Optimization Direct, Inc., Cplex & Energy Optimization Problems (Advertisement)
Energy Optimization
description
Transcript of Energy Optimization
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved
Rian Reyneke, Senior AdvisorDecember 1, 2010
Energy OptimizationEnergy efficiency through the asset lifecycle in the Petroleum Industry
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 2
What is Energy Optimization
$80 billion per year $680 billion per year $20 trillion total
• $80 bn/year global capex through 2020, to capture energy efficiency savings, with >10% IRR
• Refining & chemical industry annually spends $50-100M on energy per plant
• 70% of oil companies rank energy efficiency as the best method to meet CO2 caps
*Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports drive initiatives like the Kyoto ProtocolSources: McKinsey Investing In Energy Productivity, Global GHG abatement study; Daily Telegraph “A clean sweep for coal”; International Energy Agency reports; WRI 2005 report; Hydrocarbon Publishing 2010 report
• $680bn/year incremental investment by 2020, to achieve IPCC* target of 35% below 1990 emissions levels
• $5-10bn/year estimated market for CCS (carbon capture & storage) in 2030
• Process industries account for 36% of global GHG emissions
• $20 trillion total global investment through 2030 in alternatives
• Alternative energy accounts for 13% of global energy supply, and is growing 2-3 times faster than traditional sources
• 53% of oil companies currently involved in some type of renewable energy project
Energy Efficiency GHG Mitigation Alternative Energy
Energy Optimization
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 3
Energy Optimization Projects
92%
59%53%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Energy Efficiency GHG Mitigation* Renewable Energy
Energy Optimization Policies & Strategies: Global Survey of 53 Oil Companies% of companies with projects in each area
Source: Hydrocarbon Publishing, “Refinery CO2 Management Strategies”, 2010
Energy Efficiency reduces costs & CO2emissions
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 4
Energy Costs are Significant
Typical Refinery Operating Costs
Typical Olefins Plant Operating Costs
Note: Feedstock costs are excluded
Energy Costs 50 – 58%
Energy Costs 40 – 45%
Refinery energy costs: $75 -140M p.a.Global spend on energy: $57 – 108B p.a.
Chemicals energy costs: $75 -125M p.a.Global spend on energy: $20B p.a.
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 5
Industry Response and Key Activities
Planning & Scheduling
Energy Performance Management
Advanced Process Control
Run Existing Plant as
Efficient as Possible
Design/Process Improvement
Invest Capital
Life
cycl
e
Revamps, re-designs & models to continuously increase energy efficiency
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 6
AspenTech Delivers 10-30% Energy Savings
Current energy use
Design Planning & Scheduling
Performance Management
Advanced Process Control
Future energy use
3-5%2-10%
5-20%
Typical Energy Savings*
100% 70-90%
Total energy savings:
10 - 30%**
* Typical savings based on 26 energy efficiency case studies** Total savings depends on overlap & synergies
aspenONE Energy Efficiency Solutions
2-10%
Sequencing varies based on priorities
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 7
AspenTech in Energy Efficiency
Production Planning & Scheduling
Energy Performance Management
Advanced Process Control
Plant Design
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 8
ChallengeChallenge ChallengeImpact
Design Plants for Energy Efficiency
How to identify and screen the best design options
How to balance equipment, costs & energy usage
Energy/yield trade-off
Technology selection
Utility system design
Sub-optimal decisions
Takes longer to develop alternatives
Retrofits more costly than needed
Higher Capital & Energy Costs
Reduce capital & energy costs and improve asset ROI
Solution
Identify best design alternatives including
equipment, capital costs & energy efficiency
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 9
Technology
Services
AspenTech’s Global Services Process Consulting Services
Process Consulting
Process improvement
Energy & emissions reduction
Debottlenecking
Steady state modeling
Industry Sectors
Refining
Chemicals
Energy
Process Synthesis
Pinch analysis
Column analysis
Distillation systems
Column sequencing
Heat/mass exchange
Conceptual Design
Economic analysis
Process Simulation
Steady stateDeliver superior results
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 10
Asset Engineering Lifecycle and Workflow
Process Consulting Service Focus
Research and Development
Conceptual Engineering
Basic Engineering
Detailed Engineering
PlantOperations
Planning andScheduling
ConceptualEngineering
Develop ProcessTechnology
Select ProcessTechnology
Produce ConceptualProcess Design
Produce ConceptualEngineering Design
Construct and Pre-commission Plant
Commission andHandover Plant
Daily PlantOperations
MaintainEquipment
Procure and Control Equipment,Materials and Services
Produce DetailedEngineering Design
Identify PlantCapital Projects
Produce DetailedProcess Design
FEED
Plant Operations
Select Crude Oilsand Feedstocks
Issue OperatingTargets
Monitor and GuidePlant Performance
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 11
Refining
Process Consulting Services
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 12
Process Consulting Services - Refining
Process Performance Improvement Reviews•Primary focus on yield, conversion & energy performance •Process unit performance reviews•Process and energy KPI’s / scope for improvement •Utilities system (steam, power, fuel) review•Recommendations / areas for improvement•No/low cost improvement, high cost modifications
What we offer
Performance review defines yield, conversion and energy performance.
