00 Executive Summary BPCL Draft 04

January 2006
REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5
CONFIDENTIAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary provides a high level view of all 15 Indian PSU Refineries (The Refineries)
compared with each other and the Shell GSI benchmarked sites Regionally and Globally in the
following facets of their operations,
Energy and Hydrocarbon Loss Management

Human Resource Management
Maintenance performance, Reliability and Availability Optimisation
Environmental Performance
Financial Performance
This data is presented in three tercile ranking tables for the Indian Refinery, Asia Pacific or East
Refinery and Global Refinery Peer Groups and in two data tables for each site. There are 15 refineries
in the Indian Peer group. For the majority of the Attributes there are 39 refineries in the Asia Pacific
Peer group and 62 refineries in the Global Peer groups. Where there are a different number of
refineries in the peer group for an Attribute the tercile ranking contemplates the actual number of sites
for that Attribute.
The tercile ranking tables show all sites with a colour coding indicating their ranking in each of the
Attributes in each of the three peer groups. The ranking is colour coded in terciles as illustrated in the
following table.
None or few Potential Opportunities
Some Potential Opportunities
Various Potential Opportunities
Top Tercile
Second Tercile
Third Tercile
The purpose of this ranking is to indicate areas where the greatest potential opportunities for
improvement can be found. This style of ranking is also present in the more detailed Gap Opportunity
Tables in the individual Refinery Reports.
The data tables for each site list 24 Main Attributes or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) selected in
consultation between the Centre for High Technology and Shell GSI. The KPI value for the site and
the ranking of that site in each of the three peer groups is given in the first table. The KPI value
attained by the site in the 2003/4 and 2004/5 studies are presented and the site rankings have been
color-coded. Those presented with a red background indicate a higher (poorer) ranking in 2004/5
compared with the previous study while those with a green background indicate an lower (better)
ranking in the current study.
In keeping with the Review of Operational Performance 2003/4, sites will be provided with Quantified
Opportunity Gap Tables The quantification of the value of the Opportunities in these latter sections is
determined by comparison with two reference standards.
The Regional Reference Sites, in which Shell GSI has selected three sites in the East or
Asia Pacific region that are within the same complexity range as The Refineries and are
acknowledged within the Shell GSI annual benchmarking as being top performers in most
aspects of their operations. A value for each of the KPIs has been calculated from the average
of these refineries. The sites selected are not confined to being Shell owned but have a longterm relationship with Shell Global Solutions for technical advice and support.
The Shell site that represents the top 10% for the selected KPI sets the Shell Benchmarking
Reference. This target value is used for determining the value of the Opportunity for the
Global Refinery Peer group.
The value of the gaps are given in either US$ terms, engineering units or index points where
applicable. Also note that as the Regional Reference Site an average of a selection of sites for some
Shell Global Solutions International, The Hague
Executive Summary - Page 1
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL
KPIs the Regional Reference Value may not be in the Top Tercile. This is particularly the case with the
Personnel KPIs where there is not a strong financial incentive to achieving absolute minimum
personnel levels.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
In terms of the five broad business areas defined above the key conclusions are as follows.
REFINERY COMPLEXITY AND INTAKE

Shell SGI classifies ten of The Refineries as Small Complex Plants (SCP) and the remaining five are
classified as Medium Complex Plant (MCP). The ranking is based on Shell GSIs calculation of the
Equivalent Distillation Capacity1 of the refineries. Three of The Refineries are the smallest refineries in
the SCP peer group.
The Mechanical Unit Count, a weighted estimate of the amount of equipment, indicates that The
Refineries have a higher amount of equipment employed that would be expected from the Equivalent
Distillation Capacity based on Shells database. The Normal Shift Position, a measure of complexity
that is not capacity related, determined by Shell have been increased to reflect the Mechanical Unit
Count.
The 2004/5 Barrels of Intake for nine of The Refineries, six in the Small Complex and 3 in the Medium
Complex Plant groups, was the highest in their relevant Complexity Peer Group. Four refineries, all
located in the North East region, have the lowest annual intake of the SCP Peer Group in the Shell
GSI database.
ENERGY AND HYDROCARBON LOSS

