METHANOL PRODUCTION

IN
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
Final Report: Phase II

University of California, Davis

Date of Report: June 07, 2006

Design Group One

Elton Amirkhas
Raj Bedi
Steve Harley
Trevor Lango

REPORT

Executive Summary
This report is the first phase of a final report designed to investigate the feasibility of methanol
production in Trinidad and Tobago. Specifically, this report outlines a proposed four-stage
process for producing methanol:

STAGE 1: Syngas production

STAGE 2: Upstream processing
STAGE 3: Methanol production
STAGE 4: Downstream processing

The proposed design produces 5,116 MTPD of 99.85 wt% methanol. As designed, the total bare
module cost of the plant is $372 million. The inside battery limit and outside battery limit costs
are $349 million and $23 million respectively. Total capital investment includes the direct
permanent investment of $512 million and is $779 million. The calculated BTROI is 42% with
annual net earnings of roughly $203 million per year. The NPV is $1.2 billion in the last year of
production and suggests a profitable venture.
The project managers expressed to us their concern over the current price of oxygen. Given that
our plant consumes 1.78 trillion lbs per year, which costs a total of $41.5 million, they instructed
us to lead an investigation into possible onsite production possibilities. In the course of our
investigation we found that VPSA, PSA, and membrane separations were strongly lacking in
both purity requirements and desirable flow rates. This then lead us to the conclusion that the
Claude process, a highly energy-optimized cryogenic separations technique, would suit our
needs. Not only will this process supply the required purity of 99.5% mole basis, but it is robust
enough to supply the large flow rates needed. The estimated total capital investment is $72.2
million. Due to the difficulty encountered in costing cryogenic process units it is recommended
that a more detailed capital cost analysis be performed. As designed, the on-site oxygen
production plant is able to produce oxygen at $0.0194/lb which results in a $7.7 million annual
savings in feedstock oxygen costs. Please find the on-site oxygen production plant report
immediately following the methanol production plant report.
As designed it is worthwhile to invest in a methanol production plant with on-site oxygen
production.

REPORT
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
1
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1
Overview......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2
Current Manufacturing Methods..................................................................................... 6
1.2.1
Syngas Production .................................................................................................. 6
1.2.2
Methanol Production............................................................................................... 7
1.3
Selected Production Method ........................................................................................... 7
1.4
Production Level & Plant Location ................................................................................ 7
1.4.1
Production Level..................................................................................................... 7
1.4.2
Plant Location ......................................................................................................... 7
1.5
Market Considerations .................................................................................................... 7
1.6
Environmental Issues ...................................................................................................... 7
1.6.1
Chemical Toxicity................................................................................................... 7
1.6.2
Potential Safety Problems ....................................................................................... 8
2
Process Description................................................................................................................. 9
2.1
Block Flow Diagram....................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1
Chemical Reactions ................................................................................................ 9
2.1.2
Separations.............................................................................................................. 9
2.2
Detailed Flow Diagram................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1
STAGE 1: Syngas Production ................................................................................ 9
2.2.1.1 Natural Gas Furnace (F-100) .............................................................................. 9
2.2.1.2 Steam Methane Reformer (R-100)...................................................................... 9
2.2.1.3 Oxygen Blown Reformer (R-200) ...................................................................... 9
2.2.2
STAGE 2: Upstream Processing........................................................................... 10
2.2.2.1 Steam Generator (E-100) .................................................................................. 10
2.2.2.2 Syngas Cooler (C-100) ..................................................................................... 10
2.2.2.3 Flash Unit (U-200)............................................................................................ 10
2.2.2.4 Water Mixer (M-200) ....................................................................................... 10
2.2.2.5 Water Make-up Pump (P-100).......................................................................... 10
2.2.2.6 Syngas Compressor (CMP-200) ....................................................................... 10
2.2.3
STAGE 3: Methanol Production........................................................................... 10
2.2.3.1 Feed Splitter (S-100)......................................................................................... 10
2.2.3.2 Methanol Synthesis Reactor (R-300)................................................................ 10
2.2.3.3 Product Mixer (M-300)..................................................................................... 10
2.2.4
STAGE 4: Downstream Processing...................................................................... 11
2.2.4.1 Product Cooler (C-200)..................................................................................... 11
2.2.4.2 Syngas Separator (U-200)................................................................................. 11
2.2.4.3 Depressurizer (V-100) ...................................................................................... 11
2.2.4.4 Distillation (D-100)........................................................................................... 11
2.2.4.5 Final Product Mixer (M-100)............................................................................ 11
2.2.4.6 Final Product Cooler (C-300) ........................................................................... 11
3
Energy Balance & Utility Requirements .............................................................................. 12
3.1
Energy Requirements.................................................................................................... 12
3.2
Process Integration........................................................................................................ 12

REPORT
4

Equipment List & Unit Descriptions .................................................................................... 13

4.1
Reactors......................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.1
Steam Methane Reformer (R-100)........................................................................ 13
4.1.2
Oxygen Blown Reformer (R-200) ........................................................................ 15
4.1.3
Methanol Synthesis Reactor (R-300).................................................................... 16
4.1.3.1 Kinetics ............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.3.2 Maximum Conversion ...................................................................................... 18
4.1.3.3 Catalyst ............................................................................................................. 19
4.1.3.4 Operating Temperature Sensitivity ................................................................... 19
4.1.3.5 Coolant.............................................................................................................. 20
4.1.3.6 Temperature Profile .......................................................................................... 20
4.2
Upstream Processing (H-100, V-200, CMP-200)......................................................... 21
4.2.1
Water Removal ..................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2
CMP-200............................................................................................................... 22
4.2.3
C-100..................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.4
V-200 .................................................................................................................... 22
4.3
Downstream Processing (H-200, V-300, G-100, D-100) ............................................. 23
4.3.1
CO2 Removal ........................................................................................................ 23
4.3.2
Recycle & Conversion .......................................................................................... 24
4.3.3
Flash Vessel (U-300) ............................................................................................ 24
4.3.4
Coolers (C-200, C-300) ........................................................................................ 24
4.3.5
Distillation (D-100)............................................................................................... 24
4.4
Methanol Storage .......................................................................................................... 24
Equipment Cost Summary .................................................................................................... 25
5.1
Pump Costs ................................................................................................................... 25
5.2
Compressor Costs ......................................................................................................... 25
5.3
Furnace Costs................................................................................................................ 25
5.4
Storage Tank Costs ....................................................................................................... 25
5.5
Reactor Costs ................................................................................................................ 25
5.6
Heat Exchanger Costs ................................................................................................... 25
5.7
Separation Vessel Costs................................................................................................ 25
Fixed Capital Investment Summary...................................................................................... 27
6.1
Bare Module Costs........................................................................................................ 27
6.2
Direct Permanent Investment & Total Capital Investment........................................... 27
Other Important Considerations............................................................................................ 28
7.1
Health & Safety............................................................................................................. 28
7.2
Process Control & Instrumentation............................................................................... 28
7.3
Environmental............................................................................................................... 28
7.3.1
Chemical Toxicity................................................................................................. 28
7.3.2
Potential Safety Problems ..................................................................................... 28
7.3.3
Required Permits................................................................................................... 29
Operating Cost & Economic Analysis.................................................................................. 30
8.1
Cost Sheet ..................................................................................................................... 30
8.2
Working Capital............................................................................................................ 31
8.3
Total Capital Investment............................................................................................... 31
8.4
Profitability Measures................................................................................................... 32

REPORT
8.4.1
Return on Investment (ROI) ................................................................................. 32
8.4.2
Net Present Value (NPV)...................................................................................... 33
8.4.3
Cash Flows (CF) ................................................................................................... 33
8.4.4
Depreciation Schedule (MACRS)......................................................................... 34
8.4.5
Investors Rate of Return (IRR) ............................................................................. 34
9
Conclusions & Recommendations........................................................................................ 36
10
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... 37
11
References......................................................................................................................... 38
12
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 39
12.1 Appendix I: Detailed Equipment Costing..................................................................... 39
12.1.1
I.1 Heat Exchanger Sizing Technique .................................................................. 39
12.1.2
I.2 Flash Unit Sizing Procedure ............................................................................ 45
12.1.3
II.3 Maximum Thermodynamically Attainable Conversion................................. 46
12.1.4
I.4 General Reactor Sizing Techniques ................................................................ 47
12.2 Appendix II: Upstream Processing ............................................................................... 53
12.3 Appendix III: Kinetic Models....................................................................................... 55
12.4 Appendix IV: Example Detailed Equipment Costing................................................... 57
12.4.1
IV.1 Pumps ........................................................................................................... 57
12.4.2
IV.2 Storage Tanks ............................................................................................... 59
12.4.3
IV.3 Compressors ................................................................................................. 60
12.4.4
IV.4 Reactors ........................................................................................................ 61
12.4.5
IV.5 Furnaces........................................................................................................ 64
12.4.6
IV.6 Heat Exchangers ........................................................................................... 65
12.4.7
IV.7 Flash Vessels ................................................................................................ 66
12.4.8
IV.8 Distillation Columns..................................................................................... 68
12.5 Appendix V: Direct Permanent Investment & Total Capital Investment ..................... 70

REPORT

1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
Methanol is a primary raw product for industries producing formaldehyde, methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE), and acetic acid9. Methanol is also consumed in the manufacture of
chloromethanes, methylamines, and fuels. It is generally used as a solvent and as antifreeze,
being a component in paint strippers, car windshield washer compounds, and as a deicer for
natural gas pipelines.
In 2004, approximately 34% of global methanol production was used to produce formaldehyde,
21% for MTBE and other fuel additives, and 9% for acetic acid9. Worldwide consumption of
methanol increased on the order of 1% from 2003 to 2008 and is projected to increase 2% from
2008 to 20133. These estimated growths do not reflect new demands associated with new
technologies requiring methanol such as direct methanol fuel cells1. Therefore, there is a higher
potential for profit.

1.2 Current Manufacturing Methods

Contemporary production techniques convert natural gas (mostly methane) to syngas4, which is
in turn converted to methanol. The general flowsheet is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1: General flowsheet for methanol production.

1.2.1 Syngas Production

Current methods of syngas production include steam reforming, partial oxidation, carbon dioxide
reforming, autothermal reforming, and coal gasification. The raw materials required are
methane, steam, and oxygen. The primary byproduct is carbon dioxide. Eqns. (1) (3) list the
principal chemical reactions for syngas production.

