FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LIMITED

Improving Energy Efficiency of

Vintage Plant
Muhammad Farooq
Manager Process Engineering (FFC-HO)

ARL PLNAT MAINTENANCE & OPERATION CONFERENCE

1
• EFFICIENCY
• PRODUCTIVITY
• LOSS PREVENTION
• COST OPTIMIZATION

ENGINEER

2
 Case Study

• Ammonia Urea Fertilizer Complex,

Commissioned in 1981

• Ammonia 1000 MTPD

(HTAS, Denmark Technology)

• Urea 1740 MTPD

(Snamprogetti, Italy Technology)

• Acquired by FFC in 2002 through

privatization process

3
 The Improvement Process

Involving all
Stakeholders
o Not in discussion – Capital Intensive Projects
Engineering Software
o Challenge the “established norms”

o ‘Fear of unknown’ – Hurdle to move further Historical Data

Analysis

Cost Benefit Analysis

“There are many things that seem

impossible only so long as one does
not attempt them” 4
 Specific Energy Consumption Trend (% of Design)
100 100 100 100
97
96

93
92 93
92 92 91

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

5
 Presentation Sequence

1. Introduction to FFC

2. Performance Records

3. Task Force

4. Strategy for Improving Energy Efficiency

5. Energy Saving Actions

6. Results Achieved
6
 About FFC 1
ESTABLISHED IN 1978 Stakes in Banking,
LARGEST UREA Energy & Cement
PRODUCER OF PAKISTAN FFC ENERGY LIMITED
SUBSIDIARIES
3 >1 FAUJI FRESH n
FREEZE LIMITED

UREA
PLANTS
2.5 BILLION
BAGS FFC
FAUJI FERTILIZER
BIN QASIM LIMITED
(sold till
MILLION date)
MET UREA ASKARI BANK
(annual
LIMITED
ASSOCIATED
RANKED 1st AMONG
production) THE KSE COMPANIES
FAUJI CEMENT
TOP 25 (Since 2010) COMPANY LIMITED
ANNUAL TURNOVER : OVER PAK MAROC
800 MILLION USD PHOSPHORE S.A,
MOROCCO7
 Performance Records 2
2016 Exceeding the 2.5 Million Met Benchmark

2015 One Billionth Bag

2009 Debottlenecking of Plant-III

2002 Acquisition of Plant-III

1998 Commissioning of FFBL

1993 Commissioning of Plant-II

1993 Debottlenecking of Plant-I

1982 Commissioning of Plant-I

1978 Incorporation of the Company

8
 Task Force 3

Review energy consumption of the

complex

Evaluation of energy saving

proposals

Provide suggestions for

improvement

9
ENERGY EFFICIENCY THE TOP MOST PRIORITY

Helical Coil Heat Exchanger

First Modification by FFC 10
 Helical Coil Heat Exchanger

Demineralized
water
M

Reverse Pump Benfield Pump

Flushing Pumps

11
 Helical Coil Heat Exchanger
BFW

Reverse Pump Benfield Pump

Helical Coil Heat Exchanger

12
 Strategy for Improving Energy Efficiency 4
LOSS PREVENTION OPTIMIZATION
Negligible cost – Significant Impact Low cost – High Impact

• Steam / condensate loss • Utilize Process Margins

1 2
• Rolling turbines • Pressure drop / let down

PROJECTS
High cost – Major Impact
4 3 MODIFICATIONS
Moderate cost – Very High Impact

• Upgrade vintage technology • Target Inefficient Unit Ops

• Opt for more economical processes • Balance efficiency & reliability

13
 Energy Saving Actions 5
1. LOSS PREVENTION
Sr. Actions Impact

~4 ton/h steam
A Stoppage of Boiler FD Fan Turbine
(PKR 50 Mn. per year)
~4 ton/h steam
B Stoppage of One CW Pump
(PKR 50 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
C Stoppage of Selected Cooling Tower Fans
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
01 Kg/cm2 pressure drop
D Orifice Removal from Natural Gas Line
recovered
~3 ton/h steam
E Passing Steam Trap Audit
(PKR 40 Mn. per year)
14
 Energy Saving Actions 5
2. OPTIMIZATION
Sr. Actions Impact