Compared with the Asia Pacific Regional peers three sites are ranked in the Top Tercile for Energy
Efficiency, as per the Shell GSI Corrected Energy and Loss (CEL) System, while four sites ranked in
the Third Tercile. At a Regional level seven sites rank in the Top Tercile for Refinery Loss while only
two are in the Third Tercile for this parameter. Refinery Loss performance has improved significantly
from the 2003/4 results while Energy performance has deteriorated somewhat relative to the Regional
peers.
Globally two sites achieve a Top Tercile ranking for Energy Efficiency and seven for Refinery Loss.
Six sites, compared to four in 2003/4, are ranked in the Third Tercile for Energy Efficiency but only one
site, compared to four in 2003/4, are similarly ranked in the Third Tercile for Refinery Loss.
While each site has unit specific issues that are highlighted by the benchmarking, all sites have issues
with regard to site energy integration and particularly the influence of plant utilisation and reliability and
downtime on energy efficiency. Plant shutdowns are also known, within the Shell GSI system, to
impact Refinery Loss. While many sites improved their absolute energy performance in 2004/5
compared with the previous year due to higher utilisation and better reliability overall regional and
global performance also improved hence there has been limited impact on the rankings.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The Indian Refineries are characterised by high personnel numbers with no site achieving Top Tercile
status when compared to the Asia Pacific Regional Refineries and all but one of the sites are in the
Third Tercile when compared with the Global Refinery Peer group. Sites were ranked using the Shell
GSI Shell Personnel Index (SPI) System.
In terms of total Labour Costs relative to the site complexity (Labour Cost per NSP) six sites are able
to achieve a Top Tercile ranking, despite the high overall personnel numbers, when compared with
1
Shell GSI using their interpretation of the methodology of Solomon Associates has calculated
equivalent Distillation Capacity. It is not an official determination of the Equivalent Distillation Capacity.
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL
Regional Refinery peers. However, four sites are also in the Third Tercile for Total Labour costs
compared to only four in 2003/4. Compared against the Global Refinery Peer group six sites are in the
Top Tercile for total Labour Costs the same as in 2003/4. Whereas no sites were in the Third Tercile
globally in 2003/4 there are now two sites whose labour costs ranked in this group.
Structurally, the level of overtime worked at most sites remained high in 2004/5. Seven sites
compared with the Regional Peers and nine sites when compared with the Global Peers are ranked in
the Third Tercile for Overtime. Two sites, when compared with Regional Refinery peers but no site
also at a Global level appear in the Top Tercile for the level of overtime.
MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE, RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OPTIMISATION

