01 a Malhotra - KBR PurifierTM Technology and Project Execution Options for Ammonia Plants

1

KBR PurifierTM Technology

and

Project Execution Options for

Ammonia Plants

KBR PurifierTM Technology

and

Project Execution Options for

Ammonia Plants

FAI

December 1, 2010

FAI

December 1, 2010

Avinash MalhotraAvinash MalhotraJim GosnellJim Gosnell

KBRKBR

Avinash MalhotraAvinash MalhotraJim GosnellJim Gosnell

KBRKBR

Topics

• Introduction to PurifierTM Process

• Technology Features & Benefits of PurifierTM

Process

• Purifier Experience, Energy Consumption & Reliability

• Project Execution Options

• Summary



Process



• Summary

Conventional Process

Primary

Reformer

Secondary

Reformer

Shift &

CO2 Rem

Methanation

& Dryers

Com-

pression

Magnetite

Synthesis

Purge Gas

Recovery

NH3Product

Feed

Steam

Loop Purge

To Fuel

Stoichiometric Air

Air Flow Fixed

T=810CCH4 ~ 11%

T=1000CCH4 ~0.3%

Severe Reformer Conditions

H/N = 3Inerts > 1~1.5%

Typical Purifier™ Process

Methanation& Dryers

Primary

Reformer

Secondary

Reformer

Shift &

CO2 Rem

Methanation

& Dryers

Com-

pressionPurifier Synthesis

NH3Product

Feed

Steam

To Fuel (includes excess N2 & CH4)

Recycle Purge

H2/N2 ~ 2.0

T= ~ 700CCH4 = 25% T= 900C

CH4 = 2%

H2/N2=3 Inerts<0.27%

Mild Reformer Conditions40% smaller radiant section

Synloop 10~15% smallerExcess Air

2

Waste Gas

to Fuel

Syngas from

Dryers

Vol%H2 62-68

N2 30-35CH4 2- 4

A ~0.6

H2/N2 = 3.0Inert ~0.3%

Syngas to compressor

2 0C

4 0C

2 0C

31 bar-g

34 bar-g

Cryogenic Purifier™ Cryogenic Purifier™ in a Recent Plant

Topics



Process



• Summary



Process



• Summary

Air Compression System

ProcessAir

Gas Turbine

Fuel

Air to GT

525 °C

Process Air to

SecondaryReformer

Radiant

Section

GTE GTE combustion air combustion air to PRto PR

GTE GTE combustion air combustion air to PRto PR

3

Gas Turbine Installations

Plant

Unocal

Kemira

Asahi

Yara Sluiskil Unit C

PCS N2

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

ReformerOutlet

Air to Secondary Reformer

BFW

Steam

Superheated Steam

700 oC

> 200 Reformer built

Primary Reformer – Smaller Size & Milder Conditions

Single PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plantSingle PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plantwithout prewithout pre--reformer or reforming exchanger reformer or reforming exchanger or High flux Primary Reformeror High flux Primary Reformer

Single PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plantSingle PR for up to 3,500 mtpd ammonia plantwithout prewithout pre--reformer or reforming exchanger reformer or reforming exchanger or High flux Primary Reformeror High flux Primary Reformer

4

Secondary Reformer

Excess Air

Primary ReformerEffluent

To boiler880 oC

700 oC

-No burner

-Shell water jacket

-Bottom dome design

Steam Generation & Superheat

BFWMake-up

Syngas from

SecondaryReformer

Cooled Syngas to Shift

Steam to

superheat coil

370 C

125 bar328 C

KBR proprietary

natural circulation

floating head design

SSHWHB

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-m2 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

RawSyngas

fromShift

CO2

CO2

Absorber

LP Flash

Condensateto Stripper

Separator160 C

70 C

Flash gas

to fuel

Syngas to

Methanation

Stripper

CO2 production CO2 production for total conversionfor total conversionNH3 to Urea. NoNH3 to Urea. Norecovery fromrecovery fromFlue gasFlue gas

CO2 production CO2 production for total conversionfor total conversionNH3 to Urea. NoNH3 to Urea. Norecovery fromrecovery fromFlue gasFlue gas

BASF aMDEA CO2 Removal Systems Usedby KBR in New Ammonia Plants

Client Location Year System Heat InputKcal/Kgmole of CO2

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 Usedby 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

CO2 0 5-10 ppm

PG H2 Recovery Integral Separate Unit

H2/N2 Ratio Control Simple & Precise Complex

Catalyst Deactivation Full Prod Reduced Prod or Shutdown

Syngas Purification Comparison

Synthesis Loop

Syngas

fromPurifier

HP

Steam

BFW

CW

Synloop Purge

to Dryers

0 C

155 bar-a

1 C

31.6 bar-a Refrigeration

Compressor

Horizontal MagnetiteConverter

UnitizedChiller

Minimum # of equipment in loop 10 ~15% smaller loop equipmentMinimum # of equipment in loop 10 ~15% smaller loop equipment

3-Bed Horizontal IntercooledAmmonia 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 AustraliaHorizontal 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 CaseHP Case

-33 C0 bar-g

Condenser

Unitized Chiller

AmmoniaAccumulator

Refrigeration

Compressor

Cold NH3 Product

M

Warm NH3 Product

NNF

NH3

fromLetdown

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

NH3 Refrigerant Compressor

NH3 Product

NH3 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



Process



• Summary



Process



• 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

Gcal/

mt

-L

HV

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 ConsumptionBASF - 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 PurifierTM 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 PurifierTM 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



Process



• Summary



Process



• Summary

Project Execution Options

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 Licensor’s 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 Licensor’s 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

Project Execution OptionsOption 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/

AWARDOWNER

LICENSOR/EPC CONTRACTOR

At Tenderer’s Cost

MANAGE AND CONTROL

ENGINEERING

PROCUREMENT

CONSTRUCTION

PROCUREMENT(IF REQUIRED)

OPEN BOOK ESTIMATE

CONVERT TO CONVERT TO LUMP SUMLUMP SUM

ANALYSE/NEGOTIATE/

COMMIT

Reimbursable

- Fixed License Fee Engineering services

reimbursable rates- Agreed-to Fee for

Profit, Residual Risk and Contingency

- Agreement on LD’s

- 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 PERIODPERIOD

Project Execution Options - Option C

Competitive EPC Bidding based on Licensor’s 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 Licensor’s 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 Licensor’s BED

Phase 1 BED/FEEDPhase 1 BED/FEED

ANALYSE/NEGOTIATE/

AWARDOWNER

LICENSOR

FIXED FEE

MANAGE AND CONTROL

ENGINEERINGENGINEERING

PROCUREMENTPROCUREMENT

CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION

PROCUREMENTPROCUREMENT(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

CONTRACTORSCONTRACTORS

COMMISSIONINGCOMMISSIONING

PHASE 2 EXECUTION PHASEPHASE 2 EXECUTION PHASEPHASE 1 AWARD PHASEPHASE 1 AWARD PHASE

AWARD LUMPSUM AWARD LUMPSUM CONTRCTCONTRCT

SELECT SELECT CONTRACTORCONTRACTOR

Project Execution OptionsOption 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 can’t 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 can’t 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 YOUTHANK YOU

Date post:	26-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	derek-morse
View:	61 times
Download:	16 times

01 a Malhotra - KBR PurifierTM Technology and Project Execution Options for Ammonia Plants

Documents