~3 ton/h steam
A Steam to Carbon Ratio Optimization
(PKR 40 Mn. per year)
~4 ton/h steam
B MS Steam in Benfield Regenerator
(PKR 50 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
C Speed Reduction of Benfield Turbine
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
~2 ton/h steam
D Operation of De-super heater
(PKR 24 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
E PCT Steam Optimization
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
15
Steam to Carbon Ratio 5

16
16
 Energy Saving Actions 5
2. OPTIMIZATION
Sr. Actions Impact

~3 ton/h steam
A Steam to Carbon Ratio Optimization
(PKR 40 Mn. per year)
~4 ton/h steam
B MS Steam in Benfield Regenerator
(PKR 50 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
C Speed Reduction of Benfield Turbine
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
~2 ton/h steam
D Operation of De-super heater
(PKR 24 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
E PCT Steam Optimization
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
17
 Energy Saving Actions 5
2. OPTIMIZATION
Sr. Actions Impact

~1 ton/h steam
F Change-over of fan turbine with motor
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
G De-aerator Vents Optimization
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
Excess Air Optimization – Reduced from 5% to
H Boiler Efficiency improved
2%
Energy saved from BFW
I BFW Pressure Reduction
pumps
Gas saved – ~ 1400
J HRSG Capacity Increase to 33 Met/h
Nmc/day
18
 Energy Saving Actions 5
3. MODIFICATIONS
Sr. Actions Impact

~1 ton/h steam
A Water Distribution Cooling Tower Decks
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
~Temp decreased by
B Cooling Tower Fans Pitch Angles
0.5°C
~7 ton/h steam
C Replacement of 07 Back Pressure Turbines
(PKR 85 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
D Reversal of New DMW Coil Flow Path
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
Air Compressor Turbine LS Governor ~1 ton/h steam
E
Rectification (PKR 12 Mn. per year)
19
 Water Distribution Cooling Tower Decks
Cooling Tower with 8 Fans Cooling Tower with 2 Fans
5

Cooling
Water

Surface Condenser

Cooling Water 20
20
 Water Distribution Cooling Tower Decks
Cooling Tower with 8 Fans Cooling Tower with 2 Fans
5

Cooling
Water Surface Condenser

Cooling Water

21
21
 Energy Saving Actions 5
3. MODIFICATIONS
Sr. Actions Impact

~1 ton/h steam
A Water Distribution Cooling Tower Decks
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
~Temp decreased by
B Cooling Tower Fans Pitch Angles
0.5°C
~7 ton/h steam
C Replacement of 07 Back Pressure Turbines
(PKR 85 Mn. per year)
~1 ton/h steam
D Reversal of New DMW Coil Flow Path
(PKR 12 Mn. per year)
Air Compressor Turbine LS Governor ~1 ton/h steam
E
Rectification (PKR 12 Mn. per year)
22
 RESULTS ACHIEVED

ADDN. FUEL
STEAM GAS
UREA BILL >1200 Mn. PKR
SAVED SAVED TOTAL COST SAVINGS
PROD SAVED

35 tph 4 MMSCFD 110 MTPD 700 Mn. PKR

Significant reduction is specific energy consumption.

23
 RESULTS ACHIEVED

36%
43%
Efficiency Improvement
Energy
Measures
GT & HRSG 21%

24
 Conclusion

o Two Ways to Reduce Energy

o Smaller Projects
o Mega Projects
o Importance of mega projects can not be ruled out, however, they
are capital intensive and require more time for execution
o Smaller projects are more desirable as their return to investment
ratio is quite high
o Takeaway : One should think out of the box and analyse all
available options
25
Thank you

26