Perdaman Project Destiny - EPA WAepa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/PER_documentation2/Appendix...

DEBOJ2

Stamp

DEBOJ2

Stamp

Perdaman Project Destiny

DOCUMENT NUMBER: 140436-0000-40EG-0009 REVISION: 00 DATE: 26-JUN-2019

DOCUMENT TITLE: REVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY SELECTIONS PAGE: 2 of 20

PROJECT NUMBER: 140436

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 WORKING LANGUAGE ............................................................................................... 4

1.3 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................... 4

1.4 ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 4

SCOPE OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 6

3.1 ATR REFORMING ....................................................................................................... 6

3.2 GAS TREATMENT ....................................................................................................... 6

3.3 AMMONIA SYNTHESIS ............................................................................................... 6

3.4 UREA SYNTHESIS ...................................................................................................... 6

3.5 UREA GRANULATION ................................................................................................. 6

COMPARISON OF THE LICENSED TECHNOLOGY OF THE SYNGAS GENERATION BLOCK AND TECHNOLOGY SELECTION .......................................................................... 6

4.1 PROCESS LAYOUT ..................................................................................................... 6

4.2 COMPARISON OF REFORMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS ...................... 8

4.3 ATR REFORMING TECHNOLOGY SELECTION ......................................................... 8

4.4 GAS TREATMENT: CO SHIFT TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 10

4.5 AGR (ACID GAS REMOVAL) TECHNOLOGY ........................................................... 11

4.6 SRU TECHNOLOGY SELECTION ............................................................................. 11

4.7 NWU (NITROGEN WASH UNIT) TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 11

AMMONIA TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 13

5.1 EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................................ 13

5.2 EFFICIENCY .............................................................................................................. 13

5.3 EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 13

5.4 NO CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS................................................................................. 13

5.5 INTERMITTENT EMISSIONS ..................................................................................... 13

UREA TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 14

6.1 EXPERIENCE UREA SYNTHESIS ............................................................................. 14

6.2 EXPERIENCE UREA GRANULATION ....................................................................... 15

6.3 EFFICIENCY .............................................................................................................. 15

OVERALL PLANT EMISSIONS .......................................................................................... 15

7.1 SYNTHESIS ............................................................................................................... 15

DEBOJ2

Stamp





7.2 GRANULATION .......................................................................................................... 16

SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IN TOPSØE (SYNCOR™) TECHNOLOGY .................. 16

8.1 SAFETY ASPECTS OF MATERIALS CONSUMED / PRODUCED ............................ 16

8.2 SAFETY IN DESIGN .................................................................................................. 17

8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ..................................................................................................... 18

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 19

REVISION HISTORY ........................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Most significant differences between conventional plant concepts and SynCOR Ammonia™ (TopsØe) .............................................................................................. 7

Table 2 Topsøe ATR experience .......................................................................................... 9 Table 3 Key Emergency Emissions to Flare system ........................................................... 14 Table 4 Stamicarbon’s 2,700 mtpd and Larger Urea Plant Experience ............................... 15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Burrup Gas based ammonia urea plant .................................................................. 19

DEBOJ2

Stamp





GENERAL

1.1 INTRODUCTION Perdaman Chemicals & Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Owner), has invited SNC-Lavalin Australia Pty Ltd. (Contractor) to submit a proposal for the execution of Ammonia and Urea Production Facility using natural gas as feedstock, at the Burrup Strategic Industrial Area. The Project site is located at approximately 10 km from Dampier and 20 km north-west of Karratha on the north-west coastline of Western Australia.

The project consists of building Syngas block, Ammonia Synthesis loop, Granular Urea Plant, Power and Utilities using TOPSØEAS and Stamicarbon technologies. The Ammonia plant will produce 3,500 tpd and two identical trains of Urea, each with capacity of 3,100 tpd will produce 6,200 tpd with a nominal production of 2.05 mtpa of granular urea. Export of product is through overland conveying system to port with ship loading facilities.

Contractor’s responsibility inherently includes coordination of all personnel and activities on site. On site personnel will comprise a small Owner presence, Contractor staff, and craft workforce, along with a number of sub-contractors, vendors and consultants. Total workforce is estimated to reach 2,000 at peak, with an average of 1,000 throughout the life of the project.

