01 A Malhotra - KBR PurifierTM Technology and Project Execution Options For Ammonia Plants

1
KBR Purifier
TM
Technology
and
Project Execution Options for
Ammonia Plants
KBR Purifier
TM
Technology
and
Project Execution Options for
Ammonia Plants
FAI
December 1, 2010
FAI
December 1, 2010
Avinash Malhotra Avinash Malhotra
Jim Gosnell Jim Gosnell
KBR KBR
Avinash Malhotra Avinash Malhotra
Jim Gosnell Jim Gosnell
KBR KBR
Topics
Introduction to Purifier
TM
Process
Technology Features & Benefits of Purifier
TM
Process
Purifier Experience, Energy Consumption &
Reliability
Project Execution Options
Summary
TM
Process
TM
Process
Reliability
Summary
Conventional Process
Primary
Reformer
Secondary
Reformer
Shift &
CO
2
Rem
Methanation
& Dryers
Com-
pression
Magnetite
Synthesis
Purge Gas
Recovery
NH
3
Product
Feed
Steam
Loop
Purge
To Fuel
Stoichiometric Air
Air Flow Fixed
T=810C
CH4 ~
11%
T=1000C
CH4 ~0.3%
Severe Reformer
Conditions
H/N = 3
Inerts > 1~1.5%
Typical Purifier Process
Methanation
& Dryers
Primary
Reformer
Secondary
Reformer
Shift &
CO
2
Rem
Methanation
& Dryers
Com-
pression
Purifier Synthesis
NH
3
Product
Feed
Steam
To Fuel (includes
excess N2 & CH4)
Recycle Purge
H2/N2 ~ 2.0
T= ~ 700C
CH
4
= 25% T= 900C
CH
4
= 2%
H2/N2=3
Inerts<0.27%
Mild Reformer Conditions
40% smaller radiant section
Synloop 10~15% smaller
Excess Air
2
Waste Gas
to Fuel
Syngas from
Dryers
Vol%
H
2
62-68
N
2
30-35
CH
4
2- 4
A ~0.6
H
2
/N
2
= 3.0
Inert ~0.3%
Syngas to compressor
2
0
C
4
0
C
2
0
C
31 bar-g
34 bar-g
Cryogenic Purifier Cryogenic Purifier in a Recent Plant
Topics
TM
Process
TM
Process
Reliability
Summary
TM
Process
TM
Process
Reliability
Summary
Air Compression System
Process
Air
Gas Turbine
Fuel
Air to GT
525 C
Process Air
to
Secondary
Reformer
Radiant
Section
GTE GTE
combustion air combustion air
to PR to PR
GTE GTE
combustion air combustion air
to PR to PR
3
Gas Turbine Installations
Plant
Unocal
Kemira
Asahi
Yara Sluiskil Unit C
PCS N
2
BASF
Yara Sluiskil Unit D
Yara Sluiskil Unit E
Yara Trinidad
Year
1966
1967
1980
1971/1996
1978
1982
1984
1987
1988
Supplier
GE
GE
Sulzer
Fiat/GE
GE
GE
GE
GE
GE
kW
6,700
11,400
9,500
7,400/9,450
14,300
13,000
14,100
17,000
13,400
Gas Turbine Installations
Plant
Jinxi Natural Gas
Jian Feng
Sichuan Nat. Gas
Sinopec/UGPW
SAFCO
CNOOC
Jianfeng
Matix
Petrobras
Tierra Del Fuego
Year
1993
1993
1995
1997
2000
2003
2010
U/C
U/C
U/C
Supplier
Alstom
Alstom
Alstom
Alstom
GE
GE
GE
GE
TBD
TBD
kW
11,000
10,800
11,200
11,500
15,100
15,300
15,300
22,800
22,800
TBD
Primary Reformer Mild reforming
Fuel
ID Fan
Feed
Air
Mixed Feed
To Feed
Treatment
Reformer
Outlet
Air to Secondary Reformer
BFW
Steam
Superheated Steam
700
o
C
> 200 Reformer built
Primary Reformer Smaller Size & Milder
Conditions
Single PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plant Single PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plant
without pre without pre--reformer or reforming exchanger reformer or reforming exchanger
or High flux Primary Reformer or High flux Primary Reformer
Single PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plant Single PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plant
without pre without pre--reformer or reforming exchanger reformer or reforming exchanger
