Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
UNIT
Block 2, Forum 7 poster
hydrogen,
fuel gas,
wet gas,
light gasoline,
light platformate, and
platformate.
Item
no.
1
1
2
MpS for
own
consumptio
Annual q'ty in t Cost price USD/t Total in USD
n
3
4
5
6
30 000
9.66
289 800
289 800
10 000
0.45
4 525
4 525
10 000
0.165
1 650
2 400
2.3
285
2.4
190
Total (1+2)
Quantity in t
40 000
7.36
294 325
294 325
40 000
7.36
5 Cost price of MpS in USD /t
Table1 shows that the largest portion of medium pressure steam (MpS) needed for this unit,
30 000 t or 89 TJ, is provided from the Refinery Power Plant at the cost price of 9.66 USD /t,
and the difference of 10 000 t or 30 TJ is generated in this unit at the cost price of 0.45 USD
/t, so the average cost price of medium pressure steam used in this unit is 7.36 USD /t.
Basic explanation for such a low cost price of medium pressure steam (MpS) generated on
this unit (0.45 USD /t) lies in the fact that the steam is obtained as a by-product, by utilizing
the heat of the flue gases in boilerutilizer thus offsetting the consumption of engine fuel (fuel
oil or fuel gas) which shares, in calculating cost prices of the steam generated in Refinery
Power Plant, with about 80 %.
--------------------------
MJ
or
312.6 --------------------------
t of feedstock
t of feedstock
79 kg steam
Net:
------------------------
MJ
or
233.8 --------------------------
t of feedstock
t of feedstock
Table 2 presents the target standard of net energy consumption and specific gross and net
energy consumption, and Table 3 shows the financial presentation of energy consumption
and money savings of 548 100 USD /y (380 605 t x 1.44 USD /t) which can be achieved by
eliminating the differences between the target standard (average energy consumption of
Western European refineries) and specific gross and net energy consumption of this refinery
unit.
By comparing net energy consumption of a typical plant with the target standard, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1) Specific electric energy consumption is close to the target standard.
2) Specific net consumption of process and thermal energy (fuel and steam) of 3 079.2 MJ/t
exceeds the target standard (2 656 MJ/t) by 16 %.
Total specific net energy consumption is 3 232.2 MJ/t i.e. 15 % higher than the target standard
(2 800 MJ/t). Compared with the target standard of net energy consumption, a typical plant
has efficiency/inefficiency index 115.
Table 2. Target Standard of Net Energy Consumption and Specific Energy Consumption in a Typicall Catalytic
Reforming Unit (quantity of energy per one tonne of feedstock)
Energy carriers
Target standard
of net energy
consumption
consumption
consumption
(MJ/t)
(kg/t)
1
(MJ/t)
(kg/t)
1
(MJ/t)
(kWh/t)
57.1
2 845.4
2 845.4
57.1
2 845.4
2 845.4
MP steam
150
312.6
312.6
79
233.8
233.8
Sources of heat
2 656
3 158.0
3 079.2
153
153
3 232.2
total
total
Fuel
Fuel gas
Heat carriers
Electric energy
144
40.0
42.5
Energy carriers
2 800
153.0
153
42.5
3 311
Table 3. Financial Presentation of Energy Consumption and Money Savings in a Typical Catalytic Reforming Unit
(in USD)
feedstock
Fuel gas
Medium pressure steam
Sources of heat
Electric energy
Energy carriers
380 605 t
380 605 t
380 605 t
380 605 t
380 605 t
380 605 t
USD
(2 845.4 MJ/t x 0.0027 USD /MJ) =
(312.6 MJ/t x 0.002462 USD /MJ) =
(3 158.0 MJ/t x 0.002676 USD /MJ)
(153 MJ/t x 0.0167 USD /MJ) =
(3 311 MJ/t x 0.00332446 USD /MJ)
2 924 028
292 922
3 216 950
972 484
4 189 434
USD /t
(2 845.4 MJ/t x 0.0027 USD /MJ) =7.682580
(233.8 MJ/t x 0.002462 USD /MJ) =0.575656
(3 079.2 MJ/t x 0.0026819 USD /MJ) =8.258236
(153 MJ/t x 0.0167 USD /MJ) =2.555100
(3 232.2 MJ/t x 0.0033455 USD /MJ) =10.813336
(3 079.2 MJ/t x 0.0026819 USD /MJ) =8.26
(2 656 MJ/t x 0.0026819 USD /MJ) =7.12
1.14
(3 232.2 MJ/t x 0.0033455 USD /MJ) =10.81
(2 800 MJ/t x 0.0033455 USD /MJ) =9.37
1.44
Increased consumption of process and thermal energy in a typical plant is caused by different
factors, the most important being:
Semi-products
Thermal Value
Method
Average Production
Cost Method
Dry gas
138.23
245.93
238.31
Wet gas
138.23
245.93
238.31
Light gasoline
205.89
243.66
238.31
Light platformate
231.91
241.40
238.31
Heavy platformate
268.34
234.60
238.31
The stated examples of the calculating bases effects on determining the equivalent numbers
do not present all the dilemmas that experts dealing with process industry calculations can
face. The effects of the choice of reference derivatives (heavy platformate whose density is
825 kg/m3, light platformate whose density is 712 kg/m3 and light gasoline whose density is
630 kg/m3) on determining the equivalent numbers, in the case of using the same calculating
base for determining the equivalent numbers (Density Method) are shown in Table 5.