1.2 WORKING LANGUAGE English language will govern all project correspondence, documents, drawings and submittals.

1.3 DEFINITIONS

OWNER/COMPANY Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd. LICENSOR The applicable process licensors in the facility (Haldor Topsoe,

Stamicarbon) ENGINEER/CONTRACTOR SNC-Lavalin Australia Pty Ltd SUBCONTRACTOR Entity, company or group of companies entrusted by the

CONTRACTOR to perform part of the PROJECT Means any and all persons, firms, partnerships, Companies, bodies, entities or a combination thereof including sub-vendors and VENDORs, who are providing Goods & Services to perform duties specified by CONTRACTOR

SHALL This is to be understood as mandatory in relation to the requirements of this document.

SHOULD This is to be understood as a strong recommendation to comply with the requirements of this document

WILL This is to be understood as a constant in design.

1.4 ABBREVIATIONS

AGR Acid Gas Removal (CO2) ASU Air Separation Unit ATR Auto Thermal Reformer





CO Carbon Monoxide CTS Cool Tip Swirl (Burner) GTL Gas to Liquids HYCO Hydrogen/Carbon Monoxide IFFCO Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd KBR Kellogg Brown Root LIN Liquid Nitrogen MDEA Methyl diethanolamine (solvent) NG Natural Gas NWU Nitrogen wash Unit PCF Perdaman Chemical and Fertilisers PSA Pressure Swing Adsorption PSFS Process Safety Flow Schemes SRU Sulphur Recovery Unit TOPSØE Haldor TopsØe

SCOPE OVERVIEW

The technology package has been selected with confidence compared with their competitive technologies in the international market, in terms of experience, efficiency, economic and environmental.

PCFs technology selections are:

Process Licensor

ATR Reforming Topsøe

CO shift Topsøe

AGR BASF

Cryogenic NWU Linde or Air Liquide

Ammonia Synthesis Topsøe

Urea Synthesis Stamicarbon

Urea Granulation Stamicarbon

PCF’s project will include one of the world’s largest single-train ammonia synthesis section (synloop). Topsøe’s design package will include the ATR reformer, shift, ammonia converter,





syngas compressor, refrigeration compressor, heat exchangers, knock-out drums, pumps, and piping specifications.

Topsøe is a leading ammonia process licensor. On the urea side, PCF’s project will include two Stamicarbon urea synthesis trains and two granulation trains. Stamicarbon has the world’s best urea technology and has been the leading technical innovator since 1954.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1 ATR REFORMING Topsøe can achieve thermally efficient Auto Thermal reforming, which has been field proven at both above and below the required process duty, specifically with a low Steam/Carbon (S/C) ratio of 0.6.

3.2 GAS TREATMENT The gas treatment uses Topsøe’s low S/C Shift together with the well proven BASF aMDEA CO2 removal system. The final technology in gas treatment is the NWU (Nitrogen Wash unit) which reduces inerts in the syngas to very low levels, allowing no purge requirements in synthesis.

3.3 AMMONIA SYNTHESIS Topsøe can achieve 3,500 mtpd using equipment that has been field-proven at effectively the required process duty. Topsøe’s synthesis energy efficiency equals or exceeds the industry standard. Its synloop emissions will be negligible except during plant start-ups and plant upsets. All pressure safety valves and vents exhaust to a flare.

3.4 UREA SYNTHESIS Stamicarbon’s Urea2000plus™ Pool Condenser technology is proven. Its energy efficiency and emissions are the best in the industry.

3.5 UREA GRANULATION Stamicarbon’s urea granulation technology is proven. Its energy efficiency and emissions equal or exceed the best in the industry.

COMPARISON OF THE LICENSED TECHNOLOGY OF THE SYNGAS GENERATION BLOCK AND TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

4.1 PROCESS LAYOUT The 3,507 tpd ammonia plant will be one of the largest in the world. The technology differs from conventional ammonia plants in that it will apply catalytic reforming (SynCOR™ Topsøe) rather than steam reforming.

The simplified ammonia production layout is shown below:





The layout is essentially three main steps:

• SynCOR™ ATR (autothermal reforming) – syngas producer • Gas treatment – adjustment of syngas to hydrogen and CO2 • Ammonia synthesis – conversion of H2 and N2 to ammonia.