or High flux Primary Reformer or High flux Primary Reformer
4
Secondary Reformer
Excess Air
Primary
Reformer
Effluent
To boiler
880
o
C
700
o
C
-No burner
-Shell water jacket
-Bottom dome design
Steam Generation & Superheat
BFW
Make-up
Syngas
from
Secondary
Reformer
Cooled
Syngas
to Shift
Steam to
superheat coil
370 C
125 bar
328 C
KBR proprietary
natural circulation
floating head design
SSH
WHB
Waste Heat Boiler - References
Client Location Start Up-Year Capacity
Methanex Chile 1988 NA
SCW China 1990 600
Pusri 1B Indonesia 1992 1350
Sherritt (1) Canada 1993 1350
Gresik Indonesia 1993 1350
Korashan Iran 1995 1000
PLNL Trinidad 1998 1850
PCS Nitrogen Trinidad 1998 1850
Norsk Hydro (1) Norway 1999 ~
Zepu China 2000 600
CNC Trinidad 2002 1850
CNOOC China 2003 1500
N2000 Trinidad 2004 1850
Waste Heat Boiler - References (continued)
PIM2 Indonesia 2004 1200
Kujiang 1B Indonesia 2005 1000
BFPL Australia 2006 2200
EBIC Egypt 2009 2000
MHTL Trinidad 2009 1850
Jianfeng China U/C 1500
Pequiven, Moron Venezuela U/C 1800
Pequiven, Jose Venezuela U/C 1800
Pequiven, Puerto Nutrias Venezuela U/C 1800
Matix India U/C 2200
Tierra Del Fuego Argentina U/C 1500
Petrobras Brazil U/C 2200
CFCL # 3 India U/C 2200
5
Syngas Production Comparison
Primary Reformer Purifier Conventional
No. of tubes 65% 100%
Tube Diameter, mm OD 125 110
Heat Flux, kcal/hr-m
2
55,000 76,000
Radiant Duty 66% 100%
Tube Life, years 12-25 ~10
Catalyst Volume 85% 100%
Catalyst Life, years 10 <5
Outlet Temperature, C 700 800-840
Secondary Reformer Purifier Conventional
Outlet Temperature, C 880 1000
Methane Leakage, % dry1.7 <0.3
Gas Turbine / Air Compressor
Reduce start-up steam and size of off-plot boiler
Reduce cooling water requirement
Energy efficient cogeneration system
Syngas Production Comparison
aMDEA Carbon Dioxide Removal
Raw
Syngas
from
Shift
CO
2
CO
2
Absorber
LP Flash
Condensate
to Stripper
Separator
160 C
70 C
Flash gas
to fuel
Syngas to
Methanation
Stripper
CO2 production CO2 production
for total conversion for total conversion
NH3 to Urea. No NH3 to Urea. No
recovery from recovery from
Flue gas Flue gas
CO2 production CO2 production
for total conversion for total conversion
NH3 to Urea. No NH3 to Urea. No
recovery from recovery from
Flue gas Flue gas
BASF aMDEA CO2 Removal Systems Used
by KBR in New Ammonia Plants
Client Location Year System
Heat Input
Kcal/Kgmole of CO
2
BASF Germany 1982 2-Stage 10,200
Yara # D Netherlands 1982 2-Stage 10,200
Yara # E Netherlands 1987 2-Stage 10,200
Sinopec China 1997 2-Stage 13,900
CNOOC China 2003 2-Stage 7,700
PIM2 Indonesia 2004 1-Stage 22,000
Kujang 1B Indonesia 2004 1-Stage 19,900
BFPL Australia 2006 2-Stage 8,700
MHTL Trinidad 2009 1-Stage 21,000
Jianfeng China 2010 2-Stage ~7,000
6
BASF aMDEA CO2 Removal Systems Used
by KBR in New Ammonia Plants
Client Location Year System
Pequiven, Moron Venezuela U/C 1800
Pequiven, PN Venezuela U/C 1800
Purifier Conventional
Purified Syngas
Percent Inert <0.3 >1
Moisture dry wet syngas
CO
2
0 5-10 ppm
PG H
2
Recovery Integral Separate Unit
H
2
/N
2
Ratio Control Simple & Precise Complex
Catalyst Deactivation Full Prod Reduced Prod
or Shutdown
Syngas Purification Comparison
Synthesis Loop
Syngas
from
Purifier
HP
Steam
BFW
CW
Synloop Purge
to Dryers