REPORT

CH 4 H 2O CO 3H 2
1
CH 4 O2 CO 2H 2
2
1
O2 H 2 H 2O
2

(1)
(2)
(3)

1.2.2 Methanol Production

Methanol is produced from syngas via the Fischer-Tropsch Process, given by Eqn. (4). There are
no significant byproducts or intermediates.
CO 2H 2 CH 3OH

(4)

1.3 Selected Production Method

The selected method for syngas production is a steam methane reformer (SMR) and an oxygen
blown reformer (OBR) in series. The OBR was deemed necessary to completely consume the
methane while minimizing the production of carbon dioxide. Syngas is converted to methanol in
a parallel tube plug flow reactor (methanol synthesis reactor or MSR).

1.4 Production Level & Plant Location

1.4.1 Production Level
A production level of 5,000 MTPD was selected to reflect current anticipated market demand.

1.4.2 Plant Location

Trinidad and Tobago was selected as an ideal location for methanol production due to its large
natural gas reserves.

1.5 Market Considerations

Because methanol is easily transported, methanol production could become an important outlet
for enhancing the value of natural gas. With growing worldwide natural gas reserves and recent
advances in methanol technology, methanol may be poised to take on renewed importance in the
fuels and petrochemical markets.

1.6 Environmental Issues

1.6.1 Chemical Toxicity
Most commonly humans are exposed to methanol through skin contact and vapor inhalation.
Although carcinogenicity of methanol has not been determined, exposure to methanol has been
linked to reproductive defects in rats8. Methanol is known to cause headaches, dizziness,
giddiness, insomnia, nausea, gastric disturbances, conjunctivitis, blurred vision, and blindness in
humans. High doses of methanol may be fatal. OSHAs regulatory concentration of methanol
mg
for human exposure without adverse effects in an 8 hour day is 260 3 or 198 ppm5.
m

REPORT

1.6.2 Potential Safety Problems

Methanol is readily degraded in the environment by photo oxidation9 and biodegradation
processes5. Half-lives of 7 18 days have been reported for the atmospheric reaction of
methanol with hydroxyl radicals. Methanol is readily degradable under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions in a wide variety of environmental media including fresh and salt water,
sediments and soils, ground water, aquifier material and industrial wastewater. Methanol is of
low toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial organisms, and effects due to environmental exposure to
methanol are unlikely to be observed except in the case of a spill5, 9.

REPORT

2 Process Description
2.1 Block Flow Diagram

Figure 3: Simplified natural gas-to-methanol flowsheet.

2.1.1 Chemical Reactions

Methane, steam, and oxygen are catalytically reacted in the syngas production stage to produce
hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The resulting syngas is catalytically reacted in the methanol
synthesis reactor block to produce methanol.

2.1.2 Separations
Upstream processing removes water from the process; downstream processing removes
methanol. Methanol is separated from the process via a two-stage separation. First light gases
are removed in a flash unit. Secondly, methanol is separated from carbon dioxide and any
remaining water in a distillation column.

2.2 Detailed Flow Diagram

2.2.1 STAGE 1: Syngas Production

2.2.1.1 Natural Gas Furnace (F-100)

A fired furnace is used to preheat the natural gas being fed to the steam methane reformer (to
maximize the rate of reaction).

2.2.1.2 Steam Methane Reformer (R-100)

Steam methane reforming was selected for syngas production because it is a well understood
process and produces syngas with the desired H2-to-CO ratio.

2.2.1.3 Oxygen Blown Reformer (R-200)

By selectively operating the steam methane reformer at an optimized (reduced) conversion the
production of carbon dioxide is minimized. The oxygen blown reformer is used to completely
consume the methane fed to the steam methane reformer.

REPORT

2.2.2 STAGE 2: Upstream Processing

2.2.2.1 Steam Generator (E-100)

The excess heat in the OBR effluent is used to produce steam by exchanging heat with the
effluent with process water. This also serves to cool the syngas so that water can be flashed out
downstream.

2.2.2.2 Syngas Cooler (C-100)

The syngas is cooled to the optimum downstream flash conditions for water removal.

2.2.2.3 Flash Unit (U-200)

Water is flashed out of the syngas stream to optimize downstream product separations. The
liquid water is converted to steam by exchanging heat with the OBR effluent thereby reducing
the amount of utility water required.

2.2.2.4 Water Mixer (M-200)

Recovered liquid water and make-up utility water are mixed before being converted to steam.

2.2.2.5 Water Make-up Pump (P-100)

Utility water must be pumped to match the operating conditions of the recovered water before
being mixed.

2.2.2.6 Syngas Compressor (CMP-200)

The syngas process stream is brought to the optimal operating temperature and pressure of the
methanol synthesis reactor using an inter-stage compressor. The inter-stage compressor has the
advantage of excellent temperature control and is an efficient method for compression of gases.

2.2.3 STAGE 3: Methanol Production

2.2.3.1 Feed Splitter (S-100)

The syngas feed is equally split to each methanol synthesis reactor unit.

2.2.3.2 Methanol Synthesis Reactor (R-300)

The methanol synthesis reactor stage is comprised of two parallel tube plug flow reactors
operating in parallel (to optimize the residence time through each). These reactors are operated
as heat exchangers to maximize heat transfer characteristics and ensure adequate temperature
control.

2.2.3.3 Product Mixer (M-300)

The effluent from each methanol synthesis reactor unit is mixed before being fed to the methanol
processing stage.

10

REPORT

2.2.4 STAGE 4: Downstream Processing

2.2.4.1 Product Cooler (C-200)

The methanol product stream must be cooled for optimal downstream separations.

2.2.4.2 Syngas Separator (U-200)

Light gases are removed from the methanol product stream to reduce the required downstream
separation equipment duties.

2.2.4.3 Depressurizer (V-100)

The methanol product stream pressure must be decreased to the final product specification.

2.2.4.4 Distillation (D-100)

The major contaminants (carbon dioxide and water) must be removed from the methanol product
stream to produce methanol with the specified product purity.

2.2.4.5 Final Product Mixer (M-100)

Methanol from the two distillation liquid effluent streams is combined to produce the final
product.

2.2.4.6 Final Product Cooler (C-300)

The mixed distillation effluent is cooled to the final product specification temperature.

11

REPORT

3 Energy Balance & Utility Requirements

3.1 Energy Requirements
The energy requirements of the process are tabulated in Table 1.
Table 1: Energy duties for all process units with corresponding vehicles for satisfaction.
Process Unit

Demand (in Watts)

Vehicle For Satisfaction

Reactors
R-100
R-300

0.34576E+09
-0.17666E+09

Combustion of natural gas

Dowtherm Q

Furnaces
F-100

0.55597E+08

Combustion of natural gas

Heat Exchangers
E-100

1.791577830176E+08

Exchange streams 6 & 31

enthalpy

Coolers
C-100
C-200
C-300

-0.27290E+09
-0.84559E+08
-0.75508E+07

Cooling water
Cooling water
Cooling water

Pumps & Compressors

P-100
CMP-200 (cooling/electrical)

123,705
-0.116222+08/0.216511+08

Electricity
Cooling water/Electricity

Vessels
D-100 (reboiler/condenser)

0.268502+08/-0.105732+08

Combustion/Cooling water

3.2 Process Integration

The measures adopted to improve the plant economics by energy and mass conservation are:
1. Steam generation using OBR effluent energy
2. Recovery and recycle of separated liquid water from syngas (as steam)
3. Combustion of recovered light gases as furnace gases

12

REPORT

4 Equipment List & Unit Descriptions

4.1 Reactors
4.1.1 Steam Methane Reformer (R-100)
The steam methane reformer is designed to generate syngas via Eqn. (5).
CH 4 H 2 0 C 0 3H 2

H 298 206kJ / mole

(5)

This reaction is endothermic; therefore, during its operation it will be heated via the combustion
of natural gas. If we assume that 90% of the combusted energy is transferred to the optimized R100, it will require 13.1 m3/s of combusted natural gas. Furthermore, catalyst (Raschig ring, 5/8"
L x 5/8" D OD, with 3/16" hole) with a void fraction of 0.45 will be used to increase the reaction
rate.
The optimization goals for the R-100 were to minimize carbon dioxide production (as it
presented significant downstream separation issues and kinetic data was not available for
modeling its conversion to methanol) and to maximize the production of syngas through the
varying of temperature, pressure, and the steam-to-methane ratio. We preformed a sensitivity
analysis by varying the aforementioned parameters. Figures 4 6 represent the results of this
sensitivity analysis.

13

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

H2-to-CO Ratio (Syngas)

REPORT

0
1800

SMR Temp [F]

SYNCH4

SYNH2

SYNCO

SYNCO2

H2CO

Figure 4: Effect of temperature on R-100.

0.7

4.4

4.3

0.6

4.2

4.1
0.4
4
0.3
3.9

H2-to-CO Ratio (Syngas)

0.5

0.2
3.8

0.1

0
200

3.7

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

3.6
600

SMR Pres [psig]

SYNCH4

SYNH2

SYNCO

SYNCO2

H2CO

Figure 5: Effect of pressure on R-100.

14

REPORT

0.9
5
0.8

4
0.6

0.5

0.4
2

H2-to-CO Ratio (Syngas)

0.7

0.3

0.2
1
0.1

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

SYNCO2

H2CO

3.5

H20-to-CH4 Ratio (Feed)

SYNCH4

SYNH2

SYNCO

Figure 6: Effect of steam-to-methane ratio on R-100.

As a result of the sensitivity analysis, we chose to operate the R-100 at 3.55MPa and 1158.2K at
a steam-to-methane ratio of 1.14.
The R-100 reactor was modeled as an RGIBBS unit in Aspen. The limitations of this model are
that it only tells us what the reactor would produce if it were infinitely long. In reality the reactor
length would be specified with appropriate kinetics data. A procedure on how this reactor would
be sized if the kinetics were known may be found in Appendix I.4. Kinetic data should be
obtained to properly size the R-100.

4.1.2 Oxygen Blown Reformer (R-200)

The OBR is designed to:

Lower the H2-to-CO ratio via Eqn. (6):

H 2 O2 H 2 O H 298
242kJ / mole

(6)

Partially oxidize methane via Eqn. (7):

1
CH 4 O2 C 0 2 H 2
2

H 298 36kJ / mole

(7)

15

REPORT
In optimizing this reactor our goal was to adjust the hydrogen-to-carbon monoxide ratio
produced in the SMR and consume remaining methane. As demonstrated previously, it is not
beneficial to consume large amounts of methane in the R-100 reactor as this also results in
significant carbon dioxide production.
After optimizing this unit, we determined that the cost of changing any of the parameters from
the R-100 reactor to this reactor were large as compared to any conversion benefit we produced.
For example, the cost of cooling the OBR feed was greater than the benefit produced by the
small increase in conversion in the R-200. Thus we operated R-200 at the same parameters as
the R-100.
The R-200 was modeled as an adiabatic RSTOIC reactor in Aspen. As with the R-100 reactor,
the R-200 reactor has no kinetic data associated with its operation; thus, empirical sizing
procedures can be found in Appendix I.4.