The approach offers various benefits for large ammonia plants, shown in the comparative table below:

Table 1 Most significant differences between conventional plant concepts and SynCOR Ammonia™ (TopsØe)

Technology Conventional NH3 plant SynCOR Ammonia™

Desulfurization section Standard Standard

S/C ratio 3.0 0.6

Reforming section Tubular steam reformer and air blown secondary reformer

Pre-reformer and oxygen blown SynCOR™

Shift section High-temperature shift followed by low temperature shift

High-temperature followed by medium temperature shift

CO2 removal section Standard Standard

Synthesis gas cleaning Methanation Nitrogen wash with purge and nitrogen addition

Ammonia synthesis Ammonia synthesis loop with purge

Inert free synthesis loop with no purge

Purge gas treatment Ammonia wash followed by hydrogen recovery

No treatment required

Relative energy consumption 100 97

Relative make-up water consumption

100 40-50





Technology Conventional NH3 plant SynCOR Ammonia™

MAX referenced capacity, single train NH3/other industries

3,500 Mtpd / - 4,000 Mtpd*)/>6,000 Mtpd

* An equivalent production of 4,000 Mtpd The benefits include a considerably lower water consumption, lower overall energy consumption, a very low inert synthesis loop and a simpler construction for the Reformer section and reduce the required plot plan.

4.2 COMPARISON OF REFORMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS Most conventional ammonia plants use steam reforming. The primary reformer is used to produce a synthesis gas consisting of hydrogen and methane. This synthesis gas is then used in the secondary reformer where more hydrogen gas is produced. Three leading reformer technology suppliers are Thyssen, KBR and Topsøe – together supplying over 75% of global ammonia plants. The main difference between Thyssen, KBR and Topsøe technologies is the type of primary reformer used and the firing conditions within the reformer.

Thyssen and KBR technology adopt top-fired reformers which are generally more preferred for large capacity plants. Top-fired reformers required in world-scale ammonia plants contain between 200 and 300 tubes that are used to produce the synthesis gas. The primary reformer of the proposed 3,500 tpd ammonia plant would contain between 300 and 350 tubes and about 250 vertical burners. This is a very large as well as complex to build reformer structure. The advantages of top-fired reformer technology, include:

Firing occurs at one level so the number of burners in relation to the number of tubes is smaller than in side-fired systems. This simplifies distribution piping for fuel gas and preheated combustion air which is now standard in all efficient plants.

The radiation efficiency is higher than in other designs.

In side-fired reformers adopted by Topsøe technology, the burners are located in the walls of the furnace box which accommodates one or two rows of tubes. Established operating ammonia plants using Topsøe technology contain about 500 tubes and about 500 side burners in the primary reformer, which is considerably greater than that required for Thyssen or KBR technology.

Further each of these technologies requires a secondary reformer which adds compressed air at the process pressure of ca. 40 barg and provides a significant completion of the reforming reactions.

4.3 ATR REFORMING TECHNOLOGY SELECTION For large ammonia plants (>3,000 tpd), the steam reformer becomes very large and complex. Based on their GTL as well as HYCO and methanol experience, Topsøe have proposed to use catalytic ATR as the main reformer, combined with a pre-reformer to deal with higher hydrocarbons that are more prone to soot formation (dusting) in the low S/C environment.





• Topsøe achieve proven stable reforming operation with a low (0.6) steam/carbon ratio - considerably less steam than around 3.0 for conventional steam reforming • The Topsøe ATR uses less oxygen consumption, resulting in a smaller Air Separation Unit capacity • A key component of ATR is the 3rd generation CTS™ gas burner (introduced 2010) with a long lifetime. Long-term operation in with various GTL and Methanol Plants has a proven lifetime of the burners for over 20,000 hours (3 years). In competing technologies the burners need replacing every 10,000 hours • A key technology differentiator is the ATR multi-layer ceramic refractory wall and stabilised zirconia flame impinging

(HTEZR™) target tiles above the catalyst bed. These respectively protect the reformer vessel and catalyst bed to allow for long operating lifetime, exceeding 20 years

