Workshop On Energy Efficiency and CO2 Reduction

2007 Technical Committee Meeting
12-14 March 2007 - Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

Workshop on Energy Efficiency and CO
2
Reduction
Prospects in Ammonia Production

Initiating New Projects in the Ammonia Sector

presented by

AndrewPrince
British Sulphur Consultants UK

About the IFA Technical Committee
The IFA Technical Committee encourages the development and adoption of technology improvements
that can lead to greater production efficiencies and reduced emissions, as well as better health and safety
standards throughout the fertilizer industry. Our mission is to actively promote the sustainable
development of efficient and responsible production, storage and transportation of all plant nutrients. The
Technical Committee accomplishes these objectives through a variety of channels, including:
Technical and policy-oriented information materials. The committee regularly conducts surveys and
produces reports on key industry metrics, including the IFA Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions
Report, the IFA Safety Report, and the IFA Emissions Report. This work enables member companies to
assess their operations over time, make comparisons with similar facilities on an established level of
performance, determine the need for technology improvements and identify good industrial and
management practices.
Regular exchange of information on technology developments and industrial practices. A key role of
the IFA Technical Committee is to encourage ongoing technical innovation in the fertilizer industry
through the development, compilation and exchange of technical information between members,
researchers, engineers, equipment suppliers and other industry associations. To this end, the
committee organizes a Technical Symposium every other year to examine progress in the production
technology of fertilizers. Each Symposium traditionally features the presentation of 30-40 new
technical papers from member companies worldwide, providing members with information on the
latest technological developments. In the intervening years, the committee holds a variety of meetings
to assess current industrial practices and standards, with an eye toward identifying key developments
of interest to members.
Technical and educational workshops and special events. The IFA Technical Committee provides
workshops designed for engineers working in the fertilizer industry, particularly those who have
recently assumed new responsibilities, and for new engineers to increase their technical knowledge.
These workshops (e.g. concentrating on nitrogen and/or phosphate fertilizer production) are designed
to improve the participants skills and broaden their vision and understanding of the entire industry,
including technology, economics, energy use, safety and environmental stewardship. Workshops also
provide engineers with an opportunity to exchange ideas, solve specific problems and improve plant
operations and profitability.
Education and advocacy. The IFA Technical Committee recognizes that customers, markets and
regulatory environments are best served by clear and concise information on the fertilizer industry and
its practices and products. Because the knowledge and expertise found within the fertilizer industry is
the best source for this information, the Technical Committee endeavours to educate policymakers,
standardization bodies, customers and the public on industry achievements, technological advances,
voluntary initiatives and best practices. The committee also encourages universities and development
centres to conduct research on fertilizer product development and production processes.

(as provided by the author for distribution in Ho Chi Minh City)

Initiating New Projects in the Ammonia Sector

Abstract

The ammonia market has enjoyed a sustained boom over the past three years. The main
drivers for these high prices have been limited new capacity additions, some closure of
capacity in North America and strong demand for ammonia. Going forward, there are new
ammonia projects under construction, which should tilt the supply-demand balance toward
oversupply and lead to declining prices. At the same time, production costs, particularly
energy costs, have been rising and the industry faces the challenge of balancing declining
prices and rising costs in the next five years.

The challenges faced by new projects are two-fold; securing a low-cost feedstock supply to
ensure competitive cost of production, and keeping capital costs within reasonable bounds.
The focus on feedstocks has intensified and producers are considering alternatives to the
trend of focusing mainly on natural gas. Process developments have made heavy feedstocks
a viable alternative to traditional gas-based plants. Heavy feedstocks such as coal and
petcoke are relatively inexpensive compared to natural gas in many parts of the world. The
drawbacks of heavy feedstocks are the higher emissions of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants.

Previously utilising heavy feedstocks meant substantially higher capital costs for partial
oxidation plants but this is no longer necessarily the case. The focus has shifted to
controlling emissions, establishing economies of scale and minimising production costs.
This paper will consider the merits of the major feedstocks options and the advantages and
disadvantages of each.

Contact details:
British Sulphur Consultants
31 Mount Pleasant, London WC1X 0AD, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 79032120 - Fax: +44 20 78334973
E-mail: andrew.prince@crugroup.com

All papers and presentations prepared for the IFA Technical Committee Meeting in
Ho Chi Minh City will be compiled on a cd-rom to be released in May 2006.

- 1 -
Initiating NewProjects in the Ammonia Sector

About 80% of the ammonia produced globally is used in the manufacture of nitrogen
fertilizers and about 50% of all nitrogen fertilizer consumption is accounted for by urea.

The question is often asked as to why we need nitrogen fertilizers when nitrogen composes
almost 80% of the atmosphere. The simple answer is that atmospheric nitrogen is inert and
not available as food for plants. It has to be fixed, that is combined in a form which plants
can take up through leaf or root, to be useful to farmers. The best and cheapest way of fixing
nitrogen is to combine it with hydrogen to produce ammonia (NH
3
). The ammonia is then
converted into more easily handled nitrogen fertilizers. The irony is that the major cost of
ammonia production tends to be the hydrocarbon feedstock (generally natural gas) that is
needed to source the hydrogen. The nitrogen comes free from the air.

1. Ammonia Market Summary

This section gives a brief outline of British Sulphurs outlook on the market. This section is
not intended as a comprehensive discussion on all aspects of the global ammonia market but
focuses primarily on the supply factors and the traded element of the product. In the context
of examining the fundamentals of ammonia project decision-making, the analysis of the
global ammonia supply situation provides perspective on the size of this industry and also
the rate and geographic distribution of its growth.

1.1 Ammonia Supply

The following chart illustrates the geographical distribution of global capacity and provides a
qualitative indication of growth.

Diagram 1

Gl obal Ni t r ogen Suppl y
(mi l l i on t onnes Ammoni a p.a.)
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
/
y
e
a
r
Oceania
E Asia
SE Asia
S Asia
Middle East
South America
Central America
North America
Africa
FSU
Central Europe
West Europe
Compound Annual Growth Rate = 2.1%
Source: British Sulphur Consultants

- 2 -
The salient points are:
Ammonia capacity will be 205.9 million tonnes (product) by 2015, up 35 million
tonnes on the 2006 figure of 171 million tonnes. It is important to note that the bulk of
this new ammonia capacity will have downstream urea associated, thus the additional
35 million tonnes will not all enter the merchant ammonia market. This growth
represents a compound annual growth rate of 2.1%.
The bulk of the growth is taking place in East Asia, Middle East and North Africa. In
the latter two regions this is mainly due to advantageous production costs thanks to
low-cost gas availability. The capacity growth in East Asia, and more specifically
China, is the result of the Chinese ambition for self-sufficiency in major fertilizer
products. This capacity is unlikely to be classified as low cost and will be consumed
within China.
New merchant ammonia capacity being developed in North Africa and Middle East.
Unlike China, where much of the new ammonia plants will simply be supplying
downstream urea plants, there are some dedicated merchant ammonia plants
emerging in North Africa and the Arab Gulf. These plants are focused directly on
serving the rapidly expanding markets of South Asia (India and Pakistan) and Asian
countries further East, such as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.
The new world-scale export-oriented plants due to come on-stream in the period
2006-2010 are evident in the upward trend in the chart. A consequence of this rapid
growth will be an easing of the global supply-demand balance and a corresponding
softening of prices. It is inevitable that such events will place pressure on high cost,
uncompetitive plants globally.

Table 1. New Export Ammonia Projects.
(000 tonnes product)

Start-up Plant Country Ammonia Urea Net Ammonia
2006 Burrup Fertilizers Australia 760 760
2006 Safco IV Saudi Arabia 1,089 1,073 470
2006 EFC II Egypt 396 635 30
2007 NPC - Assaluyeh I Iran 677 1,073 60
2007 Razi Iran 677 677
2007 SIUCI Oman 660 1,155 -
2009? NPC - Assaluyeh II Iran 677 1,073 60
2009 Maaden Saudi Arabia 1,089 400*
2009 EBIC Egypt 660 660
2010 NPC - Shiraz Iran 677 1,075 60
2010 Qafco V Qatar 1,089 1,155 425
2006 Alexandria Fertilizers Egypt 396 693 -
2009 MOPCO Egypt 396 635 30
2009 Clico Trinidad 610 1056** 200
Total 9,853 9,100 3,832
* - Balance goes into DAP production
** - UAN production; only part of this value reported in urea total

- 3 -
1.2 Ammonia Trade

Merchant (traded) ammonia accounts for 13% of total ammonia consumption. Demand for
merchant ammonia has increased from 11 million tonnes in 1993 to in excess of 20 million
tonnes estimated in 2006. Importing ammonia is the preference of consumers whose
requirement is too small to justify a captive ammonia plant (notably the technical sector), or
where there is no low-cost natural gas available as feedstock. Therefore, as the technical
sector has expanded, and as energy prices have risen, so has demand for merchant
ammonia. Rising import demand from the USA has underpinned much of the growth of the
merchant sector, as rising gas prices have been particularly detrimental to the domestic
ammonia industry, and many operations have closed.

Merchant ammonia demand growth is also stimulated by rising ammonia demand in regions
where new ammonia capacity cannot be economically justified. India, for example, has a
huge fertilizer demand but hydrocarbon feedstock costs are such that it is virtually impossible
to justify investment in Nitrogen capacity. Importation of ammonia is the solution that enables
demand to be met.

Most ammonia trade is intra-regional, because of the high freight cost involved with shipping
a hazardous product such as ammonia over long distances. For instance, West Europe
exported 1.2 million tonnes of ammonia in 2006, but 1 million tonnes were imported by
countries within the region. Similarly, North American exports amounted to 1.9 million tonnes
in 2006, of which 1.3 million were from Canada to the USA. The remainders were inter-
regional sales from Alaska to Asia. Even ammonia that is exported from one region to
another often only travels relatively short distances. In 2006 67% of total exports from the
Middle East were imported by India.

The international market for ammonia is thus well-defined by a hemispherical separation
made by the Suez Canal. The Western Hemisphere is responsible for 75% of ammonia
trade, yet represents an inverse proportion of the worlds population. It is thus expected that
the Eastern Hemisphere market will grow strongly in the coming years as the economies of
Asia continue to grow.

Diagram 2

Gl obal Ammoni a Tr ade Forec ast
(mi l l i on t onnes Ammoni a p.a.)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
/
y
e
a
r
Exports
Compound Annual Growth Rate 2005-2015 = 2.5%

- 4 -
The outlook for trade in ammonia is:
Ammonia trade will grow by 4.1 million tonnes to over 23 million tonnes in 2015. This
growth is driven by the development of capacity at remoter locations, where low cost
feedstock can be secured, and the need to ship this ammonia to the demand centres.
Trade grows with capacity at about 13% of total production. The traded portion of the
market is small but this is not surprising in light of the fact that most ammonia plants
have associated urea consuming the output.
Trade is driven mainly by demand growth in Asia and capacity substitution in North
America.
North America remains largest importer, with India the next largest. East Asian
imports grow towards end of forecast as marginal supplement to growing domestic
capacity in China.

2. Challenges to New Projects

The decision whether to proceed with an investment in new ammonia capacity is a complex
one. As has been alluded to previously, the global trend of rising energy prices has impacted
the production economics of ammonia production and make the cash cost of production a
primary consideration for feasibility of new ammonia plants. Furthermore, the commodity
boom in the past few years has resulted in a major boom in petrochemical projects generally.
The increase in workload for the contracting and construction sector has lead to dramatic
price escalation for ammonia projects.

2.1 Feedstock

The key points of the process may be summarised as follows:
The starting point is the creation of a hydrogen stream, which generally comes from
hydrocarbon and water (in the form of steam). Any hydrocarbon can be used, for
example lignite, coal, heavy oil residues, fuel oil and naphtha have all served as
feedstock for ammonia before natural gas became widely available. However, natural
gas is the cheapest and most efficient feedstock for ammonia and accounts for more
than 80% of the worlds ammonia production.
The hydrogen is split from the hydrocarbon and steam using high temperatures,
pressures and catalysts to facilitate the reaction. The carbon from the hydrocarbon
forms carbon monoxide (CO) and is then converted to carbon dioxide (CO
2
).
Nitrogen from the atmosphere is used to react with the hydrogen stream.

The critical points to mention in respect of ammonia manufacture are:

a) The high temperature and pressures and reaction endotherm for steam reforming required
to drive the process consume energy. Roughly speaking, 75-80% of the gas consumed is
used in the process to produce hydrogen and then ammonia and about 20-25% of the
natural gas is used as fuel to drive the process.

b) Carbon dioxide, the by-product of ammonia production, is a greenhouse gas. It may prove
a problem for ammonia producers if significant carbon taxes are introduced. The options for
the carbon dioxide are:
To vent it to the atmosphere.
To consume it in the manufacture of urea, which combines the ammonia and CO
2
to
form a solid fertilizer. Urea production generally utilises all the CO
2
generated on the
tube side of the steam-reforming ammonia process.

- 5 -
To use it in some other industrial process.
Re-injection into oil wells to enhance oil recovery and/or sequestration of the CO
2
.
To liquefy it and sell it, for example to a manufacturer of sparkling drinks or as a
coolant in a nuclear power station.

The truth be told, in any of the above cases the carbon dioxide will find its way into the
atmosphere eventually, but it ceases to be the problem of the factory.

It is thus apparent that the critical element of ammonia production costs is feedstock. This is
generally natural gas more than 80% of world ammonia capacity is based on natural gas.
This proportion continues to grow as practically all new capacity is gas-based and old, non-
gas based capacity becomes uncompetitive and is gradually being phased out.

Over the last 20-30 years, we have seen the gradual closure of non-gas based capacity,
mainly naphtha, fuel oil and coal. Practically all new plants were based on natural gas. This
was because:
Naphtha has become expensive as a higher-value chemical feedstock and its price is
directly indexed to crude oil prices.
Investment in cracking capacity has reduced the availability of heavy residues as
refiners seek to maximize their revenues from each barrel of oil. The higher the oil
price, the more investment in cracking is justified.
These feedstocks produce more environmentally-damaging waste products;
increased carbon dioxide, ash, tars and heavy metals.
Coal conversion technologies were, until relatively recently, of quite low efficiency,
80% conversion as opposed to >95% achievable today.
The cost of investment in a plant using heavy oil residues or coal is 1.5- 2.0 times that
of a plant based on natural gas.

Natural gas was becoming more generally available and in many instances the cost was low
compared to other feedstock options.

1.2 The Changing Energy Market

In regions such as the USA, West and Central Europe, but increasingly in developing
countries such as Mexico, Pakistan or India, competition for gas is increasing as the power
generation sector grows and as residential distribution systems are put in place. In the USA
and Europe, gas prices have long passed the level at which reinvestment in the fertilizer
industry is attractive. Closure is always a possibility and not only during extended market
down-cycles.

The changes in the global gas business which are undermining many ammonia industries
are:

(a) Feedstock gas served as a base load for the development of onshore and shallow water
offshore gas fields in the 1970s and 1980s. The nitrogen and methanol industries in the
Netherlands served as a base load for the newly developed North Sea gas fields. The same
goes for the Louisiana feedstock industries, which justified the development of the shallow
water gas fields off the US Gulf, and the Canadian nitrogen industry, which provided a base
load for the new Alberta gas fields. As the years passed, a widespread gas grid was
developed and now the feedstock sector, which was so important in allowing the
development of North Sea, Canadian and US Gulf gas, only accounts for about 3%-4% of
total gas use.

- 6 -
(b) Feedstock gas has often been given a strategic value, which reflects political policies
rather than an open market value. For example:
The European Union decided in the early 1980s (after the OPEC crisis) that the
limited supply of North Sea gas was too precious to burn as a fuel. Therefore a
special, low feedstock tariff was developed to protect its role as a chemical input, and
power generation based on natural gas was discouraged. The new problems of
greenhouse gas and pollution that arose in the 1990s saw a dramatic reversal of this
policy and there was a rush to replace coal, lignite and fuel oil power plants with the
new generation of gas-based cogeneration plants.
In countries such as India, Indonesia and Pakistan, gas was offered to the fertilizer
industry on attractive terms in order to promote the policy of self-sufficiency in food. In
Indonesia and Pakistan the policy was achieved by government investment and a low
gas price of around $1/MMBtu. In India, the Government did not adjust the gas price
but offered a guaranteed return on any investment in nitrogen fertilizers. In countries
with inadequate developed energy resources, such as India and China, this has
resulted in significant market distortions.

(c) In practically all industrialised and populous countries where energy has to be imported,
feedstock gas industries are coming into direct competition with power generators. This is as
true in the United States and West Europe as it is in China or India. There are two general
points to be made which apply globally:
Power generation remains in the hands of state-owned monopolies in many parts of
the world. In most cases, generators have the ability to pass on their costs to their
customers. If gas costs $4/MMBtu, electricity will be priced accordingly. This is not the
case for ammonia or methanol producers. The lowest cost exporters in the world
Russia and the Arab Gulf, establish the price for these products. Arab Gulf producers
have access to gas at less than $1/MMBtu whilst Russian producers currently pay
$1.2-1.5/MMBtu. Producers in North America, Europe or the Far East, purchasing
expensive gas on the open market, simply cannot compete with imported ammonia,
urea or methanol from a low cost importer unless the government is willing to offer
either production subsidies or protective import tariffs.
In the light of growing public concern for the protection of the environment, the
development of new, clean power generation capacity based on natural gas has been
actively promoted by many governments. It has gained a special status similar to that
once enjoyed by fertilizers when famine was a major global concern.
- 7 -
Diagram 3

Typi c al 2007 Gl obal Gas Pr i c es ($/MMBt u)
Source: EIA, WGI, NYMEX, British Sulphur
West Europe
$6.00
$1.
FSU
50 - $3.50
Middle East
$0.75 - $1.25
North
America
$6.00 - $7.00
South America
$0.75 - $1.50
East Asia
$3.00 - $4.00
SE Asia
$2.00 - $3.00

Ammonia and urea will increasingly be regarded as a relatively cheap form of imported
energy. Energy will be diverted to nitrogen fertilizer manufacture in those countries with an
abundance of resources whilst in populous countries, with limited or diminishing energy
resources, the priority for energy use will be the residential, power generation and
commercial sectors.

Those gas-rich countries with the most favourable market logistics will see significant
investment in nitrogen capacity during the next 20 years. For ammonia, investment activity
will be concentrated in the Caribbean (serving the US market), North Africa (West Europe
and US market), the Middle East (Asian market) and South East Asia and Australia
(Asia/Oceania and US West Coast market).

1.2.1 Alternative fuels to Natural Gas

As discussed previously, the heavier hydrocarbon feedstocks have been viewed as less
preferred for ammonia production because of the higher capital costs for the partial oxidation
plants that are required, plus the generally high costs and undesirable by-products
associated with them. The competition for natural gas and improvements in gasification
technology have lead to the heavier feedstocks being reconsidered and coal has emerged as
an attractive alternative. The derivatives of crude oil remain too expensive for economic
ammonia production but, as is depicted in the diagram below, coal has held steady while
other products have become increasingly expensive.
- 8 -
Diagram 4

But Coal r emai ns c ompar at i vel y c heap!
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
$
/
G
J
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
$
/
b
b
l
LFO $/GJ)
Coal ($/GJ)
Brent Crude ($/bbl)
Source: OEF, CRU

Turning to coal is not a perfect cure for the ammonia producer. While the low cost of coal
offers big cost savings, coal does have drawbacks in the form of polluting residues and
harmful by-products. Coal has the highest carbon to hydrogen ratio of all hydrocarbons and
therefore produces more CO
2
than other feedstocks. As CO
2
emissions are increasingly in
the spotlight for governments and environmental pressure groups, this by-product from coal
is cause for concern. The other negative aspect to using coal is the contaminants that coal
contains which are either removed from flue gases by scrubbing or remain as solid ash.
These products are typically removed using water, which then must be treated and this adds
to the cost of operation.

The following table gives a comparison between the various feedstocks. It must be noted that
these are traditional energy consumption values and modern gasification technologies can
improve on these values.
- 9 -
Diagram 5

Ammoni a Pr oc ess Compar i son
2.2 t 38 GJ HHV ~1.5 Partial oxidation
Heavy Fuel Oil /
Vacuum Residue
2.45 t 35 GJ HHV ~1.3 - 1.5 Partial oxidation Naphtha
3.3 t 42 GJ HHV ~1.5 - 2.0 Partial oxidation Coal
1.6 t 28 GJ HHV 1 Steam reforming Natural gas
CO
2
emission /
t NH
3
Energy / t NH
3
Capital Cost
Index
Process Feedstock
Source: Modern Production Technologies (Appl, 1997), British Sulphur Nitrogen Cost Model

2.2 Project Capital Costs

The cost of building a new plant is going up. A new, world scale (2,000 3,300 t/d) ammonia
plant will cost between about US$500 to $700 million turn key depending on the technology
used, the plants location and if the plant is stand-alone or integrated. Typical interest rates
are based on the London Inter Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rate plus points. An ammonia
project could be financed today with 30% to 40% equity at between 7.0% to 7.5% annual
interest. A risk premium will also be required for plants built in countries considered to have
significant political or monetary risk for the investor. This translates into a charge of $100 or
more per tonne of ammonia simply to repay the debt.
1
. This has to be added to the cash cost
of production and the sponsor then needs to decide whether the breakeven cost of the
project will yield the necessary margins throughout the ammonia price cycle to meet the
desired profit targets for the investment.

Building nitrogen capacity, even in a country with low feedstock costs, will be expensive and
risky. Nitrogen prices have been at record highs over the last several years and with a
forecast of a cyclical downturn, many projects will be delayed until market demand catches
up with capacity and prices begin to expand once again.

The escalation in project capital costs has been down to a number of factors. Firstly many of
the contractors and technology vendors are not US-based businesses and therefore do not
operate their businesses on a US Dollar cost basis. Most projects are quoted on a US Dollar
basis and the devaluation of the Dollar has resulted in these companies having to increase
their (Dollar) prices to maintain their revenues.

1
Assumes a payback period of 10 years
- 10 -
Another major cost issue has been the escalation in international steel prices; doubling since
2003. This cost simply has to be borne by the project, thus the inflating cost of raw materials
has directly increased project costs. The third factor has been the supply-demand issue for
the fabricators of equipment for ammonia plants. The ammonia process operates at extreme
pressures and there are only a handful of fabricators with the technical expertise to produce
these various items, particularly for the large capacity units now being demanded for world-
scale plants. Bigger nitrogen plants have moved equipment specifications into the realm of
equipment being specified for petrochemical and LNG plants, thus intensifying the
competition for fabricators time. The rush to build new plants has seen the order books for
the fabricators fill up and they have in turn raised their prices to extract a premium for their
services.