Compared with the Regional Refinery peers one site achieves a Top Tercile ranking for Maintained
Availability and the same site achieves this at a Global Level. This equals the performance in 2003/4.
Six sites at the Regional Peer group level and nine at a Global level are in the Third Tercile for
Maintained Availability. This represents an improvement on a Regional level but a deterioration at a
Global level where only nine sites were in the Third Tercile in 2003/4. While the Turnaround cycle for
all sites is less than the best global standard the key to improving Maintained Availability is in reducing
the duration of the major Turnarounds, which are currently 30 to 50% longer than world class. This
conclusion is unchanged from 2003/4
Crude Distiller Unplanned Downtime was taken as a measure of the Reliability of the units as all
refineries have such units and they should achieve 100% reliability with relative ease. Eight sites were
ranked in the Top Tercile for Crude Distiller Unplanned Downtime compared with the Regional
Refinery Peer group, an improvement compared to 2003/4. Eight sites, compared to one in 2003/4,
were ranked in the Top Tercile at a Global comparison level. Meanwhile five sites at the Regional level
and four at the Global level were ranked in the Third Tercile for this attribute.
Maintenance Costs were ranked by taking the maintenance material costs plus labour costs divided by
a complexity-weighted amount of equipment (Corrected Mechanical Units or MUc) on site. When
compared with the Regional Refinery Peer group, eight sites achieved Top Tercile status for
Maintenance Costs per MUc and only one was ranked in the Third Tercile. When compared with the
Global Refinery Peer group, eleven sites were ranked in the Top Tercile, two in the Second Tercile
and only one in the Third Tercile.
Shell GSI considers that the lack of Planning and Work Preparation and Inspection and Advisory
Engineering resources, as mentioned earlier, and perhaps the competencies and training of these
resources are key in improving reliability maintenance efficiency. Despite the low resources allocated
to these activities the Maintenance Effort, expressed as workhours per MUc per year, is mostly in the
Third Tercile at both the Regional and Global peer group levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
Irrespective of the Energy Efficiency, as discussed earlier, the Indian Refineries have structurally high
Energy consumption due to the type of processing units employed. In keeping with this only three sites
ranked in the Top Tercile compared to the Regional Refinery Peer group for CO2 Emissions.
Meanwhile, five sites ranked in the Third Tercile for CO2 Emissions when compared on a Regional
basis. Similar results were seen when the comparison was made against the Global Refinery Peer
group. The situation is largely unchanged from the 2003/4 study.
Five Refineries were ranked in the Third Tercile against both the Asia Pacific Regional Refinery Peer
and the Global Refinery Peer groups for the amount of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions. Key
factors influencing this result are the type of equipment installed in the Storage and Loading areas of
the refineries, the quantities of hydrocarbons entering the Refinery Wastewater Systems and the
amount of atmospheric venting from process units such as Vacuum Distillation units and Delayed
Cokers.
With the exception of three sites the amount of hydrocarbons entering the Refinery Wastewater
System (Oil Discharge at Refinery Fence) was ranked in the Second Tercile or lower on a Regional
comparison basis and all but two sites were ranked in the lower terciles on a Global comparison basis.
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL
Shell GSI considers that a Wastewater Masterplan, which includes the operational and maintenance
aspects of the current and future systems, is warranted.
All sites are currently complying with their statutory limits with regard to the concentration of oil
discharged. However, this performance is not Top Tercile compared with the Global Refinery Peer
group or the Regional Peer Group.
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Three Costs parameters have been considered in this comparison, Total Site Operating Costs per
barrel, Energy Costs per barrel and Cash Operating Expense per barrel. The latter parameter is the
Total Site Operating Costs excluding Fuel and Depreciation. Only fourteen of the India PSU Refineries
have been ranked for costs in this interim report.
Four sites were ranked in the Top Tercile for Total Site Operating Costs at the Regional Refinery Peer
group level and three at the Global Refinery Peer group level. Four refineries were ranked in the Third
Tercile in the Regional Peer group and five in the Global Peer group. A number of Indian Refineries
are currently carrying significant Depreciation charges as a result of recent expansion projects. The
cost competitiveness of the Indian PSU Refineries would appear to have deteriorated marginally
compared to the 2003/4 study.
Site Energy Costs are in the Second or Third tercile at both the Regional and Global levels of
comparison with the exception of one site that ranks in the Top Tercile at the Regional and Global
Refinery Peer group level. Site energy cost rankings are constant at a Regional level but have
deteriorated at a Global level compared to 2003/4.
Six sites, compared to eight in 2003/4, achieved the Top Tercile criteria for Cash Operating Expense
per barrel when compared with the Regional Refinery Peer group. Eight, compared to ten sites in
2003/4, achieved a Top Tercile ranking at the Global Refinery Peer group level. Two sites at a
Regional level and at a Global level were, however, placed in the Third Tercile for Cash operating
Expenses per barrel.
The Gross and Net Refinery Margins have been evaluated on a site-specific basis and on a ranked
basis for the Indian PSU Refineries only. Margins were determined on an Import Parity price basis for
Crude, Feedstocks and Products excluding any local pricing, duties and internal transport costs. As
Shell GSI has assessed that the market for all major products in India are in balance or deficit for
study period only Import Parity pricing has been considered. The Gross and Net Refinery Margins
have been determined using the actual Mass Balance for the individual refinery, including Crude and
Feedstock types and products produced and the prevailing Product qualities. Shell GSI has
determined the prices for these materials from our market data corresponding to the average of2004/5
period, including freight rates to achieve the appropriate import parity price. More detail of the margin
determination is given in the Introduction section of this report.
All fifteen of the Indian Refineries, compared to only twelve in 2003/4, are able to exceed the Arab
Light marker margin for a fully Export Parity pricing ex Singapore. When compared to 2003/4 the
Gross Margin for the Indian Refineries on average more than doubled while the Arab Light Complex
marker nearly tripled. The best-performed sites kept pace with the Arab Light Complex margin while
some sites were adversely affected by significant shutdown periods for new plant construction or the
unavailability of major conversion units.
The average Raw Material Cost (RMC) for the Indian Refineries increased by 40 percent, slightly more
than the Arab Light price but the product mix and prices in most cases compensated for the added
feedstock price.
One refinery was able to equal the Regional Peer Group Gross Margin, as was the case in 2003/4.
The average improvement in Gross Margin for the Indian Refineries was slightly worse than the
improvement attained by the Regional Peer Refineries, hence, the margin gap noted in 2003/4 has
increased. The increase in average RMC for the Indian Refineries was greater than that of the
Regional Peer Group. This was due to the influence of Brent Pricing on the RMC for the Indian
Refineries relative to the Regional Peers and that the Indian Refineries took less advantage of the
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL
widening Light-Heavy crude differential and feedstock versus crude purchases. The product slate for
the Indian refineries compared to the Regional Peers remained constant and hence the slight
reduction in competitivity. It has to be recorded that the product slate of the Indian PSU remains
constrained by the local market in terms of the lack of outlets for higher value transport fuels and
chemicals feedstocks.
All fifteen Indian PSU Refineries achieved a positive Nett Refinery Margin in 2004/5 compared to only
thirteen in 2003/4. One refinery surpassed the Nett Refinery Margin achieved by the Regional Peer
Refineries.
A separate analysis of the economic performance of the Base Oil Plants showed that Gross Margins
increased significantly in 2004/5 compared to the prior period. The margin gap between the Indian
PSU Base Oil Plants and the Shell reference remained constant. Unit Operating Costs (US$/tonne) for
the Indian PSU facilities were on average twice that of the Shell Reference Site. As a consequence
the Nett Margin for the Indian PSU Base Oil Plants was break-even or negative compared to a
substantial positive margin for the Shell Reference Site.
KEY FOCUS AREAS