0 C
155
bar-a
1 C
31.6 bar-a
Refrigeration
Compressor
Horizontal Magnetite
Converter
Unitized
Chiller
Minimum # of equipment in loop
10 ~15% smaller loop equipment
Minimum # of equipment in loop
10 ~15% smaller loop equipment
3-Bed Horizontal Intercooled
Ammonia Converter
OUTLET
BYPASS
INLET
BED 3A BED 2 BED 1
MAIN
INLET
BED 3A
KBR can provide single converter up to 3,500 KBR can provide single converter up to 3,500
mtpd ammonia plant Cold Wall Design. mtpd ammonia plant Cold Wall Design.
NO HOT WALL CONVERTER. NO HOT WALL CONVERTER.
KBR can provide single converter up to 3,500 KBR can provide single converter up to 3,500
mtpd ammonia plant Cold Wall Design. mtpd ammonia plant Cold Wall Design.
NO HOT WALL CONVERTER. NO HOT WALL CONVERTER.
7
BFPL Ammonia Plant Australia
Horizontal Synthesis Converter
Horizontal Synthesis Converter - References
Nihon Japan 1971 1650
Sherritt-Gordon Canada 1983 1000
UCAM Netherlands 1984 1360
Ocelot Canada 1986 545
Koch Nitrogen USA 1986 1530
NCFC Saudi Arabia 1988 1500
Kemira Oy UK 1989 825
SCW China 1990 600
Inner Mongolia China 1997 1000
Jiu Jiang China 1997 1000
Horizontal Synthesis Converter - References
Lanzhou China 1997 1000
Pak-American Pakistan 1997 600
Chambal India 1999 1350
Zepu China 2000 600
Jianfeng China U/C 1500
Pequiven, Puerto Nutrias Venezuela U/C 1800
8
Refrigeration System
LP Case HP Case
-33 C
0 bar-g
Condenser
Unitized Chiller
Ammonia
Accumulator
Refrigeration
Compressor
Cold NH
3
Product
M
Warm NH
3
Product
NNF
NH
3
from
Letdown
Drum
KBR Purifier Conventional
Compressor Power, kWh/mt
Syngas 210 240-300
Refrigeration (warm) 70 100-130
H.P. Steam Superheater yes no
Catalyst Life, years >18 10
Inerts in Converter feed 3% 8-12%
Syngas Conversion Comparison
KBR Unitized Chiller Configuration
From Synthesis
Loop
NH
3
Refrigerant Compressor
NH
3
Product
NH
3
from Purge
Gas Section
To Synthesis
Loop
To Purge Gas
Recovery
Refrigerant
Receiver
KBR Unitized Chiller
Horizontal Synthesis Converter
9
Unitized Chiller - References
Ocelot Canada 1986 545
Kemira Oy UK 1989 825
SCW China 1990 600
Inner Mongolia China 1997 1000
Jiu Jiang China 1997 1000
Lanzhou China 1997 1000
Pak-American Pakistan 1997 600
PLNL Trinidad 1998 1850
PCS Nitrogen Trinidad 1998 1850
Unitized Chiller References (continued)
Zepu China 2000 600
CNC Trinidad 2002 1850
N2000 Trinidad 2004 1850
EBIC Egypt 2009 2000
MHTL Trinidad 2009 1850
Jianfeng China 2010 1500
Pequiven Jose Venezuela U/C 1800
Pequiven PN Venezuela U/C 1800
Topics
TM
Process
TM
Process
Reliability
Summary
TM
Process
TM
Process
Reliability
Summary
Purifier Plant Experience
Plant Location Year MTPD
Unocal USA 1966 680
Kemira Netherlands 1968 1360
First Miss USA 1968 900
Asahi Japan 1971 900
Yara # C Netherlands 1971 900
PCS N2 USA 1978 1360
BASF Germany 1982 1360
Yara # D Netherlands 1984 1500
Yara # E Netherlands 1987 1750
Yara TR2 Trinidad 1988 1360
10
Purifier Plant Experience (Continued)
Jinxi China 1993 1000
Sichuan China 1995 1000
Sinopec/UGPW China 1997 1000
Safco Saudi Arabia 1999 1500
Pequiven Jose Venezuela U/C 1800
Pequiven Puerto Nutrias Venezuela U/C 1800
Purifier Plant Experience (Continued)
Kribhco Revamp # 1 India U/C 1890
Kribhco Revamp # 2 India U/C 1890
NFL India U/C 950
CFCL # 3 India Early
