Residue Fluid Catalytic Cracker (RFCC) Project in Korea ...
Transcript of Residue Fluid Catalytic Cracker (RFCC) Project in Korea ...
Nov. 11, 2009
Presented by Mr. Sook-Hyung(Sam) Kwon
Residue Fluid Catalytic Cracker (RFCC) Project in Korea
achieved remarkable benchmark targets
I. Introduction of SK Energy
II. Background of the No.2 FCC Project
III. General Description of the No.2 FCC Plant
IV. Initial Project Goals
V. Project Execution Strategies
VI. Work Breakdown Structures
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
VIII. Performance of the No.2 FCC Project
IX. Key Success Factors
X. Pictures of the No.2 FCC Plant
Table of Contents
2
3
I. Introduction of SK Energy
Asia’s Leading Energy Company
- Asia’s No.4 CDU Capacity of 1,115,000 B/D
- World No.1 API Group III Lube Base Oil Manufacturer
- Ranked No.29 in 2007 Forbes Global Top Oil & Gas Companies
- Ranked No.74 in 2009 Fortune Global 500
- Korea’s first oil refining company which was established in 1962
- Largest domestic market share of 35% in petroleum product sales
Asia’s Leading Energy Company
Korea’s No.1 Energy Provider
Overall Process Block Diagram of SK Ulsan Complex
I. Introduction of SK Energy
G/C &
Me’LSR Me’LSR
NAPHReformer
PE
Ethylene
PO/SM
PPPropylene
BRU/Sul/ AEU CHxBz
XFU PX
Mixed Xylene
KERO
LGO
Naphtha Cracker
S/B Me’ Jet Fuel
MDU Kerosene
Diesel
AR
VDU
LBO Lube Base OilHC
VRDS Fuel Oil
#1~5
CDU
RHDS RFCCLCO
Asphalt
Ethylene
PE
PO / SM
PP
Propylene
Cyclohexane
Benzene
Toluene
PX
C3/C4
B-C
Gasoline
LCNPropylene
Acetylene
Reformate
Reformate
Acetylene
4
Plant Capacity of SK Energy
I. Introduction of SK Energy
#1~5
CDU
Petrochemical Plants Refinery
Ethylene Unit 860(C2=)
Sulfolane3,020(BTX)
(880)
PX 958(PX/OX)
MTBE 250(MTBE)
PE 396(PE)
PP 366(PP)
2
5
(2)
2
2
2
2
CHx 180(CHx)1
Butadiene Ext
raction Unit115(BD)2
Butene-1 42(B-1)1
ProcessCapacity
(MBPD)Process
Capacity
( KMT/Yr)Units
CDU7
(2)
1,115
(275)
MDU8
(1)
329
(70)
BRU(Benzene) 1 30
VDU4
(1)
137
(22)
Reformer5
(2)
121
(34)
Hydrocracker 1 45
LBO 2 23
RHDS 3 198
RFCC 2 127
Units
* ( ) : Incheon Refinery
5
6
II. Background of the No.2 FCC Project
To Enhance SK’s Competitiveness
SK’s Lower Ratio of Up-grading Facilities
Increased Premium Gasoline Demand
Fulfill Environmental Regulations
No.2 FCC Project
Enhance Price Competitiveness
7
III. General Description of the No.2 FCC Plant
No.2 RHDS
( 80 )
AR
HP
(110 MSCFD )
(80)
SRP
(620 T/ D )
No.2 RFCC
( 60 )
PRU
(972 T/ D )
Alkylation
( 18 )
GDS ( 30 )
Sulfur (510 T/D)
Propylene (11.8)
Propane ( 3.2 )
Alkylate
( 17.5 )
T-Gasoline
( 22 )
C4 (8.0)
HCN ( 7.4 )
SLO ( 5.0 )
Gasoline
( 22 )
C4= (14.5)
Fuel Gas (2)
Fuel Gas ( 0.3 )
L/S B-C (60)
Naph (2.2)
DSL (16.8 )
H2S
H2
C3/C4 (0.6)
B-C (3.6)
C3 ( 15.1 )
Butamer
(13) nC4 (13)
LCO ( 2.9 )
SAR (180T/D)
Sulfuric Acid
SHP
(14.5)
Process Scheme
Unit : MB/D
No.2 FCC plant consists of more than 10 process units and its supporting
utility and offsite facilities.
