Sie sind auf Seite 1von 95

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION

Manish MARATHE
J une 2012
2
Table of contents
1. HSE MOMENT
2. HYDROGEN REQUIREMENT
3. HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
STEAM REFORMING TECHNOLOGY
4. TECHNIPs LEADERSHIP IN HYDROGEN PLANT
5. ACTIVITIES AT TECHNIP NOIDA OFFICE
33
HSE MOMENT
USING TEMPORARY GASKET DURING ALKALI BOIL-OUT
Manhole fitted with Temporary gasket
During Alkali boil-out operating pressure was raised close to
normal operating pressure of the drum
Temporary gasket could not sustain the high pressure resulting in
high pressure steam coming out as a jet
Fortunately no injury or damage to property
44
HSE MOMENT
ENSURE CORRECT GASKET IS USED
HYDROGEN REQUIREMENT
5
66
HYDROGEN DEMAND
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR CLEANER FUELS
HIGHER DEMAND FOR MIDDLE DISTILLATE
PROCESSING OF HIGH SULPHUR / HEAVIER CRUDES (Higher SG /
Higher FBP)
77
MEETING HYDROGEN DEMAND
ON PURPOSE HYDROGEN GENERATION
REVAMP OF EXISTING FACILITIES
HYDROGEN RECOVERY FROM ROG INTEGRATION
88
HYDROGEN REQUIREMENT IN REFINERY
9
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
9
10 10
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION ROUTES
STEAM REFORMING
RECOVERY FROM ROG
PARTIAL OXIDATION
GASIFICATION
ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER
11 11
PROCESS SELECTION
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION:
PLANT CAPACITY
FEEDSTOCK AVAILABLE (AND FEEDSTOCK COST)
DESIRED H2/CO RATIO
UTILITY COST
12 12
FEED STOCK DOMAINS
NATURAL GAS TO NAPHTHA FEED (Including ROG, LPG )
STEAM REFORMING
AUTO THERMAL REFORMING
PARTIAL OXIDATION
HEAVIER THAN NAPHTHA FEED
PARTIAL OXIDATION
COAL OR COKE
GASIFICATION
13 13
HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
STEAM REFORMING 4 6
AUTO THERMAL REFORMING 2.5 4
PARTIAL OXIDATION 2
GASIFICATION 1
14 14
POINTS NOTED ?
Why Demand for Hydrogen ?
How to meet Hydrogen Demand ?
Name any three routes for Hydrogen production.
What are the criteria in selection of Hydrogen production route ?
15
STEAM REFORMING
TECHNOLOGY
15
16 16
STEAM REFORMING
WHY STEAM REFORMING IS PRE-DOMINANT TECHNOLOGY :
HIGHEST HYDROGEN YIELD
HIGHLY PROVEN & MATURED
RELIABLE
COST EFFECTIVE
EASY TO OPERATE
FLEXIBLE IN FEEDSTOCK AND HEAT INTEGRATION
17 17
SMR PROCESS FLEXIBILITY
FEED FLEXIBILITY
ALLOWS USE OF MULTIPLE FEED STOCKS
ENHANCES ON-STREAM RELIABILITY
FEED Vs FUEL FLEXIBILITY
ALTERATION BETWEEN FEED & FUEL BASED ON RELATIVE
PRICING
UTILISATION OF CAPTIVE WASTE FUEL AS PRIORITY
MAKE-UP FUEL
STEAM FLEXIBILITY
EXPORT STEAM ADAPTION AS PER SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENT
CAPACITY FLEXIBILITY
STABLE, FAST and EFFICIENT CAPACITY CHANGES BASED
ON HYDROGEN DEMAND
18 18
SMR PROCESS STEPS
FEED PRE-TREATMENT
PRE-REFORMING (OPTIONAL)
STEAM REFORMING
CO SHIFT CONVERSION (HT/MT/LT)