Refinery margins are often low. Incremental yield and energy improvements can directly increase profit.
Many unit operating conditions are not routinely scrutinised.
Processing flexibility maintained.
AspenTech’s process consultants recommended operational improvements toa 100,000 bbl/d refinery CDU/VDU and saved 20 cents/bbl with no investment.
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 13
Process Consulting Services - Refining
Energy Reduction Studies•Model based (process and utility systems), tuned to observed performance•Process technology, yield and energy performance assessment•Equipment performance and scope for improvement•Utility system design and operations review•Pinch / column thermal analysis – process modifications development•Process technology improvement modifications development based on our experience•Cost v benefits assessment for modifications. Ranking and selection•Preparation of feasibility study or pre-basic engineering package•Investment roadmap development
What we offer …
AspenTech’s process consultants have recommended modifications saving 20% energy worth $MM50/y on a modern refinery aromatics complex using this approach.
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 14
Process Consulting Services - Refining
Design Studies•Process flowsheet development and design•Design of CDU / VDU and other fractionation systems
– Feasibility study / Independent design review– Preheat train design– Debottlenecking, yield improvement
•Optimal Heat Exchanger Network design (Pinch Analysis)•Optimal site wide utility system design accounting for process heating and power demands•Comparative capital & operating cost assessment of design options. Identification of most cost effective design.•Feasibility study level of detail•New design and retrofit
What we offer …
Independent design consultancy.
Leveraged by full use of AspenTech’s engineering, simulation and design tools.
Optimise the process then design the utility system to best supply the process demands.
Process / Utility system interface can often be improved.
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 15
Refinery Configuration Studies
• Optimise:– Choice of unit (e.g. FCC, RFCC or HCU, HVCU etc)– Unit capacities– Unit operating mode (e.g. high / low conversion)– Refinery margin, either with fixed/floating product yields, dependent
upon actual market product constraints, alternative feed stocks etc.
• Identify:– Utility requirements– Operating margin for alternative configurations
• Using industry standard linear modelling
• LP vectors updated using Heat and Mass balanced kinetic models for FCC, CCR, ISOM, HCU or from licensor data
• Independent of Licensor
• Independent of EPC contractors
• Experienced personnel in LP Optimisation, refinery configuration studies and refinery unit design
Independent of process licensors and EPC contractors
Industry standard linear modelling system (PIMS)
Assay cuts based on rigorous and tuned simulation
Process Consulting Services - RefiningWhat we offer …
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 16
>50 Refinery studies in last 10 years
Recent Energy Studies•Site-wide energy reduction study (South Korea)•Site-wide energy reduction study (Europe)•Grass Roots refinery EII reduction Study (Vietnam)• CNOOC Grassroots EII reduction Study (China)•FCC energy performance benchmarking (USA)•CDU and HDS / Reformer revamp (USA)•HCU Revamp (China)•CDU / VDU Performance monitoring and optimisation application (Italy)•2 x CDU revamp (Korea)•Site-wide hydrogen optimization (USA)•CDU grassroots design (Middle East)•CDU revamp (UK)
Energy study benefits •Both demand (process) and supply (utility system) sides considered•Process technology and design, operational and equipment performance considered and improved•Studies tailored to client requirements
For more details contact: [email protected]
Process Consulting Services - RefiningExperience …
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved
Energy OptimizationProcess Consulting ServiceEnergy Study Approach
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 19
Approach to Process Improvement
Pinch and Column AnalysisIdentify design improvements
TEMPERATURE COMPOSITES (Real T, No Utils)
Case: PX1Simplified
HOT
COLD
ENTHALPY X10 3 kW
TE
MP
ER
ATU
RE
C
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
DTMIN =10.00
Heat Balance
Design Definition and Equipment specification
Model Idea, develop Scope/Benefits/Cost
•Operating data•Design data
Process and utilities modelling
Identify operating improvement opportunities
Equipment RatingUnderstand performance
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 20
Evaluation of current operation and equipment performance
Process and utilities modelling
Identifying operating improvement opportunities:
•Are columns over-refluxed?•If multiple column feed nozzles, is current feed location optimum?•Are column operating pressures optimal?•Exchangers underperforming/bypassed?•Compressor recycles open?