Man-power costs have seen a similar escalation as engineers and contractors are in high
demand to undertake all of the various projects under development currently.

The following chart illustrates the rise in capital cost escalation seen in the nitrogen industry
over the past five years or so.

Diagram 6

Capi t al Cost of New Pr oj ec t s
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2001 2007
U
S
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Other Costs
EPC Costs
- US Dollar devalued 31% versus Euro
- Steel prices doubled
Basis: Natural gasfired, steam-reforming 2,000t/d Ammonia & 3,250t/d urea (British Sulphur estimates)

3. Conclusions

The challenge for the prospective ammonia project sponsor is to mitigate the two cost
elements of feedstock prices and capital costs. Dealing with the latter issue first, project
capital costs by and large have to be endured and factored into the project budgets. The
sponsor can make currency hedges if they are willing to assume currency risk exposure.
Similarly, steel prices can be locked in to an extent by buying forward and using futures to
assure prices. These processes do not lead to a lowering of the project cost but go some
way to protecting against further cost inflation, which has been a recurring theme in ammonia
projects in the past few years. The high costs of equipment and contractors have to be
accepted or the project does not proceed.
- 11 -
It is on the side of feedstock prices that some interesting opportunities emerge. The
traditional approach over the past two or three decades has been to base plants on the
steam reforming of natural gas. Rising natural gas prices, especial in the Western World, has
completely reigned in major ammonia project development, except in a few locations that has
large gas reserves. The increase in gas prices, and therefore the increase in average cost of
production for ammonia, has encouraged technology developers to consider alternative
feedstocks. As discussed previously, oil-related feedstocks such as naphtha and to a lesser
extent fuel oil have been ruled out because of the high cost of these products. This leaves
coal and fuel-grade petroleum coke, which has hitherto been viewed as a low (or even
negative) value waste product from the refining sector.

Unlike naphtha and fuel, which are comparatively simple to vaporize and combust (gasify)
and process into synthesis gas (syn-gas) via the partial oxidation process, the solid
feedstocks have required dedicated gasification equipment, which is a substantial investment
cost. Furthermore the gasification process requires a large supply of oxygen, which is most
cost-effectively produced using an air separation unit (ASU). The ASU is another expensive
item, thus it is apparent how the capital cost escalation of these heavy feedstock-based
plants occurs versus the conventional steam reforming process.

The cost of production can be reduced by using coal instead of the more conventional
natural gas route, and is subject to a few trade-offs. The lower cost of production will need to
compensate for the higher capital cost of the coal-based plant, at least until whatever debt is
used to finance the project is disbursed. There are environmental challenges, summarised
below, that also add to the overall cost of operations. Some of these can be controlled or
eliminated by using scrubbing systems or via specialist waste disposal, and others have to
be treated by methods such as carbon emissions trading for CO
2
unless there is some local
use for the surplus CO
2
generated by the ammonia plant.

Environmental Challenges to using Coal:
Carbon Dioxide production.
Nitrous oxide gases (NO
x
).
Sulphur.
Residuals ash, tar and heavy metals.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and dust in handling. VOCs are a greater issue
for fuel pet-coke.

In conclusion, coal-based ammonia production is a viable and indeed an attractive alternative
to conventional gas-based processes in regions where gas is in short supply and expensive.
It is not without its challenges but these can be mitigated and provided that the hurdle of high
capital cost can be overcome, coal is likely to see increasing use as a feedstock for
ammonia. As a coincidence, large reserves of coal are found in the high-cost gas regions
with large demand for nitrogenous fertilizers, such as the populous countries in Asia.



2
Reduction

IFA Benchmarking of Global Energy Efficiency in
Ammonia Production

jointly prepared by

Gerald Williams (PSI, USA) and Fadhel Al-Ansari

and presented by

Fadhel Al-Ansari
Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (GPIC) Bahrain



Ammonia Production

Abstract

The production of anhydrous ammonia is an energy-intensive process. Globally, natural gas
is the predominant hydrocarbon feedstock for supplying hydrogen to react with nitrogen in
the ammonia synthesis process. Natural gas is also the predominant fuel supporting this
process. Inherent in natural gas based ammonia production is the generation and emission of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Therefore, the energy efficiency, i.e. the amount of
energy to produce a tonne of ammonia, is important because higher usages increase
production cost and carbon dioxide emissions.

The energy efficiency of individual ammonia plants throughout the world varies widely
because the current production base has evolved over time. New technologies and
manufacturing techniques now make possible very energy efficient ammonia production.
There are opportunities for all ammonia producers further improve their energy efficiency.
Any improvement in energy efficiency results in a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions as
well as reduced production cost.

For these reasons, it is important for companies to have knowledge of their energy
efficiency and CO
2
emission performance and the practices of others on a worldwide basis.
Periodic benchmarking is an important method for ammonia producers understand current
best practice and to identify opportunities for improvement. Additionally, knowledge of
global practice and performance standards are valuable to support proactive steps by
industry to better ensure accurate emissions accounting by governments in the future.

This paper is prepared in coordination with Plants Surveys International and takes the first
IFA ammonia plant benchmarking as a case study to present its general findings, lessons
learnt and puts forward recommendations for future benchmarking on the subject.

Contact details:
Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (GPIC)
P.O. Box 26730, Manama, Bahrain
Tel: +973 17733355 - Fax: +973 17731047
E-mail: falansari@gpic.net


- 1 -
Ammonia Production

Overview of IFA Benchmarking 2002-2003

The first IFA Energy efficiency Benchmarking Survey was conducted on a worldwide basis
with 66 ammonia plants participating. Ammonia plant energy efficiency and carbon dioxide
emissions was the primary focus of this benchmarking and covered the plant performance
over the 2002-2003 operating period.

Currently the IFA is looking to build on this first benchmarking experience by conducting a
second globally based ammonia plant benchmarking with the expectation of expanding
participation.

The key steps in benchmarking include:

1. Determine the level of benchmarking (for example energy use).
2. Develop metrics.
3. Conduct comparisons.
4. Track performance over time.

With the completion of the IFA 2002-2003 benchmarking project, the above Step 1 and 2 of
the benchmarking process has been completed, that is, creating a practical and useful
benchmark (industry average) for energy efficiency and CO
2
emissions. IFA is now in the
position to proceed with Steps 3 and 4. Continuation of this program will lead to reliable
metrics which companies in the fertilizer industry can use to measure their performance,
make comparisons with similar facilities, and gauge the need for improvements.

Scope and Basis - In March 2004, IFA undertook an initiative to begin benchmarking energy
efficiency and carbon dioxide emission statistics from ammonia production plants. IFAs
objective is to create a practical and useful benchmark (industry average) upon which
member companies can measure their performance over time and make comparisons with
similar facilities.

The 2002-2003 IFA report concludes that these benchmarking statistics form the basis of an
industry-wide benchmark standard. Additional data, however, will need to be gathered in
order to achieve a confidence level sufficient for value-added comparisons by companies on
a year-to-year basis or with similar facilities. To this end, the next Energy Benchmarking
Survey will be conducted in 2007, based on 2005 - 2006 plant operating data.

A total of 66 ammonia plant participated in the 2002-2003 IFA benchmarking. The following
is a summary of this benchmarking:

Key Findings
The average net energy efficiency for the 66 ammonia plants is 36.9 GJ/mt ammonia.
The least efficient ammonia plant uses about 90% more energy to produce a ton of
ammonia. Most of this inefficiency is due to high fuel usage. This presents an
opportunity for improvement through technology and equipment upgrades and other
means.
The highest capacity plants are the most efficient although some of the best
performing plants had a production capacity of less than 1000 mtpd.
- 2 -
Older plants are less efficient than newer ones, but many older plants have improved
their energy efficiency through revamps, equipment upgrades, and operational
performance.
The 66 ammonia plants generate an average of 2.07 mt CO2 for each mt of NH3
produced. Of this ratio, 66.3% is process generated CO2 and the remaining 33.7% is
from fuel burning.
More than one-third (37.7%) of the generated carbon dioxide is not vented to the
atmosphere because it is recovered for other uses (primarily urea production).
Generated carbon dioxide in the 66 ammonia plants ranges from 1.5 to 3.1 mt
CO2/mt NH3. Most of the variation is due to differences in energy efficiency where
low energy usage ammonia plants generate less carbon dioxide per unit of ammonia
production.

Energy Efficiency

The net energy efficiency is determined as follows:

Feed + Fuel + Other Energy (GJ)
Net Energy Efficiency (GJ/mt NH
3
) =
NH
3
Production (mt)

Quantities are on an annual basis.
Hydrocarbon feed and fuel are converted to their energy equivalent using their lower
heating values (LHV).
Feed all hydrocarbon feedstock delivered to the ammonia plant during the year.
Fuel all the hydrocarbon fuel delivered to the ammonia plant during the year.
Other Energy Includes other energy imports (such as electricity and steam), credit
for other energy exports (such as steam and off-gases), and adjustments for imported
cooling water, boiler feedwater, ammonia product adjustment, etc. Conversion to
equivalent energy is made as specified by the methodology (See PSI Normalization
Methodology described later in this report).

Results - The average net energy efficiency and production summary for the 66 ammonia
plants is shown in Table 1. The average net energy efficiency is 36.9 GJ/mt. The average
annual production from these plants is 395,900 mt ammonia.

Table 1 Net Energy Efficiency and Production
Summary

66 Ammonia Plants
Average
NH
3
Production mt as NH
3
395,900
Net Energy Efficiency - GJ/mt 36.9

Graphical presentation of the net and feedstock energy efficiencies vs. plant number are
shown in Figure 1. Some variability in feedstock efficiency is expected as feedstock
compositions and technology employed varies among the plants. In some cases these
combine to create larger variations along with some plants experiencing abnormal operating
problems. Catalyst reductions, extended periods of process gas venting from frequent
startups are typical reasons for high feedstock usage.

The gap between the feedstock and net energy efficiency is the fuel and other energy
efficiencies. This area widens as net energy efficiencies become poorer while at the same
time the feedstock remains somewhat the same. This shows that poorer net energy
efficiencies are mainly caused by higher fuel and other energy usage.
- 3 -
In most cases, this is due to the plant vintage and dated technology although abnormal
operating conditions resulting in high energy usage are a contributor in some instances.

Fig. 1 - Net Energy Efficiency
for 66 Ammonia Plants
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Plant Number
G
J

(
L
H
V
)
/
m
t

N
H
3
Net Energy Efficiency Feed

Plant Capacity and Energy Efficiency

There is a clear relationship between plant capacity and net energy efficiency for the
combined group of 66 plants. As shown on Table 2 and Figure 2 the largest capacity plants
are the most efficient and the smallest capacity group the least efficient. However, the best
plants in each group have net energy better than 30 GJ/mt NH
3
. This demonstrates that
plants with capacities below 1,000 mtpd can be energy efficient. Many of the older plants
have improved their energy efficiency through revamps, equipment upgrades, and
operational performance.

Table 2 Net Energy Efficiency and Plant Capacity

Basis: Current rated plant capacity
66 Ammonia Plants
Net Energy Efficiency - GJ/mt NH
3

Capacity mtpd No. of Plants Average
< 1,000 19 40.0
1,000 1,500 25 37.0
> 1,500 22 34.0

- 4 -
Fig. 2 - Net Energy Efficiency vs. Plant Capacity
66 Ammonia Plants
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plant Number
G
J

(
L
H
V
)
/
m
t

N
H
3
< 1000 mtpd 1000- 1500 mtpd > 1500 mtpd

Plant Age and Energy Efficiency

The relationship of plant age on net energy efficiency is summarized in Table 3 and
graphically presented in Figure 3 below. The 66 ammonia plants range from 1 to 37 years
old. The 10-20 year old group has the best average efficiency at 34.9 GJ/mt NH
3
followed by
the youngest group, less than 10 years old at 35.8 GJ/mt NH
3
. The average for the last two
groups is higher at 37.6 and 38.2 GJ/mt NH
3
. Again this indicates that older plants are less
efficient than newer plants. It is noteworthy that each group has several very efficient plants
with the best plants ranging from 28.0 to 31.5 GJ/mt NH
3
.

Table 3 Net Energy Efficiency and Plant Age

66 Ammonia Plants
Net Energy Efficiency - GJ/mt NH3
Age Years No. of Plants Average
< 10 12 35.8
10-20 14 34.9
20-30 19 37.6
> 30 21 38.2

- 5 -
Fig. 3 - Net Energy Efficiency vs. Plant Age
66 Ammonia Plants
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20
Plant Number
G
J

(
L
H
V
)
/
m
t

N
H
3
< 10 yrs 10 - 20 yrs 20 - 30 yrs > 30 yrs

CO
2
Emissions Ammonia plants have two primary sources of energy-related CO
2

emissions i.e. those from process (feedstock) and fuel use. These are referred to as
process generated and fuel generated in this report. The fuel generated CO
2
results from
the combustion of natural gas (or other hydrocarbon fuels) to supply heat for steam/gas
reforming, steam boilers, process heaters, gas turbines and such equipment in the ammonia
plant. It is assumed that during combustion all of the carbon in the fuel is converted to CO
2

and is discharged to the atmosphere as flue gas. There is frequently some degree of
incomplete combustion where a small amount of CO remains in the flue gas, but this is
normally insignificant and full conversion to CO
2
is assumed to simplify the calculations.

The process generated CO
2
results from the conversion of carbon in the feedstock
hydrocarbons to CO
2
during synthesis gas production. After the shift converters the CO
2
is
removed from the process gas in the CO
2
removal system where it is absorbed in a CO
2

removal solvent such as hot potassium carbonate. The CO
2
is then stripped from the solvent
in a stripping column and vented as a gas to the atmosphere. This CO
2
is relatively pure and
is frequently recovered as a feedstock for other products. Typical recovery uses are urea
production, liquid and solid CO
2
sales, methanol production, other fertilizer production, and
for use in other chemical processing.

However, not all CO
2
is captured by the CO
2
removal system and some CO remains in the
process gas as well. This CO
2
and CO slippage is minor and normally much less than 1%
of the process CO
2
. To remove this residual CO and CO
2
which is an ammonia synthesis
catalyst poison, the carbon oxides are reacted with hydrogen to form methane in a
methanator reactor. The methane which is not a catalyst poison is carried into the synthesis
gas loop where the ammonia reaction takes place and the methane is recovered in purge
gas and eventually returned as a fuel to the reformer. There it is burned and becomes CO
2

and is emitted to the atmosphere in the flue gas. To simplify the calculations it is assumed
that all the CO
2
is removed by the CO
2
removal system. This assumption means that the
process CO
2
emissions are slightly overstated (by less than 1%) by the amount that the flue
gas CO
2
emissions are understated. The total CO
2
emissions are not effected.

- 6 -
It is possible to recover carbon dioxide from flue gas and there are commercial processes
available. It requires additional capital for the recovery system equipment and additional
operating expense. None of the ammonia plants in the survey reported recovery of CO
2
from
flue gas. Normally, the CO
2
recovered from the process gas is more than enough to satisfy
on-site demands and there is no economic incentive for flue gas recovery.

Total CO
2
generated is the sum of the process and fuel generated CO
2
. Table 4 is a
summary of the CO
2
emissions from all of the 66 ammonia plants. An average of 2.07 mt
CO
2
is generated for each mt of NH
3
produced. Of this ratio, 1.37 mt CO
2
/mt NH
3
(66.3%) is
process generated CO
2
. The remaining 0.70 mt CO
2
/mt NH
3
(33.7%) is from fuel burning.

Net CO
2
emissions are computed from the total generated CO
2
after applying a credit for the
quantity of process CO
2
recovered for other uses. Additional credit is also given for purge
gas streams exported from an ammonia plant. The net CO
2
emissions average 1.29 mt
CO
2
/mt NH
3
which is 62.3% of the total amount of CO
2
generated.

Table 4 Summary of CO
2
Emissions (Annual Average)

66 Ammonia Plants
Total mt Percentage mt CO
2
/ mt NH3
Process Generated
CO
2

35,929,175 66.3% 1.37
Fuel Generated CO
2
18,225,461 33.7% 0.70
Total CO
2
Generated 54,154,637 100.0% 2.07

Recovered CO
2
20,435,732 37.7% 0.78
Net CO
2
Emissions 33,718,905 62.3% 1.29

Vented CO
2
15,493,443 45.9% 0.59
Flue Gas CO
2
18,225,461 54.1% 0.70
Net CO
2
Emissions 33,718,905 100.0% 1.29

Process CO
2
Vented 43.1%
Process CO
2

Recovered
56.9%

Figure 4 shows the total generated carbon dioxide for the 66 ammonia plants. Generated
carbon dioxide ranges from 1.52 to 3.06 mt CO
2
/mt NH
3
. The variation is quite large and is a
result of several factors, with net energy efficiency accounting for most of the variation
among methane based plants. Heavier feedstocks and fuels such as propane, fuel oil, etc.
have higher carbon contents will therefore generate more carbon dioxide per unit ammonia
production.

In general, low energy usage ammonia plants generate less carbon dioxide per unit of
ammonia production.

- 7 -
Fig. 4 - Total Generated Carbon Dioxide
66 Ammonia Plants
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Plant Number
m
t

C
O
2
/
m
t

N
H
3

Ammonia Plant Normalization Methodology

In order to make useful comparisons and draw accurate conclusions, it is necessary to
create a common basis for comparing ammonia plant energy efficiencies. Since plant
configurations are quite varied, each facility is normalized through a series of adjustments.
The following is what has been considered when carrying out the calculations in the IFA
Energy Benchmarking survey which is necessary to be considered in future benchmarking
surveys:
a. Import electricity is valued at 40% generation efficiency (LHV).
b. Import and export steam is valued at 90% generation efficiency (LHV).
c. Ammonia production is adjusted to 100% liquid at atmospheric pressure.
d. Energy to produce and circulate cooling water is included in the energy usage.
e. Energy to produce and pump boiler feed water is included in the energy usage.

Adjustments are not made to account for any differences in technology, climate, catalyst
conditions, or operational problems. Actual production and energy usage for the reporting
year are used as the basis prior to the adjustments.

Importance of Benchmarking Performance

Benchmarking industrial performance is a useful and common practice that allows
companies to assess their operations over time and to make comparisons with similar
facilities on an established level of performance. It is a useful activity in energy management
because it can be used to measure energy use and efficiency, track change over time, and
help identify best energy management practices.

- 8 -
In particular, benchmarking can be used to measure:
Past performance - a comparison of current versus historical performance.
Industry average - based on an established performance metric, such as the
recognized average performance of a peer group.
Best in class - benchmarking against the best in the industry and not the average.
Best Practices - a qualitative comparison against certain, established practices
considered to be the best in the industry.

With improved knowledge of the companys important manufacturing performance measures,
an operator can not only assess his position relative to others, but he can use the information
to identify opportunities for improvement and justify changes. It is also helpful in validating
existing programs.

Why benchmark energy efficiency and CO
2
emissions?

Energy and cost savings. About 97% of nitrogen fertilizers are derived from synthetically
produced ammonia. The production of anhydrous ammonia is an energy-intensive process in
two respects. First, for economic and environmental reasons, natural gas is primarily used as
the hydrocarbon feedstock for supplying hydrogen to react with nitrogen in the synthesis
process. Therefore, production processes which use less natural gas per unit of ammonia
output reduce manufacturing costs. Secondly, the high-temperature catalytic synthesis of
ammonia from air is by far the main consumer of energy in the fertilizer industry.
Manufacturing processes which use less process energy to generate heat and electricity
needed for the synthesis process generate cost savings to the company.

Ammonia plant energy efficiency of itself is important since it accounts for most of the
manufacturing cost. However, it can also play a role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Any improvement in energy efficiency results in a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

CO
2
and regulatory regimes. Carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions are a significant greenhouse
gas and are considered to contribute to global warming. CO
2
occurs naturally in the
atmosphere, but it is also released when fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) are burned.
Ammonia plants have two primary sources of energy-related CO
2
emissions: those from
process (feedstock) and fuel use. These are referred to as process generated or fuel
generated in this report. The fuel generated CO
2
results from the combustion of natural gas
(or other hydrocarbon fuels) to supply heat for steam/gas reforming, steam boilers, process
heaters, gas turbines and such equipment in the ammonia plant. The process generated CO
2

results from the conversion of carbon in the feedstock hydrocarbons to CO
2
during synthesis
gas production.

Many countries are now actively implementing policies and measures to reduce their CO
2

emissions to be in compliance with limits established by the 1997 UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol.
In order for most of these measures to work, governments are beginning to create emissions
inventories to establish a baseline from which reductions will be made.

For these reasons, it is important for companies to have knowledge of their CO
2
emission
performance and the practices of others on a worldwide basis. Proactive steps taken by
industry now can better ensure accurate emissions accounting by governments in the future.

- 9 -

Suggestions and Recommendations

Future benchmarking:
Continue primary focus on energy and CO
2
.
Enact ways to enlarge participation - advertise IFA benchmarking in IFA newsletters
and in other trade publications, involve IFA membership to solicit participation from
their companies and other non-IFA organization, such as, AFA, EFMA, FIA, etc.
Continue to track influence of plant capacity and plant age on energy efficiency.
Begin tracking trends of same plants plants that have participated in past
benchmarkings as well as the current benchmarking.
As participation increases, increase the number of regional comparisons.
Consider estimating global performance of all plants on a global region basis. Use a
combination of current IFA benchmarking results and performance estimates for the
remaining plants. The result would include estimated production, energy efficiency,
and carbon dioxide emissions (with generation and recovery) for each global region.
Consider adding other metrics that may have an impact on energy efficiency or CO
2

emissions. Examples:
Process technology.
Ask what has been done to improve energy efficiency and CO
2
emissions
within past 2 years. Include list in benchmarking report.
Ask if any improvements are planned. What is being considered?
Ask if recovery of CO
2
from flue gas in used or being considered.
Include section on historical performance based on previous benchmarkings.
Best Practices.

References

[1] Energy Efficiency and CO
2
Emissions of IFA Ammonia Plants, 2002-2003 Operating
Period, December 2004 Report issued by PSI to IFA.



2
Reduction

Energy Efficiency and CO
2
Emissions in the
Indian Ammonia Sector

presented by

H.S. Karangle
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited India



2
Emissions in the

Abstract

Ammonia production is an energy intensive process operation where energy is consumed
both in the form of feedstock and fuel. Currently the efficient plants operate at an energy
level of 7.0 GCal/MT which is quite close to the practical minimal energy required for
production of Ammonia. The primary driving force for reducing energy consumption in
such ammonia plants is the cost of energy for which India is dependent on imports.