• Competing refractory lined designs need regular yearly maintenance and part replacement • The fuel gas for the endothermic reforming reaction is largely supplied internally, rather than

via an external burner arrangement, which reduces net emissions. • A single ATR can process more than 5,000 t/d of ammonia – equivalent – the 3,507 tpd is

relatively small to experience • A single ATR unit is expected to achieve over 99% reliability. Several GTL and methanol

plants have demonstrated such reliability – e.g. Oryx, Qatar

ATR has proven experience as shown in the table below:

Table 2 Topsøe ATR experience

Plant Syngas Product Year NH3-eq tpd Hyco H2/CO 2002 450 Sasol, Sasolburg GTL, NH3 and methanol 2004 2 x 2,300 Oryx, Qatar GTL 2006 2 x 5,7001 Chevron, Escravos GTL 2014 2 x 5,700 Tigas, Turkmenistan Methanol 2019 4,500 Uzbhekistan GTL 2020 (U/C) 2 x 6,300

1 Currently expanded to 110%





There are further various references with ATR as the secondary reformer.

In summary the ATR allows a considerably more compact reformer, with a considerable reduction in steam and demin water requirements. Given that the project site has no fresh water and has to generate all fresh and demin water from seawater, this provides an energy and environmental benefit.

The pre-reformer provides a process safeguard to variability in the NG supply composition, by removing higher hydrocarbons, reducing overall oxygen consumption, and removing final traces of potential sulphur compounds.

4.4 GAS TREATMENT: CO SHIFT TECHNOLOGY Approach with CO Shift: The CO Shift reaction, also known as the water gas shift reaction, is as follows:

CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 + heat (exothermic)

The reaction is carried out over a catalyst. Steam is added to the syngas before the reactor, as needed to achieve the desired increase in H2 content and decrease in CO content. The syngas is sulphur free.

Barring a low S/C ratio in the ATR, the Topsøe Shift also employs a low Steam/CO catalyst, which further minimises addition of steam to the process gas. This in turn leads to a reduction in process condensate that needs to be stripped for re-use, as well as smaller process flows for various heat exchangers.

A further feature of the Topsøe approach is that with ATR there is a higher carbon retention in the syngas. This means that there is always sufficient CO2 from the Shift in the AGR to meet the full requirement of Urea production (ca. 0.74 t/t) – most conventional steam reforming Ammonia-Urea plants have a CO2 imbalance, resulting in the need to export a portion of the ammonia.

A further feature of the Topsøe Shift is the ability to adjust CO2 extraction to demand - thus, the Shift Steam/CO ratio can be adjusted to Shift to more CO2 (and H2). This minimises excess CO2 make in AGR, which is vented.

Application of CO Shift for this Project

For this Reforming to Urea production project, the application of sweet Shift is more attractive for the following reasons:

1. More energy efficient, because

a) lower steam requirement b) More flexible c) Temperature allows MP steam recovery

2. Less reactor required, because no COS Hydrolysis is required





3. Lower investment cost, due to simpler system configuration and lower operating cost due to higher energy efficiency.

4.5 AGR (ACID GAS REMOVAL) TECHNOLOGY Comparison of AGR Technologies and Suppliers

There are three of the most widely used AGR technologies for syngas AGR:

i) MDEA ii) Selexol iii) Rectisol

AGR Technology Selection

Among the above three (3) proven AGR technologies the MDEA based AGR (BASF OASE) technology is the proper selection for this project due to the following aspects:

1. Acid gas treatment process selection begins the acid gas reduction, required to meet downstream process. The deep removal of H2S and CO2 by means of physical absorption such as Selexol and Rectisol are not necessary for this project. The CO2 removal by amine solution base is adequate, because the NWU unit is provided downstream for H2 purification.

2. Lower energy consumption because of absorption at ambient temperature level (while refrigeration is required in the Selexol and Rectisol processes)

3. MDEA is commonly used by most NG based ammonia projects 4. CO2 capture can be realized 5. MDEA AGR is proven technology which has many experienced projects in the world. A

comparable scale AGR has been delivered for the Woodside Pluto LNG project in Western Australia.

4.6 SRU TECHNOLOGY SELECTION For this project, all gas sulphur is captured at the front of the process on a guard bed, with a pre-reactor to convert any potential organic Sulphur to H2S.

The result is essentially no Sulphur downstream in the syngas which:

• Simplifies gas processing • Prevents poisoning of downstream catalysts.