HYDROGEN PURIFICATION (PSA)
WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
VALUE ADDED CO-PRODUCTS
19 19
SMR PROCESS FLOW SHEET STEPS
20 20
SMR PROCESS BASIC FLOW SHEET
21 21
SMR PROCESS FLOW SHEET STEPS
22 22
FEED PRE-TREATMENT & PURIFICATION
SULFUR COMPOUNDS ARE STRONG DEACTIVATORS FOR
REFORMING CATALYSTS
Hydrocarbon Feedstocks contain sulfur compounds in the form
of organic S (Mercaptans, Thiophenes, COS) and inorganic S
(H
2
S)
SOME FEED STOCKS LIKE CR NAPHTHA AND ROG ALSO
CONTAIN CHLORIDES (ORGANIC AND HCL) AS WELL AS
OLEFINS
Chlorides can poison the reforming catalyst irreversibly
Olefins tend to polymerize or crack at typical SMR inlet
conditions
OFTEN NAPHTHA CAN CONTAIN HEAVY METALS
23 23
FEED PRE-TREATMENT & PURIFICATION
EFFECT OF REFORMER CATALYST POISONING:
INCREASED METHANE SLIP LEADING TO LOW PLANT
EFFICIENCY
CARBON FORMATION LEADING TO INCREASED PRESSURE
DROP
HOT TUBES LEADING TO TUBE LIFE REDUCTION OR FAILURE
24 24
FEED PURIFICATION
HYDRO-DESULPHURIZATION FOLLOWED BY H
2
S ABSORPTION ON
ZnO
RSH + H
2
= RH+ H2S
ZnO + H
2
S = ZnS + H
2
O
BOTH STEPS HAVE A SIMILAR TEMPERATURE WINDOW FOR BEST
PERFORMANCE
CoMo OR NiMo CATALYST FOR HYDROGENATION REACTIONS
C
2
H
5
SH + H
2
= C
2
H
6
+ H
2
S
C
2
H
4
S+2H
2
= C
2
H
6
+H
2
S
C
2
H
5
Cl+H
2
= C
2
H
6
+HCl
CH
2
=CH
2
+H
2
= C
2
H
6
C
4
H
4
S+4H
2
= C
4
H
10
+H
2
S
25 25
FEED PURIFICATION
CHLORIDE REMOVAL BY SODIUM ALUMINATE
HCl + NaAIO
2
= AIOOH + NaCl
2HCl + 2NaAIO
2
= AI
2
O
3
+ 2NaCl + H
2
O
ALLOWABLE LEVEL IN TREATED GAS
Sulphur < 0.1 ppmv (preferably 0.02 ppmv for Pre-reforming)
Chlorine < 0.1 ppmv
Olefins < 0.1 vol %
As/V/Pb < 5 ppbv
26 26
FEED PURIFICATION FLOW SHEET OPTIONS
SINGLE STAGE APPROACH
For <200 ppmwconcentration
of S in feed
Catalytic hydrogenation
followed by absorption
TWO STAGE APPROACH
For >200 ppmwconcentration
of S in feed
For large capacity units
Pre-desulphurisation followed
by stripping of H2S
Catalytic hydrogenation
followed by absorption
27 27
FEED PURIFICATION FLOW SHEET OPTIONS
ULTRA-PURIFICATION
Cu-Zn based catal yst downstream
ZnO
CHLORINE REMOVAL
Between Comox & ZnO
OLEFIN SATURATION
NiMoX reactor with/without re-
circulation loop
IN-SITU CAPTURE OF HEAVY
METALS
Sacrificial layer of Comox or Nimox
28 28
FEED PURIFICATION -
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
LEVEL OF RECYCLE H2
NG : 3-5 mole%
LPG : 12 mole%
Naphtha : 25-30 mole%
DOWNSTREAM OF DECHLORINATION
Avoids ZnCl
2
migration to reformer
Retains sulphur capacity
LEAD-LAG ARRANGEMENT
2 beds in series
Online renewal
Better Utilisation of Catalyst
29 29
FEED PURIFICATION CONFIGURATION
30 30
FEED PURIFICATION TRAIN
31 31
POINTS NOTED ?
Name four main processing steps in Steam Reforming.
Name any two components that are poisons to Reforming
catalyst
What is the allowable Sulphur content in the Feed to the
reformer ?
What is the level of recycle Hydrogen for Naphtha ?