III. General Description of the No.2 FCC Plant
Utility & Offsite Facilities
Area System Capacity
Utilities
Water Treatment System 2,000 m3/h (Clarifier Base)
Cooling Water System 48,000 m3/h
Instrument & Plant Air System 37,000 Nm3/h (Dry Air Base)
Nitrogen System 5,000 ~ 20,000 Nm3/h (Contract)
Electrical Supply System (154 kV) 160 MVA
Offsites
Storage Tanks 1,500 MBbl (30 EA)
Raw Water Intake System 1,400 t/h (32” x 3.5 km)
Waste Water Treatment System 7,000 t/d
Flare System 1,000,000 kg/h
Fire Fighting System & so on.
Buildings Main Control Building,Admin. Building, Fire House, Maintenance Building,
MCC/SW GR Rooms & so on.
8
9
IV. Initial Project Goals
Description Project Goals Remarks
Schedule• 35 months from the start of FEEDto commercial operation
• Unprecedented tight schedule
Quality• On-Stream Factor 0.95 (Note) • No.1 FCC Project Record : 0.93
Cost• Within the budget (US$ 2.0 Billion) • Estimated TIC during Feasibility
Study was US$ 2.3bil.
Safety• No Serious injury
• No-Death• No-Serious Injury requiring hospitalization more than3 months
To enjoy big cracking margins before downturn, SK sets the schedule driven project goals while maintaining project qualities and not exceeding the budget.
(Note) On-stream Factor = Actual treated quantities for 90 days after
initial start-up divided by design capacity
•World-wide project rushes
•Heavy workload of eng’gcompany and manufacturers
•High price and long delivery
•Unstable construction workers’ union
•Limited space- Lay-down area- Construction space
•Limited engineers
10
V. Project Execution Strategies
•A lot of project experience - Know-how - Internal technical support - Trouble history
•A lot of operation experience
•Good cracking margin
•Leveled-up LECs’ capability
•Enhanced local manufacturers’ capability
•Manufacturers’ good will for SK
W
O
S W
O T
•Schedule- Limited engineering companies’ resources
- Longer procurement cycles- Construction workers ‘union
•Cost- Seller’s market- Increasing trend of equipment & material cost
- Labor cost increase
•Quality- Lack of qualified engineers due to heavy workload
- Manufacturers’ poor workmanship
- Short construction period
Project Environments Project Risks
To establish the project execution strategies, SK evaluated and identified SQC risks through SWOT analysis of project environments.
11
V. Project Execution Strategies
Project Risks
• Schedule
- Limited engineering companies’ resources
- Longer procurement cycles
- Construction workers ‘union
-
-• Cost
- Seller’s market- Increasing trend of equipment & materialcost
- Labor cost increase
• Quality
- Lack of qualified Engineers due to heavy workload
- Manufacturers’ poor workmanship
- Short construction
period
Required Actions
• Quick decision making
• Minimize engineering periods
• Secure qualified engineers
• Secure manufacturing periods
• Early buying is buying chief
• Early selection of FEED and
EPC contractors
• Incentive systems for schedule
acceleration
• Quality Management tools
• Engineering quality check
• Enhance manufacturers’
workmanship
• Maintain design consistency
Project Execution Strategies
• Strong owner management team
with single responsibility
• Early selection of FEED and EPC
contractors for parallel execution
• Early procurement of equipment
and materials
• Promote teamwork among all
partners
• Reinforced Quality Management
driven by SK
To overcome several project risks, SK established the following project execution strategies.
Process Section FEEDProcurement
RHDS, HPU
RFCC, GDS, PRU
Sulfur, Alkylation
FEC
FEC
FEC
LEC-1
LEC-2
LEC-3
FEC
FEC
FEC
Construction
LEC-1
LEC-2
LEC-3
Detailed
Engineering
LEC-1
LEC-2
LEC-3
Utilities & Offsites LEC-4 LEC-4- LEC-4LEC-4
VI. Work Breakdown Structures
[Work Breakdown Structures]
Considering project scale, fast-track schedule and limited engineering
resources of contractors, SK divided the process area into four sections.
12
Non-CriticalCritical
■ FEC : Front-end Engineering Contractor, Shaw Group.
■ LEC-1 : Local Engineering Contractor-1, Daelim Industrial Co, Ltd.