Majority of the ammonia plants in India are combined with urea production. Urea is a price
controlled commodity. Thus the cost of production of urea and thereby ammonia is
indirectly controlled by Government of India. The Government policies are directed
towards improving energy efficiency in ammonia plants and bringing them up to par with
most energy efficient plants. This is a formidable task given the vintage of Indian plants
and differing feedstock. The results, however, are encouraging. The average energy
consumption per ton of ammonia has dropped currently to around 9.1 GCal/MT from the
highs of 20 GCal /MT that was prevailing in the 1960s.

This paper describes the levels of energy efficiency in Ammonia plants in India and
measures taken to this endeavor. Further energy saving is becoming increasingly capital
intensive. The paper highlights the benefits of carbon trading under the UNs Clean
Development Mechanism for increasing industrial energy efficiency.

Contact details:
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited
Priyadarshini, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai 400 022, India
Tel: +91 22 2404 5191 - Fax: +91 22 2404 0028
E-mails: harsharajkarangle@yahoo.co.in - hskarangle@vcfltf.com


- 1 -
2
Emissions in the

1. Overview

India ranks second in the world in production of nitrogenous fertilizer. A whopping 87% of this
is urea, which is produced through the ammonia route.

India produced 12.8 million MT of ammonia in the year 2005-06. Ammonia production is one
of the most energy intensive processes in the Indian Industry. Currently, the average energy
consumption is around 9.1 Gcal/MT of ammonia.

2. Feedstock wise capacity of Ammonia

The Indian ammonia plants are of various vintage and use differing feedstock. The choice of
feedstock is dependent on the availability of feedstock and the plant location.

Feedstock Percent of Total
Natural Gas 60.2
Naphtha 16.3
Fuel Oil 8.5
Others 1.2
External Ammonia 13.8
Source: FAI statistics 2005-06.

3. Overall energy consumption scenario

Accelerating economic growth in India coupled with increasing population is putting pressure
on energy needs of India. The energy needs are set for four fold increase by the year 2025.
India is dependent heavily on imports for its energy needs. Currently 70% of hydrocarbon
demand in India is met through imports.

Sustained efforts for efficient use of energy made over the years in the Indian ammonia
industry have given phenomenal results. The average energy consumption per ton of
ammonia has dropped from the highs of 23 Gcal /MT that was prevailing in the 1960s to
currently around 9.1 Gcal/MT. The energy efficiency could be achieved due to several factors
including switchover of feedstock, advances in process technology, improved catalysts,
higher stream sizes, increased capacity utilization and improved reliability.

Energy Consumption Trend

Over the years, the energy consumption of Ammonia has shown marked reduction.

Year Ammonia energy consumption Gcal/MT
1959-60 23
1969-70 15.25
1979-80 14.77
1984-90 11.55
1995-96 10.5
1999-2000 9.5
2005-06 9.1

- 2 -
The energy consumption in production of ammonia is dependent on type of feedstock and
the consumption pattern is as under:

Gas based plants 7.56 to 9.90 Gcal/MT
Naphtha based plants 8.11 to 10.53 Gcal/MT
Fuel Oil based plants 11.45 to 20.81 Gcal/MT

4. Where does the extra energy go?

The most energy efficient ammonia plants in the world consume 6.7 Gcal per MT of
ammonia. Inefficient ammonia plants consume much higher energy. A systematic break
down of the energy consumption steps leads to gap analysis that helps to identify areas for
improvements.

Out of the net energy input of 6.7 Gcal/MT of Ammonia about 66.3% of the energy, i.e 4.44
Gcal/MT goes into the ammonia product as net calorific value.

The balance 33.7 % of the energy can typically be attributed to the following:

A comparison of actual energy consumption in any operating ammonia plant with this
practically achievable level will identify areas for improvement. There may be various options
for improvement but final choice depends on many factors including level of investment
needed for bringing in the improvement.

Some of the possible areas of improvement are:
More efficient compressors and their drives.
Improvement in CO
2
removal system including employing low energy CO
2
removal
systems.
Introducing combustion air preheat.
Lowering steam carbon ratio.
Lowering pressure drop in front end.
Purge gas recovery.
Increasing per pass conversion in synthesis.
Providing distributed control system.
Fuel gas expander.
Generating High Pressure steam from waste heat.

Mechanical energy loss in drives and loss in steam condensers 16%
Loss on account of condensation, separation and cooling of
ammonia produced
5%
Heat losses in inter-stage coolers of compressors 5%
Energy for CO
2
removal 3%
Stack losses( Flue gas) 1.5%
Losses due to inadequate insulation 1%
Other losses 2.2%

- 3 -
5. A case study

a) A 900 MTPD ammonia plant in India employing technologies of eighties was
revamped in the year 2006. The revamp was focused on following objectives:
Reduction in the specific energy consumption.
Improvement in reliability.
Utilizing design margin to enhance capacity.
Minimizing the downtime to incorporate the changes.

The following modifications were selected and implemented:

i. Up-gradation of primary reformer

The Primary reformer up gradation consisted of:
Rearranging the staggered row of reformer tubes into Single row of catalyst
tubes for better distribution of heat.
Increasing the reformer tube diameter.
Installation of triple decker catalyst.
Replacement of reformer burners by force draught type.
Replacement of inlet distributors, pigtails and outlet hot collector.
Modification of roof, floor and its refractory.
Installation of combustion air pre-heater in reformer convection.

ii. Modification in Steam super heater

The auxiliary steam super heater of the plant was suffering from high degree of
inefficiency. There was no combustion air pre-heat. Moreover the stack
temperature was 465 degree C. This deficiency was corrected by providing for
feed gas and combustion air preheat in the flue gas.

iii. Process Air Compressor

To cater to increased requirement of air for secondary reforming as well as to
improve the compressor efficiency, the process air compressor internals were
changed.

iv. Carbon Dioxide Removal System

Improved tower packing, incorporation of a hydraulic turbine to recover energy
from rich solution, a five stage flash vessel and use of steam compressor are the
measures employed for energy reduction in Carbon Dioxide removal system.

v. Condensate Stripper

The low pressure process condensate stripper was converted to medium
pressure condensate stripper whereby the steam used for stripping is recycled
back to reformer as process steam. To this extent the steam addition to primary
reformer has been brought down. Further, the condensate quality has also
improved and fed directly to polishing unit.

vi. Synthesis

Major modifications were also carried out in synthesis section that included
installation of S-50 Converter, a loop boiler and replacement of the synthesis gas
compressor that was inefficient and prone to frequent downtime.

- 4 -
b) Energy Saving

The various revamp measures are expected to reduce the energy consumption in the
following manner:

Sr.
No.
Scheme
Estimated Savings
(Gcal/MT)
1 Primary Reformer 0.63
2 Aux. Steam Super heater 0.08
3 MP condensate stripper 0.25
4 Carbon Dioxide removal system 0.54
5 Other schemes (Synthesis, turbines, compressors etc.) 0.76
Total 2.26

The energy consumption prior to revamp was of the order of 11.0 -11.2 Gcal/MT of
ammonia on sustained load operation. After revamp the energy level of 8.7 - 8.8
Gcal/MT of ammonia is expected on annualized basis. The other consequent benefits
intended are improved operability and reliability.

The total time required for implementation was 24 months. This could be achieved by
maximizing supply of prefabricated items and erection of the same during normal
operation. Following the modifications, the steam carbon ratio has been reduced from
4.04 to 3.2 and reformer stack temperature brought down to 150 deg C.

The cost of the above modification is about US$ 55 million.

6. Energy efficiency and Carbon Dioxide emission

Typically energy saving in ammonia production process ultimately translates into reduction in
fuel consumption. Reduced fuel consumption means burning of lesser quantity of fossil fuel
and corresponding reduction in CO
2
emissions. CO
2
is a greenhouse gas. The projects
undertaken in a developing country causing reduction in greenhouse gas emissions qualifies
for Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits. An emission reduction of one MT of CO
2

qualifies for one CER. These CER credits are tradable and can be used to contribute to the
emission reduction commitment of industrialized countries. All these projects, however,
should satisfy additionality criteria under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of Kyoto
Protocol.

CDM: Additionality Criteria.

Emission
additionality:
The project should lead to real, measurable and long term
Green House Gas reduction.
Financing
additionality:
The funding for CDM project activity should not lead to
diversion of official development assistance.
Technological
additionality:
Investments should be for newest and sound technologies.

The project, therefore, needs to be carefully configured to qualify for CDM support.

- 5 -
In India ammonia producers are linked to urea production facility. Urea is a price controlled
commodity where the selling price is regulated by the government. Even feedstock gas price
for fertilizer is controlled by the government. Any capital investment in energy efficiency
project is therefore subject to these restrictions. Further, it is well known fact that as energy
consumption pattern nears to its most efficient level it becomes increasingly capital intensive.
Under such circumstances, financial benefits from CDM can improve the viability of the
project. In many cases such benefits of CER credits under CDM is acting as a booster in
pursuing energy saving measures in ammonia plants.

7. Type of CDM projects

In ammonia industry the following type of CDM projects are pursued:

i. Energy Efficiency Improvement Projects

This is the most common type of CDM project that is applicable to ammonia Industry.
Energy efficiency of 1 Gcal roughly translates into 0.2 CER. A 1000 MTPD ammonia
plant bringing about 2 Gcal/MT reduction in energy is capable of generating
approximately 132,000 CER per year of operation. The methodology to be applied for
such schemes for registering the project under CDM is well established. Some
ammonia plants in India have already registered their projects under this
methodology. Many other plants are on way to getting their projects registered
including the plant described in the case study.

ii. Feed Switch Projects

Switchover of feedstock from Naphtha to Gas leads to reduction in CO
2
emission and
thus qualifies for CDM benefits. However, there is no approved methodology as yet.
Some projects have progressed on this front and are hopeful of getting registered
under CDM once the methodology gets approved. There is a potential to generate at
least 2 million CER per year from switch over of feed in Indian ammonia plants.

iii. Carbon Dioxide Recovery (CDR) Projects

If the gas which is feeding to the ammonia plant is lean (less in carbon content) then
the entire ammonia produced from the plant cannot be converted to urea. The
majority of ammonia plants in India are linked with urea production and hence there is
a need to maximize CO
2
generation so that ammonia produced is completely
converted to urea. One of the ways to overcome shortfall in CO
2
production is putting
up a CDR unit to recover CO
2
from Flue gases exiting the reformer stack. It is highly
capital intensive but benefits derived under CDM will help in improving the financial
viability. A methodology is in advanced stages of approval.

iv. General Waste Heat Recovery Projects connected with ammonia

Other waste recovery projects associated with ammonia production facility is
developed under this category and there are few approved methodologies which can
be adopted to develop them into CDM projects.

8. Basic steps towards registration of a Project Activity under CDM

To register a project activity under CDM the following basic steps need to be followed:
Preparation of Project Design Document (PDD).
Submission of PDD to UNFCC through Designated National Authority.

- 6 -
Use of approved methodologies for the project under consideration.
Validation of CDM project Activity.
Registration of the CDM project activity.

9. Conclusion

Modern Indian plants are at par with world class plants. The older plants have kept pace with
the developments in technology and have put in serious efforts to bring energy efficiency to a
comparable level. The way forward is to switch over to clean feedstock and fuel like gas and
liquefied natural gas and upgrade & modernize with respect to technology, equipment and
machinery. While doing so the plants can avail the benefits under CDM for reducing green
house gas emission.



2
Reduction

Best Available Techniques for the
production of ammonia

presented by

Hans van Balken
EFMA - European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association
Belgium



Best Available Techniques for the
production of ammonia

Abstract

The paper reviews the EU Best Available Technique Reference Document for the
Manufacturing of Large Volumes of Inorganic Chemicals: Ammonia, Acids and Fertilizers
(BATREF AAF). The focus of the paper is on Ammonia.

The BATREF AAF will serve as a guidance document for authorities in setting permits to
operate plant facilities with the purpose of meeting the objectives of the European Directive
on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

The review includes a short presentation of the contents of the main chapters such as, a
general description of the processes, current emission and consumption levels, and
techniques to consider in the determination of BAT. The information given in these
chapters has been used by the Commission to define what should be considered BAT for
existing and new ammonia plants. The figured for NO
x
emission- and energy consumption
figures have been compared with the EFMA 2002 BAT figures. The paper finishes with
some interesting observations on the final document.

Contact details:
EFMA - European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association
Avenue E. van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 6633148 - Fax: +32 2 6753961
E-mail: hvb@efma.be


- 1 -
Best Available Techniques for the production of ammonia

1. Introduction

In the year 1996 a European Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
came into force [Ref. 1]. The purpose of this Directive is to achieve integrated prevention and
control of pollution arising from the activities listed in Annex I of this directive. It lays down
measures designed to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions in the
air, water and land, including measures concerning waste, in order to achieve a high level of
protection of the environment taken as a whole.
Installations for the production of phosphorous-, nitrogen-, or potassium-based fertilizers
(simple or compound fertilizers) are part of this Annex 1 and so subject to this directive.

More specifically, this Directive provides a permitting system for these installations requiring
both operators and regulators to take an integrated, overall look at the polluting and
consuming potential of the installation. The overall aim of such an integrated approach is to
improve the management and control of the process so as to ensure a high level of
protection for the environment as a whole.

Central to this approach is the general principle given in Article 3 that operators should take
all appropriate preventative measures against pollution, specifically through the application of
best available techniques (BAT) enabling them to improve their environmental performance.

The term best available techniques is defined in Article 2(11) of the Directive as the most
effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation
which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the
basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable,
generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole.

Article 2(11) goes on to clarify further this definition as follows (slide 3):

techniques includes both the technology used and the way in which the installation is
designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned;
available techniques are those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the
relevant industrial sector, under economically and
technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or
not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as
they are reasonably accessible to the operator;
best means most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the
environment as a whole.

2. The Seville Process

To support the National Authorities in setting permits for installations the Commission
installed the European IPPC Bureau in Seville (Spain). The Bureau has now finalized 33 BAT
Reference (BATREF) Documents, covering most of the industrial activities listed in the
Annex 1 of the IPPC Directive (slide 4).
The majority of BATREF Documents are industry specific but some of them, so called
horizontal BREFs cover activities which are common in many industries such as the ones on
cooling systems, emissions from storage of bulk or dangerous substances and common
waste water and waste gas treatment and management systems in the chemical sector.

- 2 -
Relevant to our industry is the BATREF Large Volume Inorganic Chemicals Ammonia, Acids
and Fertilizers (BATREF AAF;[Ref 3]).
This document covers ammonia, the acids nitric acid, sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid and
fluoric acid and the fertilizers Urea, Urean, TSP, SSP, ammonium nitrate and calcium
ammonium nitrate, NPK and Calcium nitrate.

In my presentation today I will mainly focus on Ammonia.

The work on the BATREF AAF started in 2001 and took more than 5 years to finish. As a
major input for this, the 2000 EFMA (European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association) BAT
Booklet no 1, production of ammonia was used.

3. BATREF AAF (Ammonia)

Ammonia is a key raw material for many processes as, for example, most nitrogen containing
fertilizers are based on ammonia (slide 5).

The structure of each BATREF Document is similar and can be seen in the next slide (slide 6):
3.1) General information.
3.2) Applied processes and techniques.
3.3) Current emission and consumption levels.
3.4) Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT.
3.5) BAT for Ammonia.
3.6) Emerging techniques.

3.1) General information on the process

In this chapter the relevance of Ammonia for the Industry is given.
About 80% of the ammonia is currently used as the nitrogen source in fertilizers, with the
other 20% being used in several industrial applications, such as the manufacturing of
plastics, fibers, explosives, hydrazine, amines, amides, nitriles and other organic nitrogen
compounds.

In 2003, the world production capacity was 109 million tonnes ammonia. Most of the
production capacity was located in the following regions [Ref.2]: (slide 7)
Asia (46 % of world capacity).
East Europe and central Asia (14 %).
North America (11 %).
West Europe (9 %), with this share falling from a level of 13 % in 1988.
Middle East (7 %).
Latin America (6 %).
Central Europe (4 %).
Africa (1 %).
Oceania (1 %).

A modern ammonia plant has a typical capacity of 1,000 2,000 tonnes/day and new plants
are commonly designed for up to 2,200 tonnes/day.
The European Unions ammonia industry produces approximately 11 million tonnes ammonia
per year (2001), in more or less 50 plants.
Data on the location of these plants, their capacity, age and the type of feedstock used, are
given in the document [Ref 3 chapter 2.1. page 63].

With rising feedstock prices and hard competition in the market, many producers have
looked for possibilities to "revamp" or modernize their older, less efficient plants so that they
can remain competitive.
- 3 -
Most revamp projects have been combined with a moderate capacity increase because
some of the original equipment was oversized and only specific bottlenecks had to be
eliminated, which did not entail excessive cost.

3.2) Applied Processes and Techniques

3.2.1) Overview

This chapter addresses the fact that worldwide two major processes are in use:
Conventional steam reforming (about 83 %) and partial oxidation (about 16.5%). (slide 8)

Table 1. Applied processes and feedstocks in the production of ammonia [Ref. 4].

Feedstock Process % of world capacity
Natural gas Steam reforming 77
Naphtha, LPG, refinery gas Steam reforming 6
Heavy hydrocarbon fractions Partial oxidation 3
Coke, coal Partial oxidation 13,5
Water Water electrolysis 0,5

The achieved energy consumption reported in Table 2, suggest that, compared to the steam
reforming process, there is a potential for improvement of the energy efficiency of partial
oxidation processes (slide 9).

Table 2. Cost differences and total energy demands for ammonia production [Ref 4].

Feedstock Process Net primary energy
consumption
GJ/t NH
3
(LHV)
Relative investment
Natural gas Steam reforming 28* 1
Heavy
hydrocarbons
Partial oxidation 38 1,5
Coal Partial oxidation 48 2-3
*Best achieved data

The chapter ends with an overview of output in ammonia production such as ammonia,
carbon dioxide, sulphur and steam.

The carbon dioxide production in the steam/air reforming of natural gas is 1.15 1.40 kg/kg
NH
3
, dependent on the degree of air reforming (the figures do not include carbon dioxide in
the combustion gases).
In partial oxidation of residual oils, carbon dioxide is 2 2.6 kg/kg NH
3
, dependent on the
feedstock C/H ratio [Ref. 5].

3.2.2) Conventional steam reforming

The following slide gives an overview of conventional steam reforming. The individual
process stages are described in detail in the subsections of the ammonia chapter of the
BATREF AAF (slide 10).

- 4 -
Figure 1. NH
3
production by conventional steam reforming [Ref. 5].

3.2.3) Partial oxidation (slide 10)

The partial oxidation process is used for the gasification of heavy feedstocks such as
residual oils and coal. Figure 2 gives an overview of the process steps.
These steps are described in detail in the subsections of the ammonia chapter of the
BATREF AAF.

The process is very flexible and can handle the full range of hydrocarbon feedstock, from
natural gas up to the heaviest asphalt including waste materials such as plastics.

Figure 2. NH
3
production by partial oxidation [Ref. 5].

- 5 -
3.2.4) Startup/shutdown and catalyst replacement

Startup/shutdown operations, trip-conditions, leaks and fugitive sources cause periodic
emissions. The initial startup is usually the most severe due to its duration. The normal vent
points are the desulphurisers outlets, the high temperature shift reactor outlet, the CO
2

absorber inlet, the methanator inlet and outlet, the ammonia converter outlet and the purge
from the synthesis loop and refrigeration system. The pollutants comprise NO
x
, SO
2
, CO, H
2
,
and natural gas. Releases of NO
x
during synthesis gas flaring at startup or trips are
estimated to be 10 20 kg/hour as NO
2
[Ref.4].

All the catalysts in the plant require replacement at the end of their useful life. The life of
each catalyst varies considerably with plant design [Ref. 6]. The catalysts are normally
removed from the site at a cost for a specialist contractor and taken for valuable metal
recovery and controlled final disposal.

3.2.5) Storage and transfer equipment

This chapter shortly addresses the storage of liquefied ammonia in fully refrigerated storage
in large tanks with a typical capacity of 10,000 to 30,000 tonnes (up to 50,000), pressurised
storage spheres or cylinders up to approximately 3,000 tonnes or partially refrigerated tanks.
Cross-reference is made to the BATREF Storage [Ref. 7].

3.3) Current emission and consumption levels

This chapter deals in much detail with current emission and consumption levels. The
information has been retrieved from many reference sources in the EU and abroad.
NO
x
emissions (expressed as NO
2
) and Energy consumption figures are given for feedstock,
fuel and net, for steam reforming in general, conventional steam reforming, advanced
conventional processes, reduced primary reforming, heat exchange auto thermal reforming
and partial oxidation.
Figures for process steam, process air, boiler feed water, solvents additives, catalyst
replacement, ammonia, methane, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, dust,
hydrogen sulphide and methanol complete the long list of emission data for existing
ammonia processes.
These data form the bases used by the Commission in consideration of what is achievable
for the industry at large.

3.4) Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT

The structure used by the Commission for each technique to consider in the determination of
BAT is always the same and as follows (slide 11):
Description of the technique.
Achieved environmental benefits.
Cross media effects.
Operational data.
Applicability.
Economics.
Driving force for implementation.
Reference to literature and example plants.
A short description of each of the 26 techniques or technologies is given and the achieved
environmental benefits highlighted, such as emission reduction, improvements of energy
efficiency, waste reduction, etc. Cross media effects are considered meaning that a reduction
of an emission in air may not result in a substantial increase of reduction in water.
- 6 -
Applicability of a certain technique may be restricted to new plants only. As guidance for use
and interpretation of cross media effects and economics the IPPC Bureau even has drafted a
separate BATREF: Economic and cross media issues under IPPC. The driving force for
implementation may be environmental performance, improvement of plant performance cost
benefit etc.

The 26 techniques and technologies that were considered are listed below.
I will not go into detail for each of them since these can be found in the BATREF AAF
chapter 2.4. I will now concentrate on the most important chapter being 3.5 BAT for
Ammonia (slide 12).