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 21
Methodology: Pinch Technology
Pinch Analysis purpose:– Establish minimum utility targets– Develop efficient heat exchanger
network (new designs)– Locate inefficiencies in network
(existing units) and develop viable energy saving projects
Process Modeling (A+ or HYSYS) Targeting (Aspen Energy Analyzer)
HEN (re)design to minimize cross-pinch
Data Extraction
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 22
Methodology: Column Targeting
Thermal and hydraulic analysis of distillation columns
CGCC represents ideal minimum stage-wise heating and cooling demands in a distillation column
Use to indentify feed or side heating /cooling options, optimize # stages, feed location and separation targets (both new design and retrofit)
Minimum Thermodynamic Condition
H
Reboiler
Condenser
Column Grand Composite Curve
Min Dutyin Temp Interval
Condenser
Reboiler
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 23
Methodology – Inter-Unit Integration
T T
HH
AIR/CW
Process with low temperature source that cannot generate steam
Process with low temperature sink
LP steam useDirect Heat Integration
Process A Process B
Direct inter-unit integration
• Direct inter-unit integration by changing the rundown temperature Transfer product from Process A to Process B so temperature of product is below Process A pinch and above Process B pinch
T T
HHCW
Process with low temperature source that cannot generate steam
Process with low temperature sink
LP steam useIndirect Heat Integration thru a local steam header
Process A Process B
Indirect inter-unit integration
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 24
Methodology - Site-Wide Pinch Analysis
BLACK BOX UNITS
INITIAL PINCH STUDY
Unit by Unit Pinch Analysis
Process Streams(Heat Sinks)
Process Streams(Heat Sources)
Site WidePinch Analysis
T
Q
Hot utilities
Cold utilities
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 25
Methodology - Site-Wide Pinch Analysis
LP
MP
HPHP
MP
LP
Fuel
+
+
Are your steam levels/loads optimum?
What is the optimum cogeneration system?
LP
MPHPHP
MP
LP
Fuel
+
LLP LLP
IP
+
+
Power generationincreased
Reduction in fuelconsumption
Opportunity for new LLP steam level – increases heat recovery
Opportunity for additional turbine to
exploit IP steam sink
Smaller boilers!
Smaller CW towers!
