Techniques for developing a cost-effective expansion will be presented. The key is advanced planning and evaluating constructability. The limiting large equipment capacity will be determined using process heat and material balance simulations and rating of the equipment. Once bottlenecks are determined, the rest of the facility can be revamped. Heat pinch will be used in the heat exchanger trains as heat input is usually the limiting item. A crude, vacuum and delayed coker complex expansion will be provided as an example. Attendees will be provided with a step-by-step procedure on how to get more capacity, reduce energy usage or improve product quality from a unit or complex. Process simulations, equipment rating by computer evaluations, hydraulics, cost-estimates at the fel-0 conceptual, fel-1 factored and fel-2 take-off level will be provided. A process complex featuring three different types of units will be used as an example.

1. Cost Effective DeBottleneck / Expansion
Project Revamps
Ray Elshout PE, Energy Systems Engineering, Pasadena CA USA
Peter Nick PE, Consultant, Yorba Linda CA USA
Lynn Brown, PE, Consultant, Placentia, CA

2. Once Upon a Time
o Greenfield plants ‐ preferred way to expand ~ 25‐30% ROI
o Engineering tools ‐ Then ‐ labor intensive ‐ maximum manhrs.
Now ‐ minimize manhrs w new‐fangled computer programs.
o Only a relatively few E&C (former acronym) firms were true service provider candidates
and usually the only difference among them was project‐by‐project willingness to “make‐
a‐deal” Rephrase – not sure what we are getting at here.
o Plant performance criteria ‐ increased capacity; lower operating &
feed/product costs.
o Scope changes ‐ time consuming & engineering labor intensive

3. Now the Playing Field Has Changed
o Today – Tight Capital, wide fluctuations in cost of energy.
Grassroots projects ‐ often not economically feasible.
o Engineering tools ‐ more productive ‐ several commercial data packages &
‐ E&C company proprietary data packages.
o Int’l EPCM firms ‐ engineering services at lower prices.
Construction providers catching up.
o Now ‐ Plant performance & Safety, environmental, operating flexibility
o Optimal scope changes & case studies ‐ performed earlier in project.
o Improved Project productivity ‐ Lower fees and shorter schedules.
CAN YOU KEEP UP AND COMPETE ?

4. Smaller Expectations = Smaller Projects
Increasing Capacity ‐ Debottleneck existing, instead of NEW, while also
‐ reducing energy usage, improving profitability.
Debottlenecking ‐ > difficult vs new. Identify major, limiting equipment.
Modify ‐ increase capacity, etc. ‐ to the limit of these equipment items.
Two types of revamp projects must be noted:
1. Revamp affects primarily just the re‐engineered units. Minor utility, construction
procedures (UNIT online) are the primary concerns.
2. Revamp unit yield changes affect many units in the refinery. Construction/Startup
more complex. Economics performed for entire plant. Most refinery revamps
follow this pattern.

5. REVAMP APPROACH
Trial & Error ‐ Look @ alternate options, equipment to be modified, Or
‐ supplemented with additional equipment.
Then ‐ preliminary cost estimates ‐ Can the improvement in economics support the
costs of the modifications ?
Method ‐ The FEED approach – Front End Engineering & Design
‐ More detailed cost estimates made as engineering detail proceeds:
FEL‐0 (aka Appraise) conceptual estimate based on PFD & equipment list.
FEL‐1 (aka Select) factored estimate ‐ equipment prices X cost factors.
FEL‐2 (aka Define) conceptual estimate w estimating programs and
conceptual take‐offs.

6. PRE FEL‐0 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS
With a Complete Picture of the Revamp BASECASE
If FEL‐0 still positive, Client And/Or Contractor Reps Gather :
BFD*/PFD**/P&ID**
MAJOR PROCESS EQUIPMENT SPECS & DETAILED VESSEL DWGS**
MAINTENANCE RECORDS ‐ MECHANICAL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS***
THERMAL IMAGING SLIDES @ NEAR MAX CAPACITY* ?
PROCESS & CONTROL LOOP DATA ‐ AT LEAST ONE YEAR PRIOR**
PLANT LP RUNS &/OR PRODUCTION SCHEDULE ‐ ONE YEAR PRIOR*
PLANT RELIABILITY DATA & AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENTS**
PROCESS H&MB / RATING MODELS ** +
* DEGREE OF NEED
+ DEVELOP IF MISSING