32 32
SMR PROCESS FLOW SHEET STEPS
33 33
STEAM REFORMING
FEED STOCK
NATURAL GAS
NAPHTHA
REFINERY OFF GAS
LPG
34 34
STEAM REFORMING - KINETICS
C
n
H
m
+ nH
2
O + HEAT nCO + (m/2+n)H
2
(1)
CH4 + H
2
O + HEAT CO + 3H
2
(2)
CO + H
2
O CO
2
+ H
2
+ HEAT (3)
ALL HIGHER HYDROCARBON (n2) ARE COMPLETELY AND
IRREVERSIBLY CONVERTED
STRONGLY ENDOTHERMIC METHANE REFORMING REACTION
THE EXOTHERMIC SHIFT REACTION WILL BE CLOSE TO EQUILIBRIUM
AT OUTLET OF REFORMER.
35 35
STEAM REFORMING - KINETICS
METHANE FEED
CH
4
+ H
2
O CO + 3H
2
H = +206 KJ/Mol (REFORMING)
CO + H
2
O CO
2
+ H
2
H = -41 KJ/Mol (SHIFT)
SATURATED H/CS
C
n
H
2n+2
+ nH
2
O nCO+(2n+1) H
2
(Strongly endothermic)
CO + 3H
2
CH
4
+ H
2
O H = -206 KJ/Mol
CO + H
2
O CO
2
+ H
2
H = -41 KJ/Mol
36 36
STEAM REFORMING - KINETICS
CARBON FORMATION
CH4 C + 2H2
TO SUPPRESS CARBON FORMATION AND PROMOTE REFORMING
REACTION, STEAM IS ADDED IN EXCESS.
TYPICALLY S/C RATIO = 2.5 - 3.5 (mol/mol)
37 37
STEAM REFORMING - PARAMETERS
PRESSURE
TEMPERATURE
STEAM / CARBON RATIO
CATALYST
FUELS
REFORMER DESIGN
38 38
STEAM REFORMING - PARAMETERS
PRESSURE
REFORMING IS FAVOURED AT LOW PRESSURE
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS :
(A) PSA Operation 10 - 25 kg/cm2g
(B) B/L Pressure requirements
39 39
STEAM REFORMING - PARAMETERS
TEMPERATURE
REFORMING REACTION RATE IS SIGNIFICANT ABOVE 530C.
THUS DESIGN INLET TEMPERATURE IS CLOSE TO THIS VALUE.
TYPICAL REFORMER OUTLET TEMPERATURE IS 830 - 880C
HIGHER THE TEMPERATURE LOWER THE METHANE SLIP
HIGHER TEMPERATURE CALLS FOR IMPROVED METALLURGY,
HIGHER TUBEWALL THICKNESS
40 40
STEAM REFORMING - PARAMETERS
STEAM / CARBON RATIO
SUFFICIENT STEAM TO AVOID CARBON LAYDOWN ON THE
CATALYST
TYPICAL VALUE FOR
DIRECT REFORMING 3 TO 3.5 mol/atom
WITH PREREFORMER 2.8 TO 3.2 mol/atom
CARBON FORMATION MORE LIKELY WITH HEAVIER
FEEDSTOCKS.
41 41
STEAM REFORMING - PARAMETERS
CATALYST
USUALLY RINGS OR MODIFIED RING FORMS WHICH HAVE
MORE SURFACE AREA, HIGHER ACTIVITY
Ni IS THE PRINCIPAL CATALYTIC AGENT.
42 42
STEAM REFORMING - PARAMETERS
FUELS
WITH PSA UNITS MAJOR PORTION OF REFORMER FUEL IS
PSA PURGE GAS WITH A HYDROCARBON STREAM FOR MAKE-
UP
TYPICAL MAKE UP FUEL FOR REFORMERS
NATURAL GAS / REFINERY FUEL GAS
FUEL NAPHTHA
43 43
REFORMER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
44 44
REFORMER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
REFORMER CONFIGURATION
TOP FIRED (High/Med. Capacity)
SIDE FIRED (Lateral / Terrace) (Med. Capacity)
BOTTOM FIRED (Low Capacity)
FACTORS OF SELECTION
CAPACITY
PLOT LIMITATIONS
COST
ONLY TOP AND SIDE FIRED DISCUSSED
45 45
REFORMER CONFIGURATION
46 46
TOP FIRED REFORMER
COMPACT FIREBOX
FEWER BURNERS RELATIVE TO NO. OF TUBES
SINGLE OPERATING LEVEL FOR BURNER ACCESS.