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved
Energy OptimizationProcess Consulting ServiceProject Examples
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 27
Project Example: Design for Energy Efficiency
Energy Design Study (Aromatics)
Relatively new (1997) Aromatics facility Modeled entire plant Evaluated alternative projects and
paybacks STC Implemented key projects Achieved 20% energy savings $12MM/yr. energy saving
Site-wide energy management improvements
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 28
Target Energy Use
Refinery Design for Energy Efficiency
Energy Savings and throughput Increase
Design energy efficiency into a new grassroots refinery. Reduce the Energy Intensity Index (EII) from initial design value of 71 :
Energy efficiency achieved by inter-unit integrations
Reduction of EII by 6 points equivalent to $16 million/year in energy costs
Guang-Dong Refinery now in Top 3% worldwide in energy efficiency
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 29
Project Example- GasSep Unit
Base Case– Depropanizer, Deethanizer and C3 Splitter in series– Total hot utility use = 26.9 MW– Total cold utility = 26.9 MW
E0025414 kW
C001Depropanizer35
1
A0015268 kW
69
100
59
200
101
E00418892 kW
E0032274 kW
C002Deethanizer33
1
E0051960 kW
57
E008650 kW
E001329 kW
A00219167 kW
1
C003C3 Splitter
20.0 bar48.8 C
30 bar50.6 C
20 bar48.3 C
45.7 C40.9 C
46.0 C
58.0 C
70.2 C
107 C67.0 C
40.0 C
64.7 C 76.3 C
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 30
Project Example - GasSep Unit
Pinch analysis shows very limited energy saving scope
Column analysis shows some scope for feed tray optimization and side reboiling scope for C3 Splitter
TEMPERATURE GRAND COMPOSITE (With Utils)
Case: pinch
PROCES
UTIL
ENTHALPY MW
TE
MP
ER
ATU
RE
C
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
DTMIN =20.00
Heat Balance
Block C001: Column Grand Composite Curve (T-H)
Tem
pera
ture
C
Enthalpy Deficit MW
5055
6065
7075
8085
9095
100
105
110
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 5.25
Ideal ProfileActual Profile
Move the feed tray downwards
Block C002: Column Grand Composite Curve (T-H)
Tem
pera
ture
C
Enthalpy Deficit MW
4550
5560
6570
75
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3
Ideal ProfileActual Profile
Move the feed tray upwards
Block C003: Column Grand Composite Curve (T-H)
Tem
pera
ture
C
Enthalpy Deficit MW
4748
4950
5152
5354
5556
5758
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18
Ideal ProfileActual Profile
Move the feed tray upwards Side reboiling
scope
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 31
Project Example - GasSep Unit
Proposed design change
Feed tray optimization Column resequence - Requires lower depropanizer pressure & Save one
exchanger – vapor feed to C3 Splitter
Both hot/cold utility savings are 2.4 MW each
E0024642 kW
C001Depropanizer35
1
A0014076 kW
69
100
59
200
101
E00416306 kW
E0033198 kW
C002Deethanizer33
1
E0052039 kW
57
E008650 kW
E0010 kW
A00217528 kW
1
C003C3 Splitter
19.3 bar48.2 C
30 bar46.5 C
17.5 bar42.5 C
46.9 C40.5 C
41.2 C
52.0 C
105.9 C63.0 C
40.0 C 64.7 C
34
42
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 32
Project Example - FCC Unit targeting
TEMPERATURE GRAND COMPOSITE (With Utils)
Case: FCC-TargetNoLP
PROCES
UTIL
ENTHALPY X10 3 kW
TE
MP
ER
ATU
RE
C
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
MPGEN
LLP
HW1
BFW
COLD
DTMIN =20.00
Heat Balance
FCC GCCPotential to increase MPS gen by 13.7 t/h by increasing LLPS use by 7.7 t/hPotential to increase hot water gen by 7.7 MW
C3Splitter
Deethanizer
Depropaniser
Deisobutanizer
Debutanizer
Indirect integration of FCC-GasSep-AlkyPotential to save 6.5 t/hr of LLPS
TEMPERATURE GRAND COMPOSITE (With Utils)
Case: FCCBase
PROCES
UTIL
ENTHALPY X10 3 kW
TE
MP
ER
ATU
RE
C
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
MPGEN
HW1
BFW
COLD
DTMIN =20.00
Heat Balance
Base GCC
Target GCC Indirect integration
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 33
Project Example - FCC Unit
• Proposed flowsheet• Remove feed heater from slurry pumparound and increase heat duty of steam
generator • Switch LCO pumparound from stripper reboiler and hot water heating into MP BFW
heating and into feed heating • Increase heat duty on the stripper reboiler and switch the other stripper reboiler from
LCO pumparound into LLP steam.