7. Test Run & Start of Staff up
TEST RUN ++ 24 ‐72 hour test run ‐ develop actual operating data.
Process simulators (e.g. HYSIS/ASPEN, PROMAX, PRO II, ChemCad)
‐ construct a REASONABLE model of actual current operations if
historical data is not adequate).
Additional Staff
‐ ONBOARD EPCM ‐ PROJ MGR / LEAD PROCESS+ 0.5‐2/MECH+0.5/IAC 0.5 ‐
OTHERS PART OR FULL TIME AS NEEDED
‐ CLIENT ‐ PLANT MGR/PLANNING MGR/PROJ MGR/ CORP &PLANT STAFF
AS NEEDED.
‐ IMPORTANT NEEDS THIS PHASE ‐ OUTSTANDING PROCESS MODELER,
COST DATA BANK & ESTIMATOR

8. FEL‐0 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS
DEFINE BASECASE & PLANT CONSTRAINTS
Analyze Gathered Data for Consistency**
Develop FEL‐0 Scope Of Work (SOW) ‐ Get Project Team & Client BUY‐IN **
Setup BASECASEMODELS (PRO II, Aspen Tech, PROMAX, Chemstations, etc.) +**
Modify Models for each Case Study ‐ OPTIMIZE Based on Independent Process
Variables **
Estimate Preliminary Capital & Operating Costs ‐ EACH CASE**
Estimate Plant Wide Economics from Client LP* or from Yield Config Model (e.g.
PETROPLAN, etc.)**+
* DEGREE OF NEED
+ DEVELOP IF MISSING

9. FEL‐0 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS
Analyzing The Problem & Avoiding Tunnel Vision
Initial case evaluation ‐ Look at a broad range of potential schemes. Brainstorm with a
group of different disciplines.
Process Optimization alternatives from equipment revamps. Heat exchange revamps
from Pinch Point analysis, new column trays, new vessel ID reductions, etc.
Operational representation in these sessions is essential. Their Buy‐In is essential.
They have detailed knowledge of day‐to‐day, operating subtleties of any given unit.
Limitations ‐ major existing equipment– Modifications to existing major
equipment ‐ typically more cost‐effective than New equipment. Changing nozzles, internals,
impellers, motors, etc. ‐ usually cost‐effective. Reuse of existing foundations.
Constructabilitymust be considered. Piping, utility support system conflicts. Plot
space available, laydown room for construction, etc. Reuse of existing foundations.

10. FEL‐0 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS
Determining the Capital Costs
Defining the Problem ‐ Process Description, marked up PFD, SOW
Some cases may not survive the initial screening.
Total Installed Costs – TIC ‐ increasing accuracy as engineering proceeds.
Preliminary Engineering – Cost Estimating purposes only ‐ not final design.
Contractor beware ‐ Do Not waste Manhrs on unnecessary detail.
FEED approach – conducted by the principles above. “Screen” the options.
Do Not waste ManHrs on options which are not economic.
Experienced Construction/Operations personnel vital in upfront screening phases
This assures Constructability, Operability.

11. FEL‐0 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS
Conceptual Screening Cost Estimates I
We now have : Revamp PFD, Equipment List & SOW ‐ each option.
Conceptual Cost Estimates ~ +100/‐50% accurate. Use cost /capacity curves ‐
past projects w escalation. TIC is GENERAL ‐ No specific design.
Exponential Capacity Cost (ECC) factorials ‐ $ vs Size
0.6 to 0.7 ‐ equipment w declining unit cost to capacity ratio.
0.70‐0.8 ‐ modularized pkgs 1.0 – identical. Vendor discounts w large order.
.
One approach‐ new/modified Revamp ‐ % updated ISBL existing cost.
TICNEW/TICEXIST x (RateNEW/RateCEXIST)0.7 , or appropriate ECC factorial.

12. FEL‐0 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS
Conceptual Screening Cost Estimates II
The Outside battery Limits Costs (OSBL) is much defined and more difficult to pin down the accuracy
without doing more engineering. So the cost are good enough for comparative evaluations of the cases,
but not good enough to make a go ahead recommendation.
These for initial purposes could be taken as some percentage of the ISBL costs (say add 50 percent of
ISBL costs to get the OSBL additional costs) for starting purposes. The important thing is that all the
items associated with a modification are included and nothing is forgotten.
Typically things are forgotten so the under run is rare.
Even though the estimating may be extremely rough, the trends between the cases tend to reflect what
costs are for more detailed estimates. Screening on this basis should sometimes be reviewed to make
sure something has not been ruled out prematurely. Sometimes, but rarely, cost may indicate that the
project is not feasible and must be re thought.
To guide the whole decision making process, the refinery operator usually supplies economic criteria
for a Go‐No Go decision by which the revamp will be judged. Initially a simple return on investment
based on the before tax economic revenues in terms of years for payout. Later on in the evaluation
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) including more economic development is made.