HIGHER HEAT FLUX AT THE INLET ZONE CAUSES HIGHEST
ENDOTHERMIC REACTION AND CONTROLS OUTSIDE TUBE SKIN
TEMPERATURE
SIMPLIFIED COMBUSTION CONTROL DUE TO ELIMINATION OF
ZONE FIRING
47 47
REFORMER CONFIGURATION
TOP FIRED REFORMER WITH VERTICAL CONVECTION
48 48
REFORMER CONFIGURATION
TOP FIRED REFORMER WITH HORIZONTAL CONVECTION
49 49
REFORMER CONFIGURATION
CYLINDRICAL REFORMER
50 50
TOP FIRED REFORMER vs SIDE FIRED
TOP FIRED TOP FIRED
SIDE FIRED SIDE FIRED
Reference application
Large plant configuration
Refractory surface / heat loss
Number of burners
Tube skin temperature
Tube material utilization
Radiant efficiency
Start-up time
Maintenance
Investment
>75%
Single cell
Base
Base
Flat
Almost full
High
Short
Less
Base
<25% <25%
Multi-cell
>1.5 times
3 - 4 times
Rising
Partial
2-4% lower
Longer
More
upto 1.2 times
PARAMETERS PARAMETERS
51 51
TOP FIRED REFORMER
TECHNIPS STATE OF THE ART DESIGN
DESIGN OF REFORMER REQUIRES SIMULTANEOUS
CONSIDERATION OF HEAT TRANSFER AND REACTION KINETICS.
TECHNIP USES IN-HOUSE PROGRAM FURSIM
INCORPORATING DIFFERENT STEPS OF HEAT TRANSFER FROM
THE BURNER TO PROCESS GAS INSIDE THE TUBES AS WELL
AS CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE REACTION KINETICS
52 52
POINTS NOTED ?
What is the typical S/C ratio ?
Reforming reaction is endothermic or exothermic ?
Reforming reaction is favoured at low pressure. True or False ?
What are the benefits of top fired reformer over side fired
reformer ?
53 53
STEAM REFORMING
ADVANCES IN REFORMING TECHNOLOGY
HIGHER RELIABILITY
PROCESS CONTROL
MATERIALS
CATALYSTS
REDUNDANCY
HIGHER SEVERITY
HIGHER HEAT FLUX AND OUTLET TEMPERATURE
RECUPERATIVE/REGENERATIVE REFORMING
EHTR post-reformer
54 54
STEAM REFORMING - ADVANCES
Enhanced Heat Transfer Reformer (EHTR)
Tubes
Process Gas Boiler
55 55
PRE-REFORMING
DEVELOPED IN 1960 BY BRITISH GAS PLC
THEORY OF PRE-REFORMING
Steam Reforming Reaction (Endothermic)
CnHm + nH2O <--------> nCO + (n+1/2m)H2
Methanation Reactions (Exothermic)
CO + 3H2 <-----> CH4 + H2O
CO2 + 4H2 <------> CH4 + 2H2O
56 56
PRE-REFORMING
FUNCTION: CONVERTS HYDROCARBON FEED STOCKS
RANGING FROM NATURAL GAS TO HEAVY NAPHTHA TO AN
EQUILIBRIUM MIXTURE OF METHANE, HYDROGEN AND
CARBON OXIDES
OVERALL REACTION ENDOTHERMIC WITH NATURAL GAS AS
FEED, WHEREAS IT IS EXOTHERMIC FOR NAPHTHA
EQUIPMENT: ADIABATIC REACTOR PACKED WITH HIGHLY
ACTIVE Ni CATALYST
EXPECTED CATALYST LIFE : 1-2 YEARS
57 57
PRE-REFORMING
0 50 100
400
450
500
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
Bed depth, %
Hi - H
2
ROG
Naphtha
Lo - H
2
ROG
Nat. gas
LPG
58 58
PRE-REFORMING ROUTE SELECTION
CRITERIA
FEEDSTOCK FLEXIBILITY
PRE-REFORMER UPSTREAM OF REFORMER SIMPLIFIES FEED
CHANGES, DAMPENS THE IMPACT ON REFORMER WHEN
HANDLING WIDE RANGE OF FEED.