4.1.3 Methanol Synthesis Reactor (R-300)

4.1.3.1 Kinetics

CO 2 H 2 CH 3 OH H 298
90.5kJ / mole

(8)

Kinetic data for the proprietary catalyst was made available to us in the form of the dependence
on the rate of production of methanol on hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methanol partial
pressures. Thus in modeling the MSR, only these components can be taken into account. In the
process of fitting the rate data, 17 kinetic models were attempted assuming various rate
determining steps (Appendix III). It was found that a Langmuir-Hinshelwood-Hougen-Watson
(LHHW) model, which assumes a reversible reaction with all components adhering to the
catalyst associatively, gave the best non-linear regression fit. Eqns. (9) (14) are the result of
this non-linear regression.
PCO PH 2
rCH 3OH k (T ) * T n

PCH 3OH
K eq (T , P)

(1 K CO (T ) PCO K H 2 (T ) PH 2 K CH 3OH (T ) yPCH 3OH )

ln k (T ) 0.191 -

678
RT

T n T 0.392
lnK CO (T ) 103

ln K H 2 (T ) 155

(9)
3

(10)
(11)

5705
ln 12.4
T

(12)

9496
ln19.4
T

(13)

16

REPORT

ln K CH 3OH (T ) 46.7

1692
ln 4.76
T

(14)

This model yielded an r-squared value of 0.999 when fit to the given data.
While the regression may suggest a very good fit, it is simply that; a good fit to the data that was
given. With this in mind we offer sever discretions as to the validity of this model:

Several literature articles suggest that both carbon dioxide and water play key roles in the
catalysis of methanol15. Catalyst analysis showed that the catalyst surface must contain
hydroxyl groups for the initiation of the advanced intermediate pathways13. These groups
originate from water vapor in the synthesis stream. Furthermore the presence of carbon
dioxide or water will compete for sites on the catalyst thus reducing the predicted rate of
reaction. Consequently we suggest obtaining more data with respect to water and carbon
dioxide partial pressures such that we may investigate the importance of this site
competition mechanism.

It has been found that carbon dioxide may too be used to produce methanol via:
CO2 3H 2 CH 3OH H 2O 14

(15)

Given the fact that our aspen simulations have shown that the steam reformer produces
significant amounts of carbon dioxide, ignoring this reaction pathway for methanol
production would inefficiently use our syngas. Thus we suggest additional rate
information be obtained for this reaction such that we may maximize the conversion of
all syngas components.

Another possibility to remove carbon dioxide, but not waste the carbon would be to
utilize a carbon dioxide reformer8. This reaction is as follows:
CO2 CH 4 2CO 2 H 2

(16)

Given the fact that our methanol reactor cannot convert carbon dioxide to methanol, we
can convert the carbon dioxide to more usable syngas via this reaction. There are
catalysts available that selectively promote this reaction and we suggest this as a
possibility to beneficially remove carbon dioxide.

The data set given was too small to really obtain a proper fit to a model. These models
have anywhere from 3 to 9 unknown parameters in them. Thus finding some
combination of these parameters to fit the 17 data points is a trivial task. But just because
a fit was obtained, does not mean that the kinetic model physically describes which
mechanism is dominant. To statistically fix this, more data points are needed.

17

REPORT

While our analysis has shown that the best kinetic models have very high r-squared
values, we may only be certain they are accurate in the temperature range of 475-495K.
We can only assume that the rate law behaves similarly over larger temperature ranges.
Furthermore given the large investment required to build this plant we feel that this
uncertainty in our model will carry over to other parts of our simulation thereby entering
uncertainty into our plant wide cost estimates. We highly recommend obtaining more
temperature data points for regression.

In Aspen, the MSR is modeled as a plug flow reactor (PFR). While ultimately Aspen is used to
determine the exact size of the PFR, custom algorithms were used to obtain estimates of the
required size. Eqn. (17)6 takes into account the volume change on reaction and uses an average
temperature to account for the temperature profile through the reactor.

1
2
X
ratio
X

1 2 X ratio

X
K eq (T , P )
1 2 X ratio 1 2 X ratio
V FAO k (T ) * T n
dX
0
1 X
X

3
ratio 2 X

(1 K CO (T )
)
K CH 3OH (T )
K H 2 (T )
1 2 X ratio
1 2 X ratio
1 2 X ratio

(17)

Note: ratio denotes the molar H2-to-CO ratio.

4.1.3.2 Maximum Conversion

Ever present in the optimization of the MSR is the trade-off between the maximum
thermodynamically attainable conversion and the kinetic reaction rate. Thermodynamically the
maximum conversion is a function of temperature, pressure, and reactant ratios, which according
to Le Chteliers principles will favor low temperature, high pressure, and the excess of any one
reactant, while the reaction rate favors high temperatures. Thus to pick the proper operating
conditions we need to know just how this equilibrium constant behaves as a function of its
inputs. Literature equilibrium data was obtained7 and regressed. Using techniques outlined in
Fogler we were able to write an algorithm (Appendix I.3) to find the maximum conversions
listed in Table 2.

18

REPORT
Table 2: Maximum conversion as a function of H2-to-CO ratio and temperature.
Temperature Pressure
(K)
(MPa)
400
7
400
7
400
4
450
7
450
7
450
4
500
7
500
7
500
4

H2:CO
ratio
2
5
2
2
5
2
2
5
2

Maximum
Conversion
0.95
0.99
0.92
0.83
0.99
0.75
0.61
0.87
0.46

It is evident that of the three variables, pressure has the lowest effect on the maximum
conversion. However, pressure has a large effect on the cost of the reactor, thus a low operating
pressure was chosen. What is most surprising about this analysis is the very large effect that the
syngas ratio has. At 500K, a stoichiometric H2:CO ratio, and 7 MPa, the maximum conversion is
0.46. By changing this ratio to 5, the maximum conversion increases to 0.87. Thus to overcome
a thermodynamic barrier, excess hydrogen should be used. This becomes important in the
downstream processing section where the use of a recycle stream is considered.

4.1.3.3 Catalyst
Thermal degradation of the catalyst occurs at 500K. Given that the reaction in the MSR is highly
exothermic (Eqn. 8), the reactor requires strategic cooling to prevent the buildup of thermal
energy inside the reactor. This will solve the problem of heat buildup along the length of the
tubes, but the temperature profile across the diameter is another issue. Thus the task becomes
determining the proper tube diameter such that the tube thermal resistance is negligible as
compared to the fluid phase resistance. In such a condition the temperature gradient across the
diameter of the tube may be considered zero. To do this we will test the Biot number, where the
fluid phase resistance is approximated by a shell side heat transfer coefficient and the
tube/catalyst thermal resistances by their thermal conductivities. When the Biot number is much
less than one, we may assume no thermal gradient across the diameter. With a diameter of 2
inches we found the Biot number to be 0.3, thus this was the diameter used. In addition the
industry standard for tube length was found to be 20 ft12, therefore the MSR pipes are specified
as 20 ft in length and 2 inches in diameter. Steel pipes that can withstand a pressure of 7MPa
were found in Seider to be Schedule 80 with a nominal pipe size of 2.38-in. O.D. and 1.939-in
I.D.

4.1.3.4 Operating Temperature Sensitivity

The MSR is very sensitive to its inlet temperature. As seen in Figure 7 if the temperature
entering the reactor exceeds 335 K, the reactor temperature will runaway, resulting in catalyst
degradation. Thus a large portion of the analysis is focused on determining the optimum inlet
temperature. We found this temperature to be 330K.

19

REPORT

1200

1100

1000

Reactor Temperature [K]

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200
270

290

310

330

350

370

390

410

430

450

470

Precooled Temperature [K]

Figure 7: Excessive MSR inlet temperature causes runaway temperature.

4.1.3.5 Coolant
Dowtherm Q was selected as an ideal coolant for its excellent heat transfer properties; its overall
heat transfer coefficient being nearly five times that of water. As a result, Dowtherm Q prevents
a runaway reaction from occurring (due to nearly isothermal operation) in the reactor (Fig. 8).
As the reaction proceeds, Dowtherm Q effectively limits the rate of reaction and corresponding
temperature increase within acceptable catalytic decomposition limits.

4.1.3.6 Temperature Profile

The MSR is very sensitive to inlet temperature, coolant temperature, and coolant flow rate.
Figure 8 demonstrates optimum temperature profiles through the reactor to achieve maximum
conversion.

20

REPORT

500

480
460

440

420
400

380

360

340
320

300
0

10

12

Distance From Inlet [m]

Reactor Temperature

Coolant Temperature

Figure 8: Co-current cooling temperature profiles.

4.2 Upstream Processing (H-100, V-200, CMP-200)

Figure 9: STAGE 2 - Upstream processing.

4.2.1 Water Removal

The OBR effluent is at 885C and 2 MPa. The methanol reactor temperature cannot exceed
500K. The reactor pressure should be minimized and therefore is specified at the accepted lower
range value of 7 MPa. Thus the OBR stream requires compression and cooling to achieve
21

REPORT
optimum MSR operational conditions. Being that the compressibility of any gas is directly
proportional to temperature12, the stream must first be cooled and then compressed in an effort to
minimize compressor utility costs. As we implemented this design, it was noted that the cooled
OBR exit stream contained condensed water. This natural partitioning of components presents a
unique opportunity in separations design. We propose separating all water from the system
before the stream enters the methanol reactor. This procedure has the advantage of:
1. Decreasing molar flow rates in our system, thus decreasing capital costs with respect to
equipment size.
2. Allows for downstream separations to only be concerned with the separation of methanol
from syngas rather than the separation of methanol from water. This is useful given that
the separation of methanol from water was found to require a high a capital cost and high
operating utilities (Appendix II).
3. The act of cooling the stream is sunk, in that the cost of cooling the stream is a necessity
regardless of if we decide to separate the water or not. Thus any action that takes
advantage of sunk costs will benefit the profitability of the plant.
4. The absence of water will reduce the competition for sites on the methanol catalyst thus
increasing the reaction rate. (This would be a real world effect, as our kinetic model does
not take into account water vapor concentration).

4.2.2 CMP-200
Given that the feed temperature into the MSR is very sensitive (as described in the R-100
section), an inter-stage compressor (CMP-200) is used. The inter-stage compressor has the
advantage of better temperature control, and it will also decrease the energy required to compress
the gases. We designed to compressor as a five-stage compressor with a total cooling duty of
11.6 MW.

4.2.3 C-100
As with all heat exchanges in this report, the C-100 will be sized according to the procedure
outlined in Appendix I.1. In all our heat exchangers the pipes are 16 feet long, have 1 inch
triangular spacing, -inch O.D., 0.56-inch I.D., a 1 inch pitch, and are Schedule 80.
Furthermore all heat exchangers have a 1 2 shell and tube configuration. Using this
configuration we found that the C-100 exchanger would require 728 tubes with a 31-inch I.D.
shell. The E-100 will require 302 tubes with a 21.75-inch I.D. shell.