■ LEC-2 & 4 : SK Engineering & Construction
■ LEC-3 : Hyundai Engineering & Construction
VI. Work Breakdown Structures
13
Contracting scheme
Licensed Units
RFCC/PRU : UOP
RHDS : CLG
HP : HTAS
Alkylation : Dupont
SAR : MECS
GDS : Axens
SRU : CB&I
WGS : Belco
Butamer/ SHP : UOP
Non-licensed Units
ARU /SWTU : Shaw
Utility & Offsite:SKEC
Basic Design
By FEC
Project Spec & Procedure
Basic Engineering
Procurement Service
for Critical Equipment
Detailed Engineering
Procurement Assistance for owner supplied items
Procurement Services except owner supplied items
Construction & Construction Management
Pre-commissioning
Commissioning Assistance
Process Design
LEC-1
Daelim
RHDS
HP
LEC-3
Hyundai
Sulfur
Alkylation
LEC-4
SKEC
Utilities
Offsites
LEC-2
SKEC
RFCC
PRU/GDS
SK Energy
EPC
Project Champion
Strong Owner-Centered Project Management Team
14
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
Project DirectorTech. SupportTeam (Existing)
PCT ST-1 ST-2 ST-3 MT
■ PT : Project Team, PCT : Project Control Team
■ ST : Start-up Team, MT : Maintenance Team
■ PET : Process Engineering Team LEC-1 LEC-3 LEC-2 LEC-4 FEC
Start-up Director
PT-1 PT-2 PT-3 PET
Well aligned organization with WBS
Single responsibility for EPC and Start-up
Quick decision
No PMC (Project Management & Consulting) Group
15
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
• Heavy workload of engineering industry
• Selection at the beginning stage of main process
licensor design
• FEED work with piecemeal licensor Information
• Incentive plan for P&ID & Equipment datasheets
• Multiple contractors in view of project scale
• EPC contractor selection at the beginning stage of
FEED work
• Co-work and parallel work with FEED contractor
• Priority on procurement work
• E : Lump-sum, Procurement : Cost + Fee
Construction : Unit Price Basis
• Enable to purchase
equipment & material
in time for long lead
equipment
• Minimize design
period
FEED
Contractor
Selection
EPC
Contractor
Selection
To achieve fast track project goal, SK selected FEED contractor and EPC contractors at the
beginning stage of project for parallel execution.
Early Selection of FEED Contractor and EPC Contractors
16
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
Asia’s Leading Energy Company
Market Situation
• Seller’s Market (2005 ~ 2007)
- Price goes up as time goes
- Delivery lead time getting
longer
- Difficult to get quotation
- Difficult to secure shop space
- Early buying is buying cheap
Procurement Approach
• Early identification of long lead critical equipment using
No.1 FCC project data at the project planning stage
• Securing shop space for RHDS reactors
- LOI issue before licensor design
- Procurement cost finalizing after design freezing
• Early input of licensor datasheets issue schedule
- Negotiation meeting with licensor
- Kick-off meeting for licensor design
• RFQ issue using licensor datasheets
- P/O spec finalization during TBE
- Incentive program for FEED contractor
Due to tight market situation, in-time delivery of critical equipments was the key success factor
for achieving project goals.
Early Procurement of Equipment and Material
17
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
Asia’s Leading Energy Company
Good teamwork was essential for successful completion of the project.
There were eight licensors, one FEED, four EPC contractors and hundreds of suppliers.
Active communication was effective to get their good will and willingly support.
Shared Project Goals
Top Management
Support & etc.
Support to Contractors
• Project goals
• Project Execution Plan & Strategy
• Team Building workshops among FEC & LECs
• Dispatch LEC engineers to support FEED work
• Introduce Incentive program for FEED work and
construction schedule acceleration
• Top management Impact visit to key suppliers
• Invite local suppliers to construction site and
entertainment
Teamwork among all partners
18
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
SK organized owner QA/QC team and prepared/implemented Quality Management Plan (QMP)
to ensure one-through Start-up.
Why concerns ?
• Licensor Design &
FEED Quality
- Lack of man-power
- Level of
completeness
• Detailed Design
- Capability
- Parallel execution
& hurry-up
• Equipment & Material
- Heavy workload
- Lack of quality mind
• Construction
- CPU
- Tight schedule
Resources & Tools
• Resources
- SK maintenance people
- 3rd party
- Process design & FEED
review
- Resident inspector at
shop & field
• Tools
- Licensor contract
- Inspection & Test plan
- Lessons learned from
operation and maintenance
QMP
Licensor
Requirement
Guarantee
condition
Optimum
Design
Performance &
cost
effectiveness
ReliabilityOperability &
Maintainability
Job spec
Code &
Regulation
Requirement
by law or
regulation
WorkmanshipDefect-free
workmanship
• Control Area • Purpose
Reinforced Quality Management driven by SK
[Overall Quality Management Map (Sample)]
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
- Plot plan/PFD/P&ID- Key Equipment Data Sheet
- Operation Manual
- H&M Balance - Sizing Equipment & C/V - Process Hydraulic - Flare system - Review Interconnecting Piping System
- Plot Plan- P&ID, - Equipment Data Sheet
- ESD Scheme- Operation Manual
• Design Data of Other Unit
• Experience of Operation/Maintenance
• Lessons Learned Item• Trouble History
• SK STD Spec.• Code Requirement• Trouble History
Licensor Requirement
Review Optimum Design
HAZOP STUDY(1st & 2nd)
Implement Operation Experience
- Reliability Study- Metallurgy(MSD)- Trouble History
Review Design
Implement Basic Design Criteria
Update SK Spec.