13. FEL‐1 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS I
Narrowing in on accuracy
At this level of cost estimating, engineering work needs to the degree that the specifications allow .
Most Larger Refineries already have general equipment specification used for various vendors to quote
their particular equipment type. They also have a preferred vendor list. Obviously, the more definitive
the specification is, the better the cost vendors can provide.
Multiple vendor quotes are suggested if time permits. So the process data plus a general pecifications
would be useful to get estimates that represent current design practices.
The original equipment vendors can be very useful in the evaluation of their supplied equipment in
the new services they may be switched. With pumps you supply the flow rates, material gravities and
differential pressure and the vendor can then make their evaluation.
Generally, factored type of cost estimates are utilized to generate the installed equipment costs. Ie.,
the individual equipment items are multiplied by a factor (typically 4.0 for pumps, 3.0 for heat
exchangers, 2.5 for big compressors and etc.) to represent the as built cost.
Sum up these individual equipment factor estimates to get the total facility incremental cost factored
estimate. These estimates are considered +50 /‐25 percent for ISBL assuming nothing is forgotten.

14. FEL‐1 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS II
Narrowing in on accuracy
As with FEL‐0, costs are only for the ISBL portion and the OSBL portion has to be added. The accuracy of
the estimate is good enough for comparison of the cases, but not accurate to initiate the project.
Note that in addition to the cost of new equipment, you need to consider the costs of removing
equipment and demolishing if required to make space for replacement equipment. If an exchanger is just
switched in service the cost of the piping including both sides is the only cost. But if the exchanger has to be
physically moved and the foundation modified for the new equipment, this cost should include these items.
At this level of estimating, it may be obvious which project options are not optimum. But it may be
necessary to come back and visit some of the deleted options at a later time.
In this phase, it may be appropriate to examine whether a change in sparing/redundancy considerations
is called for to maximize reusability and also process availability. One of the underilized optimization
modeling techniques are RAM studies with which annual availability estimates can be estimated along with
duration and types of failure induced downtimes. If that downtime causes excessive flaring incidents, for
example, the costs could be far beyond lost production time.

15. FEL‐2 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS I
Last Iteration before Design to Build Step
The next level of cost estimate requires preliminary marked up P & ID’s and equipment data sheets, which
provide firm equipment pricing from vendors.
Computer estimating tools like Icarus/IPE/KBASE can be used to provide the necessary inclusion of the
cost component for the piping, electrical, civil/structural portions of estimate without doing a detailed
take‐off. Then we can utilize plot plan and some hand sketches to estimate the rough and dirty cost of
equipment installation and associated piping runs, foundations and other plot specific items.
Constructability need to be part of the evaluation. Equipment weights are important for the structure
needs .This gives estimators a better feel for how much additional extra contingency may be appropriate.
The objective is to get enough information so that a cost estimating program can be used to include the
required peripheral piping, foundations, electrical, instrumentation and structural requirements sufficient
for cost estimating.
So some additional engineering is done, but it is not detailed engineering it is for the purposes of cost
estimating level. A seasoned cost estimator is critical , and apply the appropriate factors to arrive at
reasonable installed costs.

16. FEL‐2 TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS II
Last Iteration before Design to Build Steps
Estimates of this level are considered +25/‐15 percent accurate. Again, this is the inside battery limits only.
Anything forgotten obviously is not included in the cost estimate.
The OSBL costs are still a factor of the ISBL costs. To get better cost evaluations than this , take‐offs of
piping, electrical, civil/structural, instrumentation are needed.
This represents the best cost estimate to this design point without getting into much more detailed
engineering which is costly. The purpose is to do a screening amount the alternatives and determine if at
this stage any of them satisfy the project implementation economic criteria or not.
At this point, assuming the client cost gating passes you through, you are ready to finish the FEED phase.
If you have been careful up to FEL‐2, this allows a straight‐forward and effective upgrade for most of the
FEL‐2 work products into FEED documentation in conjunction with P&ID AFE levels and purchase
requisitions/specs requiring (hopefully) minimal rework or supplementation. The detailed design engineers
will be called in en‐mass to finish the FEED process and start the AFC implementation.