Advanced conventional process.
Processes with reduced primary reforming and increased process air.
Heat exchange auto thermal reforming.
Revamp: increase capacity and energy efficiency.
Pre-reforming.
Energy audits.
Advanced process control.
Use of gas turbine to drive the process air compressor.
Combined Claus unit and tail gas treatment.
SNCR at the primary reformer.
Improved CO
2
removal systems.
Preheating of combustion air.
Low temperature desulphurization.
Isothermal shift conversion.
Use of smaller catalyst particles in ammonia converters.
Stripping and recycling of process condensates.
Low pressure catalyst for ammonia synthesis.
Use of sulphur resistant catalysts for shift reaction of syngas from partial oxidation.
Liquid nitrogen wash for final purification of the synthesis gas.
Indirect cooling of the ammonia synthesis reactor.
Hydrogen recovery from the purge gas of the ammonia synthesis loop.
Ammonia removal from purge and flash gases in a closed loop.
Low NO
x
burners.
Metal recovery and controlled disposal of spent catalysts.
Handling of startup, shutdown and abnormal operating conditions.
Ammonia production using hydrogen from water electrolysis.

3.5) BAT for Ammonia

BAT is to apply the common BAT given in Section 1.5 of the BATREF AAF.

Here the bureau refers to section 1.5 of the document where a whole long list of general
measures is given such as:
Carrying out regular energy audits for the whole production site.
Monitoring key performance parameters.
Establishing and maintain mass balances.
Minimizing energy losses.
- 7 -
Improving the environmental performance of the production site by a combination of
techniques, implementing and adhering to an Environmental Management System
(EMS) etc.

BAT for storage is to apply BAT given in [5, European Commission, 2005].

Reference is made the storage BATREF [Ref. 7].

BAT for new installations is to apply one of the following plant concepts:

Conventional reforming.
Reduced primary reforming.
Heat exchange auto thermal reforming.

Remarkable is that partial oxidation is allowed for existing plants but not for new plants.

BAT is to apply one or a combination of the following techniques, and to achieve the
NO
x
concentration emission levels given in table 3 (Table 2.13 of the BATREF
Document):

SNCR at the primary reformer, if the furnace allows the required
temperature/retention time windows.
Low NO
x
burners.
Ammonia removal from purge and flash gases.
Low temperature desulphurisation for auto thermal heat exchange reforming.

(slide 13)

Table 3. NO
x
emission levels associated with BAT.

BATREF AAF
Plant concept NO
x
emissions as NO
2
mg/Nm
3
Advanced conventional reforming
processes and processes with reduced
primary reforming
90-230*
Heat exchange auto thermal reforming a) 80
b) 20
a) Process air heater
b) Auxiliary boiler
* Low end of the range best existing performers and new installations.

No direct correlation between concentration levels and emission factors could be
established. However, emission factors of 0,29-0,32 kg/tonne NH
3
are seen as a benchmark
for conventional reforming processes and processes with reduced primary reforming. For
heat exchange auto thermal reforming, an emission factor of 0,175 kg/ tonne NH
3
is seen as
a benchmark.

A comparison with the EFMA recommended BAT levels can be seen in the following slide
(slide 14).

- 8 -
It is clear from table 4 that the specified emission levels for NO
x
in the BATREF AAF are
much more severe than recommended by EFMA in 2000.

Table 4. Comparison of the BAT Emission levels for NO
x

(EFMA 2000 versus EU BATREF AAF).

EFMA 2000/BATREF AAF
EIPPC
definition
EFMA
2000
BATREF AAF
2006
ppmv mg.Nm
3
kg.t
-1
of
product
mg/Nm
3
kg.t
-1
of
product
Conventional
reforming
90-230 0,29-0,32
Reduced
primary
reforming
90-230 0,29-0,32
Heat exchange
auto thermal
reforming
75 150 0.45
20-80 0,175
New
Plants

Partial oxidation Not considered BAT
Conventional
reforming
90-230 0,29-0,32
Reduced
primary
reforming

90-230 0,29-0,32
Heat exchange
auto thermal
reforming
20-80 0,175
Existing
Plants

Partial oxidation
150 200-400 0,9

BAT is to carry out routine energy audits.

These energy audits have been performed jointly in EFMA for the operating years 1998,
2000 and 2004 and on global scale by IFA for the operating period 2002-2003 and planned
during 2008 for the operating period 2006/2007. Question here is whether this will satisfy the
meaning of routine energy audit.

BAT is to apply a combination of the following techniques and to achieve energy
consumption levels given in table 5 (Table 2.14 of the BATREF AAF):

From the 26 Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT the Bureau selected 16
techniques to apply in a combination with the purpose to achieve BAT consumption levels.
Extended preheating of the hydrocarbon feed.
Preheating of combustion air.
Installation of a second-generation gas turbine.
Modifications of the furnace burners to assure an adequate distribution of gas turbine
exhaust over the burners.

- 9 -
Rearrangement of the convection coils and addition of additional surface.
Pre-reforming in combination with a suitable steam saving project.
Improved CO
2
removal.
Low temperature desulphurization.
Isothermal shift conversion (mainly for new installations).
Use of smaller catalyst particles in ammonia converters.
Low pressure ammonia synthesis catalyst.
Use of a sulphur resistant catalyst for shift reaction of syngas from partial oxidation.
Liquid nitrogen wash for final purification of the synthesis gas.
Indirect cooling of the ammonia synthesis reactor.
Hydrogen recovery from the purge gas of the ammonia synthesis.
Implementation of an advanced process control system.

Table 5. Energy consumption levels associated with BAT.

EIPPCB 2006
Net energy consumption* Plant concept
GJ(LHV) tonne NH
3
Conventional reforming processes,
processes with reduced primary reforming
or heat exchange auto thermal reforming
27,6-31,8

The interpretation of the given energy consumption levels such as battery limits is given in
Section 2.3.1.1 of the BATREF AAF. As a consequence the levels might vary up to +/- 1.5
GJ. Generally, the levels relate to steady state operation as would be typically experienced
during a performance test directly following a revamp or an overhaul at intended capacity.

For comparison reason, the next slide (slide 15) gives the in 2000 EFMA recommended
energy consumption levels. The upper levels are inline but the lower allowed levels given in
the BATREF AAF are more severe.

EFMA2000
Feedstock Fuel Total
GJ(LHV).t
-1
NH
3

Conventional
reforming
22.1* 7.2-9.0** 29.3-31.1***
Excess air
reforming
23.4* 5.4-7.2** 28.9-31.6
Auto thermal
reforming
24.8* 3.6-7.2** 28.4-32
Partial oxidation 28.8* 5.4-9.0** 34.2-37.8
*Modern plant
**Efficient stand-alone plant with no energy export and no other import than feed-stock
and fuel
***In new reforming plants the total energy consumption should not exceed 29.3
GJ(LHV).t
-1
NH
3

- 10 -
BAT for partial oxidation is to recover sulphur from flue-gases, e.g. by applying a
combination of Claus unit and tail gas treatment and to achieve BAT associated
emission levels and efficiencies given in [Ref. 8].

Here reference is made to European Commission (2002). "BREF on Mineral Oil and Gas
Refineries".

BAT is to remove NH
3
from process condensates, e.g. by stripping.

BAT is to recover NH
3
from purge and flash gases in closed loop.

BAT is to handle startup/shutdown and other abnormal operating conditions
according to section 2.4.25.

Options to minimize emissions include the following:
Minimization of the startup and shutdown time by using interlocks and logical
operation sequence.
Use of recycled inert gases for preheating.
Application of maximum allowed prudent preheat rates for equipment and catalysts.
Reduction of the low temperature shift catalyst with an inert gas carrier.
Taking the synloop into operation as quickly as possible.
Flaring of non-treatable vent gases.

Concluding remarks (slide 16)

I would like to conclude my presentation with some interesting observations.

First of all the coverage of the BAT is limited to the fertilizers that have a certain production
volume and are produced in a number of facilities in the different member states of Europe.
MAP, DAP and Potassium nitrate for example, are not included.

Secondly only BAT levels are given for the two major issues in ammonia production: NO
x
and
energy consumption. For the other emitants such as Carbon Dioxide, NH
3
, and SO
2
, no
levels have been specified but qualitative measures proposed such as improve CO
2
removal,
BAT is to remove NH
3
from process condensates, e.g. by stripping, BAT is to recover NH
3

from purge and flash gases in closed loop, etc.

Thirdly, facilities using partial oxidation have remained largely out of scope of the BATREF. It
is, however, clear that the EIPPC Bureau doesnt consider partial oxidation as BAT for new
installations.

Lastly, there is no chapter on emerging techniques. Either this skipped the attention of those
who were involved in the proces of establishing this BAT or there are simply no new
techniques in the waiting room. Wonder whether this can be true? This subject might be an
interesting topic for a future presentation.

- 11 -
References

1. Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control. Official Journal L 257, 10/10/1996 p. 0026-0040.

2. IFA [2005} Production and International Trade Statistics.
http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics/

3. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Reference Document on Best Available
Techniques for the Manufacture of Large volume of Inorganic Chemicals .Ammonia,
Acids and Fertilizers. December 2006.

4. European Commission (1997) Pilot Document for Ammonia Production.

5. EFMA (2000). Production of Ammonia. Best Available Techniques for Pollution
Prevention and Control in the European Fertilizer Industry.

6. UK EA (1999). IPPC Guidance note on Inorganic Chemicals, S2 4.04.

7. European Commission (2005). BREF on Emissions from Storage.

8. European Commission (2002). BREF on Mineral Oil and Gas Refineries.



2
Reduction

Future Energy Efficiency and CO
2

Reduction Potential

presented by

Svend Erik Nielsen
Haldor Topse A/S Denmark



2

Reduction Potential

Abstract

In todays market, energy efficiency is very important in many plants struggling with high
cost of natural gas. Furthermore, the world climate seems to be changing, and the emission
of greenhouse gases is becoming more and more closely regarded. In view of this, we see
an increasing interest in augmenting the energy efficiency of chemical plants especially in
areas burdened by a high natural gas price.

This paper will specifically deal with latest generation technology for production of
ammonia with specific considerations to be made when optimising the process scheme in
order to minimise the energy consumption as well as the emission of CO
2
.

Contact details:
Haldor Topse A/S
Nymllevej 55, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Tel: +45 45272135 - Fax: +45 45272999
E-mail: svn@topsoe.dk


- 1 -
2
Reduction Potential

Outline Outline
Energy efficiency in ammonia plants
Current design
Historical development
Technology development
Highlights of specific process features
Reforming section
Ammonia synthesis converter
CO
2
reduction potential
Integration with steam and power system
Conclusion

The currently used ammonia plant design will be described, and recent developments in
reforming and ammonia synthesis leading to improved energy efficiency and reduced CO
2

emission will be covered in detail. The current design is similar to the design of the Phu My
plant in Vietnam.

Special emphasis will be on the potential for CO
2
reduction from the ammonia plant
complex.

Finally, the integration of the ammonia plant with the steam and power system will be
discussed.

- 2 -

Reforming Desulphurization Shift
Process steam
Natural gas
Process air
Stack
Purge gas
Ammonia
product Ammonia synthesis
CO
2
-
removal
Process
cond.
Methanation
Current scheme Current scheme

The Topse Low Energy Ammonia Process features a well-proven concept
desulphurization, primary and secondary reforming, two-step shift conversion, carbon
dioxide removal, methanation, compression, ammonia synthesis, and product recovery.

The overall process lay-out is identical to the scheme proposed for the last decades, but the
performance has significantly improved due to improvements in catalysts and new
developments in equipment designs.

- 3 -

Historical Historical development development - - ammonia ammonia
plants plants
Plant energy consumption in the early 1980ies
was around 10.5 Gcal/MT NH
3
In the late 1980ies, this figure was around 7.75
Gcal/MT NH
3
Many plants have been revamped, and best
current plant is today around 7.1 Gcal/MT NH
3
after revamp
For new plants, the current state-of-the-art
consumption is around 6.6 Gcal/MT NH
3

Despite the fact that the overall process lay-out has remained unchanged for many years,
the energy efficiency of ammonia plants has been significantly improved over the years.
Going 25 years back, a typical energy consumption figure was around 10.5 Gcal/MT NH
3
.
Recently, this figure has been reduced around 6.6 Gcal/MT NH
3
, which is an improvement
of 35%, and becoming close to the theoretical minimum of around 4.8 Gcal/MT NH
3
.

Even old plants can operate with low energy consumption, and today many plants have
been revamped to achieve energy consumption figures slightly above 7 Gcal/MT NH
3
. It is,
however, not possible to bring down the energy consumption of existing plants to todays
state-of-the-art value due to reasons that will be explained later in this paper.

- 4 -

A typical energy consumption figure based on the
current scheme is today 6.8 Gcal/MT NH
3
Two scenarios:
Stand-alone ammonia plant with no requirement for
CO
2
production
Ammonia/urea complex
Difference in climatic conditions (cooling water
temperature and other site specific conditions)
How much can the energy consumption figure be
reduced in the (near) future ?
Energy Energy efficiency efficiency - - ammonia ammonia plants plants

A typical energy consumption figure in a modern ammonia plant is 6.8 Gcal/MT NH
3
. The
figure is depending upon a number of factors. It is obvious that a stand-alone ammonia plant
can be designed for a lower energy consumption figure than an ammonia plant producing
sufficient CO
2
to convert all ammonia into urea (with lean gas).

Also the climatic conditions have impact on the energy consumption figure. As such an
increase in cooling water temperature of 10C will increase the specific energy consumption
by approx. 0.15 Gcal/MT NH
3
.

- 5 -

Energy Energy reducing reducing features features
High pressure in the front-end
Low pressure in the ammonia synthesis loop (saving of
power for synthesis gas compressor)
aMDEA CO
2
-removal
Improved ammonia conversion in the loop
Cryogenic purge gas recovery unit, returning the
recovered hydrogen at high pressure compared to the
membrane purge gas recovery unit
Only major compressors on turbine drive (avoiding small
inefficient steam turbines)
Latest generation of rotating machinery

What can be done further to reduce the energy consumption of the plant?

Many places, the natural gas can be delivered at high pressure, say 45 50 kg/cm
2
g. This
will be beneficial for the energy consumption, and shaft power can be saved on the
synthesis gas compressor. Also a low ammonia synthesis loop pressure of around 140
kg/cm
2
g is desired, and this will also result in a low power consumption of the synthesis gas
compressor.

Efficiency of the ammonia synthesis loop is also important. It is the goal to reach a high
ammonia exit concentration in the ammonia synthesis loop, and this can be done with the S-
300 or S-350 converter configuration. This will as well save compression power in the
synthesis gas compressor. Compression power can also be saved by using a cryogenic
purge gas recovery unit, which returns the recovered hydrogen at around 80 kg/cm
2
g. A
membrane unit, which is normally used, returns the hydrogen at around 25 35 kg/cm
2
g.
Also a feature as compressor suction chilling can be introduced in order to save
compression power.

Finally, from an energy point of view it is desirable to operate only the major compressors on
turbine drive (and avoid small inefficient turbines), and then of course to use latest
generation of rotating equipment.

- 6 -

Technology development Technology development
High flux primary reformer with prereformer
HTER-p (Haldor Topse Exchange Reformer)
S-300 converter
Improved catalysts

Two main areas have significant impact on the performance and cost of an ammonia plant:
The reforming section and the ammonia synthesis section.

In particular the design and performance of the side-fired primary reformer has been
significantly improved. This has been possible due to the availability of better tube materials
with higher strength. Better tube materials permit a reduction in tube wall thickness, thus
reducing the level of thermal stress in the tube wall, which again will give potentials for
increased lifetime of the tubes. Very high heat flux can be accepted in a modern type
reformer, and with a prereformer in front of the reformer the acceptable heat flux can be
increased even further.

A new Haldor Topse Exchange Reformer (HTER-p) has been developed and
commercialised. This new equipment allows reduction of the size of the primary reformer,
and of the plant steam production.

In the ammonia synthesis section, the three-bed radial flow converter the S-300 has
been developed and commercialised as an improved version of the work horse - the S-200.
A highly efficient combination of the S-300 converter and the one-bed S-50 converter the
S-350 synthesis loop has been developed as well.

In general, introduction of improved catalysts have made the designs of the reactors more
compact and efficient.

- 7 -

Prereformer S-removal High flux reformer
Fuel
Steam
Hydrocarbon feed
Fuel gas channel
To heat recovery
Prereforming Prereforming

Adiabatic prereforming can be used for steam reforming of feedstocks ranging from natural
gas to heavy naphtha. In the prereformer all higher hydrocarbon are converted into a
mixture of carbon oxides, hydrogen and methane. When a prereformer is installed as shown
in the figure, the primary reformer has to reform methane only, and at the same time at
sulphur free conditions, because the prereforming catalyst will pick up sulphur components
quantitatively. This is one of the reasons for allowing a much higher heat flux in the high flux
reformer.

The prereformed feed can be reheated to 650C before entering the primary reformer since
there is no risk for thermal cracking of higher hydrocarbons. The high reheat temperature
results in reduced firing in the primary reformer, and thereby reduced fuel consumption.
When the hot flue gas is used to reheat the reformer feed, the amount of heat available for
HP steam production is reduced. This will result in a reduced HP steam production in the
ammonia plant.

In general, the reformer size can be reduced by about 25% in a natural gas based plant by
incorporating a prereformer.

- 8 -

Secondary reformer Tubular reformer
Process
steam
HTER-p
Process air
Desulp.
natural gas
HTER HTER- -p p flowsheet flowsheet

Another feature that can be used to reduce the size of the primary reformer, and at the
same time reduce the HP steam production, is the HTER-p (Haldor Topse Exchange
Reformer). This is a new feature, initially developed for use in synthesis gas plants. In most
plants this unit is operated in parallel with the primary reformer, and that is why the unit is
called HTER-p.

The HTER-p is heated by the exit gas from the secondary reformer, and thereby the waste
heat normally used for HP steam production can be used for the reforming process down to
typically 750 850C, depending upon actual requirements. Operating conditions in the
HTER-p are adjusted independently of the primary reformer in order to get the optimum
performance of the overall reforming unit. Typically up to around 20% of the natural gas feed
can in this way by-pass the primary reformer.

- 9 -

Compact
Optimised utilisation of
pressure vessel volume
Allows for removal of
internals
No restriction of thermal
movement
Sec. ref.
effluent
Product gas
Feed gas
The HTER The HTER- -p p

The HTER-p is a very compact, combined heat exchanger and catalytic reactor. Heat
transfer surfaces match the catalytic reactions taken place in the catalyst in such as way
that the pressure vessel volume is minimised.

The steam to carbon ratio can be adjusted individually to the HTER-p and the tubular
reformer to assure optimal conversion of methane.

The HTER-p is like a normal heat exchanger where the tube bundle can be removed, if
desired.

Thermal movement due to changing operating conditions is unrestricted since mechanical
design allowing the bundle to expand freely downwards.

- 10 -

S S- -300 ammonia synthesis converter 300 ammonia synthesis converter

In the ammonia synthesis loop, an updated version of the radial flow converter has been
developed the S-300.

The S-300 converter features three radial flow catalyst beds and two interbed heat
exchangers.

With the S-300 converter, the catalyst volume can be reduced by approx. 20% compared
with the S-200 converter for the same ammonia conversion. Alternatively, when the
feedstock is expensive, the ammonia conversion can be increased resulting in reduced
specific energy consumption.

- 11 -

Process
steam
S-300
Converter
S-50
Converter
Make-up gas
Boiler Boiler
BFW
CW
Purge gas
Product
ammonia
NH
3
(l)
NH
3
(l)
S S- -350 350 ammonia ammonia synthesis synthesis loop loop

The figure above describes a typical Topse ammonia synthesis loop.

As can be seen, the loop comprises two ammonia converters, i.e. a S-300 followed by a S-
50 converter. The S-50 converter is a single bed radial flow converter, which is added
downstream of the main converter to increase the ammonia conversion, and at the same
time to improve the steam generation. By having two converters, the heat of reaction after
the last bed in the first converter can be utilised for boiling or superheating of HP steam, and
the two converter configurations can be used as a mean to close the overall plant steam
balance, in particular if the waste heat available for boiler feed water preheat and boiling of
steam is not in balance.

- 12 -

Reformer
Feed
CO
2
CO Shift
Converter
CO + H
2
O
H
2
+ CO
2
Acid Gas
Removal
Flue Gas
Syngas
Fuel
Synthesis
Section
NH
3
CO
2
Auxiliary
Boiler
CO
2
Flue Gas
Fuel
CO CO
2 2
emissions from ammonia plants emissions from ammonia plants

When ammonia is produced from a hydrocarbon feedstock, a certain amount of CO
2
is
always generated. Close to 100% of the CO
2
generated from the feed is normally removed
in the CO
2
-removal section. The CO
2
generated from the combustion which takes place in
the primary reformer and in the auxiliary boiler ends up in the flue gases.

In most plants, the CO
2
generated from the feed gas is used in downstream units like f. ex.
urea plants, whereas the CO
2
from the flue gas is discharged to the surrounding atmosphere
through the stacks.

- 13 -

CO CO
2 2
reduction reduction potential (1) potential (1)
About 75 % of the hydrocarbon is used as feed
and 25 % as fuel in a steam reformer based
ammonia plant.
In most plants, all the CO
2
generated from the
feed is used in downstream plants (f. ex. urea)
How much can the CO
2
emission be reduced in
the (near) future in an ammonia plant ?

It is quite important to note that approx. 75% of the hydrocarbon used for ammonia
production enters the plant as feed for the process, whereas 25% is introduced as fuel. All
the CO
2
generated in the feed train is recovered, and is in 90 95% of all cases used for
downstream processes (urea).

CO
2
emission is therefore only coming from the fuel side in the plant. This means that if the
target is to reduce the CO
2
emission, the fuel firing should be reduced. The new
developments done in the reforming section which results in energy saving are therefore at
the same time resulting in reduction of the CO
2
emission.

- 14 -

CO CO
2 2
reduction reduction potential (2) potential (2)
Reduce fuel firing in plant (prereformer and
HTER) up to 20-25% reduction
Remove CO
2
from flue gases (reformer and
auxiliary boiler) up to 90% can be removed
Use combustion air preheat to reduce fuel firing
Improve efficiency of steam and power
generation unit in the complex

The introduction of the HTER-p, which use part of the process waste heat after the
secondary reformer for the reforming reaction, will reduce the primary reformer size, and
thereby the fuel input. This is also the case for the prereformer, and for both items the
reduction in fuel firing will be 20 25%, resulting in a similar reduction in the CO
2
emission
from the reformer flue gas.

Another feature is to preheat the combustion air for the burners in the primary reformer. This
will typically save 10 20% on the fuel firing. Generally, the above mentioned features for
reducing the fuel firing will all result in a lower steam production in the plant. In the extreme
case there is no heat available for steam production in the reformer waste heat section, and
all the heat in the reformer flue gas is used for preheating process feed streams and
combustion air.