REDUCES ENERGY CONSUMPTION
LESS EXPORT STEAM REQUIREMENT
59 59
PRE-REFORMING ROUTE SELECTION
ADVANTAGES
FEED STOCK FLEXIBILITY
REDUCED REFORMER SIZE
REDUCED OVERALL FUEL
CONSUMPTION
VERY USEFUL FOR REVAMP
CASE
DISADVANTAGES
EXTRA PROCESSING STEP,
CRITICAL OPERATION
REDUCED EXPORT STEAM
ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT
(REACTOR + CATALYST)
CATALYST HIGHLY SENSITIVE
TO FEED IMPURITIES
60 60
POINTS NOTED ?
What is EHTR ?
Benefits of pre-reformer ?
Concerns due to pre-reformer ?
61 61
SMR PROCESS FLOW SHEET STEPS
62 62
SHIFT CONVERSION
TO MAXIMISE PRODUCT HYDROGEN :
CO + H
2
O CO
2
+ H
2
IMPROVE PSA PERFORMANCE
CRITICAL FOR ECONOMICS OF H
2
PRODUCTION :
UNCONVERTED CO IS LOST POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION
EXOTHERMIC EQUILIBRIUM IS FAVOURABLE AT HIGH STEAM
/ GAS RATIO AND LOW TEMP, UNAFFECTED BY PRESSURE
63 63
SHIFT CONVERSION
Process Process
Gas Boiler Gas Boiler
HT Shift
To Purification Unit
Feed Feed
Preheat Preheat
Process Process
Gas Boiler Gas Boiler
2 Stage HT Shift
2
nd
stage
To Purification Unit
Feed Feed
Preheat Preheat
335C
335C
1
st
stage
335C
320-350C CO slip 5.0 vol.%
64 64
SHIFT CONVERSION
Feed Feed
Preheat Preheat
Process Process
Gas Boiler Gas Boiler
HT Shift HT Shift
LT Shift LT Shift
MT Shift MT Shift
BFW BFW
Preheat Preheat
Process Process
Gas Boiler Gas Boiler
BFW BFW
Preheat Preheat
Feed Feed
Preheat Preheat
335C 200C
220C
HT + LT
Shift
MT Shift
To Purification Unit
To Purification Unit
190-220C CO slip 0.5 vol.%
220-270C CO slip 1-2 vol.%
65 65
SHIFT REACTORS
66 66
SMR PROCESS FLOW SHEET STEPS
67 67
HYDROGEN PURIFICATION
CO
2
WASH - OLD METHOD
PSA - MOST COMMON
MEMBRANE/ - NOT RECOMMENDED DUE
CRYOGENIC TO LARGE AMOUNTS OF
CO, CO
2
AND WATER IN FEED
Only PSA discussed
68 68
HYDROGEN PURIFICATION - PSA
PRESSURE SWING ADSORPTI ON (PS A) HAS BECOME INDUSTRY
NORM
HYDROGEN DISTINCTLY THE EASIEST TO SEPARATE DUE TO ITS
MOLECULAR SIZE AND NON-POLARITY
PSA UNIT COMPRISES OF
Multiple vessels (adsorbers)
A valve skid
A DCS or PLC control unit
69 69
HYDROGEN PURIFICATION - PSA
H
2
O
CO
2
CH
4
CO
F
l
o
w
Feed
H
2
Tail Gas
Product H
2
Equalization
Lines
70 70
HYDROGEN PURIFICATION - PSA
POLYBED PSA
PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION
PRODUCES HIGH PURITY
HYDROGEN AT HIGH
PRESSURE BY
SELECTIVELY ADSORBING
IMPURITIES
ADSORBED IMPURITES
ARE REJECTED AT LOW
PRESSURE
OPERATES ON CYCLIC
BASIS
REMOVES ALL
IMPURITIES IN A SINGLE
STEP
FEATURES
71 71
PSA UNIT
72 72
POINTS NOTED ?