From high pressure receiver
D301
To wet gas compresssor
C301Primary Absorb
er
StripperC302
Debutanizer
C303
E304
E310
E309
E202
E304
E203
E204A202
NEW1
E201X
E208
To reactor
Feed
E306
E303AE303B
E305
E307C304
Sponge Absorb
er
E303B E206 E203 E209
To E210
D203
D202
LCO product
C202A
C202B
129oC85oC 80oC
252oC229oC
171oC
308oC 250oC
330oC
275oC
150oC
200oC
108oC40oC
186oC
127oC 63oC 40oC
117oC
131oC131oC
168oC
130oC
48oC
40oC
40oC60oC
244oC
MP Steam
200oC
LLP Steam
New Exchanger
Existing Exchanger on New Service
244oC
292635 kg/hr
49oC
120oC E205X99oC
40oC
70oC
127oC
79oC
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 34
Project Example - FCC Unit + GasSep
Project Option achieves the following benefits:– Increases MP steam generation by 12.6 t/h– Increases the LLP steam use in the FCC by 6.9 t/h. – Increases the hot water generation duty by 3 MW which results in 5.2 t/h of
LLP steam saving in the Gas Separation unit
With Gas Separation unit option– Change column sequence (Saves capital and energy)– When combined with FCC project, the Hot Water system can provide
enough duty required by the C3 splitter reboiler
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 38
AspenTech Energy Optimization Conclusions
Optimize Energy & Emissionslower costs & meet environmental
requirements
Energy efficiency can be addressed in all phases of plant life cycle Design efficiency into your plant (new or existing) Include energy and GHG in planning and scheduling solution Employ an energy performance management system to operate utility
system better, manage contracts, improve decisions APC strategy should include energy and GHG
AspenTech offers a comprehensive suite of products and expert services to help reduce energy in all these areas
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 39
Questions?
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 40
Additional slides
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 41
Track Record - Refinery
Company Country Project Type Type of Study Details Unit Project StartYPC, Nanjing China Aromatics Plant Energy Reduction Study Site-wide energy study Energy Site 2009
ENI, Sannazaro ItalyRefinery Atm/Vac Unit Operational Energy Optimisation
Energy and Capacity CDU 2009
FW/Client, VietnamGrassroots refinery EEI reduction, process & central utility system
Energy Site 2008
SK Corp Korea Energy reduction Unit Energy Study Energy CDU 2007
Total, Flandres France CDU revampCombined study with Total in-house engineering (CERT)
Energy and Capacity CDU 2006
APS engineering, Sudan Sudan CDU grassroots design Study for APS Engineering in Rome Energy CDU 2006Total, Port Arthur USA FCC energy performance benchmarking - 1 site Study done for CERT, not for PAR Energy FCC 2006Total, Port Arthur USA Steam network energy improvement Site-wide utility study Energy Site 2006Total, Lindsey Oil - Humberside UK CDU1 Energy Study CDU Energ Study Energy CDU 2006Saras Italy Energy reduction Unit Energy Study Energy FCC 2006Saras Italy Energy reduction Hot Water Loop Energy Utilities 2006COP, Borger USA CDU and HDS/Refomer energy revamp Scoping and preliminary projects Energy CDU / HDS 2005GS Caltex, Yosu Korea 2 x CDU revamp Scoping and preliminary projects Energy CDU 2005CNOOC, Nanghai China Grassroots refinery site-wide energy reduction Total Site Energy and Hydrogen Site 2005Saras, Sardinia Italy Phase 2 hydrogen optimisation Site-wide hydrogen study Hydrogen Site 2005
Total, Immingham UK CDU revampCombined study with Total in-house engineering (CERT)
Energy and Capacity CDU 2005
Holborn, Hamburg Germany Energy pinch training and consultancy Targeting / preheat model Energy CDU 2005
Total, Multiple Europe FCC energy performance benchmarking - 5 sitesCombined study with Total in-house engineering (CERT)