4.7 NWU (NITROGEN WASH UNIT) TECHNOLOGY Comparative Overview of H2 Purification Processes

PSA (pressure swing adsorption), Methanation and Cryogenic separation are the three principle options for purification of hydrogen for ammonia synthesis.

The prime aim is to remove CO and CO2 traces in the syngas, which are reactive in ammonia synthesis, and act as catalyst poisons.





Further reducing the inerts in the hydrogen, increases the conversion in the ammonia reactor (a higher partial pressure), and reduces need for gas purging.

The ATR approach results in the addition of the required (1:3) molar ratio of nitrogen to hydrogen for ammonia synthesis only after the NWU - minimising the upstream unit volumes. This differs from the conventional plant, where the large N2 molar % content is carried all the way through the plant from reforming. This is critical for energy saving.

NWU Technology Selection

The selection of NWU for H2 purification works best with the following criteria:

1. The cryogenic approach results in the highest degree of contaminant removal, together with a low hydrogen loss (<0.5%). The hydrogen residual inerts (including methane) are very low, and the low nitrogen hydrogen is a relatively small stream to process. The fuel gas is used in the Fired heater. Further there is an ASU on site, making LIN supply simple. The neighbouring Yara Pilbara ammonia plant has successfully applied a similar cryogenic approach since 2005.

2. PSA is a recovery technology used in various hydrogen plants. Whilst a high purity hydrogen can be achieved, the recovery efficiency reduces - typically resulting in up to a 10% hydrogen loss to fuel gas. The footprint of the PSA plant is relatively large, which was a consideration on the limited plot plan area.

3. An older but less effective purification technology employs amine scrubbing to remove most of the CO2 – followed by reacting the CO and residual CO2 with H2 over a catalyst to form methane. This type of methanation process is also the basis for H2 purification. The hydrogen purity after methanation is 97-98 mol% H2, the remainder being methane.

4. These impurities in the H2 product result in a higher energy consumption with hydrogen loss in methanation, as well as in the ammonia synthesis due to higher ammonia synthesis pressure requirement due to compensate the partial pressure of the inert components (CH4, Ar) and in higher investment cost due to provision of PGRU (Purge Gas Recovery Unit) where the purge gas continuously is purged from the ammonia synthesis loop to avoid the accumulation of inert components.

5. Among the three (3) principle H2 purification process (PSA, Methanation, Cryogenic), the Cryogenic NWU is the best choice with the following reasons: a) Highest H2 Purity b) Total CO + CO2 (which are poisonous to ammonia synthesis catalyst) removal c) Higher H2 recovery Production pressure d) High reliability e) LIN available from ASU f) Capital cost advantageous considering the overall benefits to Ammonia and fuel gas

systems g) Proven technology which has long term project experience around the world.





AMMONIA TECHNOLOGY

5.1 EXPERIENCE

PCF has selected a Topsøe 3,500 mtpd single-train synthesis loop.

Recent Topsøe Ammonia plants include:

• Siuci, at 2,000 mtpd, started up 2009 in Sohar, Oman • Engro in Pakistan, at 2,200 mtpd, is Topsøe’s largest single train plant. This started up in

2011. • Qafco-5 in Qatar, at 2,200 mtpd x 2, started up end 2011 • Siuci, Engro, and Qafco are all natural-gas-based plants • Topsøe is applying the proven S-300 converter (since 1999).

PCF’s natural gas-based plant will have a lower inerts level in the synloop. Also, Topsøe plans to raise PCF’s synloop operating pressure to achieve 3,500 mtd. The ammonia reactor volume (at around 132 m3) is in fact small than some of other Topsøe reference plants such as IFFCO, Agrium Redwater and Tata chemicals. The higher output with smaller volume is enabled with a very low inert syngas loop, maximizing the partial pressure of hydrogen/nitrogen, noting that the typical conversion is around 22% per pass.

5.2 EFFICIENCY Topsøe’s synthesis loop energy efficiency equals the best available for magnetite catalyst and synloops of comparable investment cost.

5.3 EMISSIONS PCF’s ammonia plant will be designed to U.S. and European standards and its emissions will be as low as the best technology can ensure.

5.4 NO CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS During normal operation there will be no syngas containing emissions. Various flash gas streams are collected and routed to the Fired Heater where they are combusted to provide process heat for endothermic reforming.