4.2.4 V-200
As with all the flash units, the V-200 is sized according to the procedure outlined in Appendix
I.2. Using this technique we found that this unit will be 14.5 feet tall and have a diameter of 12
feet.

22

REPORT

4.3 Downstream Processing (H-200, V-300, G-100, D-100)

Figure 10: STAGE 4 - downstream processing.

The MSR effluent is 66-wt% methanol. The minimum product purity specification is 99.75-wt%
methanol. Downstream separation processing is required to achieve the production quality
target.
In reality, when higher alcohols, fusel oils and waxes are present, gases will first be separated
from the crude methanol product by distillation in a topping column. Water, fusel oils and
methanol will then be separated from methanol in a refining column2.
In our simulation the MSR effluent exits at 374K and 7MPa. It must first be cooled with the goal
of causing methanol to liquefy, followed by a flash unit to separate it from the syngas. When
this technique was implemented we found that not only does methanol liquefy, but so does
carbon dioxide (this was verified upon checking the phase diagram for carbon dioxide). Because
the next step of our separations involves the use of a flash unit to remove syngas from methanol,
we initially thought this to be an inefficient separation train (as the carbon dioxide syngas was
still mixed with the methanol stream).

4.3.1 CO2 Removal

To rectify this issue we used an expander to drop the pressure and then attempted flashing the
stream. Not only did carbon dioxide still appear in the liquid stream, possibly as a dissolved gas,
the flash unit caused 25% of our methanol product to exit the vapor stream. We would suggest
using a partial condenser in the vapor stream of the flash unit to recover this methanol, but no
such Aspen unit exits. Thus counter-intuitively we found it very difficult to remove carbon
dioxide from methanol, even in temperature and pressure ranges where carbon dioxide should be
vapor, carbon dioxide was the major liquid contaminant in our product stream.
Several temperature and pressure variations were attempted to address the carbon dioxide issue,
yet the only Aspen based unit that we were able to get to work was a 6-stage distillation column
with a partial condenser. We would like you to note that in reality the need for a distillation
column may not be necessary. A flash unit should be able to separate carbon dioxide from
methanol at standard temperature and pressure. We believe that this difficulty in separation is a
result of Aspens thermodynamic package and suggest further investigation into this issue.

23

REPORT

4.3.2 Recycle & Conversion

The next issue is how to handle the vapor stream in the distillation unit. We found that Aspen
was very sensitive in the convergence of recycle loops. Flowsheets with recycle loops that had
been working for days would suddenly stop working and not converge. Many days were spent
trying to get the flowsheet to converge again with no success. The goal then became to design a
flowsheet with high conversions thus negating the need for a recycle. As stated in the methanol
synthesis reactor section, the only way to obtain acceptable conversions at high temperatures and
high pressures is with high hydrogen-to-carbon monoxide ratios. Thus the SMR and OBR were
optimized to obtain a hydrogen-to-carbon monoxide ratio of 3.5, which resulted in complete
conversion of carbon monoxide within the methanol reactor.
While using this technique consumed most of our carbon monoxide, there was a significant
amount of hydrogen in the vapor stream. This stream is then sent to a furnace to recover energy.

4.3.3 Flash Vessel (U-300)

The U-300 was sized to be 16.45 high and have a diameter of 9.5.

4.3.4 Coolers (C-200, C-300)

The C-200 will require 728 tubes with a 31-inch I.D. shell. The C-300 will require 82 tubes with
a 12-inch I.D. shell.

4.3.5 Distillation (D-100)

We were able to optimize the D-100 with 6 stages, 18-inch tray spacing, a distillate to feed ratio
of 0.15, 10.6 MW condenser duty, and 26.9 MW reboiler duty.

4.4 Methanol Storage

Methanol storage is needed for constant operation in adjoining facilities in the case of scheduled
(or unscheduled) plant downtime. The project managers specified that our storage contingency
needs to be 10 days. Based on this specification, we need to store 63,211m3 of methanol.
Assuming this volume of methanol can be set in 20 tanks, we can size each tank using:
1
63,211m 3 r 2 h
20
h
3
D

(17)

When we solve these equations we find that each of our 20 storage tanks needs to have the
following dimensions:

r 7.98m r 26.19 ft

(18)

h 47.88m h 157 ft

24

REPORT

5 Equipment Cost Summary

5.1 Pump Costs
A centrifugal pump, of the radial type, was chosen to pump liquid water to the Steam Methane
Reformer based upon the volumetric flow rate and head required12. The cost of the pump was
obtained using the flow rate and head as the sizing factors for obtaining a base cost.
Furthermore, cast iron was assumed to be the appropriate material for the construction of the
pump.

5.2 Compressor Costs

A centrifugal compressor was chosen based upon the horsepower required to compress the gas to
the required pressure12. The cost of the compressor was obtained using the horsepower as the
sizing factors for obtaining a base cost. Furthermore, carbon steel was assumed to be the
appropriate material for the construction of the pump, and a steam turbine (80% efficiency) was
used to take advantage of the utilities present at the plant. Also, the compressors were assumed to
be 75% efficient12.

5.3 Furnace Costs

The furnace was assumed to be a fired heater, and its cost estimation is based upon heat duty as
the sizing factor. Stainless steel construction is assumed to withstand a pressure of 500 psig.
The furnace was assumed to be 75% efficient12.

5.4 Storage Tank Costs

Operating specifications require storage of 10 days supply of methanol. Hence, storing 16.7
million gallons of methanol requires 17 tanks with a one million gallon capacity each.

5.5 Reactor Costs

The Steam Methane Reformer was sized as a heater, and a cost estimate was obtained based
upon it heating value with a 75% efficiency12. Furthermore, vessel inside this reactor was also
considered in the cost analysis. The Oxygen Blown reformer and Methanol Synthesis reactors
were sized as pressure vessels12, with pressure being the sizing factor.

5.6 Heat Exchanger Costs

All heat exchangers in the design are shell and tube heat exchangers where the sizing factor is
the surface area of heat transfer. The heat transfer area and heat duty were obtained from Aspen
for the reactor E-100. From this, the heat transfer coefficient was calculated. Using this
calculated heat transfer coefficient, and heat duties obtained from reactors, approximate heat
transfer surface areas were found for other three heat exchangers for cost determination.

5.7 Separation Vessel Costs

Units U-200 and U-300 were sized as flash units, and cost was estimated based on the costing
method for pressure vessels12. While the cost estimate for distillation column, unit D-100, was
obtained using the same method, a slightly different procedure is followed based on Seiders
approach. Carbon dioxide is the main impurity in our methanol product, which can be removed
25

REPORT
by a flash unit. Implementation of this flash unit was difficult in Aspen, hence, a distillation was
column was necessary for simulation purposes. The distillation column was sized as other flash
units for costing purposes.

26

REPORT

6 Fixed Capital Investment Summary

6.1 Bare Module Costs
A detailed cost analysis for each unit in the process flow diagram was performed based upon
methods presented by Seider. Assumptions made in the cost analysis are listed under the section
for specific units, while the cost of each unit is presented in Table 3. A detailed cost analysis
with specific procedures and correlations are presented in Appendix IV.
Table 3: Descriptions & estimated costs of specific units in the process flow diagram.

Unit Type
Pumps
P-100
P-spare
Compressors
CMP-200
Furnaces
F-100
Storage Tanks
Floating roof
Reactors
R-100
R-100
R-200
R-300
HEX
E-100
C-100
C-200
C-300
Separators
U-200
U-300
D-100

Description
Pump
Spare Pump
Compressor
Furnace
Storage Tanks
SMR-furnace
SMR-vessel
OBR
MSR
Heat Exchanger
Heat Exchanger
Heat Exchanger
Heat Exchanger
Flash unit
Flash unit
Distillation tower

Base Cost / unit

$
17,237,109
17,237,109
$
46,311,255
$
4,635,643
$
430,558
$
17,237,109
57,592,250
40,389,195
16,392,569
$
344,960
7,243,525
8,948,014
182,177
$
698,198
276,663
581,086

No. of Units
1
1
1
1
17
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total

Total Cost
$
17,237,109
17,237,109
$
46,311,255
$
4,635,643
$
7,319,479
$
17,237,109
57,592,250
40,389,195
163,925,690
$
344,960
7,243,525
8,948,014
182,177
$
698,198
276,663
581,086
$355,978,579

6.2 Direct Permanent Investment & Total Capital Investment

The initial estimate of Direct Permanent Investment (DPI) was calculated to be $511.5 million.
Adding 30 percent contingency, site and facility preparation, waste removal cost, utility
allocation cost, startup costs, land costs, and working capital, the Total Capital investment (TCI)
will be $779.5 million. Detailed calculations were performed based on the Guthrie12 method,
and can be found in Appendix V.
27

REPORT

7 Other Important Considerations

7.1 Health & Safety
Human health and safety is an important consideration in the presence of flammable materials
such as methane and methanol. Monitoring of fugitive emissions is especially important since
methane is colorless and odorless and is therefore not readily identifiable. Although methane
and methanol do not pose high hazards to health2, effective measures must be taken to ensure the
integrity of plant personnel health and safety.
Methanol and methane are both flammable and present fire and explosive hazards. Methanol
should be handled in a confined area, which must be well ventilated. Respirators must be used
while working in an area where methanol vapor concentration is high2. Also, gloves and other
protective equipment must be used while working in areas of high methanol concentration.

7.2 Process Control & Instrumentation

Process control equipment must be utilized to operate the process equipment within design
specifications and to handle possible plant upsets. Process control equipment monitors the
temperatures and pressures of reactors, the effectiveness of separation equipment, and all process
streams throughout the plant to ensure safe and on-spec operation. Deviations from set-point
should provide signals to the controller, and appropriate action(s) must be taken to prevent
endangerment of human life, destruction and/or damage of process units, and production of offspec product.

7.3 Environmental
7.3.1 Chemical Toxicity
As previously stated, humans are most commonly exposed to methanol through skin contact and
vapor inhalation. Although carcinogenicity of methanol has not been determined, exposure to
methanol has been linked to reproductive defects in rats8. Methanol is known to cause
headaches, dizziness, giddiness, insomnia, nausea, gastric disturbances, conjunctivitis, blurred
vision, and blindness in humans. High doses of methanol may be fatal. OSHAs regulatory
concentration of methanol for human exposure without adverse effects in an 8 hour day is
mg
260 3 or 198 ppm5.
m

7.3.2 Potential Safety Problems

Methanol is readily degraded in the environment by photo oxidation9 and biodegradation
processes5. Half-lives of 7 18 days have been reported for the atmospheric reaction of
methanol with hydroxyl radicals. Methanol is readily degradable under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions in a wide variety of environmental media including fresh and salt water,
sediments and soils, ground water, aquifier material and industrial wastewater. Methanol is of
low toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial organisms, and effects due to environmental exposure to
methanol are unlikely to be observed except in the case of a spill5, 9.