In the flue gas around 90% of the CO
2
can be removed in a chemical wash. The CO
2
is pure
and can be used in other downstream units. If this is the case, the overall CO
2
emissions
from an ammonia plant can be kept at a very low level.

- 15 -

Integration of gas turbine driver in the Integration of gas turbine driver in the
ammonia process ammonia process
BFW
Fuel
Stack
Air
CW
Gas Turbine
Package HP
Steam Boiler
MP Steam
Superheated
HP Steam
Steam Turbine
Turbine Condensate
Fuel
Process Air
Process Air
Compressor

When fuel firing is reduced in the process, the consequence is lower steam production and
therefore in most cases higher load (fuel firing) on the auxiliary boiler. Finally, it is a matter
of generating the steam and power for the complete complex in the most optimal way (in the
process itself or in the off-sites units).

One way of improving the efficiency is to introduce a gas turbine as driver for the process air
compressor. The hot exhaust gas from the gas turbine is used as (preheated) combustion
air for the steam boiler. The configuration with the gas turbine is generally more energy
efficient than having an auxiliary boiler in the plant.

- 16 -

Integration with urea plant Integration with urea plant
(1350 MTPD ammonia / 2385 MTPD urea) (1350 MTPD ammonia / 2385 MTPD urea)
Natural Gas
Ammonia Unit Urea Units
Utilities
Off-sites
CW Pumps
Steam and Power
Production
Ref. Feed
308 Gcal/h
56.25 t/h NH
3
37,700 Nm/h CO
3
2
MP Steam 105 t/h
76 t/h
64 t/h
2,5 MW
14,8 MW
3
Ref. Fuel
121 Gcal/h
Aux. Fuel
A Gcal/h
2.8 MW
99,3 t/h Urea
a) MP Steam Boiler + Turboalternator
b) HP Steam Boiler + Turboalternator
c) Gas Turbine + MP Steam Boiler
d) Gas Turbine + HP Steam Boiler
: A = 99 Gcal/h
: A = 85 Gcal/h
: A = 73 Gcal/h
: A = 67 Gcal/h
9,5 MW
35 t/h

The above figure shows a typical balance for an ammonia urea complex, where large
amounts of steam and power are required.

If it is assumed that the process unit is fixed with respect to plant lay-out and consumption of
natural gas for feed and fuel, then there is a possibility to design the off-sites and utilities
sections in different ways, leading to the same overall plant production. It should, however,
be noted that the energy efficiency of the entire complex will vary depending upon the
design of the power and steam production unit.

As such the overall CO
2
emission of the complex is highly related to the design of the off-site
units.

- 17 -

Integrated reforming and power cycle Integrated reforming and power cycle
Oxygen
Natural Gas
Process
Steam
Air GT
Steam
Turbine
HRSG
H Fuel
2
Methanator
Ammonia
Syngas
Nitrogen
CO
2
Compressor
CO
2
for Injection
Hydro-
genator
Sulphur
Absorber
Shift
CO
Removal
2
Autothermal
Reformer
Pre-
reformer
Steam

An innovative approach to reduce the CO
2
emission from the plant is given above. It is a lay-
out where all natural gas is used as feed for the plant (no natural gas fuel).

The process is based on Topses Autothermal Reformer (ATR) based front-end, which is
used to generate a hydrogen rich synthesis gas. The composition of the synthesis gas can
be controlled to fit a number of downstream synthesis units, such as ammonia, methanol,
gas-to-liquids (GTL), DME, etc. The scheme shown above is based on producing a
hydrogen rich gas for ammonia production. The ATR is oxygen blown, and an air separation
unit produces oxygen to the ATR and nitrogen to the ammonia synthesis loop.

A gas turbine operating at hydrogen rich fuel gas (a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen)
generates power (with no CO
2
emission), and the hot exhaust gas from the gas turbine is
used for preheating all the feed streams for the process plant, and to close the steam and
power balance of the complex in general. All the CO
2
generated is removed in the CO
2

removal unit and can be used for downstream units or can be captured and injected in oil
fields. This is in principle a zero emission scheme.

- 18 -

g
Separation of
oil, CO
2
and
produced water
Injection-
unit for
CO
2
Oil pipeline
to shore
(or shuttle)
CO
2
pipeline to
offshore oil field
Pipeline from
offshore gas field
Oil field
Gas field
CO2
Ammonia plant
Carbon effective ammonia production
CO
2
for EOR

In many countries, ammonia plants are located near the sea and close to gas landing
stations and power plants. This gives the possibility of integrating the units and to capture to
CO
2
not used in downstream processes as shown in the figure above.

With the ATR scheme just mentioned, it is possible to integrate the power production with
the ammonia production and at the same time reduce the CO
2
emission.

The injection of CO
2
for enhanced oil recovery is being considered in relation to large power
plant projects, and in principle the ammonia plant (or ammonia/power plant) can be utilising
the same scheme.

- 19 -

Conclusion Conclusion
Ammonia technology is continuously developed
by introduction of new equipment designs and
improved catalysts to suit the marked needs
When the ammonia process is designed for low
energy consumption it automatically results in
low CO
2
emission as well
Especially from ammonia/urea complexes the
emissions are minimal
Technology exists to integrate the plant with the
off-sites to reduce the CO
2
emission to zero

The ammonia process is today very energy efficient. Still however, new developments are
made in order to improve energy efficiency even further.

Especially, with the increased focus on low CO
2
emissions, new innovative schemes need to
be considered.

The optimum design will be tailor-made by Topse based on the actual conditions for the
specific site, and in particular with due consideration to integration with the off-sites and
utilities in order to keep the CO
2
emission as low as possible.



2
Reduction

Energy Reduction, Environment Protection by
CO
2
Reduction and Feedstock Change-Over
at IFFCO Phulpur

presented by

Yogesh Narula
IFFCO - Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative India



Energy Reduction, Environment Protection by
CO
2
Reduction and Feedstock Change-Over
at IFFCO Phulpur

Abstract

Ammonia / Urea production is highly energy intensive. The raw material utilized at IFFCO-
Phulpur complex used to be Naphtha for Ammonia Production and Fuel Oil in Utilities
Steam Generation Boilers. This paper gives the detail of measures taken at IFFCO -
Phulpur to replace costlier Naphtha with cheaper RLNG and to reduce specific energy
consumption to minimize the overall cost of production. The projects carried out include:
the commissioning of Energy Saving Projects, RLNG conversion from Naphtha for feed &
fuel in Ammonia Plants and RLNG conversion from Fuel Oil for fuel in Steam Generation
Boilers, Installation of Carbon di-oxide Recovery (CDR) Plant from Reformer flue gas of
Ammonia Plant. With Naphtha as the feedstock in the ammonia plants, there was always
surplus of CO
2
which became deficit after feedstock was converted to RLNG. The CO
2
shortfall was covered with generation from waste. After implementation of the above
projects, substantial reduction in energy consumption & cost of production has been
achieved. Also CO
2
emission in atmosphere is reduced to a great extent due to lesser &
cleaner fuel burning and recovery of CO
2
from flue gases. All these steps have made urea
production possible at a lower cost with an improved environmental impact.

Contact details:
IFFCO - Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative
GA-2, IFFCO Township, P.O. Ghiyanagar, District Allahabad - 212404, India
Tel: +91 9415 316159 - Fax: +91 5332 251333
E-mail: ynarula@iffco.nic.in


- 1 -
Energy Reduction, Environment Protection by CO
2
Reduction and
Feedstock Change-Over at IFFCO Phulpur

Introduction

The Indian fertilizer industry has come a long way since the establishment of the first Super-
Phosphate factory in 1906 at Ranipet (Tamil Nadu). The turning point in the Indian
agriculture sector was the introduction of HYV (High Yielding Varieties) seeds of wheat and
rice in mid-sixties. The expansion in area of land under cultivation and switch-over to HYVs
seeds led to a remarkable growth in fertilizer use and crop production.

Subsequently with the aid of government policies for fertilizer production, India became self-
sufficient in food grain production and emerged as the third largest producer and user of
chemical fertilizers in the world. Today, fertilizers have become an essential input to Indian
agriculture for meeting the food grain requirements of the growing population of the country.
Fertilizer industries have a mammoth task of providing essential nutrients to Indian farmers
so that the growth in the agricultural sector is sufficient for meeting the domestic food front.

Implications of Feedstock and Energy

Main feed stocks used for manufacture of Urea in India are Natural Gas (65%), Naphtha
(25%) and Fuel Oil (10%). Because of shortage of gas supplies to gas based Urea plants,
many units are operating on mixed feed options wherein naphtha is used along with gas
through Pre-Reformer System, which results in higher cost of production.

Improving Reliability of Ammonia-Urea Plants

A significant factor, which is most important in improving productivity, is plant reliability. Plant
reliability is measured in terms of improvement in on-stream days. All other parameters in the
operation of the plant meet, finally, at reliability. Plant reliability determines directly
profitability, safety and environmental performance.

Ammonia-Urea Complex is a high energy and capital intensive industry. Therefore, higher
reliability and better energy efficiency is the key to its competitiveness.

Use of cheaper and better feedstock

The type of feedstock has a major influence on energy consumption in an Ammonia-Urea
Plant. Hydrogen to carbon ratio increases as we move from liquid hydrocarbons (naphtha,
FO, LSHS, etc.) to gaseous hydrocarbons (Natural Gas). Besides, associated impurities
namely sulphur, etc. are present only in traces in the case of gas.

With the steep rise in the cost of liquid hydrocarbons in the last five-to-six years, Ammonia-
Urea production from liquid hydrocarbons plants has become very costly. Keeping this in
view, one of the main guidelines provided under the New Policy was that all such plants
should switch-over to NG/RLNG so that they can also become viable and compete in the
business of Urea manufacturing.

- 2 -
Use of Modern Process technologies and advanced Instrumentation

Developments in science and engineering helped technologists to design and construct
plants that are more reliable and energy efficient. There have been several developments in
the past which have been adopted as part of the modernizations in old plants. Some of these
measures are:
Addition of S-50 (Synthesis Converter) in Synthesis Loop of Ammonia Plant to reduce
operating pressure and thus save energy.
Highly active and sturdy catalyst in reformer/ shift, etc. giving higher conversion
efficiency and longer period of operation.
Improving performance of CO
2
Removal Section by selecting a better solvent and
installing / modifying equipments.
Installation of molecular sieves or ammonia wash for purification of synthesis gas.
Installation of PGR Unit to recover Hydrogen and ammonia from purge gas.
Installation of pre-reformer to overcome gas shortage through use of naphtha.
Change of material of construction of critical heat exchangers from carbon steel to
stainless steel.
Use of additional Urea trays in Urea Reactor for higher efficiency.
Increasing CO
2
feed temperature to Urea Reactor by recovering heat in an exchanger
from third stage of CO
2
Compressor.
Replacement of old HP Stripper with new Bi-metallic Stripper in Urea Plant.
Installation of pre-concentrator in Urea Plant.
Installation of MP Pre-decomposer in case excess low pressure steam is available in
the complex.
Better integration of steam network and preparation of Boiler Feed water for Utility
Boiler in Ammonia Plant by recovering heat from low level of energy.
Installation of variable speed drives for electric motors to optimize power consumption
with variable speeds.
Recovery of waste heat particularly from reformer furnace flue gases.
Installation of Carbon Di-oxide Recovery Plant in gas plant for meeting the
requirement of CO
2
to balance ammonia and Urea production. This will save the
costly naphtha fuel being used by various natural gas based plants.
Upgrading Plant and Instrument Air System by installing HOC (Heat of Compression)
type dryers.
Installation of efficient moving machineries.
Upgrading Instrumentation System by switching over from pneumatic to DCS.
Increase in Capacity of existing plants by way of retrofitting & modification.

The Indian Ammonia-Urea Plants have kept pace with the developments taking place around
the world. There is a marked improvement in the energy consumption and increase in on-
stream days. In the last fifteen years, the energy consumption for manufacturing of ammonia
has been reduced by more than 25% while the average on-stream days of ammonia plants
based on reforming process has improved from 290 days (1987-90) to around 320 days at
present.

Fertilizer Policy in India

To increase self sufficiency in fertilizer production, Government of India (GOI) started the
Retention Pricing Scheme in late 70s. The retention price varied from unit to unit depending
upon vintage, location of the plant, feedstock, technology used, etc. This led to the increase
in fertilizer production, many new plants were setup and the country became sufficient in
food production.

- 3 -
However there was an increase on subsidy burden. To emphasize international
competitiveness, global marketing, import liberalization, import price parity and free trade,
unit-wise Retention Price Scheme was phased out. The Government of India has
implemented a new pricing policy for urea manufacturing industries with effect from April
2003. The new pricing policy is in the form of a group based concession scheme. The key
objective of the new pricing policy for urea units is to gradually move in the direction of parity
with international prices based on the use of the most efficient feedstock and the state-of-the-
art technology. Rationalization of fertilizer subsidy by Government of India has considerably
affected the profit margins of the business.

Strategies adopted at IFFCO-Phulpur in meeting the challenges

Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO), globally acclaimed cooperative in
fertilizer production and marketing has been striving for socio-economic upliftment of the
rural population of India since inception. To ensure timely availability of quality fertilizers to
the farmers, IFFCO came into being on 3
rd
November, 1967. Initially, IFFCO commissioned
Kalol and Kandla plants in Gujarat in early 1975. Subsequently, the society expanded its
base by erecting two more plants at Phulpur and Aonla in U.P. in the year 1981 and 1988
respectively. Later capacity of all these four units has been increased either by installing new
plants at the existing site or by revamping the existing plant. Last year, it acquired the
DAP/NPK unit at Paradeep in Orissa having an annual capacity to produce 19 lakh tonne of
NPK/DAP. The marketing of IFFCOs products NPK/DAP/UREA are channelised through
37,500 member cooperative societies and 158 Farmers Service Centers in over 28 States /
Union Territories in the country. IFFCO along with other joint venture partner, Oman Oil India
Company (OOC) has set up Oman India Fertilizer Company (OMIFCO) at Sur in Oman with
annual capacity of producing 16.52 lakh tonne Urea. IFFCO launched another company
Indo-Egyptian Fertilizer Company (IEFC), a joint venture with El Nasr Mining Company
(ENMC), for setting up a Phosphoric Acid Plant in Egypt.

IFFCO-Phulpur Unit, is located at Phulpur, Allahabad in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It has
been the worlds largest naphtha based Urea complex, consuming one full naphtha rake
(2000 MT) daily. Both of its units have been performing well since beginning. Unit I started
its commercial production in March,1981 and has a 977 MTPD ammonia plant, 1670 MTPD
Urea plant, three coal fired boilers having 125 MT/hr capacities each and 12.5 MW Turbo-
Generator.

Second Unit started commercial production in December, 1997 and consists of 1520 MTPD
ammonia plant, two streams of 1310 MTPD Urea plants, a LSHS fired boiler of 200 MT/hr
and 18 MT power generator along with other offsite facilities.

Ammonia-Urea complex at Phulpur has been based on naphtha since inception when cost of
naphtha was quite low. Phulpur Unit has been performing well with the help of effective and
efficient operation and maintenance practices. Specific energy consumption per MT of
ammonia produced in Unit-I was initially at 10.2 Gcal/MT and was being operated at 9.2
Gcal/MT later. Specific energy consumption per MT of ammonia in Unit-II was 7.82 Gcal/MT.

Realizing the importance of improving the productivity of the complex, IFFCO-Phulpur Unit
along with other units at Kalol & Aonla had initiated the following main projects in the year
2004 to 2006 in a phased manner:
A) Energy saving Projects (ESP).
B) RLNG (Re-gasified Liquid Natural Gas) Conversion.
C) Installation of CDR (Carbon Dioxide Recovery plant).

- 4 -
All activities pertaining to (a) Energy Savings Project (ESP), (b) RLNG Conversion and
Installation of CDR have already been completed.

All the above steps were in line with new policy of Government of India on fertilizer to
improve the productivity of plants by way of reduced energy consumption, change over to
cheaper feed stock NG to reduce the cost of production and thereby reduction in subsidy.

A) Energy Saving Projects (ESP)

A study was carried out to find out the possibility of improving plant performance in order to
make the Unit more energy efficient. It was observed that in ammonia plant, significant
energy loss occurs in the form of dumping heat to cooling water system through coolers and
condensers. Following schemes were finalized under Energy saving Projects (ESP) with the
help of consultant and in-house study:

Sl. No. Description
Phulpur -I
1.0 Reduction in pressure drop of LT shift converter.
2.0 New LT Shift Guard, BFW Preheater and Separator
3.0 Revamp of CO
2
Removal System to a modern 2-stage GV Process layout.
4.0 Installation of S-50 radial flow synthesis converter and MP Boiler.
5.0 Drying of make-up gas and synthesis loop re-piping.
6.0 Synthesis gas compressor LP and HP case internal replacement.
7.0 Installation of final gas chiller.
Phulpur -II
1.0 New LT Shift Guard and BFW Preheater.
2.0 Installation of S-50 radial flow synthesis converter and MP Boiler.
3.0 Installation of final gas chiller.

Phulpur-II being latest generation plant with already low specific consumptions, had limited
options for further improvement.

Phulpur-I:

1. Improvement in outlet systems for LT shift converter

The outlet system of LT Shift reactor was changed to decrease the pressure drop across the
Reactor. Elephant stool design outlet system provided by Kellogg was modified to HTAS
outlet system. The lower pressure drop by 0.4 kg/cm2 resulted in a higher suction pressure
at synthesis compressor, thereby reduction in steam consumption of synthesis compressor.

2. New LT Shift Guard

A new LT Shift Guard Reactor has been installed with 10 M3 of catalyst. CO slip at the outlet
of LT Shift Converter, has lowered to 0.15% as against 0.25-0.30%. Lower CO slip has
resulted in additional ammonia production due to reduction in consumption of hydrogen in
methanator.

3. Revamp of CO
2
Removal System to a Modern 2-Stage GV process Layout

Originally, Benfield System was provided in CO
2
Removal System with design regeneration
energy of 1056 Kcal/Nm3 of CO
2
. In 1993, it was modified to Low-Heat Benfield System by
employing a multistage flash tank and steam ejectors with design regeneration energy of 960
Kcal/NM3 of CO
2
.
- 5 -
For further reduction of energy consumption, revamp of CO
2
removal system to 2-Stage GV
Process Layout was the best available option in the existing system, as it did not involve
much modification.

The main features of 2-Stage GV Process, are the operation of the two strippers at different
pressures, i.e. one at high pressure (1.1 Kg/cm2g) and the other at low pressure (0.14
Kg/cm2g) using the same Benfield solution with activator ACT-1. Rich CO
2
loaded solution is
introduced to both HP & LP Strippers and semi-lean and lean solution from HP stripper
passes to LP Stripper before going to respective circulation pump suctions. In order to
compress, the CO
2
generated from LP Stripper, blower has been provided. Packing of
absorber bottom bed was replaced with IMTP 40 and discharged packing (Hy-Pak No.2) was
utilized to replace the bottom of HP Stripper. The above modification has enabled to achieve
the lower CO
2
regeneration energy with more purity.

4. Installation of S-50 radial flow synthesis converter and MP Boiler

In Phulpur-I, The design Ammonia concentration at the outlet of synthesis converter is only
15.5 % where as the new generation plants are designed with ammonia concentration as
high as 24 %. In order to increase ammonia conversion, a new S-50 converter with a lower
heat exchanger and internal electrical start-up heater was installed at the down-stream of
existing ammonia Synthesis converter. As a result ammonia conversion per pass has
increased and the Gas circulation in the synthesis loop has decreased thereby reducing the
overall steam consumption of the synthesis compressor turbine. A new MP Boiler has been
installed down-stream of S-50 converter to recover heat and produce medium pressure
steam to optimize the overall steam balance of the plant.

5. Drying of make-up gas and synthesis loop re-piping

It was observed that refrigeration load in Ammonia-I was very high in comparison to that of
Ammonia-II due to high circulation rate in the synthesis loop. The piping around the synthesis
compressor recycle was rearranged in such a manner that ammonia present in the converter
effluent got condensed and separated before going to recycle stage of compressor. This
system had a disadvantage because oxides of carbon present in the make-up gas were
getting fed to synthesis converter directly. After loop repiping work, a new kick back cooler
was installed at the discharge of synthesis compressor, as the existing water cooler was not
being used to cool kick back gases.
In order to send oxide free make-up gas directly to the converter, an ammonia wash unit has
been installed between LP & HP case of synthesis compressor. The make-up gas is being
washed with ammonia stream from ammonia separator to remove the oxides. Installation of
ammonia wash unit and synthesis loop repiping has reduced the circulation rate thereby
reducing the power consumption in the synthesis compressor.

6. Synthesis gas compressor LP and HP case internal replacement

The present compressor is of mid-1970 design and the operating conditions have changed
largely after the synthesis converter retrofit in which Kellogg design 4-bed axial flow quench
type reactor was modified to Casale design axial-radial flow reactor. Moreover, after the
installation of S-50 converter and loop re-piping, operating condition, particularly circulation
rate, was expected to change drastically and would have decreased the operating pressure
of synthesis loop. The new internals of LP and HP case were designed to meet the new
operating condition and better efficiency. The combined efforts of matching the system and
operating conditions, improvement in efficiency led to less steam consumption in the
synthesis compressor turbine.

- 6 -
Schematic Diagram of Modified Back-end of Ammonia Plant : Phulpur-I.

7. Installation of Final Gas Chiller

After the installation of S-50 converter and ammonia wash unit, synthesis and ammonia
wash unit, synthesis converter effluent gas is being cooled and chilled successively in three
ammonia chillers. Due to higher loop pressure and higher ammonia concentration, vapour
generated in the first chiller, which is operated at a pressure corresponding to 3
rd
stage
suction of regeneration compressor, will be high. This would have caused improper
distribution of ammonia vapor among the different stage of refrigeration compressor, which
would have been to conditions very close to surge limit even with a small kickback flow.

The additional load on the 1
st
stage and subsequent stages of the refrigeration compressor
will improve its operation and reduce the wastage of power by the kickback flow.

With the intention of increase in load on the 1
st
stage of the refrigeration compressor, Final
gas chiller has been introduced to cool down the make-up gas to 6 deg. C. This has
increased the volumetric efficiency due to lower inlet temperature of make-up gas leading to
reduction in steam consumption in the synthesis gas compressor for the same work output.