5.5 INTERMITTENT EMISSIONS Syngas is vented to flare during transient conditions. A header system will route all emissions to a flare. The emissions of consequence are hydrogen and ammonia. The flare will combust them.

The syngas and refrigeration compressors’ dry-gas seals may release small amounts of gas (most is internal). The compressor vendors will make the expected flow rates available later in the project.





Table 3 Key Emergency Emissions to Flare system

Item Max Flow

Nm3/h To Percent Gas Composition

H2 N2 NH3 CH4

Topsøe PSV104 102,194 Gas flare 0% 4% 0% 93% PSV 603/4 164,514 Syngas flare 7% 5% 0% 84% PSV1501 A-E 335,800 Syngas flare 64% 2% 0% 1.5% PSV 3406/3407 277,268 Syngas flare 71% 2% 0% 1.2% PSV 4203 16,661 Ammonia flare 61% 26% 13% 0% (sample of PSVs shown only)

UREA TECHNOLOGY

6.1 EXPERIENCE UREA SYNTHESIS PCF has selected Stamicarbon’s Urea 2000plus Pool Condenser technology. Urea producers have used this technology in new grassroots plants and plant revamps since the mid- 1990s. It saves investment cost and energy.

Significant corrosion used to occur in urea plants until Stamicarbon found that adding small amounts of oxygen greatly alleviated the problem. The discovery led to Stamicarbon’s ground-breaking oxygen patent in 1954. In 1956, DSM, Stamicarbon’s parent company, began operating the first oxygen (air)-passivated urea plant and, today, Stamicarbon has about a 66 percent share of new capacity.

However, oxygen injection is not an ideal solution and in the 2000’s Stamicarbon, in partnership with Sandvik Steel, developed Safurex, a proprietary, non-corrosive duplex steel. Safurex needs less oxygen to passivate and long-term testing in the field may show that no oxygen is needed. PCF has adopted the standard industry wait-and-see practice of using Safurex while continuing to inject a reduced amount of oxygen. This approach means less inerts, less purge to remove the inerts, and, consequently, more urea for the same energy. Safurex steel equipment, operating at PCF’s proposed reduced oxygen level or lower, has proven satisfactory to date but is not critical because, if industry experience warrants (over the next 10 to 30 years), PCF can revert to normal oxygen levels.

Further Stamicarbon has optimised their layout with a reduced high pressure (Safurex) section and adapted this to a much less corrosive medium pressure section.

PCF has opted for a two-train urea scheme to produce 6,200 mtpd urea. Each 3,100 mtpd train will have a pool condenser urea synthesis section followed by a granulation unit. Matching a single-train ammonia plant with two urea trains is accepted industry practice, especially in large-capacity projects, because it allows the ammonia plant to keep operating even if one urea unit is offline.

Yara built a larger, single-train pool condenser plant (3,500 mtpd) in Sluiskil, Netherlands, which started in 2011. Seven pool condenser plants are in operation in China.





Table 4 Stamicarbon’s 2,700 mtpd and Larger Urea Plant Experience

Capacity mtd Owner Location Startup Safurex 3,500 CF Industries PtN USA 2012 Yes 3,500 CF Industries Don USA 2012 Yes 2,840 Hulunbeier China 2011 Yes 3,500 Yara Netherlands 2011 Yes 3,500 x 2 Sorfert Algerie Algeria 2011 Yes 2,200 x 3 Pequiven Venezuela 2011 Yes 3,250 NPC-Lordegan Iran 2011 Yes 3,250 NPC-Golestan Iran 2011 Yes 3,250 NPC-Zanjan Iran 2011 Yes 2,700 Jianfeng Chem China 2010 Yes 3,250 PIDMCO Iran 2009 Yes 3,250 SAFCO Saudi 2006 Yes 3,250 CNCCC China 2004 Yes 3,250 PIDMCO Iran 2004 Yes 3,200 QAFCO Qatar 2004 Yes

6.2 EXPERIENCE UREA GRANULATION PCF has selected two trains of 3,100 mtpd. Stamicarbon has demonstrated its granulation technology in several plants, including Koch, USA, and three 2,000 mtpd units in Egypt. (The first unit came on-stream in 2006). Five units of 3,600 mtpd to 4,400 mtpd started up in 2010 and 2011 in Egypt, Iran and Venezuela.