28

REPORT

7.3.3 Required Permits

The Trinidad and Tobago Environmental Management Agency requires a $500 permit fee and a
maximum environmental impact assessment fee of $600,000.

29

REPORT

8 Operating Cost & Economic Analysis

8.1 Cost Sheet
The cost sheet was determined by allocating appropriate costs for each category. These
categories encompassed utilities, operation overhead, maintenance, labor, property taxes and
insurance, depreciation, and general expenses. The total cost of manufacture was determined by
adding up all categories of manufacturing cost. The total production cost was determined by
adding the total cost of manufacture with general expenses. The sales revenue was determined by
knowing the output product flow rate and multiplying it by its selling price; unit conversions
were used. The cost sheet is an annual economic analysis sheet.
Table 4: Summary of plant costs and operations.
Cost Factor
Feedstocks (raw materials)
Natural gas
Boiler feed water make-up
Oxygen
Total
Utilities
Electricity
Cooling water, 90F, 65psig (CW)
Chilled cooling water, 60F
Natural Gas (fuel), 90F, 75 psig,
1050 BTU/SCF
Total

Annual Cost
$2,802,866
$364,001
$42,395,868
$45,562,735
$7,634,955
$7,769,894
$90,009,785
$19,211,641
$124,626,275

Operations (labor-related) (O)

Direct wages and benefits (DW&B)
Direct salaries and benefits
Operating supplies and services
Control laboratory
Total

$524,160
$104,832
$4,504,177
$78,624
$5,211,793

Maintenance (M)
Wages and benefits (MW&B)
Materials and services
Total

$11,260,443
$18,767,405
$30,027,488

Operating Overhead

$11,968,059

Property Taxes and Insurance

$225,208,854 (entire plant life)

Depreciation (D)

$665,018,119 (entire plant life)

30

REPORT
COST OF MANUFACTURE (COM)

$183,764,004

TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSES (GE)

$10,764,720

TOTAL PRODUCTION COST (C)

Sales
Methanol Product
Total Sales

$194,528,724
$538,236,002
$538,236,002

8.2 Working Capital

Our design managers provided the working capital equation as:
(Product Storage)+30 days Mfg. Cost + Spare Parts (reference)
Only one spare part was provided that being a pump and the product storage of methanol was 10
days. The 30 days Mfg. Cost was determined by taking the COM (cost of manufacture) dividing
it by 350 days of plant operation and multiplying it by 30 days. Sizing the appropriate storage
tank and multiplying it by 10 days determined the product storage cost. The spare pump was
sized and then its cost was determined.

8.3 Total Capital Investment

Presented Total Capital Investment: $777,623,059
This was determined by the working capital and total permanent (fixed) investment.
Table 5: Categorized annual costs.
Cost Factor
Utilities
Steam, 300psig
Electricity
Cooling water
Natural gas
Waste treatment
MSR catalyst price
SMR catalyst price
Boiler feed water make-up
Oxygen price
Operations (labor-related) (O)
Operating labor
Operator cost/y/(operator/shift)
Operating supplies
Supervision
Laboratory

Typical factor in American engineering units

$2.40/1000lbs
$0.04/KWh
$0.05/1000gal
$1.50/million BTU HHV
$3.00/1000gal
$6.00/lb
%12.00/lb
$1.50/1000gal
$0.025/lb

$10/hr
$87,360
0.6% of F.C.I
20% of operating labor
15% of operating labor

31

REPORT

Maintenance (M)
Maintenance materials

2.5% of F.C.I

Depreciation (D)

5 yr MARCS schedule
Year 1 20.00%
Year 2 32.00%
Year 3 19.20%
Year 4 11.52%
Year 5 11.52%

Taxes
Effective US federal tax rate
General Expenses (GE)
General Expenses (SARE)
Plant overhead

38%

2% of methanol value
60% of Op. Labor+superv+maintenance+lab

Credits
Light gas by-product credit
Higher alcohols by-product
credit
Export steam credit
Inside battery limits (ISBL)
Service facilities & buildings
Waste treatment capital
Site development

$1.50/million BTU HHV

$0.12/lb
$3.00/1000lbs

25% of ISBL
6% of ISBL
3% of ISBL

8.4 Profitability Measures

8.4.1 Return on Investment (ROI)
(1 t )( S C )
CTCI
Where t = U.S. federal tax rate of 38%, S = total sales revenue on an annual basis, C= Cost of
production on an annual basis, and CTCI = Total capital investment. All variables are in U.S.
dollars. The following calculation was performed,

The return on investment calculation is as follows: ROI

ROI

(1 t )( S C ) (1 0.38)($538,236,002 - $194,528,724)

0.2740
$777,623,059
CTCI

and so the final ROI is roughly 27.4 %.

32

REPORT

8.4.2 Net Present Value (NPV)

To evaluate the net present value of a proposed plant, its cash flows are computed for each year
of the projected life of the plant along with construction and startup phases. The sum of all the
discounted cash flows equals the net present value. The following table provides the NPV and
CF values at 10% interest rate for the life of the plant, which was 15 years.
Table 6: Calculation of Cash Flows and NPV.
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

MACRS
20.00%
32.00%
19.20%
11.52%
11.52%
5.76%

fCTDC
($665,018,119)

CWC
($26,926,877)

D
$133,003,624
$212,805,798
$127,683,479
$76,610,087
$76,610,087
$38,305,044

CExcl. Dep.
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004
$183,764,004

S
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002
$538,236,002

Net Earnings
$137,310,392
$87,833,044
$140,608,882
$172,274,385
$172,274,385
$196,023,512
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639

Cash Flow
($421,630,980)
$300,638,842
$268,292,361
$248,884,472
$248,884,472
$234,328,555
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639

NPV
($421,630,980)
$273,308,038
$221,729,224
$186,990,588
$169,991,443
$145,499,597
$124,055,925
$112,778,114
$102,525,558
$93,205,053
$84,731,866
$77,028,969
$70,026,336
$63,660,305
$57,873,005

The NPV was $1,361,773,040 across the plant life of 15 years.

8.4.3 Cash Flows (CF)

During the years of plant construction, the CF for a particular year is as follows:
CF fCTDC CWC Cland (ref.)
For the after-tax earnings plus depreciation CF for a particular year the following equation was
used:
CF (1 t )( S C ) D (ref.)
The above equation is used for actual years of production not construction. The following table
provides the CF for all 15 years of the plant. Notice that during the construction years the CF is
negative meaning those were the years of mechanical design and plant construction.
Table 7: Annual cash flows.
Year
Year of operation
2009
1
2010
2
2011
3
2012
4

Cash Flow
($421,630,980)
$300,638,842
$268,292,361
$248,884,472

33

REPORT
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

$248,884,472
$234,328,555
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639
$219,772,639

8.4.4 Depreciation Schedule (MACRS)

Our design managers provided the schedule of depreciation to us. The following table provides
the total amount of depreciation with a class life of 5 years.
Table 8: Depreciation schedule.
Year
Year of operation
MACRS
2009
1
20.00%
2010
2
32.00%
2011
3
19.20%
2012
4
11.52%
2013
5
11.52%
2014
6
5.76%
2015
7
2016
8
2017
9
2018
10
2019
11
2020
12
2021
13
2022
14
2023
15
-

D ($/yr)
$133,003,624
$212,805,798
$127,683,479
$76,610,087
$76,610,087
$38,305,044
-

Taxes Saved ($/yr)

$50,541,377
$80,866,203
$48,519,722
$29,111,833
$29,111,833
$14,555,917
-

Total Taxes Saved = $252,706,885

Total Depreciation = $665,018,119
Present Value of Income Tax Savings (Total) = $195,408,232

8.4.5 Investors Rate of Return (IRR)

Using the provided spreadsheet the IRR was roughly 58%. The IRR is also known as the
discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFRR). This interest rate or discounted rate gives a net
present value of zero and since it is positive this means that building the plant will be profitable.
34

REPORT

The largest IRR is the most desirable, which is the case here. Recall that our NPV value was
large and positive.

35

REPORT

9 Conclusions & Recommendations

The proposed design produces 5,116 MTPD of 99.85 wt% methanol. As designed, the total bare
module cost of the plant is $372 million. The inside battery limit and outside battery limit costs
are $349 million and $23 million respectively. Total capital investment includes the direct
permanent investment of $512 million and is $779 million. The calculated BTROI is 42% with
annual net earnings of roughly $203 million per year. The NPV is $1.2 billion in the last year of
production and suggests a profitable venture.
Methanol production is a high-risk venture and for such ventures the ROI should ideally be 20
40% in order to justify construction and operation of the plant. The calculated ROI of 26% with
annual earnings of roughly $203 million per year suggest a worthwhile investment. The NPV of
$1.2 billion in the last year of production also suggests a profitable venture.
The removal of water in upstream processing proved highly beneficial in reducing the total
capital and operating costs. It should be noted that the MSR, being highly exothermic, is
extremely sensitive to the inlet temperature. Any small perturbation to the inlet temperature
could upset the process resulting in a runaway reaction. Therefore a large amount of the
operating cost is focused on cooling of the reactor and its inlet stream to prevent emergency
upsets.
Another misgiving of the simulation software package arose in the separation of carbon dioxide
from methanol. Although intuition dictates that given the two species relative volatility,
separation should effectively take place in a flash unit, implementation of a simple distillation
column was required to effect the desired separation. Removal of the distillation column will
also significantly reduce capital and operational costs.
As designed it is worthwhile to pursue investment in this production plant.