The 2004/5 Review of Operational Performance recognises that there have been improvements in the
areas of Energy and Loss and Asset Integrity and Reliability at many of the Indian PSU Refineries
when compared to the 2003/4 study period. However, based on the data at hand for this interim report
it would appear that the rate of improvement has at best only kept pace with Regional and Global Peer
Refineries and in some cases fallen behind the required rate of improvement.
The focus areas determined from this Review of Operational Performance, as in the 2003/4 Review,
for the industry as a whole are,
Energy and Loss. Energy and loss represents the single largest controllable expense for all
refineries. An integrated program of enhanced Oil Accounting, selective Energy Conservation
investment, Energy Optimisation studies and implementation of on-line Energy Optimisation
should be developed. The individual refineries would enter this program at various points
depending on current performance but only have established that they are in compliance with
the prior steps.
Asset Integrity and Reliability. Plant Availability due to planned and unplanned maintenance
is the largest controllable loss of margin or income for the refineries and in some refineries
also poorer Energy performance than the site is capable of achieving. An integrated program
of tracking of unit downtime and availability, defect and bad actor elimination, Reliability
Centred Maintenance, Risk Based Inspection and Turnaround Scope challenge and
optimisation should be developed. This program must address not only the performance of the
maintenance task but also the operational aspects of the plants, such as operating windows,
and plant change management.
Organisational Effectiveness. The skills and competencies of all levels of the organisations
need to be aligned with the above programs. A Business Leadership program should be
developed to ensure that the organisation develops the correct skills and balance to
successfully implement the above programs.
Supply Chain Optimisation. Having implemented the above programs is will be necessary to
develop the overall refinery and distribution networks and the product qualities to fully optimise
and integrate the refinery infrastructure.
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL
Operational Benchmarking of Indian PSU Refineries

Tercile Ranking Table
Visakh
Gujarat
Panipat
Numaligarh
Mumbai
Mumbai (Mahul)
Haldia
Mathura
Mangalore
Kochi
Guwahati
Digboi
Manali
Bongaigaon
Attribute
Barauni
Ranking of Indian PSU Refineries vs. Indian PSU Refineries
Energy & Hydrocarbon Loss

Management
1.
Site CEL Index
2.
Energy Index
3.
Generation Index
4.
Fuel & Loss (% Wt. SRF on Intake)
5.
Refinery Hydrocarbon Loss (% Wt. on Intake)
Human Resources Management

6.
Overall Shell Personnel Index
7.
Operations Personnel Index
8.
Maintenance Personnel Index
9.
Own Staff Overtime % of Standard Activities
10.
Contractors % of Standard Activities
11.
Labour Costs (US $ Millions/NSP)
Maintenance Performance, Reliability &