Work
2200
10
9
8
7
6
5
11
G
c
a
l
/
m
t

-
L
H
V
THEORETICAL MINIMUM
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
History of Energy Consumption
Natural Gas Expected
Feed 6.06
Fuel 1.72
Subtotal 7.78
Export Steam -1.52
Net 6.26
Electricity 0.27
Total Energy 6.53
Gcal/MT of NH3
Proven Low Energy Consumption
BASF - 1982
11
Natural Gas Measured Expected
Feed 6.25 6.32
Fuel 1.93 1.91
Subtotal 8.18 8.23
Export Steam -1.72 -1.75
Net 6.46 6.48
Electricity 0.03 0.03
Total Energy 6.49 6.51
KBR can offer less than 6.2 Gcal/MT for new
plants depending upon the site and gas conditions
Gcal/MT of NH3
CNOOC Performance Test Data 2003 Proven Reliability KBR Ammonia Plants
Plant Survey International worldwide survey for 2000-`01
Top 3 longest runs are for KBR plants
4 of the top 5; 6 out of top 10 longest runs are KBR plants
KBR Purifier plants have 3.6% service factor advantage over
non-KBR plants
Plant Survey International worldwide survey for 2000-`01
Top 3 longest runs are for KBR plants
4 of the top 5; 6 out of top 10 longest runs are KBR plants
KBR Purifier plants have 3.6% service factor advantage over
non-KBR plants
Service factor Longest run
Non-KBR Plants 90.6% 385 days
KBR Conventional 92.7% 432 days
KBR Purifier 94.2% 624 days
All Plants 91.5% 424 days
Ammonia Plant in USA ran for 1395 days
Ammonia Plant in The Netherlands
has averaged 95.5% stream factor
ran for 934 consecutive days
ran for 1375 days consecutive days
Ammonia Plant in USA ran for 1395 days
ran for 1375 days consecutive days
Proven Reliability KBR Ammonia Plants
Purifier Process Summary
KBR Purifier
TM
technology is one of the
best ammonia technology
Proven lowest energy consumption
Highest proven reliability
Design features like Purifier, smaller
primary reformer, and optimized
synthesis loop also lower capital cost
KBR Purifier
TM
technology is one of the
best ammonia technology
Proven lowest energy consumption
Highest proven reliability
Design features like Purifier, smaller
primary reformer, and optimized
synthesis loop also lower capital cost
12
Topics
TM
Process
TM
Process
Reliability
Summary
TM
Process
TM
Process
Reliability
Summary
Project Execution Options depend
upon one major decision by
Owner
Owner selects first technology
Owner does not select first
technology
Project Execution Options depend
upon one major decision by
Owner
Owner selects first technology
Owner does not select first
technology
If owner selects technology first,
Licensors prepares BED and then
owner has following options
Option A: Reimbursable or Cost Plus
Option B: Open Book - Convertible
LSTK
Option C: Competitive EPC Bidding
based Licensors BED
If owner selects technology first,
Licensors prepares BED and then
owner has following options
Option A: Reimbursable or Cost Plus
Option B: Open Book - Convertible
LSTK
Option C: Competitive EPC Bidding
based Licensors BED
If owner does not selects technology
first, Owner
Prequalifies contractors for various
technologies
Prepares ITB
Invites LSTK bids from contractors
This is Option D
If owner does not selects technology
first, Owner
Prequalifies contractors for various
technologies
Prepares ITB
Invites LSTK bids from contractors
This is Option D
13
Option A
Option A: Reimbursable or Cost Plus.