36

REPORT

10 Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in preparing this report:

Professor Nael El Farra

Dr. Jeff Feerer
Mr. Richard Anderson

37

REPORT

11 References
1. Apanel, G., Davenport, R. E. Issues Facing Global Methanol Industry. Chemical Week
Conference. Houston, Texas. October 25, 2004.
2. Cheng, Wu-Hsun, Kung, Harold H. Methanol Production and Use. New York: Marcel
Dekker Inc. 1994.
3. Davenport, R.E., 2004. Issues Facing Global Methanol Industry. SRI Consulting. Presented
to Chemical Week Conference.
4. Dybkjr, I., Bgild Hansen, J. 1997. Alternative Use of Natural Gas. Elsevier Science.
107:99-116.
5. Environmental Protection Agency. Methanol Fact Sheet. 08 April, 2006.
<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/methanol.html>
6. Fogler, H.S., Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
PTR, 1999.
7. Graaf, G.H., Sijtsema, J.M., Stamhuis, E.J., and Joosten, G.E.H. 1985.
Chemical Equilibria in Methanol Synthesis. Chemical Engineering Science,
41:2883-2890.
8. Hu, Y.H. and Ruckenstein, E. 2002. Binary MgO-based Solid Solution Catalysis. Catalysis
Reviews. 44:423-453.
9. IPSC INCHEM. Environmental Health Criteria 196 Methanol.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc196.htm. World Health Organization.
Geneva, 1997. 08 April, 2006.
10. McCabe, W. L., and Thiele, E.W. 1925. Graphical design of fractionating columns. Ind.
Engr. Chem. 17:605-611.
11. Perry, R. H. Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7th Ed. McGraw-Hill. 1997.
12. Seader, J. D., and Seider, W. D. Product & Process Design Principles. Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2004.
13. Stiles, A. B. 1977. Methanol, Past, Present, and Speculation on the Future. AIChE Journal,
23:362-376.
14. Tijm, P.J.A., Waller, F.J., and Brown, D.M. 2001. Methanol technology developments for
the new millennium, Applied Catalysis. 221:275-282.
15. Villa, P., Forgatti, G., Garone, G. and Pasquon, I. 1985. Syntheis of alcohols from carbon
oxides and hydrogen. 1. Kinetics of low-pressure methanol syntheis. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Proc. Des. Dev., 24:2-10.

38

REPORT

12 Appendices
12.1 Appendix I: Detailed Equipment Costing
12.1.1

I.1 Heat Exchanger Sizing Technique

This procedure was adapted from Seider:

1. Calculate R and S:
Tcold ,out Tcold ,in
m * Cp cold
R cold
and S
m hot * Cp hot
Thot ,in Tcold ,in
2. Calculate F for a 1 shell pass-2 tube pass heat exchanger:
1 S
R 2 1 * ln

1 R S

F
2 S R 1 R2 1
( R 1) * ln
2 S R 1 R2 1

(#)

(#)

3. Compute log mean temperature

T Tcold ,out Th,out Tcold ,in
Tlm hot ,in
Thot ,in Tcold ,out

ln

cold ,in
h ,out

(#)

4. Calculate required Q and UA

Q mhot Cp hot Thot ,in Thot ,out and UA

Q
F * Tlm

5. Now starts the process of iteration. Guess a U (typically 100

(#)

BTU
), and then
F * ft 2 * h

compute a required area.

6. The pipes we chose to use are BWG 14, 16 in length, with 1 triangular spacing, OD,
0.560 ID, and 80 schedule. Using these parameters then calculate how many tubes are
required.
7. With this number of tubes, go to Table 13.6 in Seider and find the closest number of
tubes with a corresponding shell diameter.
8. Then calculated the shell side and tube side heat transfer coefficient from the database of
possible heat transfer coefficient correlations specific to your Reynolds number. This
database may be found in the mathematica code for this section.
9. Then compute the overall heat transfer coefficient using:

39

REPORT

1
1 Ai t w Ai 1

hshellside Ao k w Am htubeside

(#)

The Mathematica code used for this procedure is:

40

REPORT

41

REPORT

42

REPORT

43

REPORT

44

REPORT

12.1.2

I.2 Flash Unit Sizing Procedure

This procedure was adapted from the EnDeCor engineering reference library:
1. Max Vapor Velocity
L V
U max K
V

(#)

2. Compute Minimum Diameter

DMin

4QV
U Max

(#)

3. Compute Liquid Height

HL

t L QL 4
D 2

(#)

4. Compute Vapor Height

Hv 4

(#)

L HL Hv

(#)

5. Compute overall Length

6. Compute L/D ratio

7. If L/D>6 increase D and repeat steps 3-6

45

REPORT

12.1.3

II.3 Maximum Thermodynamically Attainable Conversion

46

REPORT

12.1.4

I.4 General Reactor Sizing Techniques

Case #1: SMR/OBR

Given appropriate kinetic data the SMR/OBR can be sized to achieve certain production
levels of synthesis gas (Syngas) from natural gas feedstocks. If the kinetic data is given as the
partial pressures of both the components forming the synthesis gas than certain modeling
techniques can be used. All the species in the reaction are in the gas phase.
(1) Reaction of Interest:
- Steam Reforming: CH 4 ( g ) H 2O( g ) CO( g ) 3H 2 ( g )

H 298 206 kJ/mol

(2) Assumptions:
-

Assume a 1:3 ratio of CO: H2 exists at the above conditions.

Endothermic reaction
Multi-tubular packed bed reactor
Catalyst types1: R-67-7H, KATALCO 57-4, and Ni-based
Sufficient heat has been produced from steam
Pure methane gas in the feed
Assume simple power law kinetics
Product species are independent of the reaction rate
No pressure drop in the reactor and no catalyst decay
Steady-state reactor
Assume, for convention, that the reaction rate will be with respect to natural gas.

(3) Operational Guidelines:

-

Temperature range (outlet conditions) 3: 1400-1625 F

Pressure range (outlet conditions) 3: 300-450 psig
Inlet temperature3: 1000 F
Molar ratio range3 H 2O 2 4
CH 4

(4) SMR Sizing:

Symbolic expression: aA bB cC dD (A=CH4, B=H2O, C=CO, and D=H2) 4
The lowercase letters denote the moles of each corresponding species.
Proposed power law expression: rA kC A C B CC C D
4.) Assume that the product species do not inhibit the forward reaction and that they are
in excess. So the above reaction is an irreversible one. This implies that and = 0.
1.)
2.)
3.)

The new power law expression becomes: rA kC A C B

(Fogler, eqn. 3-5)
6.) Now we need to determine Cj = hj(X) or concentration as a function of conversion, X.
5.)

47

REPORT

7.)

Looking at the symbolic expression yields: A b B c C d D and from the above

a

reaction we know that a 1,b 1,c 1, and d 3 .

8.) The new form of the reaction becomes the following: A B C 3D . Since we have
a flow system in the gas phase C j F j (Eqn. 3-45) where v
v

=volumetric flow rate of the inlet stream and j = species of

interest and Fj = the molar flow rate of species j. We only
have two species so
9.)

10.)

CCH 4

FCH 4
v

F P T
v v0 T 0
FT 0 P T0

and C H O FH O .
2

The design equation relating volumetric flow rates to molar flow rates is
(Eqn. 3-41) where both temperature dependence and pressure dependence is shown.
Now we can rewrite the above two concentration equations as:
a. C
CH 4

FH 2O
FCH 4
and C
H 2O
F P T
F P T
v0 T 0
v0 T 0
FT 0 P T0
FT 0 P T0

b. If we assume isothermal reactor conditions and negligible pressure drops in

the reactor we obtain the following: T T0 and P P0 implying that
CCH 4

FH O FT 0
FCH 4 FT 0 and
.
C H 2O 2
v0 FT
v0 FT

F
c. Recall that FT 0 CT 0 (Eqn. 3-40) and so CH O H O CT 0 along with
2

v0

CCH 4

FT

FCH 4
CT 0 .
FT

d. So in terms of concentration as a function of molar flow rates we have:

i. CCH 4 FCH 4 CT 0
FT

ii. CH O
2

FH 2O
FT

CT 0

iii. The above two expression can be plugged into the rate law giving:

FCH 4
FH 2O

1. rA k
CT 0
CT 0
FT
FT

2. The above expression has reaction rate as a function of

concentration of both reactant species in the gas phase.
11.) Next,

we can assume that no phase changes occur in the reactor and that no semipermeable is present. As a result, the design equation relating volumetric flow rate to
conversion, neglecting pressure drops along with isothermal operation, is
v v0 (1 X ) (Eqn. 3-44).
a. y A0 (Eqn. 3-36) and = d c b 1 (Eqn. 3-23) = 3 1 1 1 2
a

48

REPORT
b. Also

y A0 =

CCH , 0 .
C A 0 (Example 3-7) which implies that y
CH 4 , 0
CT 0
CT 0
4

CCH 4 ,0
. Since y A0 FA0 (Eqn. 3-39 or 3-40) the volumetric flow
C
FT 0
T0

c. And so = 2

rates cancel and C A0 y A0CT 0 (Example 3-7).

d. Under isothermal and no pressure drop reactor conditions,
C ( v j X )
(Eqn. 3-46). For Species A we have the following:
C j A0 j
1 X
CA

C A 0 ( A v A X )
where v A = -1 and A = 1.
1 X

e. Now that we have concentration as a function of conversion, C A C A0 (1 X )

1 X

Lets do the same for the second species. v B = b 1 and B FB 0 (Fogler,

a

FT 0

Table 3-3).

Plugging in the following expressions

(E3-6.4)

f. We can further simplify this

expression to:

CB

CB

b
C A 0 B X
a

1 X

C A 0 B X
1 X

yields:

g. Now that we have both species in terms of conversion we can plug this into
the rate law. This implies that now we have the reaction rate as a function of
conversion.
h. We can obtain values for all of the above parameters using ASPEN Tech.
Again we are assuming that the reaction rate depends on natural gas and
water.
C (1 X ) C A0 B X
i. rA k A0

1 X 1 X
ii. Given conversion values and knowing the reaction order one can
determine the
reaction rate as a function of conversion. One must also know the
reaction rate constant to completely size the reactor.

49

REPORT
iii. If the assumption of the reaction rate is poor recall that the proposed
power law would be: rA kC A C B CC C D
iv. Plugging in the similar expressions for the products yields:

C (1 X) CA0 B X CA0 C X CA0 D 3X

1. rA k A0

1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X
2. Where C FC 0 (Table 3-3) and D F D 0 (Table 3-3).