It can be seen that the differences appearing in this case are smaller than those appearing in
the previous example of determining the equivalent numbers by different calculating bases
(density, thermal value and quantity of products).
The results obtained by using the different reference derivatives, but the same calculating
base, i.e. Density Method, are shown in Table 5.
Item
no.
Semi-products
products
Heavy platformate
Light platformate
Light gasoline
Dry gas
138.23
138.23
137.17
Wet gas
138.23
138.23
137.17
Light gasoline
205.89
205.52
206.65
Light platformate
231.91
232.44
232.46
Heavy platformate
268.34
268.33
268.19
The cost prices of semi-products generated on the Catalytic Reforming Unit, were calculated in the
following manner, by means of the Product Density Method:
Semi products
1
Dry gas
2
138.23
Wet gas
138.23
Light gasoline
205.89
Light platformate
231.91
Heavy platformate
268.34
Conclusion
The purpose of this Paper was to present the possibilities which modern science-based
management offers to the operating and strategic management in the sphere of monitoring
the process efficiency and business effectiveness of fuel type refineries.
ln order to establish an efficient management system, it is necessary to determine the
coresponding instruments and measures upon which the mentioned management system
could be based. Constant improvement of the existing and the development of new
instruments and measures for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness are necessary as
well, because the main goal of the production is the profit or benefit, and not the production
itself.
Table 6. Determining the Equivalent Numbers for Distributing the Proportional Costs on Catalytic Reforming Unit
(%) for
Cost of Cost
Equiva
Cost of
Conditio
Oil Quantit Q'ty Densit
prortion
1
price
l
It.
feedstock
n
produc
y
from
y
al
conditio in
numbe
no.
in USD
units
t
in tons 1tonne g/cm3
costs
n unit USD/t
r
9(6 x
1
2
3
4
5
6 7(4 x 6)
8
10(3 x 9)
11
8)
Dry
1 gas 39905.8 67.95 0.41 0.50 33.98 251.568 125.78 5019511 0.038
Wet
2 gas 25631.7 43.65 0.41 0.50 21.83 251.568 125.78 3224052 0.024
Light
gasolin 102100.
3
e
173.86 0.63 0.76 132.13 251.568 191.19 19520770 0.149
5
Light
platfor
74
4
m
999.6 127.37 0.71 0.86 109.54 251.568 216.35 16182770 0.123
Heavy
platfor 344823.
5
m
587.17 0.82 1.00 587.17 251.568 251.57 86746469 0.663
9
587261.
13069357
6 Total
5
1000.0
884.65
2
1.000
7
Loss
0.0
587261.
8 TOTAL
5
Cost of
feedstock
in USD
(entry-exit)
12
5 019 511
3 224 052
19 520
770
16 182
770
86 746
469
130 693
572
no
Elementsfor
calculation
Q'ty in tons
Total in
USD
Cost
price
USD/t
Dry gas
Wet gas
Q'ty in tons
587261.5
It.
Light
Light
Heavy
gasoline
platform.
platform.
10
(%)
2
from equivalent
numbers
Feedstock
Chemicals
66 434
2 552
1 639
9 923
8 226
44 095
Water
632
24
16
94
78
419
Steam
642 439
24 674
15 848
95 957
79 548
426 412
Electric power
1 503 720
57 753
37 095
224 600
186 194
998 078
Fuel
2 269 677
87 171
55 990
339 006
281 036
1506474
10
Depreciation
1 574
107
69
274
200
924
11
Other production
costs
685 936
46 611
29 938
119 256
87 368
402 763
12
Wages
1 627 536
110 595
71 036
282 961
207 299
955 645
13
Taxes
715 913
48 648
31247
124 468
91 186
420 364
14
Unit management
costs
1 243 385
84 491
54 269
216 173
158 370
730 081
251 198
17 069
10 964
43 673
31 995
147 496
16 932
10 876
43 322
31 738
146 312
15
Laboratory and
Maintenancecosts
587261.5
13069357
2
222.55 5 019511 3224052 19520770 16182770
16
Common services
costs
249 180
17
Total costs
139 95195
18
Cost price in
USD/t
238.31
867469
138.23
205.89
231.90
268.33