Shift reaction is endothermic. True or False ?
Lowest CO slip is achieved with HT+LT combination. True or
False ?
Name any two methods for Hydrogen purification ?
73 73
HEAT RECOVERY
HYDROGEN PLANT IS A NET EXPORTER OF STEAM
HEAT RECOVERY FROM PROCESS GAS
Feed preheating
Steam generation
BFW preheating
DM water preheating
HEAT RECOVERY FROM FLUE GAS
Feed preheating
Steam Generation
Steam Superheating
Air Preheating
74 74
HEAT RECOVERY
75 75
HEAT RECOVERY FROM FLUE GASES
76 76
HEAT RECOVERY SCHEME SELECTION
VALUE OF FEED AND FUEL
CREDIT FOR STEAM
PLANT CAPACITY
CAPITAL INVESTMENT CONSTRAINTS
FEASIBILITY OF CO-GENERATION
77
TECHNIPs LEADERSHIP IN
HYDROGEN PLANTS
77
78 78
TECHNIP THE COMPLETE CAPABILITY
Conceptual design
and Basic Engineering
Detailed engineering
& Design
Procurement
Construction &
Start-up
Operational Services
& Feed Back
Single source responsibility
79 79
Hydrogen Industrys First By TECHNIP
Largest plant on multiple feedstocks (111 kNm3/h ) 1997
Automatic feed changeover without H
2
loss 1997
Largest Hybrid (PSA + Cold-box) H
2
recovery plant 1997
Co-production of CO
2
1998
Integration of H
2
recovery and H
2
generation 1998
Oxygen - blown secondary (OBS) reforming 1999
Twin-bed Pre-reforming for refinery hydrogen 1999
Recuperative (post) reformer (EHTR) retrofit 2000
Largest single-stream plant (200 MMSCFD H2) 2000
GTE integration with large SMR (power + steam) 2001
Floating piston hydrogen compressor 2002
Segregated steam system for VGB export steam quality 2002
Feed saturator in a new hydrogen plant 2003
100 MMSCFD reformer with short hot outlet system 2004
GTE extended (combined) cycle with large H2 2006
80 80
TECHNIPs MARKET SHARE On-Purpose H2
44 %
10 %
10 %
22 %
5%
81 81
TECHNIP IN INDIA
82 82
TECHNIP REFERENCES
83 83
TECHNIP REFERENCES
8000 Nm3/h HYDROGEN GENERATION UNIT
84
85
Transition duct
APH
Convection
Radiant box
Burners
86
ACTIVITIES AT NOIDA OFFICE
86
87 87
PROPOSAL PREPARATION
PROPOSAL PREPARATION
BRPL (For Basic Engineering)
IOCL - BARAUNI (For Basic Engineering + LSTK)
MRPL (For Basic Engineering + LSTK)
HPCL Visakh (For Basic Engineering + LSTK)
88 88
BASIC ENGINEERING (with TPBV)
CPCL India 78000 Nm3/h HGU J an-00
IOCL - Haldia India 76000 Nm3/h HGU J un-00
IOCL - Mathura India 104000 Nm3/h HGU Oct-00
BRPL India 35000 Nm3/h HGU J un-06
YPC China 58500 Nm3/h H2, J un-07
25000 Nm3/h CO, 16000 Nm3/h Oxo-gas
Rosneft Russia 190000 Nm3/h HGU J un-07
GALP energia Portugal 90000 Nm3/h HGU J ul-07
IDOM Spain 78000 Nm3/h HGU Aug-07
Conco Philips Germany 89000 Nm3/h HGU May-08
Naftatrans Russia 55000 Nm3/h HGU J an-08
BHP Billiton Perth, Australia 7500 Nm3/h HGU Mar-09
Shahriar NIOEC Iran 47000 Nm3/h HGU J an-09
GNFC India 7400 Nm3/hr H2 Feb-09
3600 Nm3/h CO
Tupras Turkey 160000 Nm3/h Feb-10
Strass Turkey 160000 Nm3/h Sep-10
HPCL Visakh, India 50000 Nm3/hr H2 Nov-09
Petrochina Yunnan 120000 Nm3/h HGU Sep-11