FT 0

FT 0

v. Knowing reaction rate as a function of conversion one can make a

Levenspiel plot to determine the necessary reactor volume for any
desired conversion.
(5) PFR case for the SMR:
1.) Assuming that the multi-tubular reactor behaves as a plug flow reactor, the design
equation needed to
size the reactor is the following:
a. FA0

dX
rA
dV

(Eqn. 2-15)

X
b. Integrating to find volume yields: V FA0 dX (Eqn. 2-16) where the upper
0

rA

limit is the desired conversion. Numerical methods must be used to solve this
integral given reaction rate and conversion data.
c. The final expression with the simplified power law would be as follows:

dX
i. V F
A0

0 C A0 (1 X ) C A0 B X
k

1 X 1 X
X

d. The final expression for the more complicated power law would be as follows:

dX

i. V F
A0

0 CA0 (1 X ) CA0 B X CA0 C X CA0 D 3X

k 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X

(6) Tube sizing and the number of tubes in the SMR:

50

REPORT
1) If the SMR is non-isothermal and at steady state than heat flow will vary along
the length of the reactor. As a result, the heat flux equation must be integrated
along the length of the reactor to obtain the total heat added to the reactor.

dQ
a. Heat flux equation:
Ua(Ta T ) (Eqn. 8-44)
dV
b. Now for a tubular reactor (such as the SMR) with heat gain or loss we
have the following energy balance equation:

dT Ua (Ta T ) ( rA )[H Rx (T )]

(Eqn. 8-56)
dV
FA0 (i Cpi XC p )

This implies that dT g ( X , T ) must be coupled with the mole balance,

dV

dX rA

f ( X ,T ) .
dV FA0

c. Numerical integration of the above two coupled differential equations is

required.

i. We can plug in the rate law determined earlier into the above
equations and solve for how the temperature changes with volume
(i.e., distance) down the reactor.
ii. Using the above equations one can determine the amount of heat
added to the SMR by using the heat flux equation.
d. Recall that for a gaseous flow system:

F P T
v v0 T 0 (Eqn.
FT 0 P T0

3-41) but this

time we cannot neglect the temperatures terms.

i. The equation becomes v v0 FT T .
FT 0 T0

ii. Also recall that v v0 (1 X ) T where the pressure drop terms

T0

have been neglected.

iii. Going through the same procedure in step 11.) one obtains the
following:

C (1 X ) T0
1. rA k A0

1 X T

C A0 B X T0

T
1 X

51

REPORT

2. The same applies for the more complex power law

relationship.

e. Knowing Ua and Q one can determine the number of pipes needed by

calculating the area of heat transfer. Looking up tube data one can
determine the number of tubes needed for the SMR.
f. Tube wall thickness, Tube outer diameter and inner diameter would have
to be calculated or given. Also the tube pitch would be needed in order to
determine the number of tubes from a tube sheet layout chart.

52

REPORT

12.2

Appendix II: Upstream Processing

The following analysis will demonstrate why there will be a high capital cost and utility
requirement for the separation of water from methanol. Using modified Raoults law (Eqn. #),
yi P i xi Pi sat
(#)
we were able to model vapor-liquid equilibrium behavior for a water methanol system. The
saturation pressure was approximated by Antoinnes equation and the activity coefficient by the
Van-Laar equation (for excess Gibbs free energy). Note: all parameters for these equations may
be found in the following Mathematica code section. Using these equations we were able to
generate Figure 11.
1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Dew Line

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Bubble Line

Figure 11: x-y diagram for water-methanol system.

We then used the McCabe-Thiele method10 to determine that under typical operating conditions
anywhere from 30-60 (also verified in literature11) trays would be necessary to obtain methanol
purities of 99.75%. The construction of such a tall tower would require a very large capital
investment. Furthermore, this large tower coupled with high molar flow rates will require large
heating and cooling duties for the reboiler and condenser respectively1. Thus we sought
additional strategies for separations.

53

REPORT

Mathematica Code:

54

REPORT

12.3

Appendix III: Kinetic Models

Once a model was either developed from theory or extracted from literature, nonlinear regression
based on a Quasi Newton search method was implemented. To minimize the number of
parameters to fit, the regression was done at each temperature, i.e. the model was first fit as a
function of concentration holding temperature constant. Then the sum of the squared residuals
was computed and reported in Table 2 for each temperature. The model equation that yielded to
smallest sum of squared residuals was then expanded, such that each of the temperature
dependent terms was assumed to behave via an Arrhenius model. Then the entire data matrix
was curve fit both as a function of temperature and concentration and the result may be found in
equation #.

Model Equation

PCH3OH
0.5 1.3
k PCO PH 2
( PCO PH 2 )

K eq

PCH3OH
PCO PH22
K eq

( K1 K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 )3
( K H 2 PH 2 ) 2 K CO PCO
k

K CH 3OH PCH 3OH

(1 K H 2 PH 2 K CO PCO K CH3OH PCH3OH )3

( K H 2 PH 2 )2 K CO PCO

K eq

K CH3OH PCH3OH
K eq

(1 K H 2 PH 2 K CO PCO K CH 3OH PCH3OH )5

K1 PCH3OH
(1 K1PCH3OH K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 )

(1 K1PCH3OH

PCO
K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 )
PCO

(1 K1 PCH3OH K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 )

Equation
Description

Sum of Squared
Residuals for
Temp1/Temp 2

Agny & Takoudis

31.3036 /
9.00813

Villa et al.
4.2568 / 1.1053
Langmuir:
Surface Reaction
is RDS and all
species adhere
4.42868 /
associatively
1.8636
Langmuir:
Surface Reaction
is RDS and all
species adhere
4.26236 /
disassociatively
1.16466
Langmuir:
Methanol
Desorption is
4.46794 /
RDS
1.46263
Langmuir:
Carbon Monoxide
Associative
Adsorption is
8.60895 /
RDS
2.69909
Langmuir:
Carbon Monoxide
Disassociative
9.33096 /
Adsorption is
2.93866
55

REPORT

( K H 2 PH 2 ) 2 K CO PCO
k

K CH3OH PCH3OH
K eq

(1 K H 2 PH 2 K CO PCO K CH3OH PCH3OH )3

PH 2
(1 K1PCH3OH K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 )

PH 2
(1 K1 PCH3OH K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 )

K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2
k

K 4 PCH 3OH
K eq

( K1 K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 K 4 PCH3OH )5
1 c 2
0.5
PCO

PCH
PH 2
OH
k c1
0.5 3
PCH OH PCO PH c3
3
2

PCH 3OH
PCO PH22
K eq

( K1 K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 K 4 PCH 3OH )3

PCO PH22

C3
C1 C 2 PCH
3OH
k PH 2 PCO

K eq

PCH3OH
PCO PH22
K eq

Natta et al10

4.25568 /
1.15103

Pasquon14
4.2086 / 1.0470
Simplified Power
Law
3.818 / 1.0475

P K H 2 PH 2 K CH3OH PCH3OH

CO CO

10.8735 /
2.76844

K eq

C 2 C3
kPHC21PCO
PCH3OH

1 K

Leonov et al14

PCH 3OH

( K1 K 2 PCO K 3 PH 2 K 4 PCH3OH )3

RDS
Langmuir:
Surface Reaction
is RDS and
Carbon Monoxide
adheres
53.5992 /
disassociatively
1.09881
Langmuir:
Hydrogen
Associative
Adsorption is
5.28849 /
RDS
1.56053
Langmuir:
Hydrogen
Disassociative
Adsorption is
543.565 /
RDS
133.225
Langmuir:
Surface Reaction
is RDS and
Hydrogen adheres
disassociatively 5.3448 / 1.5872

True Power Law 5.5417 / 1.0530

Equation
Provided by
Project Managers

0.252 / 0.351

56

REPORT

12.4 Appendix IV: Example Detailed Equipment Costing

12.4.1

IV.1 Pumps

Cost of the centrifugal pump is based upon volumetric flowrate and head required12. The
base cost of the centrifugal pump and the motor was determined using equations # and #
respectively12 where Pc is the power consumption, and S is the sizing factor for the pump.

C B e (9.2951-0.6019(ln(S)) +0.0519(ln(S))

CB e(5.4866+ 0.13141(ln(Pc )) + 0.053255(ln(Pc ))

Eqn #

+ 0.028628 (ln(Pc )) 3 - 0.0035549 (ln(Pc )) 4 )

Eqn #

The Sizing Factor and the Power Consumption were estimated as follows:
S Q H 0.5
Q H
Pc
33000 p m

Eqn #
Eqn #

where
Symbol

Name

Units

Pc
Q
H

Power consumption
Flowrate
Pump head
Density
Fractional efficiency
of the pump
Fractional efficiency
of the motor

Horsepower
Gallons per minute
Ft
Lbs/gallon
Dimensionless

p -0.316 + 0.24051 (lnQ) - 0.01199 (lnQ) 2

m 0.80 + 0.0319 (lnPc ) - 0.00182 (lnPc ) 2

Dimensionless

Now the purchasing cost, Cp, can be determined by the following equations:
Pump

C p FT FM C B

Eqn #

Motor

C p FT C B

Eqn #

Where

Symbol

NameSeider

Value

57

REPORT

FT
FM

Type Factor
Material Factor

2.7
1.0

58

REPORT

12.4.2

IV.2 Storage Tanks

Unit Type

Size factor, S

Range of S

Floating roof

Volume, gal

10,000 - 1,000,000 gal

No. of gallons needed to be stored:

No. of tanks required:

Unit Type
Floating roof

Cost / Unit
$
430,558

16684322
17

No. of Units
17

Cost equation

Seider

Cp = 375*V^0.51

ten days' production

at 1,000,000 gallons/tank

Total Cost
$
7,319,479

59

REPORT

12.4.3

IV.3 Compressors
Purchase Cost, Cp
Cp = Fd * Fm * Cb

I.

For electric motor drive, cast iron or carbon-steel construction

purchase cost is obtained directly from Garrett and Walas (1988)
12
[Table 16.19] :
Cp = Cb

II.

For other drives and materials of construction:

Cp = Fd * Fm * Cb

Table 1: Factors for material construction and motor drive for Compressors12.
Drive
Fd
Material
Fm
Steam turbine
Gas turbine
III.

1.15
1.25

Stainless steel
Nickel Alloy

2.5
5

Cost of different Compressors:

Table 7: Base and Purchasing cost for various types of compressors using Fd =1.15 and Fm = 1 for CMP-200
unit.
Compressor
Horsepower
Cb ($)
Cp ($)
Centrifugal

29,035

5,092,634

5,856,530

Cb = EXP(7.2223+0.8*LN(Hp))

Reciprocating

29,035

7,492,446

8,616,312

Cb = EXP(7.6084+0.8*LN(Hp))

Screw

29,035

4,029,662

4,634,112

Cb = EXP(7.7661+0.7243*LN(Hp))

60

REPORT

12.4.4

IV.4 Reactors

Steam Methane Reformer

Type of Heater
Reformer

Size factor, Q
Btu/hr
Heat absorbed

Range of Q
Btu/hr
10 - 500 Million

Q value
Btu/hr
1,179,779,845

Cp
$
15,092,023

Cp = 0.677*(Q)^0.81

Oxygen Blown Reformer

Oxygen Blown reformer is treated as a Pressurized vessel for cost purposes.
Mulet, Corripio and Evans method (Seider and Seader, Page 527)
carbon steel construction and includes an allowance for platforms,
ladders, and a nominal number of nozzles and manholes
Cp = Fm* Cv + Cpl
Cv = f.o.b cost of the empty vessel including nozzles, manholes and supports based on weight in pounds,
W, of shell and two elliptical regions

Horrizontal vessels for 1,000 < W < 920,000 pounds

Cv = exp(8.717-0.2330(ln(W))+0.4333(ln(W))^2)
W (lbs)

Cv ($)

8831

26294

Cpl = the added cost for platforms and ladders depends on vessel diameter in feet and for vertical vessel,
the length L.
Horrizontal vessels for 3 < Di < 12 ft
Cpl = 1580*(Di)^0.20294
Di (ft)

L (ft)

Cpl ($)

3.28

N/A

2011

Cp = Fm* Cv + Cpl

Vessel

Fm

Cv ($)

Cpl ($)

Cp ($)

Horizontal

26294

2011

28304

61

REPORT

Weight Calculation:

W = pi()*(Di+ts)*(L+0.8Di)*ts*rho

Pd = exp(6.60608+0.91615(ln(Po))+0.0015655(ln(Po))^2)
Po minimum = 10 psig. For pressures greater than 1000 psig, use Po = 1.1*Po and not the
above equation.
Tp = (Pd*Di)/(2S*E-1.2*Pd)
tp must be greater than a minimum value for rigidity based on the diameter (Table on Page
530)
S = maximum allowable stress of the shell material at the design temperature in pounds per
square inch
E = fractional weld efficiency
find minimum wall thickness, tmin, and ts must be greater than tmin
OR
FOR Vertical vessels take into account effects of wind and earth quake
Tv = tp(0.75+0.22*E*(((L/Di)^2)/Pd))
Then use either tp or tv:
Add corrosion allowance of 1/8 inch
Then find ts = tp or tv + corrosion
allowance
Find Weight, W (lbs)
Unit type
Drum h.