17. EXAMPLES
Three examples of cost‐effective upgrading are presented to illustrate the process
include refinery crude unit, vacuum unit and delayed coker unit.. Screening
alternatives using the FEED process to keep cost estimates up to date with
engineering as it is developed. Then measures to keep the project on schedule and
under budget are presented

18. Cost Effective Debottlenecking Projects
Historic Development Refinery Industry
Volatile Crude oil Pricing
Money Now Made at Refinery
Screening Options
-Incremental Expansions Are Profitable
Difficulty in Doing Retrofits Over Grass Roots
Restraints of Major Equipment Control Scope
Developing the Base Case for Reference
Prudent Selecting of Expansion Cases
Overall refinery Down Stream Units Control Upstream
Using Petroplan Block Flow Diagram Modeling
Starting the Evaluation
-Avoiding Tunnel Vision
-Three Levels of Cost Estimating
FEL-0 Conceptual (Cost curves)
FEL-1 (Factored Equipment Prices)
FEL-2 Take-offs Using Icarus/IPE

19. Cost Effective debottlenecking Projects
Cost Estimating Techniques
FEL-0 Conceptual
-Use Cost Curves for New Units
-Use Percentage of New Unit
-Adjust for Timing, Location and Quality of Construction
-ISBL Cost only, Need to Add OSBL Costs (50% ISBL)
FEL-1 Factor Equipment Costs
-Need Quotes on all Equipment
-Use conventional Factors for Equipment Types
-Add up All Equipment (Factor x Equip Price)
-Costs Represents the total ISBL Costs
-Add OSBL Costs as Percentage
FEL-2 Take-Offs Using Icarus or Other Cost Models (Aspen)
-Need equipment sizes, weights ,piping to/from, electric power, metallurgy, Insulation
Requirements, Support Requirements, Pipe distance to tie-in ,n Approximate number of
Fittings, Instrumentation & Controls
-Costs Calculated For Each Equipment Item
-Total is ISBL Costs
·-OSBL Costs based on Number of Utility Items

20. Cost Effective Debottlenecking Projects
Equipment Notes for Evaluation
· BFD's /PFD’s / HMB’s
· Process Simulations for Heat and Material balances / New Overall Plant Performance if needed
· Equipment Evaluations
-Heat Exchanger Networks-Use Hextran or AES
-Heat Exchangers-Use HTRI /HTFS Programs
-Vessels-Adhere to ASME VIII sections 1 and 2
-Distillation Columns
-Rate each section top and bottom
-Fired Heaters —Use PFR's Furnace- 5
-Air Coolers-Use PFR's AC-2
-Pumps-Head curves versus pump performance curves
-Reactors-check inlet distributor, catalyst loading, outlet collector and quench trays
-Centrifugal Compressor-head curve versus performance curve and driver power requirements
-Reciprocating Compressors —Check Unloading Capabilities

21. Cost effective Debottlenecking Projects
Crude Unit Debottlenecking Example (see Figure 1)
Crude Preheat to Desalter
Desalter
Crude Preheat Upstream of Primary Column
Primary Column Overhead System Debottlenecking
Crude Preheat Upstream
Crude Heater
Retrofitting Convection Coil and Adding SCR-NOx to Heater
Change to Packing Above the Flash Zone
Replace Pump Impellers and Pump Motors as Required
Add Additional Product Cooling
Vacuum Unit Debottlenecking Example (see Figure 2)
Modify Flash Zone Inlet to use two Inlet Horns
Add Slop Wax Recycle
Add Boot Quench
Retrofit heater for Convection Coil and SCR-NOX
Increase PA rates and Heat Exchange
Add Booster Ejector
Increase Size of Last Pass Coils and Modify Transfer Line
Delayed Coker Debottlenecking Example (see Figure 3)
Increase PA rate and Heat Recovery from Fractionator
Decrease Decoking Cycle Time with Delta Valves
Retrofit Heaters with Convection Coil and SCR-DENOX

22. ·Basecase 140 KBPD

23. ·Basecase 140 KBPD + 20 KBPD LTO

24. Basecase 140 KBPD + 40 KBPD LTO ‐ CDU WORK SCOPE

25. Basecase 140 KBPD + 40 KBPD LTO ‐ VDU WORK SCOPE