6.3 EFFICIENCY Stamicarbon’s Urea2000™ Pool Condenser process uses less energy per tonne of urea than conventional processes.2

Since the Collie proposal, Stamicarbon has worked on further energy reductions. This has reduced the net steam required by ca. 0.1 t/t of Urea.

OVERALL PLANT EMISSIONS

PCF’s urea plant will be designed to US and European standards and its emissions will be as low as the best technology can ensure.

7.1 SYNTHESIS Because Safurex does not need oxygen protection, Stamicarbon’s inerts load and, therefore, its emissions, are less than one-third of the traditional amount. In addition, all pressure safety valves exhaust to a flare stack. Stamicarbon’s expected maximum ammonia loss in the synthesis section is

2 Henke Perrée, “Revamping Conventional Urea Plants,” FINDS, Vol. XII, No. 4 (1997)





0.11 kilogram of ammonia per tonne of urea (0.02 percent of the 567 kilograms theoretical ammonia consumption).

7.2 GRANULATION Stamicarbon launched its own granulator design in 2003. Stamicarbon’s process uses less urea-formaldehyde and produces less dust than competing systems, without reducing the mechanical strength of the granules. Stamicarbon’s film-spraying technology provides these advantages over the leading competitor and also improves granulator-cleaning cycle time to around 3 months between cleaning cycles.

Stamicarbon’s expected emissions in the granulation plant stack are <110 mg/Nm3 ammonia and 25 mg/Nm3 urea. The guaranteed maximum emissions in a competitor’s granulation plant are typically 160 mg/Nm3 ammonia and 40 mg/Nm3 urea.

SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IN TOPSØE (SYNCOR™) TECHNOLOGY

8.1 SAFETY ASPECTS OF MATERIALS CONSUMED / PRODUCED The Syncor™ design information is prepared according to oil and petrochemical design, construction and operating regulations, guidelines, procedures and practices.

The following materials are consumed/produced and will be briefly discussed:

Natural Gas

In general non-toxic, but repeated inhalation of high concentrations should be minimised.

Oxygen

Oxygen is a strong oxidizing agent and greatly accelerates normally non-hazardous conditions. Selection of proper materials and proper installation, cleaning and operating techniques will prevent this.

Nitrogen

Nitrogen being physiologically virtually inert can cause asphyxiation. Entry into confined spaces should therefore always be proceeded by proper procedures (e.g. oxygen concentration measurements).

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide is a toxic gas. Long-term exposures should not exceed the T(hreshold) L(imit) V(alue) of 50 ppm. Vent gases potentially containing CO at material levels are flared, therefore. Gas detectors in strategic locations will give an early warning of leakages and the use of proper procedures and safety equipment during maintenance will prevent inhalation.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen is not toxic gas but is highly flammable.

DEBOJ2

Stamp

DEBOJ2

Stamp





Sulphur Dioxide

Sulphur Dioxide is a toxic gas. Traces of sulphur dioxide is produced only in the gas turbine, and the fired heater. This is produced by burning natural gas with traces of H2S. Operator exposure should not exceed the current TLV of 2 ppm anywhere on the Site.

Flammable Materials

The Project does not use any highly flammable materials which require more than common sense in storage, use, etc.

Corrosive Reagents

A number of corrosive reagents are used in the process, e.g. caustic, acid, solvents, etc. These materials create no hazards if used as prescribed/designed and if protective clothing is used if they are handled.

8.2 SAFETY IN DESIGN During the design phase, the Process Safety Flow Schemes (PSFS) and the safety memorandum have to be developed. The PSFSs and safety memorandum give a comprehensive overview and description of all the safety requirements. During the development of the P(process) F(flow) S(Schemes) the following philosophy, besides standard equipment design/material selection requirements, is used:

• Instrumentation used for control should not be used for safeguarding. Separate instruments are thus required for the safeguarding.

• Incompatible gaseous environments should be separated by double block and bleeder systems

• Different pressure levels of similar environments are separated by double block valves (batchwise discharge after pressure equalisation) or control valve plus automated emergency shut-off valve (continuous discharge). Moreover, a pressure relief valve is installed on the lower pressure equipment for ultimate protection in case of “breakthrough”.

• Pressure relief valves or rupture discs with relief to a safe location are installed on all equipment which can be isolated and can build up pressure internally (e.g. heat of reaction).

• Where more appropriate, pressure reliefs are installed on the supply/discharge lines to/from equipment

• Standard safety procedures (purging, flame eyes, etc.) for fired equipment • Minimum operating pressures for nitrogen/steam/hot water systems used for purging and/or

heat transfer are higher than the maximum reachable pressure (relief valve pressure setting) of the oxygen and/or syngas systems being purged/heated.

• Relief systems/vents (potentially) containing highly flammable and/or toxic gases will be connected to the flare system (others will be atmospheric vents, where required, e.g. HP steam - with silencers).

• Adequate depressurising (relief) valves are installed for depressurising in case of process upset or fire.





Heat exchangers with high-pressure syngas on the process side require special attention if they are connected to a cooling water system at a lower pressure. Also coolers of HP water, in contact with an HP syngas environment, require special attention if they are connected to a cooling water system at a lower pressure.

8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL Gaseous Effluent

For this Burrup Gas to Urea project, BASF MDEA as AGR and NWU for H2 purification system have been selected.

The MDEA AGR absorbs the CO2 generated in the Shift Unit. CO2 is sent to compression for the Stamicarbon Urea unit, which converts the CO2 stream with Ammonia to Urea. The CO2 is typically 99.7% on a dry basis, and Sulphur free. Excess CO2 can be vented if required.

There is no flaring during normal operation – the oxygen blown approach minimizes inert build up, and trace combustible streams are recovered and used to supply heat to the process fired heater.

Liquid Effluent

With a high purity natural gas feed, with preforming to convert any higher hydrocarbons, there are minimal hydrocarbon effluents from this process. The main contaminant is ammonia in water, and both the Topsøe ammonia and Stamicarbon urea plants have extensive steam stripping to:

1. Recover such ammonia (beneficially) and 2. Result in process condensate that can and is re-used for steam BFW following chemical

polishing.

The process also generates traces of methanol (Shift catalysts), which is dealt with in the polishing section.

The seawater cooling system operates with part recirculation to concentrate the seawater from ca. 39,000 TDS to 55,000 TDS, with the blowdown meeting the in place agreed ANSECC guidelines for ocean discharge of seawater. Traces of ammonia in this discharge will comply with the ANSECC guidelines. (Small amounts of ammonia are used for BFW control)

Any trace heavy metals are extremely low in this blowdown – well below acceptable toxicity levels, and typical of seawater.

Solid Effluent

There is normally no solid effluent in the plant. Provision is made for ad hoc oil sump effluent recovery, and a holding (evaporation) pond should the seawater blowdown exceed any key parameter for discharge. In addition, there are periodic spent catalyst change outs – typically 2-4 year cycles. All the above solids are taken offsite to a safe disposal site as required. Attachment 1: Block Flow Diagram of Reforming to Fertiliser Production





Figure 1 Burrup Gas based ammonia urea plant

Notes:

1. Urea output 3,100 tpd x 2 trains = 6,200 tpd; 2.046 mtpa for 330 d/a 2. Site shed 75,000 tonnes, second shed at port another 75,000 tonnes 3. Ammonia 3,507 tpd (no export) 4. Power generation captive – ca. 100MW 5. NG gas consumption 125TJ/d - ca. 80% process, 20% utilities

6.

REFERENCES

1. SFA Pacific, Inc, GASIFICATION Critical Analysis of Technology, Economics, Markets, May 2007

2. SRI PEP Report No. 154/154A/154B/216 3. Chemsystems PERP Reforming Technologies 03/04S11 4. DOE/NETL-2007/1281 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants (Aug-2007) 5. 8th European Gasification Conference 2007 6. 9th European Gasification Conference 2009 7. Topsøe’s Technology papers (various) 8. SynCOR Ammonia™ Stepping up your syngas business; Presentation to Perdaman / SNC

Lavalin, February 2019, Thomas S. Christensen, Technology Manager





REVISION HISTORY

REVISION COMMENTS / NOTES

A1 Not Issued

END OF DOCUMENT

Perdaman Project Destiny - EPA WAepa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/PER_documentation2/Appendix...

Documents

Transcript of Perdaman Project Destiny - EPA WAepa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/PER_documentation2/Appendix...