@GulfEnergyInfo.com

2018 WGLC SPONSORS

Platinum Sponsor Gold Sponsors Silver Sponsors

Bronze Bronze Sponsor Program Print Young Women’s Mix and Mingle
Sponsor & Conference Bag Sponsor Preparatory Academy Networking Events
Sponsor Student Sponsor Sponsor
IMPROVE PLANT
PERFORMANCE
ADVANCED SEPARATIONS &
QUALIT Y FILTRATION

The key to effective process control is keeping the

contamination out with effective contamination control.
Eliminating contamination carryover provides a more
reliable and robust process and eliminates many of the
operational or maintenance headaches corrosion, fouling,
foaming, product haze and other process upsets. When
these upsets occur, they can occupy plant resources on a
highly regular basis. We call that Separation Anxiety.

Go to www.PentairSeparations.com to get started reducing

your Separation Anxiety.

(936) 788-1000
www.pentairseparations.com