Energy FCC 2005
BP, Whiting USACDU preheat train monitoring and decision support
Energy CDU 2005
Total, Normandy France Steam network energy improvement Site-wide utility study Energy Site 2005Total, Provence France Steam network energy improvement Site-wide utility study Energy Site 2005Total, Grandpuits France Steam network energy improvement Site-wide utility study Energy Site 2005Total, Feyzin France Steam network energy improvement Site-wide utility study Energy Site 2005Total, Vlissingen Holland Steam network energy improvement Site-wide utility study Energy Site 2005GS Caltex, Yosu Korea Site-wide water and effluent reduction Site-wide utility study Water Site 2005
Total, Immingham UK CDU revampCombined study with Total in-house engineering (CERT)
Energy and Capacity CDU 2004
GS Caltex, Yosu Korea CDU revamp Combined study with LG E&C Energy CDU 2004
Process Consulting Services - Refinery Experience
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 42
Track Record - Refinery (ctd)
Company Country Project Type Type of Study Details Unit Project StartTamoil, Columbey Switzerland Site-wide hydrogen optimisation Scoping study Hydrogen Site 2004
Total, Feyzin France CDU revampCombined study with Total in-house engineering (CERT)
Energy and Capacity CDU 2004
Rompetrol, Constanta Romania Site-wide hydrogen optimisation Scoping study Hydrogen Site 2004FW, Rabigh Middle East Grassroots refinery site-wide energy reduction Total Site Energy Site 2004
Total, Antwerp Belgium CDU revampCombined study with Total in-house engineering (CERT)
Energy and Capacity CDU 2004
OMV, Schwechat Austria Fuel gas network optimisation Site-wide fuel gas design study Energy Site 2004PPMSB, Melaka Malaysia CDU revamp Revamp study Energy and Capacity CDU 2004
Total, Lindsay UK CDU revampCombined study with Total in-house engineering (CERT)
Energy and Capacity CDU 2004
COP, Borger USA Site-wide hydrogen optimisation Site-wide hydrogen study Hydrogen Site 2003COP, Ponca City USA Site-wide hydrogen optimisation Site-wide hydrogen study Hydrogen Site 2003
Saras, Sardinia Italy Site-wide CO2 reductionSite-wide energy and Hydrogen study
Energy and Hydrogen Site 2003
COP, Rodeo USA Site-wide hydrogen optimisation Site-wide hydrogen study Hydrogen Site 2003Irving Oil, New Brunswick Canada Hydrogen reduction Site-wide hydrogen study Site 2002OMV, Schwechat Austria Hydrogen reduction Site-wide hydrogen study Site 2002SINOPEC, Yanshan China Site-wide water and effluent reduction Site-wide water study Water Site 2002Citgo, Texas USA Hydrogen reduction Site-wide hydrogen study Site 2001Texaco, Pembroke UK Capital cost reduction - hydrogen Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site 2001Statoil, Mongstad Norway Energy and CO2 reduction Total Site Site 2000
Lyondell-Citgo, Houston USA Energy reduction Total SiteAdditional Benefits through Capacity increase
Site 1999
OMV, Schwechat Austria Energy reduction and capital Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 HDS 1999Sunoco, Marcus Hook USA Energy reduction Total Site Site 1998Sunoco, Point Breeze USA Energy reduction Total Site Site 1998Sunoco, Girard Point USA Energy reduction Total Site Site 1998Sunoco, Tulsa USA Energy reduction Site 1998Sunoco, Toledo USA Cooling tower debottlenecking CDU/VDU/FCC Site 1998Sasol, Secunda South Africa Hydrogen reduction Site-wide hydrogen study Site 1998
Lindsey Oil, Humberside UK Energy and yieldCombined study and PDP development with Foster Wheeler
CDU 1998
Petronas, Melaka Malaysia Capital cost reduction - hydrogenCombined site study and PDP development with Foster Wheeler
Site 1998
Marathon Ashland, Robinson USA Energy reduction Total Site Site 1997