Ammonia-I Plant ESP Scheme: S-50 Converter and MP Boiler.

- 7 -
Ammonia-I Plant ESP Scheme: Dehydrator Column.

Phulpur-II:

1. New LT Shift Guard and BFW Preheater

The purpose of installing LT Shift Guard before LT Shift Reactor was to reduce CO slippage
from shift section on consistent basis without increasing the pressure drop. A new BFW
preheater was installed at down stream of new LT shift Guard in order to control the inlet
temperature of LT Shift Reactor and to recover the exothermic heat of reaction. After its
installation, CO slip from LT Shift Converter has come down from 0.20% to 0.12%.

2. Installation of S-50 Radial Flow Synthesis Converter and HP Boiler

For energy reduction in ammonia synthesis loop, installation of a HTAS S-50 ammonia
synthesis converter and a new HP-WHB was found to be the most beneficial option. The S-
50 converter and New HP boiler have been located in series in between the existing
converter and existing HP synloop boiler. The S-50 converter increased the conversion and
reduced the circulation rate, thereby reducing the pressure drop in the loop. Furthermore, to
make an optimum overall steam balance, high pressure steam is being generated from the
waste heat boiler to control the inlet temperature to the new converter.

S-50 radial flow Synthesis Converter and HP Boiler.

- 8 -
3. Installation of Final Gas Chiller

In the earlier system, make-up gas was being cooled to 35 deg. C before being compressed
in the synthesis gas compressor. Final gas chiller will be introduced to cool down the make-
up gas to 6 deg. C from the present level of 35 deg. C. This will increase the volumetric
efficiency due to lower inlet temperature of make-up gas leading to reduction in steam
consumption in the synthesis gas compressor for the same work output.

Ammonia-II Plant ESP Scheme: S-50 Converter and HP Boiler.

B) RLNG (Re-gasified Liquid Natural Gas) Conversion at IFFCO-Phulpur

IFFCO-Phulpur initiated the task of executing RLNG conversion along with Energy Saving
Project. As the availability of indigenous natural gas was limited, the only possible alternative
was to go for RLNG which was to be sourced from outside and made available to Phulpur as
per the requirement. IFFCO held discussions with the concerned parties and finally an
agreement was reached between GAIL and IFFCO on August 25, 2004. A separate 140 KM
pipeline was laid from Thulendi of District RaiBarelly to Phulpur Unit from the existing HBJ
gas pipeline.

Important Technical Aspects in RLNG Conversion

Most significant difference between Naphtha and Natural Gas based Ammonia plants is in
the Desulphurization Section. Since gas does not contain much sulphur unlike naphtha,
hence pre-desulphurization section need not be operated. Other important aspect is in the
ratio of hydrogen to carbon ratio, which is high in case of gas. As a result, less steam is
consumed in the reforming section and less CO
2
is generated. After the reforming section,
plants operating on naphtha or gas are identical except in the quantum of generation of CO
2
.

- 9 -
Major technical aspects that has to be looked into are:
a) To allow operation on RLNG, the main equipment / section which required addition or
modification in existing sections were Catalyst for Desulphuriser & Primary Reformer,
Burners and its control system, Convection zone Coils, ID & FD Fans capacity, Gas
Turbine & CO
2
removal system.
b) Since the carbon content in RLNG feed is less compared to Naphtha, CO
2
production
would also be less. In order to convert all ammonia produced to Urea, CO
2
production
has to be balanced by producing synthesis gas in front end and finally use as
reformer fuel, or by using mixed feed of gas and naphtha.
c) In order to provide flexibility in operation during any eventual shortage of RLNG, the
new / modified equipment shall be designed to handle either 100 percent Naphtha or
100 percent RLNG or any mixture there-of.
d) As the conversion required additional equipments, layout of new equipments posed
challenges in case of old naphtha based plant where space is a major constraint.
Maintaining 100 % Naphtha facilities along with new RLNG facilities was going to be
very difficult.
e) New generation Naphtha based plants generally include Pre-reformer as an
additional feature. For smooth operation with Mixed Feed, plants having Pre-reformer
may be chosen for implementing Mixed Feed operation facilities ranging from zero to
100 % percent of Naphtha.
f) For RLNG Conversion of LSHS Fired Boiler, performance of economizer &
superheater needs to be examined as they may be affected due to change in flue gas
composition. This could result in higher tube metal temperature of superheater coils
and thereby lower capacity of the boiler itself.

Necessary modifications have been carried out in the following areas for RLNG Conversion
Job:
Ammonia-I Plant: Complete Feed System and Complete Fuel System.
Ammonia II Plant: Feed System and Complete Fuel System with provision for
using100% Feed on naphtha.
Boiler-4: RLNG Modification with provision for 100% FO firing system.
Boiler-1, 2 & 3: Support fuel on RLNG in place of FO and usage of coal to continue as
main fuel.

After finalizing the road map for RLNG conversion, M/s HTAS, Denmark was awarded the
responsibility of basic engineering for RLNG conversion along with energy saving projects for
Ammonia Plants. M/s PDIL was engaged for the detailed engineering, procurement and M/s
TBW, Pune was awarded the contract for Boiler modification, engineering and supply of all
related items of burners and gas stations.

Modification / Jobs Carried out

A gas receiving and metering station to supply the gas to IFFCO-Phulpur was installed and is
being operated by GAIL (India) Ltd. Gas metering station has the required facilities of
metering, filtration, gas chromatograph for composition analysis & GCV/NCV determination,
pressure regulation, etc. A common header has been laid from metering station to ammonia-
I, ammonia-II and boilers. Additional structural and pipe racks were provided for the gas and
utility pipelines.

Ammonia-I. Major modifications are listed below:
Burners and Fuel Control Station: All liquid fuel burners in top arch (162 Nos.), tunnel
(09 Nos.), hydrocarbon feed preheater (04 Nos.) and auxiliary (05 Nos.) boiler, were
replaced with new RLNG burners of John Zink.
- 10 -
New RLNG Coil: RLNG preheater coil was installed in between LT superheater and
combustion air preheater.
Primary Reformer Catalyst: New gas reforming catalyst, supplied by M/s Sud-chemie
was loaded in primary reformer tubes.
DCS & ESDS System: Control logic, emergency shut down system and annunciation
system were modified as per the requirement.
Pre-Desulphurization Section: Its operation was stopped.

Ammonia-II. Major modifications are listed below:
Pre-desulphurization section has been retained for operation with naphtha in case of
RLNG shortage.
Installation of new RLNG Coils: Two RLNG heating coils have been installed in the
waste heat section of primary reformer.
Modification of Primary reformer Burners: All existing 576 nos. of burners were
modified by replacing air mixing nozzle and gas nozzle of the burners with suitable
dimensions which were fabricated in the workshop.
Fuel system for GT including Skid, Nozzle and Control System: Necessary
modification in fuel nozzles and combustion chamber liners were carried out. New
fuel skid along with control & safety system was installed.
Modification in HRU Burners and its Control system: Naphtha burners were modified
to dual firing burners with facilities of on line change over.
RLNG Fuel Preheater: RLNG is supplied at battery limit at 40 Kg/cm2g. A pressure let
down station and fuel preheater has been installed. Old naphtha vaporizer has been
modified and being used as fuel preheater.
DCS and ESD Modification: DCS control system has been modified to handle either
100% naphtha and 100% RLNG or any mixture their-of with on-line switch-over
facility.

Steam Generation Plant: It was decided that the Coal fired boiler-1, 2 & 3 would continue to
operate on Coal as main fuel, however, the support fuel would be changed form FO/LSHS to
RLNG. Boiler-4, originally on FO firing was to be modified to have dual firing facility of FO as
well as RLNG.

Boiler-1, 2 & 3: These are corner fired boilers with tilting arrangement. Earlier FO/LSHS was
used as support fuel to support Coal firing. New RLNG burners have been installed along
with its igniters and scanners.

Boiler-4: Dual fuel burners suitable for 100% LSHS or 100 % gas or combination of both,
were installed. Modification in the boiler front panel to accommodate the new burners was
carried out. Newly installed burners are having igniters and scanners. Wind box, air duct, and
atomizing valves were modified. New fuel control station, new burner management system
and block/bleed arrangement for safety have also been provided.

Experiences after RLNG Conversion: Natural gas is ideal feedstock for ammonia
production. It has several advantages besides being cheaper and easy to handle. Now there
is easy and shorter start up of the plant, thereby lesser unproductive consumption. The
burners choking phenomena is completely solved and CO
2
emission from furnace has
reduced. Plant also runs trouble free and the catalyst life has also increased.

- 11 -
LNG Control Station in Ammonia-1 Plant.

C) Carbon Dioxide Recovery (CDR) Plant

Major disadvantage of RLNG conversion is lesser CO
2
production due to lower C/H ratio in
RLNG as compared to naphtha. CO
2
generated with lean RLNG is not adequate to convert
total Ammonia produced to Urea. To overcome the problem, the possible options are as
below:
a) Use of costlier fuel i.e. naphtha along with RLNG in feed to the extent to meet the
CO
2
deficit required for Urea production.
b) Recycle of Synthesis gas to primary reformer as fuel, is having following bottlenecks :
Recycle of Synthesis gas to primary reformer as fuel would strain front end.
Reforming section, CO
2
removal section, etc. in front end may not be designed to
meet the required increased load.
Recycle capacity may not be sufficient to meet total CO
2
deficit thus requiring
front end modification incurring capital expenditure.
Using the existing additional front end capacity for recycling synthesis gas may be
less economical than making additional ammonia and urea and getting benefits
under new policy.
c) Recovery of CO
2
from flue gas from various furnaces.

Among all the above options available, CO
2
recovery from flue gases was found most
economical, & viable. Therefore IFFCO-Phulpur has installed a Carbon Dioxide Recovery
(CDR) Plant, to recover CO
2
from flue gases of Ammonia-II plant primary reformer furnace.

The capacity of the plant is 450 MTPD of CO
2
and M/s MHI, Japan has provided the basic
engineering for it. M/s TICB was engaged as turnkey contractor for detail engineering,
procurement, erection and commissioning. The use of naphtha in feed for ammonia plant is
going to be completely stopped as the shortfall quantity of CO
2
is being made available by
recovery of CO
2
from flue gases of primary reformer. This is going to save the Government
Subsidy outgo substantially and would also reduce the emission of Green House Gases
(GHG) to the atmosphere thereby providing cleaner environment.

- 12 -
CDR plant is basically a low pressure CO
2
removal section in which CO
2
present in flue
gases is absorbed & then regenerated to produce CO
2
having 99.93 % purity. CO
2
recovery
from flue gases is a new concept in fertilizer industries. Basic steps involved in CDR plant
are a) Flue gas Pretreatment, b) Low pressure CO
2
absorption in special solution KS-1, c)
CO
2
regeneration and d) CO
2
compression to desired level. Though regeneration energy is
very high in comparison to that of any normal CO
2
removal section of ammonia plant, the
cost effectiveness of the plant is very attractive because the use of costlier Naphtha as feed
to balance the CO
2
for Urea production shall be stopped completely.

Brief Description of Process

Flue gas at a temperature of 180 deg.C is cooled down in Water Cooler, a packed column
using structured packing, by direct contact with water supplied from the top & then
compressed in Flue Gas Blower. Compressed flue gas is fed to CO
2
Absorber. CO
2
Absorber
is a packed bed column using structured packing & having two sections, bottom for CO
2

absorption & top for washing section. In this column CO
2
is absorbed in special solution (KS-
1) supplied from the top of the absorption section. Flue gas after washing is then exhausted
at sufficient height.
Rich KS-1 solution is regenerated in Regenerator by supplying heat through LP Steam Re-
boiler. Lean solution from the bottom of the tower is cooled in Lean solution cooler and re-
circulated back to CO
2
Absorber. Overhead vapour is condensed & separated condensate is
returned back to the top of Regenerator. CO
2
product is then compressed and sent to Urea
Plant.

Experience in Commissioning.

Level of top section of CO
2
Absorber

CO
2
Absorber in CDR plant is divided in 3 section 1st wash section, 2nd wash section and
the bottom CO
2
absorber section. Flue gas from flue gas cooler is introduced in the bottom
section of the CO
2
absorber through flue gas blower while the CO
2
lean KS-1 solution is
introduced from the top of the absorption section onto the packing. Here the CO
2
is absorbed
in KS-1 solution. The flue gas then move upward into the treated flue gas washing section
where the flue gas comes in contact with water for washing of amine content in it. At the top
of washing section chimney tray is provided. Level of each section is maintained by
circulation pumps. Overflow of each section comes to adjacent lower section.
- 13 -
During initial filling of Column with DM water for starting circulation, there was problem of
level build up in top section of the column. Since there was no gas flow and the water was
pouring down through chimney tray and packing to the bottom section of absorber, leading to
increase in level of bottom section and decrease in top section. To overcome this problem a
2 line was connected from discharge of rich solution pump to the suction of 1st wash water
circulation pump.

Low flow through Flue Gas Blower

During start of the plant desired flow of flue gas from flue gas blower was not obtained at full
opening of dampener provided at the inlet of blower. Although the indication at DCS was
showing 100% full opening, it was found in the field that dampener is stuck at 90% opening
resulting restriction of flow through blower. The dampener was opened and the problem was
rectified.

Final USV in CO
2
Line

USV-01 is installed in CO
2
product line connected to main CO
2
header, which is closed in
case of CO
2
Blower not in operation. Due to this CO
2
blower was kept running even if it was
not required at lower plant load. Now the closing of USV- 01 is connected to Flue gas blower
trip and now plant can be run without CO
2
blower running.

Steam Flow Measurement

During commissioning of the plant reboiler temp. was going high, although steam flow
indication was well within limits. Steam flow meter was checked and it was found that the
tube connected to LP tapping was choked. The tube was cleaned and thereafter steam flow
is now OK.

Tripping of Condensate Pump (P-3710)

During commissioning of plant steam condensate pump was tripping frequently on low
suction pressure. Suction line was checked and it was found badly choked with the
scaffolding clamps. Line was cleaned and again connected to pump suction. Since than it is
running normal.

Temperature Control of LP steam for reboiler

LP steam to CDR plant is available at 3.0 kg/cm2g pressure and 240 deg.C. Before
introducing to reboiler this steam is brought down to 1.98 kg/cm2 pressure and 133 deg C.
temp by pressure let down and desuperheating. For quenching steam condensate from
reboiler is used which is cooled to 70 deg. C from 133 deg. C in a plate type cooler.

The temperature of steam was higher than required during commissioning of the plant which
is not at all recommended due to KS-1 solution degradation at temp. higher than 135 deg. C.
It was found that the temperature of condensate for quenching was higher resulting in high
temp. of steam to reboiler. A separate DM water line (which is at around 40 deg.C) at inlet of
the cooler is connected with condensate line to get the specified temp. of steam.

- 14 -
CDR Plant: A View of All Three Towers.

Reduction in CO
2
Emission after Implementation of Energy Saving Project, RLNG
Changeover and CDR plant.

Reduction in Steam Consumption Through Revamping of Ammonia Plant

After implementation of schemes under Energy Saving Project, reduction in HP steam
consumption to a tune of 35 MT/hr in Ammonia Plants has been achieved, which has
resulted in lesser firing of Coal and Fuel Oil in Steam generation facilities, thereby CO
2

generation from these furnaces has reduced to a great extent.

Fuel Switchover from Naphtha/ LSHS to Natural Gas in Ammonia Plants

On burning Gas in place of Naphtha, HSD, LSHS/ Fuel oil in furnaces CO
2
emission is much
less since these fuels contains higher Carbon content than Natural gas.

Feed Switchover from Naphtha to Natural Gas in Ammonia Plants

Naphtha being rich in carbon, produces more carbon di-oxide than required for Urea
production. This excess CO
2
is being vented to atmosphere. At IFFCO Phulpur unit, feed
switchover from naphtha to NG was carried out. NG being lower in carbon, produces lower
carbon di-oxide thereby venting of CO
2
has been eliminated.

Installation of CDR Plant

With Natural gas as feedstock lower CO
2
is generated than required for Urea production.
This requires use of additional naphtha / natural gas as feed stock.

- 15 -
In Ammonia -II plant, flue gases from Primary Reformer furnace contains significant amount
of CO
2
sufficient to meet the requirement of CO
2
for Urea production. Being impure, hot and
corrosive, it is not possible to use this CO
2
directly in Urea plant. Therefore, a Carbon
Dioxide Recovery plant was installed to recover CO
2
from flue gases, which was earlier going
to atmosphere. Total flue gas emission from Primary Reformer stack at 100% plant load is
182086 Nm3/hr, out of which 128790 Nm3/h gas is routed to CDR plant for CO
2
production.

The annual reduction in Emission is estimated to be more than 0.6 million tonnes.

Future Action Plan

Presently the demand of Urea is met by imports which are very costly. Keeping this in view
IFFCO-Phulpur Unit is going ahead with the Capacity Enhancement Project (CEP) to bridge
the gap to some extent in demand of Urea by Indian farmers. The following capacities are
being aimed in the project:

Unit-I Unit-II
Present Capacity 1670 MTPD 2620 MTPD
Enhanced Capacity 2115 MTPD 3030 MTPD

This will enable an additional Urea production of 280000 MT on yearly basis. It may be noted
here that expenditure involved in increasing the capacity of existing plant by debottlenecking
works out to be around one-fourth than installing a grass root plant, besides saving
significant subsidy by the government by cutting down costly imports.

Various jobs have been identified in different plants with the help of consultants and in-house
studies. Some of the main schemes in Ammonia Plant are: Modification in Air , Synthesis
Compressor and their turbines, replacement of exchangers, namely methanator effluent
cooler, Secondary Reformer burner modification, one additional cooling water cell, etc. Major
jobs identified in Urea plants are: CO
2
Compressor replacement, Additional HP Ammonia
and HP Carbamate Pump, MP Pre-decomposer, Prill Cooling System, additional Ammonia
Condenser & Preheater and additional Cooling Tower Cell.

Engineering and commercial activities for procurement have been completed. Prill Cooling
System has already been installed and commissioned in Urea-I Plant. Most of the above
activities shall be completed in the year 2007.

Conclusion

The business of indigenous urea manufacturing is a very important industry for food security
and national pride. Today it is facing stiff challenges from many quarters, like high input cost,
delay in the disbursement of subsidies, etc. However, if the Indian fertilizer industry works in
a positive frame of mind and the Government brings out encouraging policies, suitable
strategies can emerge in meeting these challenges. IFFCO-Phulpur has taken all the
required actions in the right direction to overcome these challenges. It has been the first
fertilizer plant to have switched over to RLNG from liquid hydrocarbons, and to have
implemented energy saving projects and carbon dioxide recovery plant project. Also a
Capacity Enhancement Project is under way. All these steps have resulted in more fertilizer
at a cheaper price than the imported urea price, which is the real need of the Country at this
juncture.



2
Reduction

Energy Efficiency Measures in Fertilizers Sites

presented by

Jan Sandvig Nielsen
Weel & Sandvig / IEA-IETS Denmark




Abstract

Energy efficiency issues in the fertiliser industry have so far been associated with ammonia
plant efficiency basically due to its large fuel consumption. These days the specific gas
consumption has dropped to near the technical limit (although this limit is constantly
moving) on new plants - and most people are more or less aware of the energy reduction
opportunities.

However, ammonia is only the first step in the often exothermal conversion of natural gas
to the final products such as Urea, AN, CAN and NPK sometime requiring intermediate
products such as nitric acid. Studies carried out in various parts of Europe (Scandinavia,
Lithuania and Russia) reveal significant energy saving opportunities beyond the ammonia
plant including nitric acid, urea, AN/CAN, NPK plants and not the least utility systems. A
key to optimise the plant wide energy efficiency is to understand and exploit the system
aspects.

The term Process integration is often used for system optimisation of processes and for
optimising the processes together with site utility system in terms of site efficiency. The
paper will illustrate methods and applications.

Finally the paper will advocate for increased international cooperation under IEA energy
technology agreements. A relatively new agreement is Industrial Energy related
Technologies and Systems (IETS www.iea-iets.org) already fostering cooperation in
technology areas (e.g. process integration) and application areas (e.g. pulp and paper
industry) and are planning new application areas including cement, iron and steel and
fertiliser industries.

Contact details:
Weel & Sandvig - Energy and Process Innovation
Scion-DTU, Diplomvej, Bygning 377-stuen, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
Tel: +45 26710045 - Fax: +45 26710046
E-mail: jsn@weel-sandvig.dk


- 1 -

Introduction

Ammonia is in the heart of virtually all nitrogen fertiliser production. Production of ammonia
requires substantial use of fossil fuel as feedstock and as fuel. Today new ammonia plants
can be built with as low as 28 GJ/MT NH
3
. With plants operating with up to 40 MJ/MT NH
3

there is a significant potential for reduced energy consumption, which rightly so has
attracted lot attention.

The routes to increased energy efficiency in revamps are generally well known, although
each case often requires substantial engineering efforts to evaluate best revamp options due
to the high complexity of the ammonia plant.

At this point it should be mentioned that 70 90 % of the energy input remains in the
ammonia product, which itself can be considered as a fuel. Ammonia is frequently partly
converted in subsequent exothermal processes such as Urea, AN and Nitric Acid processes.
By nature these processes has a net energy surplus, but the utilisation of the energy surplus
is often difficult to fully exploit. This means that a very large part of the caloric value of
ammonia ends in cooling towers. This area has traditionally received less attention than the
ammonia process itself. Increased focus on these areas is thus a potential good place to look
for good cost efficient energy improvements.

One of the main problems in utilising the heat from the downstream processes is the
temperature level of which the heat is available for reuse. One example is the Urea process
where the energy demand is at a temperature level at typically 185 C and above, whiles the
heat surplus is at a temperature from 180 C and below. It is thus not possible directly to
utilise a large amount of heat directly within the process.

However, heat can be utilised between processes. Many fertiliser sites also have evaporator
plants often multistage evaporation plants using steam. The heat from e.g. the urea plant
can be used for this purpose. Often a direct integration between individual processes are
undesired, but intermediate energy carriers such as steam lines and district heating can be
used. In a complex fertiliser site there are multiple processes with heat demand and heat
surplus at different temperature levels. Furthermore, there might be several steam levels and
internal district heating system. Finally cogeneration units and boilers can be attached to the
overall system and energy can be transferred across the site boundary to neighbouring
industries or communities.

There is thus a magnitude of optimisation options, many of them best exploited with system
approaches such as process integration.