Petrochina Yunnan 50000 Nm3/h HGU Sep-11
Petrochina Guangxi 140000 Nm3/h HGU Sep-11
IRPC Thailand 48700 Nm3/h HGU Sep-11
89 89
DETAILED ENGINEERING
CLIENTs IN INDIA
CPCL (78,000 Nm3/h) for L&T
ESSAR (10,000 Nm3/h)
BORL (106,000 Nm3/h) for NAFTOGAZ
GNFC (HyCO Plant)
..in recent years
90 90
DETAILED ENGINEERING
Detailedengineering TPBV 2010 40,000 Nm3/h HGU Rompetrol AP
Detailedengineering TPBV 2010 135,000 Nm3/h HGU Luhling AP
Detailedengineering TPBV 2010 135,000 Nm3/h HGU Rotterdam AP
Complete plant TPBV 2009 56,000 Nm3/h HGU Poland PKN
Complete plant excluding reformer & compr TPUS 2006 56,000 Nm3/h HGU Canada Valero X 2
Detailedengineering & Reformer supply TPUS 2006 114,000 Nm3/h HGU Middle-east BAPCO
DE of complete plant TPUS 2006 17,000 Nm3/h HGU USA Exxon Mobil
DE of complete plant excluding reformer TPUS 2006 164,000 Nm3/h HGU Canada CNRL
Complete plant excluding reformer TPBV 2005 97,000 Nm3/h HGU France TOTAL
DE of complete plant KTI-Spa 2004 27,000 Nm3/h HGU Qatar GTL
DE of complete plant excluding reformer TPBV 2004 8,540 Nm3/h HGU Swiss Petroplus
DE of reformer TPBV 2004 91,900 Nm3/h HGU Sweden Scanraff
..Only engineering (excluding process)
91 91
LSTK / SUPPLY
HPCL Visakh (50,000 Nm3/h) COMPLETE PLANT (under
construction)
BHP Billiton, Australia (7000 Nm3/h) MODULAR PLANT (excluding
PSA and Steam generation module)
..in recent years
92 92
LSTK / SUPPLY - REFORMER
1993 1,540 Nm3/h HGU India HOC
with TPB 1994 1,100 Nm3/h HGU India HPCL - Mumbai
with TPB 1997 44,000 Nm3/h HGU India MRPL - Phase-I
with TPB 1999 44,000 Nm3/h HGU India MRPL - Phase-II
with TPB 2000 25,000 Nm3/h HGU India HPCL - Visakh
with TPB 2000 25,000 Nm3/h HGU India KRL - Kochi
with TPB 2000 22,400 Nm3/h HGU India CPCL
with TPB 2002 14,000 Nm3/h HGU India IOCL - Guwahati
with TPB 2003 9,800 Nm3/h HGU India IOCL - Digboi
to L&T 2005 78,400 Nm3/h HGU India CPCL
with TPB 2004 8,540 Nm3/h HGU Swiss Petroplus
to J GC 2005 81,500 Nm3/h HGU Oman SOHAR
TPBV 2005 104000 Nm3/h HGU India IOCL - Mathura
TPUS 2006 114,000 Nm3/h HGU Middle-east BAPCO
TPUS 2006 17,000 Nm3/h HGU USA Exxon Mobil
with TPB 2007 76000 Nm3/h HGU India IOCL - Haldia
3600 Nm3/h CO
with TPB 2008 7400 Nm3/hr H2 India GNFC
- 2009 50,000 Nm3/hr HGU India HPCL
For Year Plant Location Client
93 93
PRE-COMMISSIONING, COMMISSIONING
BRPL- India
BORL- India
ESSAR- India (Mini H2 unit)
IOCL Haldia - India
IOCL Mathura - India
CPCL - India
BASF- China (HyCO Plant)
..in recent years
94 94
FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Feed Change study for CPCL (2 units) .ongoing
Feed change study for BPCL- Kochi
Hydrogen Management (with BDEP) for MRPL- Mangalore
Refinery off gas utilisation study for IOCL- Digboi
Heat intergration study for BPCL- Kochi
Plant capacity revamp study for MRPL- Mangalore
Plant relocation study for ESSAR- India
www.technip.com
Thank you