Phillips, Texas USA Yield and capacity Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 Additional Benefits through Energy improvement
CDU 1997
Crown , Texas USA Energy reduction Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 FCC 1997
Engen, Durban South Africa Energy reduction Total SiteAdditional Benefits through Capacity/Yield improvement
CDU/VDU/Visbreaker
1995
Process Consulting Services - Refinery Experience
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 43
Track Record – Ethylene
Company Feedstock When built Licensor Type of study Preliminary or Study Year(approx.) detailed study
Samsung-Total Chemicals, Daesan S Korea Naphtha 1990 Lummus Debottlenecking Detailed 2009Samsung Total, Daesan, S Korea Naphtha 1990 Lummus Energy Detailed 2008LG Chem, Ltd, Daesan, S. Korea Naphtha 1999 KBR Debottlenecking/Energy Detailed 2008Lotte Daesan Petroch Corp., S Korea Naphtha 1999 KBR Debottlenecking/Energy Detailed 2008Honam Petrochem. Corp., Yeosu S Korea Naphtha 1990 Lummus Debottlenecking/Energy Detailed 2008LG Petrochemicals Co. Ltd., S Korea Naphtha 1991 Lummus Debottlenecking/Energy Detailed 2007Lyondell, Corpus Christi, USA Ethane/Propane/Liquids 1975 KBR Energy Detailed 2007Total-Fina FAO NC3, Antwerp Naphtha 1989 MW Kellogg Energy Detailed 2007Lyondell, Clinton, USA Ethane/Propane 1989 MW Kellogg Energy Detailed 2007Lyondell, Morris, USA Ethane/Propane 1989 Lummus Energy Detailed 2007Hunstman Port Neches, USA Ethane/Propane 1970's S&W Performance Improvement Detailed 2007Huntsman, Port Arthur, TX E/P/Liquids 1975/1987 Lummus/S&W Debottlenecking/Energy Detailed (all cases) 2006Total Petrochemical, Gonfrevil le, France Naphtha 1988 S&W Energy Detailed 2006Lotte, Daesan, S Korea Naphtha 1999 KBR Debottlenecking Detailed 2005CPC, Lin Yuan, Taiwan Naphtha 1984 Lummus Performance Improvement Detailed 2005Huntsman Odesa, TX Ethane/Propane 1969/1996 Braun/S&W Debottlenecking/Energy Detailed (all cases) 2005Innovene (2), Choc Bayou, TX E/P/Liquids 1976 Braun/S&W Modeling / Perf Improvement Detailed 2005Nanhai, China Naphtha - S&W Quench modelling only - 2004KPIC, Ulsan, S Korea Naphtha 1991 Lummus Debottlenecking Detailed 2004Shell, Berre, France Naphtha 1980 TPL Modelling only - 2004Will iams Olefins, TX Ethane 1975 Lummus Modelling only - 2004Samsung Total, Daesan, S Korea Naphtha 1990 Lummus Debottlenecking Detailed 2004Huntsman Odesa, TX Ethane/Propane 1969/1996 Braun/S&W Debottlenecking/Energy Detailed 2004
Process Consulting Services - Ethylene ExperienceAbout the plant About the study
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 44
Track Record – Ethylene (ctd)
Company Feedstock When built Licensor Type of study Preliminary or Study Year(approx.) detailed study
BP Refinery Offgas Offgas - - Grass Roots Design Detailed 2003Rayong Olefins Co., Thailand Naphtha/LPG 1998 Lummus Revamp/Perf Impro Detailed 2003Samsung General Chemicals LPG/N/AGO 1991 Lummus Modelling only Detailed 2002Yangzi (Chinese Petro. Co.) N/AGO 1990 Lummus Modelling only - 2002Yeochun NCC Co., Yeosu, S. Korea Naphtha 1991 S&W Debottlenecking / Energy Detailed 2001Equate, Kuwait Ethane 1997 B&R Modeling / Perf Improvement Detailed 2001LG PC, S. Korea Naphtha 1989 Lummus C2 Splitter Study Detailed 2001BP GO E/P/B/N Concept BP Grass Roots Detailed 2001-4Honam Naphtha 1990 Lummus Energy Detailed 2000Exxon (BOP), TX Gas / Liquids 1980's Exxon Revamp Detailed 2000Westlake (P-I PFP) Ethane 1990 MW Kellogg Performance Improvement Detailed 2000Westlake (P-II PFP) Ethane/Propane/C4 1998 Lummus Debottlenecking Detailed 2000Equistar Choc. Bay., TX Naphtha 1982 Lummus Debottlenecking Detailed 2000ExxonMobil Chemicals Liquid - - Grass Roots Detailed 2000Equistar Chan. View OP2, TX Naphtha 1978 Lummus