Process integration

Process integration is a frequently used expression for system oriented energy optimisation
of process plants. Instead of focussing on the individual unit operation focus will be on the
way these unit operations are match. A particular efficient method used to screen for
potential energy savings is Pinch Analysis. Pinch analysis is foremost useful in setting
targets for potential energy savings. Based on limited process information it is possible to
calculate how much thermal energy that can be physical recovered in a process. This is also
known as targeting.

- 2 -
With basic information about the process temperatures, flowrates and heat capacities it is
possible to predict minimum heat requirement and also temperature level to satisfy the heat
demand. These targets can be calculated by hand or by computer. Figure 1 shows a simple
example where 4 process streams are defined based on simple process information. Based
on that information two curves are automatically generated. The process composite curve
show the accumulated heat demand in terms of temperature for all streams with heating
demands (blue curve) and the accumulated cooling demand for all streams with cooling
demands (red curve). The composite curve gives an immediate picture of the potential heat
recovery potential in the process described by the overlap of the red and blue curve.

The Other curve is the so called Grand Composite Curve, which gives a graphical view of
what temperature levels are required to satisfy the process heating and cooling demand
when internal heat exchange has taken place first. In the example heat is required from a
temperature level from approximately 130 C and up, while cooling is required at temperature
from 130 C and down.

Figure 1. Pinch analysis.

The main advantage is that the method can be used with any number of process streams. It
can thus be used for fast screening for potential heat recovery in even complex processes.

The curves generated can be used by engineers to improve integration of new equipment.
To illustrate this, a new evaporator is thought integrated into an existing process. The
existing process is thermodynamically described by the grand composite curve.

Hot streams,
To be cooled
Cold streams,
To be heated
Stream definitions, heating and
cooling demand in the process
Curve overlap, determine
the potential heat recovery
Net heat demand
Net cooling demand

- 3 -

Similarly the new evaporator can be
described in a similar curve describing
the heat flows in terms of temperature
levels. In figure 2 two different
configurations are outlined a single
stage and a triple stage evaporator.
Heat is delivered to the first
evaporator stage and removed from
the last. Simple rule of thumbs gives
that a three stage evaporator needs
only one third of the heat requirement
of the single stage evaporator. The
improved energy efficiency is of
course at the expense of equipment
size and costs.

If the evaporation process is considered together
with the existing processes other opportunities
will occur. Figure 3 shows the grand composite
curve for the existing process together with
temperature levels for the two different
evaporators. It is noticed that heat output from the
single stage evaporator can be utilised in the
existing process while the temperature level out
of the last stage of the three stage evaporator is
too low to be utilised. In this case a new single
stage evaporator can be integrated into the
existing process without any additional heat
requirement. The three stage evaporator on the
other hand will require additional heat input.

This example hopefully outlines the benefit of system approach in energy optimisation and
illustrates the power of pinch analysis.

At the end of the paper two case studies are described showing how the principles in
process integration can be applied.

IEA IETS: An international cooperation on industrial energy efficiency

Industrial Energy Related Technologies and Systems (IETS, www.iea-iets.org) is a new
initiative for international cooperation under IEA.

The Industrial Energy Related Technologies and Systems (IETS) Implementing Agreement is
a new initiative within IEA (International Energy Agency). The main aims of IETS are to
perform international R&D cooperation projects and knowledge transfer activities on energy
efficiency in industry in order to achieve synergy effects and added values to national
activities, thereby increasing awareness of opportunities in this sector.

Figure 2

Figure 3

- 4 -
What is an IEA Implementing Agreement?

IEA Background

Founded by the OECD countries during the oil crises of 1973-74, the IEAs initial role was to
coordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies. As energy markets have changed,
so has the IEA. Its mandate has broadened to incorporate the Three Es of balanced
energy policy making: energy security, economic development and environmental
sustainability and to include also non-OECD countries.

The IEA conducts a broad programme of energy research, data compilation, publications and
public dissemination of the latest energy policy analyses and recommendations on good
practices.

International collaboration

Through the Technology Collaboration Programme, the IEA provides a framework for more
than 40 international collaborative energy research, development and demonstration projects
known as Implementing Agreements. It enables experts from different countries to work
collectively and share results, which are usually published. The programme deals with
technologies for fossil fuels, renewable energy, efficient energy end-use and fusion power,
as well as electric power technologies and technology assessment methodologies.

Most R&D activities within an Implementing Agreement are performed in so called Annexes,
i.e. working groups consisting of experts from countries participating in the Annex. Other
typical activities are workshops and other dissemination projects.

The R&D activities are mainly financed through national energy research programmes. The
IEA provides the framework that enables international collaboration and the resulting synergy
effects.

The IETS Implementing Agreement

IETS is a new, large IEA Implementing Agreement in the industrial sector. The first IETS
meeting was held in December 2005. The IETS started out as a merger of three former
Implementing Agreements, plus one new area:
Process Integration.
Pulp and Paper.
Heat Exchangers and Heat Transfer.
Separation Technologies (new).

IETS, however, will not be restricted to these four areas. On the contrary, IETS will be
evolving continuously with the aim to include all types of process industry, e.g.:
Iron and steel.
Chemical.
Petrochemical.
Cement.
Fertiliser.
Aluminium.
Food.

- 5 -
The main objectives of IETS are:
To strengthen international cooperation on energy saving and GHG mitigation in
industry.
To facilitate cooperation between different industrial R&D disciplines.
To attract more industry branches.
To improve knowledge transfer and information between countries, researchers and
industries.
Assist IEA in its Gleneagle (NEET) activities.
where Gleneagle (NEET) activities are the IEA task to assist the G8 countries with
energy consumption data and energy efficiency opportunities in different countries.

Members

Currently, 9 countries participate in IETS:
Brazil, Sweden, Canada, USA, Denmark, Norway, Mexico, Portugal and Finland.

In addition, three countries are preparing participation. Furthermore, membership is being
discussed with several other countries having shown interest.

Each member country is represented in the IETS Executive Committee. Decisions on
activities, start-up of new annexes, budgets, etc are taken by the Executive Committee,
which meets twice a year. There is also a secretariat, which for the first three-year period is
operated by KanEnergi, Norway.

As described above, the main R&D activities are organised through so-called Annexes,
which are working groups consisting of experts from countries participating in the Annex. A
country or organisation can join any number of Annexes. An Annex Manager coordinates the
work, identifies synergy effects, prepares synthesis documents and coordinates the
compilation of the final report. The Annex members get together typically twice a year, but
this is up to each Annex to decide.

J oining and Participating in IETS

Costs

For a country or an organisation joining the IETS, the financial commitment consists of the
annual fee to the secretariat only. This annual fee is US$ 7 000 or US$ 4 500, depending on
the countrys gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
(above or below US$ 25 000).

Through the Annexes, the IETS provides a framework for collaboration, but the Agreement
does not have any common resources for funding. The Annexes and the related R&D
activities are funded by the participating countries, either through a fee (cost shared) or
through work (task shared).

In a task shared Annex, each participant contributes with developments and results from one
or more national project(s). In most cases, the projects are already funded through national
R&D programmes (ongoing or planned). The Annex Manager can be funded by a small cost-
shared part of the Annex or by one of the participants. This means that the costs to join an
Annex in many cases consists of travel and meeting costs and in some cases a small
contribution to the Annex Manager. In the former industrial Implementing Agreements, the
R&D Annexes were mainly task shared.

- 6 -
Benefits

The added values of participating in IETS are:
Direct communication with leading research groups in other countries in ongoing
projects.
Synergy effects, avoidance of duplication of work and syntheses in important
industrial energy efficiency areas.
Knowledge transfer between countries and industries on:
- Ongoing R&D areas.
- Energy consumption in different types of industry.
- Potentials for energy efficiency improvements.
- Use, planning and experience of policy instruments for e.g. CO
2
mitigation.

We believe that the work of IETS will considerably enhance more rational use of energy in
process industry, with benefits for both industry and society.

A number of aspects concerning energy efficiency and rational use of energy in process
industry can profit from international cooperation, such as technologies, systems,
technoeconomic aspects, policy consequences, implementation and obstacles, etc.

Involvement of industry and future areas for international cooperation

In the earlier implementing agreements, now being merged, the involvement of industry has
been high in several cooperation projects/Annexes. Generally speaking, the interest for
industry to participate depends to a high extent on the degree of specification of a
cooperation project. Therefore, industrys involvement is normally on the Annex level (not on
the more general implementing agreement level), where a project and its projected outcomes
are well specified.

Selection of Annexes or other cooperation projects is based on inputs from and interest in
the countries participating in IETS. Any member can suggest a new area (e.g. through a
research group, an industry, or academia and industry together) for international cooperation.
With sufficient interest form at least one other country and with the necessary funding being
guaranteed, a new Annex or cooperation activity can start. In this way all participating
countries can influence cooperation areas and direction of the work within IETS.

Ongoing and planned activities

Currently, IETS has 4 ongoing Annexes:

Gasification of Black Liquor and Biomass (Annex VI). These projects seek to reduce the
technological barriers to successful commercial-scale operation of biomass and black liquor
gasification technologies, especially in the areas of gas clean-up, refractory and metallic
materials, black liquor delivery systems.

Analysis and Policy Consequences (Annex VII). These projects seek, among other issues,
to identify analytical tools and methods, share tools, improve and demonstrate tools, rather
than developing tools in collaborative tasks. Project example: Benchmarking Energy Use
and GHG Emissions in Pulp and Paper Operations (subtask 7.1).

Technologies, Systems and Networking (Annex VIII). Projects under "Technologies,
Systems and Networking" seek, among other issues, to support development of energy
efficient, sustainable industrial production technologies and energy conversion technologies,
including technologies for mitigation of environmental emissions.

- 7 -
Energy Efficient Separation Systems (Annex IX). The aim of this new annex is to take
stock of the state-of-the-art of separation systems analysis tools and concepts and:
Extend/combine previously developed methods and tools to address advanced
separation systems design or retrofits.
Automate or guide the design/retrofit process to the extent practicable.
Quantify and improve the costs and benefits of these approaches.

Four sub-tasks are suggested: Methodologies, Applications, Economics and Dissemination.

In addition, 5 new Annexes are under preparation:
Energy efficient drying technologies.
Energy efficient membranes.
Industrial Combustion.
Process integration in the pulp and paper industry.
Process integration as tool for greenhouse gas emission reduction in industry.

As the work of IETS proceeds, more Annexes will be added to the list.
IETS is continuously developing new projects in order to meet the arising needs of its
members.

Opportunities for the fertiliser industry

The fertiliser industry could contribute and benefit significantly by joining the international
cooperation in IETS. Participation could be in existing annexes e.g. efficient separation
technologies or by forming new annex specifically related to the fertiliser industry.

It is the authors believe that the fertiliser industry is facing significant pressure on energy
efficiency both from economical and political quarters due to increased energy costs and
environmental concerns.

Joining IETS could help the fertiliser industry to successfully meet these challenges. The
project work under IETS can range from fully restricted within small cooperation groups to
fully open depending on the amount of proprietary knowledge involved.

- 8 -
Appendix case studies

Case study: Site analysis of low temperature heating system

Background

This case study describes an example of process integration study where targeting methods
are used to screen out the potential for recovery and usage of low temperature heat that
could be distributed via an internal district heating system in a fertiliser site. It illustrates how
targeting methods can be used in a very simple way to find the most promising way to
recover heat from various processes.

A fertiliser site typically comprises a wide variety of chemical processes. These processes
are typically served by one or more steam mains allowing import or export to and from other
processes.

This example is from a small fertiliser site

Approach

For retrofit problems - as this is - more than just energy cost and heat exchanger costs most
be considered. Maximum utilisation of existing equipment is often required to achieve
economical feasible solutions. In theory the retrofit problem could be expressed in a formal
way that could be transferred into a mathematical optimisation problem. In practice, however,
there is not enough information available nor the time to extract all the information that would
be required for automatic synthesis. Therefore a more straight forward strategy is followed
based on simple methods like Pinch analysis.

The strategy is simply to extract process streams that possibly can be used for district
heating. This is streams that assumedly cannot be integrated further in the process (under
current economic conditions). Then possible users of the district heat are identified. This
covers process use as well as other service use (room heating etc.) that use steam or
electricity.

The heat sources and the heat sinks can then be handled in an ordinary Pinch analysis
software. Here targets for direct heat exchange can be identified. Because of the large
distances direct heat exchange is not possible. Therefore, a transfer media must be used.

In Figure 4 heat sinks and
heat sources are extracted
from the processes and
analysed in the Pinch
Software WS-PINCH. The
composite curves indicate a
potential energy saving of
more than 5 MW. To achieve
the potential saving a district
heating system that is able to
transfer heat from the sources
to the sinks must be
designed. The composite
curves can be used directly to
design the temperature levels
at which the district heating
system must work. On the process composite curve a district heating system can be
represented by a straight line defined by its forward and return temperature. In Figure 5 two
potential systems are illustrated.

Figure 4

- 9 -
As noticed from the curves on
Figure 5 several district heating
system configurations are feasible
with more or less full heat recovery.
The selection of alternatives is in
the current case simple because
the existing pipelines are not able
to handle the pressure required for
the high temperature. In the current
case a two level system is
recommended. Since most heat
can be recovered in the low
temperature district heating system
the high temperature district
heating system will not be
economically attractive.

However, the high temperature system provides some excellent opportunities for energy
optimisation for future plant expansions. It is therefore suggested that the high temperature
heat is recovered to the low temperature system, but with over-capacity in heat exchanger
surfaces so that it later on can be used in a separate high temperature district heating
system.

We are, however, still in targeting mode. The next step is to find among the process streams
those that give the best economics. The task is quite simple. For each process stream
calculate the cost for directing heat to or from the district heating system. This is a task best
performed by the companys own engineering people.

If formulated in a proper manner the initial and target temperature for the district heating
system can be optimised further. This can be done using a spreadsheet.

Conclusion

With limited work and simple tools a plant wide optimisation problem can be solved within
limited time. The case study shows savings in the vicinity of 5 MW heat. This gives savings in
low pressure steam (giving increased electricity production or reduced fuel consumption) and
in electricity. Further, the district heating system increases the optimisation opportunities in
the future.

This project was carried out in small fertiliser site in Denmark. It was only focused on internal
reuse of energy. Larger potentials are present if heat export is possible e.g. through district
heating systems. A study carried out by the authors on a large fertiliser complex in Russia
revealed potential district heating export to a neighbouring city of up to 200 MW, which could
save up to 140 mio nm3 gas per year.

Figure 5
District heating
profiles

- 10 -
Case study: Synthesis of the nitric acid process

This case study concerns development of a new process for nitric acid production - the so
called saturated nitric acid process. The case study illustrates how engineering insight can
be used to get new optimisation options and how these options can be optimised using a
systematic approach. The result is significant improvement in energy/capital cost ratio for a
process that has been optimised continuously during the last 100 years.

The nitric acid process

The nitric acid process is in many ways an interesting process to analyse. First of all nitric
acid is one of the most produced chemicals in the world. Secondly the process is very energy
intensive. Finally, the process has been optimised continuously with respect to productivity,
energy and capital costs during the last 100 years. Therefore the improvement of the process
achieved by process integration was not expected to be significant.

A typical modern nitric acid plant is highly energy integrated. A typical process is outlined in
Figure 3. As noticed a typical plant is equipped with both gas compressor(s) and a tail gas
turbine. In addition steam produced in a waste heat boiler is often utilized in a steam turbine.
With this set-up modern plants convert process heat to power enough to drive the
compressor(s). It is possible to produce even more power than needed in the process. The
surplus of power can be converted into electricity in a generator.

From an energetic point of view process can be compared with that of a combined cycle
power plant. The major difference is that a large part (approximately 20 %) of the "flue gas" is
removed for acid production. This, together with a practical limit in inlet temperature to the tail
gas is the main reason why a steam turbine is required.

Figure 6. Typical implementation of the conventional dual pressure nitric acid process.

NH
3
AIR
DISTRICT
HEATING
STACK
HNO
PROCESS
WATER
CHILLED
WATER
COLD
WATER
BFW
CON-
VERTER
BLEACHER
STEAM
DRUM
DEAERATOR
3
ABSORBER
C1 C2 ST GT G/M

Traditionally, the process has been optimised using a fixed process layout. By varying the
process parameters (heat exchanger surfaces, temperatures, steam flow rates etc.) it is
possible with a process simulator steadily to improve the energy efficiency of the plant. This
approach has been applied to the nitric acid process for the last four decades, turning a
power deficit into a power surplus. Nowadays, however, several practical limits have been
reached stopping further significant improvements in energy efficiency. The two major
limitations are the inlet temperatures to the tail gas turbine (today around 700 C) and
maximum steam pressure (100 bar). The future improvement of the conventional plant is
expected mainly to be due to improvements in efficiencies of turbomachinery.

- 11 -
Approach

The traditional approach for designing the heat integration in nitric acid plants is to simulate
alternative configurations of the heat recovery network. Considering the number of possible
matches (in order of thousands) the risk of not finding the most cost and energy efficient heat
recovery network is high. Further, simulation of highly heat integrated process plants, such
as the nitric acid plant, is quite time consuming. To eliminate both problems an alternative
approach should be considered. The alternative approach is based on a thermodynamic
representation of the heat recovery system. In Pinch analysis the heat recovery network is
represented by the process streams, that either need to be heated or to be cooled. Instead of
simulation of all possible heat recovery networks, the heat recovery system is represented by
the process streams with heat demand or heat surplus. Thereafter, the heat flow in the
process can thereafter be illustrated in a temperature - heat flow diagram (Figure 4). For a
dual pressure nitric acid process two main streams represent the available heat, while tail
gas heating and steam raising constitute the two heat sinks. Instead of viewing the individual
heat exchangers one by one the overall heat exchange process can be viewed as one
combined heat exchanger. This curve is called the process composite curve in Pinch terms.
Looking at the curve a thermodynamic bottleneck (the pinch) can be identified. The pinch is
limiting further steam production or tail gas heating.

Figure 7. By replacing the detailed heat exchanger train with the process composite curves it
is possible to get a bird eyes view of the overall heat transfer process and to identify the
thermodynamic bottleneck (the Pinch).

With specified tail gas temperature and steam conditions the process simulator can produce
the process streams for the process composite curves. The composite curves can then be
used to identify further steam production or tail gas heating. With simultaneous use of
process simulation and pinch analysis it is possible to make a thermodynamic optimisation of
the power production. At this stage it is not necessary to specify the heat exchanger network
train.

Optimisation of conventional process

The conventional dual pressure nitric acid process
has been analysed before in a scientific audience
(Linnhoff and Alanis, 1991; Gaggioli et al., 1991),
where a complete set of data where published.
These data have been used as a base for
comparison between the conventional process and
the saturated process. To compare on equal
premises both processes have been optimised
extensively, using the approach outlined above. In
the study practical limits are set for tail gas heating

Figure 8

- 12 -
(Max 700 C) and steam conditions (Max 100 bar, 500 C). In view of the second law of
thermodynamic it is evident that the higher steam condition and higher tail gas heating the
higher second law efficiency (and thus power production efficiency). For a given set of basic
process data it is possible to calculate the optimum steam production. This has been done
for a conventional process. The net power obtainable for the process assuming a minimum
approach temperature of 20 C is 174 kWh/t
1
(230 kWh/t with high efficient turbomachinery).
The heat utilisation in an optimised conventional process can be viewed in the process
composite curve (Figure 5). The heat exchange at excessive temperature difference at the
high temperature represents a considerable loss in work available. It is very important to
acknowledge that there is no way to reduce this gap with current process design.

Saturated nitric acid process

To close the gap between the two curves in Figure 8 it is proposed to modify the process
concept by increasing the tail gas flow rate. This can be implemented using an absorption
column, where heated water is fed to the top and the tail gas is fed to the bottom. With this
modifcation it is possible to increase the mass flow rate of the tail gas with up to 50%. The
water is heated to just below the evaporation temperature at tail gas pressure (e.g.. to 180 C
when tail gas pressure is 10.5 bar). In the saturator a simultanous heat and mass transfer
takes place. With this concept low temperature heat can be used for enhancement of tail gas
flow.

The saturation process is integrated into the overall process, with no changes in the principal
process operating parameters. The modified process is optimised under the same condition
as for the conventional process. The resulting process composite curves are outlined in
figure 7. It is noted that the distance between the two curves are reduced compared to Figure
5, resulting in a higher thermodynamic efficiency. A most interesting feature is that the tail
gas turbine in the new process is able to provide enough power to run the air and NO
compressors. Thus, there is no need for a steam turbine. It is actually demonstrated that the
new process gives 230 kWh/t using the same constraints as for the conventional process
(312 kWh/t with high-efficient turbomachinery). This is an improvement of more than 30%. An
equally important feature is that the actual process design can be done simpler than for the
conventional design. One design option for the new process is outlined in Figure 8.

1
Performance figures of nitric acid plant is typically expressed per ton of produced acid (100 % strength). Thus,
energy efficiency is expressed as power surplus per produced ton of acid (kWh/t 100 % HNO3).

Figure 9. Tail gas saturation.

- 13 -
Figure 10. Process example of saturated nitric acid process.

NH
3
AIR
STACK
HNO
PROCESS
WATER
CHILLED
WATER
COLD
WATER
CON-
VERTER
BLEACHER
3
ABSORBER
C1 C2 GT G/M
WATER
TAIL GAS
SATURATOR

The new process require more heat exchanger area than the conventional process, but the
area can be installed in fewer exchangers. A new saturator tower is required but a complete
steam system can be saved. The rest of the plant (HNO
3
absorber and bleacher, air and NO
compressors, ammonia evaporator etc.) are identical for the two systems. This indicates that
the new process will be less capital intensive than the conventional process.

Conclusion and significance

The proposed nitric acid process offers nitric acid manufacturers a significant benefit in either
capital cost or in energy efficiency. The new process has a thermodynamical design that fully
utilises the reaction heat of the process. The heat transfer is done in a more "reversible"
manner which results in a better utilisation of the available temperature driving forces. This is
the key reason for the better investment/energy efficiency ratio. It is demonstrated that the
new process has the potential to increase the profitability of nitric acid production
significantly. At present, the conceptual design is matured and current work is aimed at
detailed design and evaluation of various auxiliary equipment (stack condition, water
recovery system, NO
x
-reduction etc.). It is important to acknowledge that the modifications in
the saturated design only deal with the energy recovery part of the acid production and that
the proposed design only make use of standard well tested equipment. Therefor, there is no
severe obstacles for practical implementation.