Licensor executes BED. Owner
Selects DEC to develop material
take offs (MTO)
Procures equipment with
assistance of Licensor/DEC
Selects & contracts for the
construction
Option A: Reimbursable or Cost Plus.
Licensor executes BED. Owner
Selects DEC to develop material
take offs (MTO)
Procures equipment with
assistance of Licensor/DEC
Selects & contracts for the
construction
Project Execution Options - Option B
Option B: Open Book Contract
Convertible LSTK
License and BED fees are fixed
Engineering fees/rates for
reimbursable work fixed
Fee for profit, residual risk,
contingency determined
Agreement on LDs, contract terms
and conditions
Option B: Open Book Contract
Convertible LSTK
License and BED fees are fixed
Engineering fees/rates for
reimbursable work fixed
Fee for profit, residual risk,
contingency determined
Agreement on LDs, contract terms
and conditions
Lump Sum
Option B: OPEN BOOK CONTRACT - CONVERTIBLE
LSTK
Phase 1
TENDER
PERIOD
ANALYSE/
NEGOTIATE/
AWARD
OWNER
LICENSOR/EPC
CONTRACTOR
At Tenderers Cost
MANAGE AND CONTROL
ENGINEERING
PROCUREMENT
CONSTRUCTION
PROCUREMENT
(IF REQUIRED)
OPEN BOOK
ESTIMATE
CONVERT TO CONVERT TO
LUMP SUM LUMP SUM
ANALYSE/
NEGOTIATE/
COMMIT
Reimbursable
- Fixed License Fee
Engineering services
reimbursable rates
- Agreed-to Fee for
Profit, Residual Risk
and Contingency
- Agreement on LDs
- Agreement on Terms
and Conditions (T&C)
for Phase 1 & 2
Fix price
ENGINEERING
COMMISSIONING
PHASE 3 EXECUTION
PERIOD
PHASE 2 EXECUTION PHASE 2 EXECUTION
PERIOD PERIOD
Project Execution Options - Option C
Competitive EPC Bidding based on Licensors
BED
Licensor executes BED
Licensor prepares requisitions for Long
Lead Items (LLI)
Licensor does sufficient FEED work to
prepare MTO for critical and large ticket
items
Owner/Licensor prepare ITB for LSTK
bids
Owner selects LSTK contractor
Competitive EPC Bidding based on Licensors
BED
Licensor executes BED
Licensor prepares requisitions for Long
Lead Items (LLI)
Licensor does sufficient FEED work to
prepare MTO for critical and large ticket
items
Owner/Licensor prepare ITB for LSTK
bids
Owner selects LSTK contractor
14
Lump Sum
Option C Competitive EPC Bidding based
Licensors BED
Phase 1 BED/FEED Phase 1 BED/FEED
ANALYSE/
NEGOTIATE/
AWARD
OWNER
LICENSOR
FIXED FEE
MANAGE AND CONTROL
ENGINEERING ENGINEERING
PROCUREMENT PROCUREMENT
CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION
PROCUREMENT PROCUREMENT
(LLI) (LLI)
ANALYSE/
NEGOTIATE/
AWARD
Reimbursable
- License Fee Agree
- BED Fee fixed
- Long Lead Item
Requisition
- Limited FEED Work
- Tender for LSTK
Fix price
ISUUE ITB TO ISUUE ITB TO
SELECTED SELECTED
CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS
COMMISSIONING COMMISSIONING
PHASE 2 EXECUTION PHASE PHASE 2 EXECUTION PHASE
PHASE 1 AWARD PHASE PHASE 1 AWARD PHASE
AWARD LUMPSUM AWARD LUMPSUM
CONTRCT CONTRCT
SELECT SELECT
CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR
Option D - LSTK
Owners goes for LSTK contract
Owner pre-qualifies contractors 4~6 months
Owner prepares a detail ITB requiring time and
efforts usually 4~6 six months