Debottlenecking Detailed 2000Westlake (P-II PFP) Ethane/Propane/C4 1998 Lummus Perf, improvement / modelling Detailed 1999Huntsman Ethane/Propane 1997(Revamp) S&W Modelling only - 1999BASF (PA) Naphtha New Lummus Modelling only - 1999Hanwha, Yosu, S. Korea Naphtha 1992 S&W Energy / Debottlenecking Detailed 1999Condea Vista Ethane 1989 S&W Debottlenecking Preliminary 1999Exxon (FAO), Belgium Naphtha 1968 S&W Debottlenecking Preliminary 1999Sunoco Ethane 1967 Lummus Energy Detailed 1999BP Amoco (1), Choc Bay, TX E/P/Liquids 1975 Braun Debottlenecking Detailed 1999BP Amoco (2), Choc Bay, TX E/P/Liquids 1976 Braun/S&W Debottlenecking Detailed 1999Philips 66 (U24), Sweeney, TX Ethane/Propane 1976 Braun Debottlenecking Detailed 1998Titan Petro (TPC 1),Malaysia Naphtha 1994 S&W Debottlenecking Detailed 1998Nippon Petrochemical Naphtha 1975 S&W Energy Part of Total Site 1998Mitsui Chemical Naphtha 1975 Special (exergy analysis) Preliminary 1997DSM Naphtha 1975 Lummus Debottlenecking Preliminary 1997Showa Denko Naphtha 1970 S&W Energy Preliminary 1997Polifin (1), S. Africa Ethane/Propane 1985 KTI / Linde Debottlenecking Preliminary 1997Polifin (2), S. Africa Ethane 1972 S&W / Linde Debottlenecking Preliminary 1997
Process Consulting Services - Ethylene ExperienceAbout the plant About the study
© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 45
Track Record – Other Chemicals
Company Country Process Type of Study Details Study Year
Honam Petrochemical Daesan, Korea Total Site Energy reduction Pinch only 2009Huntsman Texas, USA Ethylene Oxide, Ethylene Glycol Energy reduction Detailed 2009Tessenderlo Belgium VCM EDC Section Energy Reduction Detailed 2009YPC China Aromatics / pXylene Modelling / Energy Reduction Detailed 2009Huntsman Texas, USA DiGlycolAmine / Morpholine Energy reduction Detailed 2008TPC (Port Neches) Texas, USA Butadiene recovery (C4's) - NMP Energy reduction Detailed 2008Huntsman Texas, USA Ethylene Oxide, Ethylene Glycol Energy reduction Pinch only 2007Huntsman Texas, USA PO-MTBE Energy reduction Detailed 2007Lyondell Texas, USA Butadiene recovery (C4's) - ACN Energy reduction/expansion Detailed 2007Kraton Germany C5/C6 Solvent Separation Debottlenecking Detailed 2007KP Chemicals Korea pXylene Energy Reduction Detailed 2006Samsung Total Korea Aromatics / pXylene Modelling Detailed 2006GS Caltex Korea Aromatics / pXylene Energy Reduction Detailed 2006TPC (Houston) Texas, USA Butadiene recovery (C4's) - DMF, Furfural Energy reduction/reconfiguration Detailed 2005Equistar Texas, USA Isoprene recovery (C5's) Energy reduction/expansion Detailed 2005Starchem Texas, USA Methanol Modeling/process development Detailed 2005PIC Kuwait Ammonia / Reformer Modelling Detailed 2005GE New York, USA Cresol and Xylenol Modelling and Process Improvement Detailed 2005KMI Indonesia Methanol Modelling Detailed 2005Celanese Texas, USA Vinyl Acetate Monomer Energy reduction Detailed 2004BP UK Acetyls / Acetic Acid Energy Reduction Preliminary 2004Tuntex Thailand Purified Terephthalic Acid Modelling / Partial revamp Detailed 2004KPI Indonesia Ammonia / Reformer Modelling Detailed 2004Chevron Phillips Texas, USA n-Alpha Olefins Modelling Detailed 2004Celanese Kentucky, USA Polyvinyl Alcohol Energy/Debottlenecking Azeo Sepn 2003SK Chemicals Korea Purified Terephthalic Acid Modeling/Expansion Detailed 2002Sasol South Africa Chem-FT Process development Detailed 2001SK Chemicals Korea Dimethyl Terephthalate Energy reduction Detailed 2001Samsung Korea Aromatics / pXylene Energy Detailed 2001YPF Argentina Linear Alkyl Benzene Energy reduction Detailed 1999Huntsman Texas, USA Linear Alkyl Benzene Debottlenecking/Energy reduction Detailed 1998
Process Consulting Services - Chemicals Experience