Tools
Licensor Requirement Optimum Design
Reliability / OperabilityMaintainability
JOB Spec. / Code / Regulation
Workmanship
Licensor Requirement
Reliability /OperabilityMaintainability
Plant Performance Implement Code & SK Spec.
Prevent Errors/Mistakes
Operability of Inter-Uints
- Implement S/U & S/D Procedure
Review System & Audit
Consistency Check By LEC
Update Feed/Product
Handling- Feed Supply System - Product Handling - Off-Spec. Handling
Verify Optimum Sizing -3rd Party
- Sizing Main Equipment- Thermal Rating- Hydraulic- Flare System Utility Balance &
Consumption Review
Reliability Study
• Licensor Agreement• Design Data of Other Unit
19
[Overall Project Master Schedule]
20
VII. Implementation of Project Execution Strategies
Description 2005 2006 2007 2008 Remarks
Process Design 2005.5~2006.7
Basic Design 2005.11~2007.4
Detailed Design 2006.6~2007.9
Procurement(Critical Equipment)
2005.7~2008.2
Procurement(All Other Equipment)
2006.2~2008.2
Site Preparation 2006.6~2006.12
Construction 2006.12~2008.3
Pre-com & Comm. 2008.4~2008.6
Commercial Operation 2008.6~
Plan Actual
SK achieved project goals in every aspect.
21
VIII. Performance of the No.2 FCC Project
Actual
31 Months
0.99
1.95 Billion US$
No Serious Injury
35 Months
0.95
2.0 Billion US$
No Serious Injury
RemarksPlanDescription
Quality
Schedule
Cost
Safety
from the Start of FEED
to Commercial Operation
On Stream Factor (*)
Initial Goals vs. Achievement
(*) On Stream Factor : Actual treated quantities for 90 days after initial
start-up divided by design capacity
It took 72 days from M/C to get on-specification production, which
reduced 18 days compared to existing No.1 FCC project.
22
VIII. Performance of the No.2 FCC Project
Asia’s Leading Energy Company
- Mechanical Completion : Mar.31,’08
- On-Spec. Production of Hydrogen Unit : May 8, ‘08
- On-Spec. Production of RHDS Unit : May 31, ‘08
- On-Spec. Production of RFCC/GDS Units : June.11, ‘08
- On-Spec. Production of Alkylation Unit : June.12, ’08
SK achieved each design capacity for main units on June.25,’08.
SK achieved process performance for each unit as designed.
23
VIII. Performance of the No.2 FCC Project
SK achieved all process performances as designed satisfying products
specifications as shown below :
Unit Performance Indicator Project Specification Actual Operation
RHDS Capacity, BPSD 80,000 Max. 86,000
T-AR Total Sulfur, wt% Max. 0.5 < 0.5
T-AR MCR, wt% Max. 6.0 < 4.8
C5+ Product Yield, vol. % Min. 98 > 98
RFCC Capacity, BPSD 60,000 Max. 73,000
LCN RON Min. 91 > 91
Propylene Purity, vol.% Min. 99.65 > 99.65
Propylene Yield, vol. % 19.6 14~18 (Note)
GDS Capacity, BPSD 30,000 Max. 36,000
T-LCN Total Sulfur, wtppm Max. 10 4~8
Alkylation Capacity, BPSD 18,000 Max. 20,000
Alkylate RON Min. 95 > 95
Note : However the unit was originally designed to make high propylene yield of 19.6 vol.%, the
actual propylene yield has been set in the range of 14~18 vol.% flexibly to meet market
situation adjusting reactor temperature and reformulating RFCC catalysts since initial start-up.
The plant has been running without shut-down since the initial
start-up operation on June.12,’08.
24
VIII. Performance of the No.2 FCC Project
Asia’s Leading Energy Company
- RHDS Unit : Max. 86,000 BPSD
(Design Capacity : 80,000 BPSD)
- RFCC Unit : Max. 73,000 BPSD
(Design Capacity : 60,000 BPSD)
SK tried to find the maximum capacity of No.2 FCC plant using
equipment design margins and optimizing operating conditions.
As a result, we found that the plant could be operating with the
following capacity without any equipment revamp:
Early Procurement of Critical Equipments
1
2
3
Early Engagement of FEC and LECs
4
Strong Project Management
54
IX. Key Success Factors
25
5
6 Accurate and In-time Decision
Enhanced Quality Management System
Teamwork with SK, FEC and LECs
Thanks a lot!
28