Availability Optimization
12.
Site Maintained Availability (%)
13.
Crude Distiller Unplanned Downtime (%)
14.
Maintenance Cost (US $/MUc)
15.
Maintenance Effort (Hour/year/MUc)
16.
CO2 Emission (T/T of Crude + Feedstock)
17.
VOC Emission (% Wt. on Crude + Feedstock)
18.
Oil discharge to Environment (ppm)
19.
Oil Discharge at Refinery Fence (g/T C+F)
20.
Site Gross Margin (US $/bbl)
21.
Site Total Operating Cost (US $/bbl)
22.
Site Energy Costs (US $/bbl)
23.
Cash Operating Expense (US $/bbl)
24.
Site Net Margin (US $/bbl)

Top Tercile
Second Tercile
Third Tercile
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL

Visakh
Gujarat
Panipat
Numaligarh
Mumbai
Mumbai (Mahul)
Haldia
Mathura
Mangalore
Kochi
Guwahati
Digboi
Manali
Bongaigaon
Attribute
Barauni
Ranking of Indian PSU Refineries vs. Refineries in the Asia Pacific or East Region

Management
1.
Site CEL Index
2.
Energy Index
3.
Generation Index
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Site Gross Margin (US $/bbl)*
21.
22.
23.
24.
Site Net Margin (US $/bbl)*

Top Tercile
Second Tercile
Third Tercile
* Gross and Nett Margins have not been determined

for all Asia Pacific sites and no ranking carried out
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL

Visakh
Gujarat
Panipat
Numaligarh
Mumbai
Mumbai (Mahul)
Haldia
Mathura
Mangalore
Kochi
Guwahati
Digboi
Manali
Bongaigaon
Attribute
Barauni
Ranking of Indian PSU Refineries vs. Global Refineries

Management
1.
Site CEL Index
2.
Energy Index
3.
Generation Index
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

Top Tercile
Second Tercile
Third Tercile
* Gross and Nett Margins have not been determined

for all Global Refineries and no ranking carried out
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL
BPCL REFINERIES
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL

Executive summary
Name of the refinery: Mumbai (Mahul)
Company: BPCL
Ranking
Attribute
Value Value
04/05 03/04
Peer Group
Asia Pacific
Total Shell
Population
15 Indian PSU
Refineries
39 Refineries
62 Refineries

Management
1.
Site CEL Index
168.3
168.6
15
33
52
2.
Energy Index
164.5
163.9
14
31
50
3.
Generation Index
107.0
116.2
16
27
4.
6.2%
6.1%
11
22
5.
0.54%
0.62%
14
24
40
584
608
10
32
55
48

6.
7.
361
344
25
8.
669
752
10
33
56
9.
11%
9%
22
40
10.
45%
42%
19
38
11.
0.92
0.79
13
29
39
30

12.
Site Maintained Availability (% Excl Slowdown)
95.7
95.7
18
13.
0.0
0.9
14.
460
496
13
15
15.
81.0
95.2
10
31
53
16.
0.165
0.162
11
19
17.
0.052
0.092
24
38
18.
4.0
5.0
23
30
19.
9.8
10.9
13
29
46
20.
5.45
3.24
11
21.
3.07
2.75
13
22
22.
1.71
1.50
21
32
13
14
23.
24.
1.01
0.92
4.44003
2.32
* Gross and Nett Margins have only been determined for India Peer group. No ranking is made for Asia Pacific or Global Peers
14
2
Poorer Ranking
Improve Ranking
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL

Executive summary
Name of the refinery: Kochi
Company: BPCL
Ranking
Attribute
Value Value
04/05 03/04
Peer Group
Asia Pacific
Total Shell
Population
15 Indian PSU
Refineries
39 Refineries
62 Refineries
10
24
42

Management
1.
Site CEL Index
142.5
138.3
2.
Energy Index
138.5
137.8
19
31
3.
Generation Index
135.2
126.5
12
28
44
4.
5.9%
5.7%
10
20
5.
0.40%
0.29%
10
16
30
51

6.
508
531
28
7.
396
439
29
52
8.
531
533
30
53
9.
6%
10%
11
26
10.
31%
30%
13
11.
0.64
0.70
18
22
94.7
95.4
22
40