Contractors submits bids in 4~6 months
Technical & commercial clarifications lasting 2~3
months
Final Commercial bids 2~3 months
Contractor Selection Total time 12 ~ 18 months
Contractor executes Project in 33~36 months
Total Schedule 46~60 months
Owners goes for LSTK contract
Owner pre-qualifies contractors 4~6 months
Owner prepares a detail ITB requiring time and
efforts usually 4~6 six months
Contractors submits bids in 4~6 months
Technical & commercial clarifications lasting 2~3
months
Final Commercial bids 2~3 months
Contractor Selection Total time 12 ~ 18 months
Contractor executes Project in 33~36 months
Total Schedule 46~60 months
Comparison of Options
Option A Option B Option C Option D
Select
Technology
First
Yes Yes Yes No
Description
of EPC
Phase
Cost Plus or
Reimbursable
OBE converted
to LSTK
LSTK bids
based on
Licensor BED
LSTK bid
for entire
scope
TIC Lowest Medium Medium (-) Highest
Schedule 30~32 months 32~34months 34~36 months + 48 months
Quality Highest Highest (-) Medium Medium
Owners Risk Highest Medium (-) Medium Lowest
KBR Solution
If your planning a 1,500 ~ 2,200 MTPD
Ammonia Plant
KBR is executing number of ammonia plants
with capacity of 1,500 to 2,200 MTPD. See
the reference list of KBR plants
KBR can provide specification and technical
requisition of long lead items within 6~8
weeks
KBR can provide MTO quickly for long lead
bulk items
If your planning a 1,500 ~ 2,200 MTPD
Ammonia Plant
KBR is executing number of ammonia plants
with capacity of 1,500 to 2,200 MTPD. See
the reference list of KBR plants
KBR can provide specification and technical
requisition of long lead items within 6~8
weeks
KBR can provide MTO quickly for long lead
bulk items
15
Topics
TIC of Project
KBR Solution
Summary
TIC of Project
KBR Solution
Summary
Summary
Option A is best in a competitive environment.
However client should have capability to accept
risk and strong project management team.
In case client cant accept risk then it should be
better to explore option B or C
LSTK option is the most expensive option and
takes longest time to implement
KBR has extensive basic/detail design available
for long lead equipment for plant sizes 1500
~2,200 MTPD ammonia plant. This will result in
lowest TIC and shortest schedule to implement
Option A is best in a competitive environment.
However client should have capability to accept
risk and strong project management team.
In case client cant accept risk then it should be
better to explore option B or C
LSTK option is the most expensive option and
takes longest time to implement
KBR has extensive basic/detail design available
for long lead equipment for plant sizes 1500
~2,200 MTPD ammonia plant. This will result in
lowest TIC and shortest schedule to implement
THANK YOU THANK YOU

01 A Malhotra - KBR PurifierTM Technology and Project Execution Options For Ammonia Plants

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

01 A Malhotra - KBR PurifierTM Technology and Project Execution Options For Ammonia Plants

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

S-ar putea să vă placă și