L
(ft)
9.84

Di
(ft)
3.28

Op. Po
(psig)
500

Pd
(psig)
578

S
(psi)
13100

E
1

Tp
Ft
0.07

tv
ft
0.06

ts
ft
0.13

W
lbs
8831

Methanol Synthesis Reactor (MSR)

I.

Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Approach

Fixed Head
Cb = exp(11.0545-0.9228(ln(A))+0.09861(ln(A))^2)
A is the area for heat exchange in sq ft.

Calculating Cp

62

REPORT

Fm = a+((A/100)^b)
Fl: can be looked up in Seider and Seader,
page 523, table at the bottom
Fp = 0.9803+0.018*(P/100)+0.0017*(P/100)^2
Cp = Fp*Fm*Fl*Cb
Table 8: Base and Purchasing cost of the Methanol Synthesis Reactor.
HEX type
P
a
b
A
Fm
Fl
Fp
Psig
sqft
Fixed
1000
0
0
418,879
1
1
1.33

Cb
$
5,302,257

Cp
$
7,053,593

63

REPORT

12.4.5

IV.5 Furnaces

Furnace was assumed to be a fired heater for cost determination

Cb = exp(0.08505+0.766*(ln(Q)))
Fp = 0.986-0.0035*(P/500)+0.0175((P/500)^2)
Fm = 1.7 for stainless steel
Cp =Fp*Fm*Cb

Unit

P (psig)

Q value
(Btu/hr)

Fp

Fm

Cb ($)

Cp ($)

F-100

500

189,703,402*

1.7

2,387,494

4,058,740

*Heating value assumes 85% efficiency of the furnace.

64

REPORT

12.4.6
I.

IV.6 Heat Exchangers

Shell and Tube
Floating Head
Cb = exp(11.667-0.8709(ln(A))+0.09005(ln(A))^2)
Fixed Head
Cb = exp(11.0545-0.9228(ln(A))+0.09861(ln(A))^2)

Calculating Cp
Fm = a+((A/100)^b)
Fl: can be looked up in Seider and Seader,
page 523
Fp = 0.9803+0.018*(P/100)+0.0017*(P/100)^2
Cp = Fp*Fm*Fl*Cb

Heat duty and heat transfer surface area for unit E-100 were obtained from Aspen. This was used
to calculate U, the heat transfer coefficient. This coefficient was used to approximate the heat
transfer surface area for other heat exchangers in this network. Results of these calculations are
shown below.
Unit
E-100
C-100
C-200
C-300

Heat duty
Btu/hr
611311704
931173410
288527271
25764398

Cp water
Btu/lbs/F
0.9990924
0.9990924
0.9990924
0.9990924

Tout
F
110
110
110
110

Tin
F
90
90
90
90

mflow rate
lbs/hr
30593352
46600966
14439469
1289390.2

Area req.
sqft
3165
4821
1494
133

A = Q/ (U*(Tlm))
Ucalc =
Unit
E-100
C-100
C-200
C-300

9657.4
HEX type
Floating
Floating
Floating
Floating

P
psig
500
500
1000
5

a*

b*

2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7

0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07

A
sq ft.
3,176
4,822
1,494
134

Fm

Fl

Fp

3.97
4.01
3.91
3.72

1
1
1
1

1.11
1.1128
1.3303
0.981204

Cb
$
36,297
47,001
24,644
14,209

Cp
$
160,509
209,820
128,132
51,876

65

REPORT

12.4.7

IV.7 Flash Vessels

Separators modeled as pressure vessels

Mulet, Corripio and Evans method (Seider and Seader, Page
527)
carbon steel construction and includes an allowance for
platforms,
ladders, and a nominal number of nozzles and manholes
Cp = Fm* Cv + Cpl
Cv = f.o.b cost of the empty vessel including nozzles, manholes and supports based on weight in pounds,
W, of shell and two elliptical regions
Vertical vessels for 4,200 < W < 1,000,000 pounds
Cv = exp(6.775+0.18255(ln(W))+0.02297(ln(W))^2)
Unit

W (lbs)

Cv ($)

U-200
U-300

150577
163161

202066
214295

Cpl = the added cost for platforms and ladders depends on vessel diameter in feet and for vertical vessel,
the length L.
Vertical vessels for 3 < Di < 12 ft and 12 < L < 40 ft
Cpl = 285.1* (Di)^0.73960 * (L)^0.7684
Unit

Di (ft)

L (ft)

Cpl ($)

U-200
U-300

12
9.5

14.5
16.5

13982
12991

Weight Calculation:

W = pi()*(Di+ts)*(L+0.8Di)*ts*rho

Pd = exp(6.60608+0.91615(ln(Po))+0.0015655(ln(Po))^2)
Po minimum = 10 psig. For pressures greater than 1000 psig, use Po = 1.1*Po and not the
above equation.
tp = (Pd*Di)/(2S*E-1.2*Pd)
tp must be greater than a minimum value for rigidity based on the diameter (Table on Page
530)
S = maximum allowable stress of the shell material at the design temperature in pounds per

66

REPORT
square inch
E = fractional weld efficiency
find minimum wall thickness, tmin, and ts must be greater than tmin
OR
FOR Vertical vessels take into account effects of wind and earth quake
tv = tp(0.75+0.22*E*(((L/Di)^2)/Pd))
Then use either tp or tv:
Add corrosion allowance of 1/8 inch
Then find ts = tp or tv + corrosion allowance
Find Weight, W (lbs)
Unit

U-200
U-300

Unit type

L
ft

Di
ft

Op. Po
(psig)

Pd
(psig)

S
(psi)

tp
ft

tv
ft

ts
ft

W
lbs

Flash v.
Flash v.

14.5
16.5

12
9.5

500
1000

578
1107

13100
13100

1
1

0.27
0.42

0.20
0.32

0.33
0.44

150577
163161

Cp = Fm* Cv + Cpl
Vessel

Fm

Cv ($)

Cpl ($)

Cp ($)

U-200
U-300

1
1

202,066
214,295

13982
12991

216,047
227,286

67

REPORT

12.4.8

IV.8 Distillation Columns

Towers for 9,000 < W < 2,500,000 lb

Cv = exp(7.0374+0.18255(ln(W))+0.02297(ln(W))^2)
W (lbs)

Cv ($)

Di (ft)

L (ft)

Cpl ($)

6901

34399

2767

Towers for 3 < Di < 24 ft and 27 < L < 170 ft

Cpl = 237.1* (Di)^0.63316 * (L)^0.80161

Weight Calculation:

W = pi()*(Di+ts)*(L+0.8Di)*ts*rho

Pd = exp(6.60608+0.91615(ln(Po))+0.0015655(ln(Po))^2)
Po minimum = 10 psig. For pressures greater than 1000 psig, use Po = 1.1*Po and not the
above equation.
tp = (Pd*Di)/(2S*E-1.2*Pd)
tp must be greater than a minimum value for rigidity based on the diameter (Table on Page
530)
S = maximum allowable stress of the shell material at the design temperature in pounds per
square inch
E = fractional weld efficiency
find minimum wall thickness, tmin, and ts must be greater than tmin
OR
FOR Vertical vessels take into account effects of wind and earth quake
Tv = tp(0.75+0.22*E*(((L/Di)^2)/Pd))
Then use either tp or tv:
Add corrosion allowance of 1/8 inch
Then find ts = tp or tv + corrosion allowance
Find W
Unit type
distill v.

L
ft
9

Di
ft
3

Op. Po
(psig)
5

Pd
(psig)
8

S
(psi)
15000

E
1

Tp
Ft
0.00

tv
ft
0.00

ts
ft
0.13

W
Lbs
6901

68

REPORT

Cpl = 237.1* (Di)^0.63316 * (L)^0.80161

Vessel

Fm

Cv ($)

Cpl ($)

Cp ($)

Tower

2.1

34399

2767

75005

Unit Type
Separators
U-200
U-300
D-100

Base Cost / unit

$

No. of Units

216,047
227,286
75,005

Total Cost
$
1
1
1

Total

216,047
227,286
75,005
$518,338

69

REPORT

12.5 Appendix V: Direct Permanent Investment & Total Capital

Investment
TCI = SUM

WC $
28,829,285

TPI $
750,696,181

Total $
779,525,466

WC = SUM

Prod. Stor.
7,319,479

30 day Mft. $
18,023,215

Spare $
3,486,591

TDC
665,018,119

Startup
17,432,955

Total $
682,451,074

5% TDC

17,432,955

TDC = SUM

Contingency
153,465,719

DPI
511,552,399

Contingency =

30% DPI, $

153,465,719

DPI

Site prep
30% TBM
52,298,865

Srvc. Fac.
25% TBM
69,731,820

TBM

Fab. Equip.
40,000,000

Proc.
Machin.
300,659,100

MSR Catalyst
SMR Catalyst

Cost
$/lb
6
12

TPI = SUM

Startup =

Total $
28,829,285

Total $
665,018,119

TBM

Total $

372,088,759

511,552,399

Storage
7,319,479

Density
Volume
lb/ft^3
ft^3
90
17500
54
1000
Total All Catalyst $

Spare
3,486,591

Catalyst
12,623,589

Total $
372,088,759

Total
$
9,450,000
3,173,589
12,623,589

70