12.
13.
1.2
0.3
12
30
51
14.
558
424
12
21
25
15.
66.5
68.2
29
49
23
16.
0.174
0.182
14
17.
0.035
0.041
13
24
18.
2.1
1.3
22
29
19.
9.1
10.5
25
42
20.
8.21
3.65
21.
3.03
2.87
12
20
22.
1.72
1.60
22
33
23.
0.96
0.87
11
12
24.
7.25
2.78
14
2
Poorer Ranking
Improve Ranking
January 2006
CONFIDENTIAL

Executive summary
Name of the refinery: Numaligarh
Company: BPCL
Ranking
Attribute
Value Value
04/05 03/04
Peer Group
Asia Pacific
Total Shell
Population
15 Indian PSU
Refineries
39 Refineries
62 Refineries
15

Management
1.
Site CEL Index
117.4
123.4
2.
Energy Index
118.4
117.0
15
3.
Generation Index
115.6
132.3
15
35
59
4.
8.4%
9.3%
12
27
44
5.
0.24%
0.82%
16
546
607
30
53

6.
7.
312
280
20
43
8.
557
697
31
54
9.
8%
8%
17
34
10.
61%
65%
15
37
58
11.
0.41
0.34

12.
93.9
95.8
27
46
13.
2.5
0.4
14
34
56
14.
201
267
15.
73.8
92.7
30
51
54
16.
0.297
0.292
13
35
17.
0.096
0.129
13
33
50
18.
2.0
2.5
20
27
19.
0.7
0.9
16
20.
11.01
4.55
21.
5.89
5.80
13
34
56
22.
2.89
2.91
14
35
55
23.
0.90
0.90
24.
10.11
3.65
14
2
Poorer Ranking
Improve Ranking

00 Executive Summary BPCL Draft 04

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

00 Executive Summary BPCL Draft 04

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

January 2006

REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5

Energy and Hydrocarbon Loss Management

Shell Global Solutions International, The Hague

Executive Summary - Page 1

REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5

REFINERY COMPLEXITY AND INTAKE

ENERGY AND HYDROCARBON LOSS

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Shell Global Solutions International, The Hague

Executive Summary - Page 2

REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5

MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE, RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OPTIMISATION

Shell Global Solutions International, The Hague

Executive Summary - Page 3

REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5

Shell Global Solutions International, The Hague

Executive Summary - Page 4

REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5

KEY FOCUS AREAS

Shell Global Solutions International, The Hague

Executive Summary - Page 5

REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5

Operational Benchmarking of Indian PSU Refineries

Ranking of Indian PSU Refineries vs. Indian PSU Refineries

Energy & Hydrocarbon Loss

Site CEL Index

Fuel & Loss (% Wt. SRF on Intake)

Refinery Hydrocarbon Loss (% Wt. on Intake)

Human Resources Management

Overall Shell Personnel Index

Operations Personnel Index

Maintenance Personnel Index

Own Staff Overtime % of Standard Activities

Contractors % of Standard Activities

Labour Costs (US $ Millions/NSP)

Maintenance Performance, Reliability &

Site Maintained Availability (%)

Crude Distiller Unplanned Downtime (%)

Maintenance Cost (US $/MUc)

Maintenance Effort (Hour/year/MUc)

CO2 Emission (T/T of Crude + Feedstock)

VOC Emission (% Wt. on Crude + Feedstock)

Oil discharge to Environment (ppm)

Oil Discharge at Refinery Fence (g/T C+F)

Site Gross Margin (US $/bbl)

Site Total Operating Cost (US $/bbl)

Site Energy Costs (US $/bbl)

Cash Operating Expense (US $/bbl)

Site Net Margin (US $/bbl)

None or few Potential Opportunities

Shell Global Solutions International, The Hague

Executive Summary - Page 6

REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE - Indian PSU Refineries - 2004/5

Operational Benchmarking of Indian PSU Refineries

Energy & Hydrocarbon Loss

Site CEL Index

Fuel & Loss (% Wt. SRF on Intake)

Refinery Hydrocarbon Loss (% Wt. on Intake)

Overall Shell Personnel Index

Operations Personnel Index

Human Resources Management

Maintenance Personnel Index

Own Staff Overtime % of Standard Activities