2
Reduction

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

presented by

Harry Audus
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme UK




Abstract

The paper describes the rapid progress now being made towards acceptance of carbon
dioxide capture and storage (CCS) as a means of reducing emissions of CO
2
to atmosphere.
Progress on technical aspects is illustrated by reference to pilot and demonstration projects.
The credibility and acceptance of underground storage as an effective way to avoid
emissions to atmosphere is discussed both in terms of accounting for national emissions
and where financial instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are
proposed. Legal issues are also discussed, in particular, proposed modifications to the
London Convention to allow CO
2
to be stored underneath the seabed.

There is much interest in easily accessed sources of CO
2
as an early-opportunity to
establish CCS technology. Ammonia production, although not seen as one of the major
sources of CO
2
emissions e.g. compared to power plant and cement manufacture, is a
potential source of relatively low-cost CO
2
. The paper suggests further investigation into
the possibility of using CO
2
obtained from ammonia plant as such an early opportunity; in
particular as a means of providing CO
2
for Enhanced Oil Recovery.

Contact details:
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
Orchard Business Centre, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1242 680753 - Fax: +44 1242 680758
E-mail: harry@ieaghg.org


- 5 -

1. Introduction

CO
2
capture combined with geological storage is one of the technologies IEA GHG has
studied that has the potential to make deep reductions in CO
2
emissions to atmosphere.
However, the technology faces a number of barriers to its widespread introduction. One of
the key barriers is the cost of removing CO
2
from combustion exhaust gases; the cost of CO
2

capture is largely a result of the processing required of exhaust-gas streams containing low
concentrations of CO
2
(Say, 4-14% by volume). There are however, opportunities for
collecting CO
2
that are considerably less expensive than treating flue gases. Amongst these
are:
Removal of CO
2
from raw natural gas (often necessary to meet pipeline specification).
By-product of hydrogen production, e.g. by gasification of petroleum coke.
Other industrial processes, e.g. cement manufacture.

If such high-concentration sources of CO
2
can be identified and matched with low transport
costs and with relatively low storage costs there are attractive opportunities for reducing CO
2

emissions to atmosphere at minimal cost. Ammonia production has been suggested as one
such opportunity.

If, in addition, use can be made of existing or shared infrastructure such as pipelines, and the
CO
2
used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO
2
-EOR) the reduction in CO
2
emissions to
atmosphere might even be achieved at negative cost i.e. be a profitable activity.

A key barrier to the early implementation of such schemes is the lack of a stable policy
environment that would encourage companies to invest for the long-term in CCS.
Uncertainties with regard to CO
2
emissions reduction mechanisms add to the difficulties
arising from volatility in the cost of fossil fuels. For example, the Kyoto protocol and
Marrakech accords do not clearly specify steps for international trading of Kyoto protocol
emission units based on CCS projects. Agreed adoption of CCS as a mitigation option under
emissions trading schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) could
provide significant incentives.

This paper describes some of the issues involved and opportunities that are now arising.

2. Existing CCS projects

At present there are 3 CCS projects that can be said to be operating in a commercial
environment at a significant scale. These schemes each capture and store approximately 1
million tonnes/year of CO
2
. This total, of about 3 million tones/year of CO
2
, is roughly
equivalent to the CO
2
emissions from one modern coal-fired power plant of 500MW
e

capacity.

Sleipner (started 1996)
Statoil operates the Sleipner field on behalf of a group of partners. Before the raw gas can be
sold its CO
2
content has to be reduced from about 9% to around 2.5%. The CO
2
is captured
using an amine solvent. The captured CO
2
, about 1 million t/yr, is injected beneath the
seabed into the Utsira sandstone formation rather than being released to atmosphere. The
Utsira formation lies at a depth of 800-1000 metres and, it has been suggested, is capable of
storing up to 600 billion tones of CO
2
.
- 6 -
If the CO
2
had been allowed to escape to atmosphere the licensees would have been liable
for approximately NOK 1 million/day (160,000 US$/day) in CO
2
taxes. This was the first
large-scale project to demonstrate that CO
2
can be successfully stored and monitored. After
10 years operation there is no evidence of any CO
2
seepage from the store.

Weyburn EOR (started 2000)
EnCana are injecting CO
2
into the existing Williston Basin oil field, Canada, in order to boost
oil production. This Weyburn project is expected to produce at least 122 million barrels of
incremental oil through miscible/near-miscible displacement with CO
2
. Ultimate oil recovery
will increase to approximately 34%. The CO
2
is produced in North Dakota in the USA in a
lignite gasification plant. Cross-border transfer of CO
2
from the USA to Canada is by 330km
long pipeline that cost US$100 million. There is no financial incentive to store CO
2
but about
half the CO
2
injected for EOR purposes remains in the ground. It is estimated that about 20
million tones of CO
2
will be stored over the 20-25 year life of the project.

In Salah (started 2004)
This Algerian project is a joint activity of BP and the state energy company Sonatrach. The
initial development is of 3 fields that lie closest to the existing Algerian gas export structure.
Depending on location, CO
2
levels in the raw gas can be between 1% and 10%. The 310
mile long gas gathering system includes CO
2
removal facilities to produce a gas with <0.3%
CO
2
. The CO
2
collected is re-injected underground into the boundaries of the gas field; this
results in a reduction of CO
2
emissions to atmosphere of approximately 900,000 tonnes/year.

In all three of the above projects it is noteworthy that they are: (i) integrated with an existing
infrastructure, (ii) have a convenient store, and (iii) the cost of the CO
2
is considerably less
than the projected cost of capturing it at a power station (which would be, say, 40
US$/tonne). In the cases of Sleipner and In Salah the CO
2
has to be removed to produce
pipeline quality gas, and in the case of Weyburn the gasification plant removes CO
2
from its
syngas production. The additional cost attributable to CO
2
production is therefore likely to be
in the region of the 10 US$/tonne it costs to compress it rather than vent it to atmosphere.

Snohvit (Operation start 2007)
Construction is nearing completion. Statoil and its partners on the Snovit field in the Barents
Sea plan to begin shipment from Europes 1
st
LNG export project in 2007. Raw natural gas in
the field contains about 5% CO
2
. This has to be removed as part of the LNG manufacturing
process. Approximately 0.7 million tones CO
2
/year will be captured and transported back to
the field via a 160km pipeline. The CO
2
will be injected into the Tubasen sandstone formation
which is 45-75 metres thick and lies deeper than the gas formations. Geological storage will
minimize CO
2
taxes payable by field licensees. It is noteworthy that the Norwegian
government has a 30% direct financial interest in the project.

3. Proposed CCS projects

There are now a significant number of proposed CCS projects that are at various stages of
development; again, the common features are a relatively cheap source of CO
2
, a convenient
store, and the possibility of taking advantage of an existing or proposed infrastructure
development. All the following examples are essentially commercial ventures as distinct
from demonstration facilities:

Gorgon (operation start 2008-2010)
Chevron as operator of the Gorgon gas field 130km off the NW coast of Australia are
proposing a large CO
2
sequestration project in which 3.3 million tones CO
2
/year would be
stored in an aquifer. The raw natural gas has a CO
2
content of approximately 14% which
needs to be removed before the gas can be processed to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The
store will be the Dupuy saline reservoir which is approximately 2300metres below Barrow
Island and approximately 500metres thick.
- 7 -
Miller-Peterhead-DF1 (proposed operation start 2009)
This BP-initiated project is proposing to manufacture hydrogen by reforming North Sea
natural gas and capture the resulting CO
2
. The hydrogen will be used in a converted existing
gas-fired power station to produce carbon-free electricity. The CO
2
will be transported via an
existing offshore pipeline to the Miller field in the North Sea where it will be used for EOR.
The power plant is 475MWe and about 2 million tones of CO
2
/year will be produced.

Carson-DF2 (operation start 2011)
BP and Edison Mission Group (EMG) are planning a 1 billion US$ hydrogen-fueled power
plant in California that will generate clean electricity with minimal CO
2
emissions. 500MW of
power will be produced by gasification of petroleum coke from BPs Carson refinery to
produce the hydrogen. Approximately 4 million tonnes of CO
2
/year will be captured.
Discussions are taking place to develop options for sequestering the CO
2
in Californian
oilfields by using it for EOR.

Halten (operation start 2010)
Shell and Statoil are proposing to co-operate in a phased project that will deliver about 2.5
million tones CO
2
/year to the Draugen field in the North Sea. The CO
2
will be used for EOR
and stored under the seabed having being obtained from a land-based gas-fired power
station of 860MW
e
capacity.

The above is far from being an exhaustive list. In particular, there are a significant number of
proposed coal-fired power generation projects in various stages of development.

Note that the projects mentioned above are significantly larger than existing CCS projects.
We have no first hand knowledge of the proposed financial structure of proposals such as
those above. However, given that the costs are greater than they would be for conventional
processing, it would seem obvious that included in such deliberations would be:
Applicable state/national/international incentives.
Taxes applicable to incremental oil/gas.
Risk sharing.
Finance sourcing/cost.
Long-term liability issues.

4. Costs of CO
2
capture at a power plant

The leading technologies for power generation in the current market are pulverised fuel (PF)
combustion steam cycles and natural gas combined cycles (NGCC). CO
2
can be captured
from the flue gas of both of these types of plants by scrubbing with a regenerable amine
solvent. This is known as post-combustion capture. Alternatively oxygen can be used for
combustion instead of air, which results in a flue gas consisting mainly of CO
2
and H
2
O. This
is known as oxy-combustion. A third capture methods which is applicable to gas turbine
combined cycles is pre-combustion capture. In this process a fuel is reacted with air or
oxygen to produce a fuel gas containing CO and H
2
, which is then reacted with steam in a
catalytic reactor called a shift converter to produce a mixture of CO
2
and H
2
. The CO
2
is
separated and the H
2
is used as the fuel in a gas turbine combined cycle. Pre-combustion
capture can be applied to natural gas or coal based plants. When the primary fuel is coal,
this process is usually known as an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC). It
should be noted that none of the existing coal-based IGCC plants includes shift conversion
and CO
2
capture.

The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) has assessed the performance and
costs of new power plants with and without CO
2
capture. Studies were carried out for IEA
GHG by the following leading engineering contractors and process developers.
- 8 -
Post-combustion capture: Fluor, in collaboration with Mitsui Babcock and Alstom, and
MHI.
Pre-combustion capture (IGCC): Foster Wheeler, with data from gasification and gas
treating vendors.
Oxy-combustion: Mitsui Babcock, in collaboration with Air Products and Alstom.

Some of the cost results are presented in table 1.

Table 1: Cost of Electricity and Co
2
Avoidance.

$1.1/GJ coal, $3.9/GJ gas $2.2/GJ coal, $7.8/GJ gas Fuel Power
generation
technology
CO
2
capture
technology c/kWh $/t CO
2

avoided
c/kWh $/t CO
2

avoided
Coal Pulverised fuel None 4.46 5.36
Post-combustion, Fluor 6.34 30 7.49 34
Post combustion, MHI 6.27 28 7.40 31
Oxy-combustion 6.63 33 7.76 36
IGCC (Shell) None 4.88 5.81
Pre-combustion,
Selexol
6.52 33 7.68 39
IGCC (GE) None 4.55 5.60
Pre-combustion,
Selexol
5.66 20 6.94 27
Gas Combined
cycle
None 3.70 6.23
Post-combustion, Fluor 5.07 44 8.03 58
Post-combustion, MHI 4.93 39 7.76 48
Oxy-combustion 6.84 85 9.98 102

The above costs include the cost of compressing CO
2
to 100bar the pressure at which it can
be transported by pipeline.

5. Transport

The cost of transporting CO
2
is significant, particularly if the CO
2
has been obtained from an
early-opportunity source where it has perhaps been produced as a by-product of other
activities. Hence, there is a large incentive to try and match sources and sinks. Work by IEA
GHG has shown that in many cases this may be possible.

Transport costs are reduced markedly when multiple sources and large quantities are
involved. Rule-of-thumb figures are that pipeline costs for transporting <5 million tonnes
CO
2
/year are in the region of 5US$/tonne.250km, but are reduced to the region of 1-2
US$/tonne.250km if >20 million tones CO
2
/year are transported.

It is noteworthy that the only major instance of wide-spread CO
2
distribution is in the Texan
Permian

Basin; around 70 projects are in operation many of them receiving their CO
2
from
natural underground sources.

Considerations such as the above have led people to suggest ways in which the existing
infrastructure of North Sea pipelines might be re-used as a CO
2
supply network. Such
considerations lead to examination of the CCS value chain and, for example, suggestions
that there is a need for companies that have a primary business in supplying and/or storing
CO
2
. It is clear that it is cheaper to collect CO
2
from several sources and transport it in a
single pipeline than to transport small amounts separately. Implementation of a backbone
CO
2
supply/distribution structure would reduce costs but would need a large initial investment
that could not be expected to be incurred by early individual CCS projects.

- 9 -
One interesting recent development is the proposal in the NW of England to form a Mersey
& Dee Carbon Collection Board which would collect CO
2
from several power stations and a
refinery and inject it in oil and gas fields in the Irish Sea.

6. CO
2
stores

The options for underground CO
2
storage can be categorised in various ways; for the
purposes of this discussion it is helpful to think of storage that either results in enhanced
recovery of hydrocarbons or doesnt. A major difference between the two is that in the case
of storage without enhanced recovery of hydrocarbons the store design will be based on
maximising the quantity of CO
2
stored at minimum cost. This applies to storage in saline
formations and depleted oil/gas fields. Storage accompanied by EOR (or enhanced gas
recovery) is not designed to maximise the CO
2
stored. In conventional EOR projects the CO
2

remaining underground is a project cost as more CO
2
has to be purchased. Typically 2-3
tonnes of CO
2
are left underground for each tonne of oil recovered. The interrelationship
between maximizing EOR and the quantity of CO
2
stored is not clear at present. For CO
2
-
EOR projects, replacement of the CO
2
stored is likely to be a significant cost and therefore
any project will be based on maximizing oil recovery.

For CO
2
storage to be effective as a mitigation option it must be stored for many hundreds of
years. This raises issues of permanence and liability that are still being debated. Discussions
amongst an IEAGHG ad hoc group of parties potentially interested in the application of CCS
to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have proposed the following:
Storage sites should be selected so as to have zero or negligible (unmeasurable)
seepage of CO
2
from them.
Storage sites should be subject to stringent site selection procedures. Best Practice
documentation is needed to support this.
Monitoring is essential and should be a risk-based approach. Best Practice guidelines
are needed.
Quoting potential % seepages from stores is not meaningful and has no basis.
Long-term liability for the stores has to lie with governments as a lifetime of several
hundred years for commercial entities can not be guaranteed.

With respect to the last point it should be noted that it is established practice for governments
to grant licenses for raw material extraction and specify conditions for accepting
responsibility for the site back from the operator at the end of operations. For example,
Governments may insist on insurance or other financial provisions before being willing to
accept site handover from the operator.

Current regulatory measures tend to be focused on the injection activities and little attention
has been given to issues of permanence. It is noteworthy that as time passes the likelihood
and magnitude of any CO
2
escaping from the store reduces due to various trapping
mechanisms.

One very welcome development in 2006 was that a meeting of Contracting Parties to the
1996 Protocol to London Convention agreed modifications to its Annex that would specifically
permit storage of CO
2
under the seabed. This international legal agreement is aimed the
preservation and protection of the marine environment; so, it is encouraging to see the
parties to it recognising CCS as a means by which the levels of atmospheric CO
2
can be
limited and ocean acidification due to elevated concentrations of CO
2
reduced.

- 10 -
7. Economic instruments

A key barrier to early application of CCS is the lack of a tax or other credit system in most
countries that would support long-term investment in CCS. International trading markets that
could provide financial incentives by offering CO
2
credits are at an early stage of
development. Moves to establish acceptance of CCS as applicable under the Kyoto flexible
mechanisms have not been successful to date. Amongst the key issues still to be accepted
in methodologies are:
Permanence
Boundaries
Baselines
Additionality
Leakage

This last issue refers to leakage in an emissions trading sense i.e. any change of
greenhouse gas emissions outside the project boundary.

Some see the production of incremental oil or other fossil fuels as an issue; arguing that full
credit for CO
2
storage can not be allowed if, as a consequence, more fossil fuel is produced.
The counter arguments are that fossil fuels are not greenhouse gases in terms of emission
accounting e.g. for National Emissions; if the oil was not produced by CO
2
-EOR it might be
by other means; if the extra oil was not produced the most likely substitute would be coal or
other heavier fossil fuels. Not least for public outreach reasons, an authoritative discussion
on this issue is needed.

8. Ammonia production and fertiliser complexes

According to the European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) about 1.7 tonnes of
CO
2
is produced per tonne of NH
3
in a typical gas-based steam reforming plant (Ref 1). Also
relevant to this discussion are the 2006 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Ref 2). Table 2. is a condensation of
the default emission factors (used if plant-level data is not available). It can be seen that in
modern plants the emission factor is about 1.7 tCO
2
/tNH
3
but considerably more CO
2
is
produced in older plant and where partial oxidation units are used and fuels other than
natural gas.

Table 2. Default emission factors specified by IPCC for NH
3
production.

Process CO
2
emission factor (tCO
2
/tNH
3
)
European modern plant
Conventional gas reforming natural gas 1.694
Excess air reforming natural gas 1.666
Autothermal reforming natural gas 1.694
Partial oxidation- unspecified fuel 2.772

Derived average value for mix of modern and older
plant in Europe

Average value natural gas 2.104
Average value partial oxidation 3.273

- 11 -
A significant proportion of the ammonia produced is converted into urea; as reported by the
IEA (Ref 3) for the year 2000. Global NH
3
production was 111 million tones and 46 million
tonnnes of urea were produced. Table 3 is a tentative mass balance using these indicative
figures to estimate the amount of CO
2
that could be made available for near-term storage
opportunities. The 0.73 tCO
2
/t urea figure is as recommended in the IPCC guidelines (Ref. 2)
and is based on atomic weights. Given that not all NH
3
is produced from natural gas and
some of the worlds stock of NH
3
plant will not be state-of-the-art the actual quantity of CO
2

available could be significantly more.

Table 3. Estimated CO
2
availability from NH
3
production (millions of tones/year).

Activity Factor CO
2
balance
Annual NH
3
production 111mtNH
3
x 1.7tCO
2
/tNH
3
+189 mt CO
2

Annual urea produced 46 mt urea x 0.73tCO
2
/t urea - 34 mtCO
2
CO
2
production from NH
3
surplus to urea requirements 189-34 = 155 mt CO
2

If the above factors are applied to a modern complex (ref 5) in which 1,850 tpd. urea is
produced and the net NH
3
production is 1,340 tpd. The calculated surplus of CO
2
that could
be potentially available in an early opportunity application is 2710 tpd. This is 1 million t/year
i.e. at a similar scale to the CCS systems described earlier or about 1/3
rd
the size of a
reasonably large power station, i.e. 500MW
e
. At the time of writing, the author has not been
able to source a detailed CO
2
balance over a modern NH
3
-urea complex, but is making
attempts to do so. If this information is obtained, it will be presented at the workshop.

9. A systems-approach towards early opportunities for CCS

It is clear that if CO
2
-EOR could be encouraged to spread widely from its base in the USA
this would enable significant quantities of CO
2
to be stored and result in significant Improved
Oil Recovery (IOR). Other IOR methods exist but they do not have the advantage of storing
CO
2
nor the potential to bring financial credits for doing so.

From the earlier discussion, it is also evident that CO
2
-EOR has not spread more widely
because sources of cheap CO
2
are not generally available and there is no infrastructure to
supply it. It can be argued that we are beginning to see the prospects of wider CO
2
EOR
application at Weyburn, Canada and in the North Sea. It has been observed that there are a
number of sources from which CO
2
could be obtained relatively cheaply and NH
3
production
has been suggested as one of them.

The following is an outline proposal on how CO
2
-EOR infrastructures might be encouraged to
develop:
Define target CO
2
-EOR prospects and their present barriers (typically, around 15%
extra of original oil in place could be attainable). Such an analysis may have been
done for isolated processing schemes, but could be re-visited with the objective of
defining even quite small prospects that could be built up into a CO
2
-EOR network.
The location of these prospects is key as is the likely timescale for EOR readiness.
Define potential sources of CO
2
. This may have also been done on an individual
project basis. The new suggestion here is to generate information on how a supply
network might be developed from quite small beginnings and grow to become part of
a CO
2
supply industry. Although the emphasis should initially be on potentially cheap
sources such NH
3
, the longer-term need for large quantities of CO
2
means that power
station options need to be considered.
- 12 -
Analyse the results of CO
2
sources and sinks to highlight potential collection and
transmission hubs where the initial cost of starting CO
2
-EOR can be minimized and
there is potential to develop the infrastructure.
In parallel with the above develop applicable carbon trading cases such as CDM, JI, etc.
Initiate resolution of legal and regulatory barriers/issues.
Initiate public outreach activities.
Chose 2 or 3 of the best supply-use configurations for detailed evaluation and
development.
Develop the business cases and staged plans for turning the initial developments into
a large-scale CO
2
-EOR infrastructure that would store major quantities of CO
2
.

10. Conclusions

A number of early applications of CCS technology on a commercial scale have been
reviewed. It is concluded that the key requirements are: (i) A convenient cheap source
source of CO
2
, (ii) source and sink proximity or a supply network to reduce the cost of CO
2

transport, (iii) a convenient safe store. If, in addition, the storage of CO
2
can be combined
with EOR the financial prospects are considerably improved; even more so if financial
mechanisms for the reduction of CO
2
emissions can be used.

It is suggested that barriers to the wide-spread adoption of CO
2
-EOR need to be examined
and removed. This might be achieved by adopting a systems-approach to the development
of CO
2
supply and use. It is suggested that as part of this approach an in-depth look at the
opportunities offered by NH
3
production as a potential early-opportunity be examined by
reference to specific sources and sinks.

11. References

1. Best Available Techniques for Pollution Prevention and Control in the European Fertilizer
Industry, Booklet No1 of 8: Production of Ammonia, 2000, EFMA.
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 3 Chemical Industry Emissions, 3.2 Ammonia
Production.
3. International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Analysis, Prospects for CO
2
Capture
and Storage, 2004, ISBN 92-64-10881-5.
4. IEA GHG paper in preparation drawing from various reports.
5. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., News item 1104, 5
th
February 2005, www.mhi.co.jp.

Workshop On Energy Efficiency and CO2 Reduction

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Workshop On Energy Efficiency and CO2 Reduction

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2007 Technical Committee Meeting

12-14 March 2007 - Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen