My team's six sigma green belt project where we addressed the high transfer losses during pumping of Jet Fuel from Refinery to Aviation Filling Station.

1. 1
Six Sigma Green Belt Project on
Minimization of losses during
ATF delivery from Refinery to
IOC Sahar
Six Sigma Green Belt Project on
Minimization of losses during
ATF delivery from Refinery to
IOC Sahar

2. 2
Start Date : June 2009
Black Belt : Vijay S.Dhonde / Samir Khachane
Master Black Belt : Naveen Narayanan
Project sponsor : DGM (MFG)
Team Members :Ms. S Sapre
H D Rathod
Neelesh Bhagwat
A.R.Chaudhary

3. 3
Project
SIPOC
VOC
Diagrams1
DEFINE
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

4. 4
PRODUCT
LOSS IN MTPA
(April 08-Feb 09)
ATF 3445
HSD 104
SK 67
MS 421
Product wise loss is very high in ATF, hence selected for the study.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

5. 5
ATF deliveries to IOC Sahar is contributing about 54.3 % of total loss in ATF
LOSS IN MTPA 1872 1297 277 0
Percent 54.3 37.6 8.0 0.0
Cum % 54.3 92.0 100.0 100.0
DESTINATION OtherIOC(S)IOC(S)-2IOC SAHA
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
LOSSINMTPA
Percent
Pareto Chart of DESTI NATI ON
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

6. 6
Average delivery loss is about 0.6% for ATF to IOC Sahar.
554943373125191371
4
3
2
1
0
-1
Obser vat ion
LossFactorin%
_
X=0.597
UCL=1.977
LCL=-0.782
1
1
1
I Char t of Loss Factor
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

7. 7
Project
Description
Minimizing losses during ATF product delivery from Refinery
to IOC Sahar
Business
Case
Refinery is experiencing huge losses during pipeline
transfers of various products to Other Oil Marketing
Companies (OMCs). This has resulted in huge financial loss to
the organisation
There is an urgent need to address these losses as there is
no dedicated agency in the refinery to monitor and control
these losses. The reduction of losses will increase refinery
GRM, and improve the PRISM parameters of “Fuel and Loss”.
Problem
Statement
Based on the sample data for April 08-Feb 09, it was
observed that all ATF delivery transactions from refinery to
IOC Sahar have reported average loss of 0.59% .This has
resulted in total loss of Rs. 7.43 crores for the period .
Project Charter ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

8. 8
Project Charter
Process
Owner
DGM ( Process)
Scope Start: Refinery tank gauging and sampling after receipt ex
plant.
Stop: Destination tank gauging and sampling after receipt
ex BPC MR
Excludes : Pilferage Loss
Project Goals Metric
% Loss on
Delivery
Baseline
Data from
SAP for 11
Months
Current
0.536%
Goal
0.3%
Entitlement
0.04%
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

9. 9
Expected
Business
Results
By reducing PLT loss to IOC Sahar from 0.59% to 0.3% ,
resulting in saving of Rs 3.7Cr
Expected
Customer
Benefits
Reliability improvement in operation , Tracking and
monitoring documentations and any apparent loss during
PLT.
Team members Ms. S Sapre, H D Rathod, Neelesh Bhagwat, A.R.Chaudhary
Support
Required
Operations, Prod Despatch , HPFR, Oil A/C, ED Aviation,ED
Logistics and IOC Sahar
Risks/
Constraints
HPFR for line-up and QC of line content and IOC Sahar may
not co-operate for witnessing their gauging, sampling and
testing.
Project Charter ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

10. 10
y2=Ex
CTQ (Y)
CTQ Drill Down
Minimization of PLT losses
Efficient Product
Delivery System
Accurate delivery On time Delivery
Tank certification
on time
y2=Ex
Quantitative
Accuracy
Qualitative
Accuracy
Maximum
pumping rate
Prompt
Line-up
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

11. 11
Financial Impact
Period April 2008 to Feb 2009
Total Loss while delivering
to IOC Sahar
in MT
1872
AVG RTP of ATF (Duty
paid) for the period,
Rs./MT
39696
Total Financial Loss for the
period
Rs. Crores
7.43
Total financial savings
envisaged by bringing
down the loss factor from
0.59% to 0.3%
In Rs Crores
3.7
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

12. 12
Customer Output Process Input Supplier
ATF tank sampling and
gauging
ATF tank certification.
ATF tank line-up
Start delivery to IOC
Sahar
Check hourly delivery
figures
Stop delivery, gauge
refinery tanks, and
destination tank.
Compare final receipt
and delivery figures.
ATF product
delivered to
IOC Sahar
IOC Sahar ATF
product
from Tank
nos.
401,405,409
,426
ASA
ADDITIVE
CDU-1
CDU-2
CDU-3
PH5
C O P I S ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

13. 13
FINISHED
ATF
PROCESS ACTIVITY DIAGRAM OF ATF DELIVERY TO IOC SAHAR
IOC SAHAR
TANK
ATF
COMPONENT
ASA ADDITIVE
REFINERY
BATTERY
LIMIT
HPFR
Schematic ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

14. 14
X = Where this Stakeholder IS TODAY on the Project
O = Where this Stakeholder NEEDS TO BE on the Project
* When Populating the Stakeholder, consider the ARMI:
• A= Approver of team decisions
• R= Resource or subject matter expert (ad hoc)
• M= Member of team
• I= Interested Party who will need to be kept informed
Stakeholder ARMI*
Strongly
Opposed
Opposed Neutral Supportive Strongly Supportiv
GM (OPS) A OX
SCHEDULING &
BLENDING
R
OX
TDU M OX
OIL ACCOUNTS R X O
IOC SAHAR
I X O
ED Logistics AR OX
ED Aviation AR OX
LAB R X O
Stakeholder Analysis ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

15. 15
Project Metric
%Loss of Quantity delivered
= (Loss in MT/ MT of ATF Delivered)
Project Metrics ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

16. 16
Data
Pareto
Patterns
Capability
MASURE
DEFINE
ANALYZE
IMPROVE
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

17. 18
Data screening
554943373125191371
2
1
0
-1
Obser v at ion
IndividualValue
_
X= 0.536
UCL= 1.671
LCL= -0.600
554943373125191371
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Obser v at ion
MovingRange
__
MR= 0.427
UCL= 1.395
LCL= 0
1
1
1
1
1
I -MR Chart of Loss Factor_ 1
The Loss Factor reduced from 0.59 to 0.536 after data screening.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

18. 2.01.51.00.50.0-0.5
USL
LSL *
Target *
USL 0.3
Sample Mean 0.535632
Sample N 59
StDev (Within) 0.378547
StDev (Ov erall) 0.471328
Process Data
Cp *
CPL *
CPU -0.21
Cpk -0.21
Pp *
PPL *
PPU -0.17
Ppk -0.17
Cpm *
Ov erall Capability
Potential (Within) Capability
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 661016.95
PPM Total 661016.95
Observ ed Performance
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 733181.92
PPM Total 733181.92
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 691438.71
PPM Total 691438.71
Exp. Ov erall Performance
Within
Overall
Process Capability of Loss Factor_ 1
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

19. 21
Data Stratification
426409405401
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tank_1
Loss
I nt er val Plot of Loss
95% CI for the Mean
Tanks 409 and 405 contribute to almost 63% of the
losses.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

20. 23
FM
EA
Regression
DOE
MASURE
DEFINE
ANALYZE
IMPROVE
2
MEASURE
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

21. 27
PLT Loss
Man Machine Method
Material
Measurement
Mother Nature
Cause & effect Diagram
Wrong
dip,temp,den
Wrong lineup
Wrong
Entry in
AtOMS
Line
Slack
Faulty
thermo
meter
Imprope
r dip-
tape
Density
layeration
Wrong
Temperature
Tank
Calibration
Lack of consistency in measurement at
IOC Sahar
In adequate SOP for ATF
PLT to Airport, since there
is no surveying agency
involved( spading, locking
etc
Lack of time frame for
communicating final receipt
figure from IOC Sahar
Certification of density pre
delivery not being done (As
done by MMPL
line Leak
Valves Passing,
Gravitation to
other tanks
Passing valves/Poor
Valve Quality
Line Content
Quality
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

22. 28
Cause Prioratization
Matrix
Causes Severity Occurrence Detection RPN No
Lack of consistency in measurement at IOC Sahar 9 9 9 729
Lack of ownership for abnormal Loss/gain 9 9 9 729
Lack of time frame for communicating final receipt
figure from IOC Sahar 9 9 9 729
In adequate SOP for ATF PLT to Airport, since there is
no surveying agency involved( spading, locking etc) 9 9 9 729
No system of rechecking density 5 9 9 405
Density difference with IOC not being cross checked
5 9 9 405
Temperature varies with settling duration/closing of tank 5 5 9 225
Human error in reading temperature 5 5 9 225
Line content quality, quantity 5 5 9 225
IOC Sahar heel quality 5 5 9 225
Measurement errors at refinery end 9 1 9 81
Wrong Line-up by operator 9 1 9 81
Passing /faulty valves 9 1 9 81
Lack Of flow meters 9 1 9 81
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

23. 29
Findings
Based on the risk priority number, the following causes were identified
as the top priority items.
• Six Sigma Team visited BPC Santacruz (Airport) to validate the findings.
However, due to logistics reasons of different entities, permissions were not
granted to carry out checks at IOC Sahar.
•HP Santacruz is the controlling/monitoring agency for all PLTS to AFS
• BPCL representative is not involved in the lining up checking of tank dips at
receiving end (IOC Sahar, HP S'cruz).
• There is no independent agency monitoring the transfer.
• Final receipt figure from receiving location is never conveyed to PH5.
• Density of received product is not matched with that of delivering tank.
• Human error in sampling in both locations.
• Effect of line content quality (760 KL) and receiving location heel quantity and
quality.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

24. 30
Root Cause validation - Instance
• On 18th
July, 2009, ATF PLT to HP S’cruz was in progress and
difference in delivery and receipt figures was observed. In a
period of four hours, the difference was 40 TKL. The PLT was
stopped and on investigation, HP S’cruz confirmed of migration
to IOC Sahar.
Such instances cannot be ruled out unless there is an agency to
take care of BPCL’s interest.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

25. SCAM
PER
MASURE
DEFINE
ANALYZE
IMPROVE
2
MEASURE
Sol. Proi.
Cost benefit. Ana.
FMEA – Pilot Sol’n.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

26. SCAMPER ANALYSIS FOR SOLUTION GENERATION
KEY ROOT CAUSE S C A M P E R
Lack of consistency in
measurement at IOC
Sahar
Standardizing gauges and
thermometers , sampling , and
measurement of density
Surveyor to
be
deployed
A procedure to
be made for
PLT to IOC
Sahar
Lack of ownership for
abnormal Loss/gain
BPC S'cruz to
witness
gauging and
line-up
loss
control
departme
nt to be
restarted
Lack of time frame for
communicating final
receipt figure from IOC
Sahar
Surveyor to
be
deployed
IOC to convey
the FRF to PH
within 12 Hrs
SCAMPER ANALYSIS
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

27. SCAMPER ANALYSIS FOR SOLUTION GENERATION
KEY ROOT CAUSE S C A M P E R
In adequate SOP for ATF PLT to
Airport, since there is no
surveying agency
involved( spading, locking etc)
Adapt the
procedure
followed by
OMC, HPFR
Put density
meter
No system of rechecking density
1)Retention
sample
testing
/comparison
with QC density
Density difference with IOC not
being cross checked
incorporate
Density
readings,
previous PLT
density (line
content quality)
in LD book
1)Retention
sample
testing
/comparison
with IOC and to
be recorded in
LD book for
periodic review
Temperature varies with settling
duration/closing of tank
Give settling
time, as for
MMBPL
Lack Of flow meters
Modify del line-
up to take the
mass flow
meter in-line.
SCAMPER ANALYSIS
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

28. SCAMPER ANALYSIS FOR SOLUTION GENERATION
KEY ROOT CAUSE S C A M P E R
Human error in
reading
temperature
Training procedure
for gauging/temp
measurement to be
formalized, and
periodic
review/surprise
checks by shift
officer
Auto gauge
temperature
indications to be
used, verified, and
reliability to be
improved
Line content
quality, quantity
incorporate Density
readings, previous
PLT density (line
content quality) in LD
book
When ever possible, HP
line content to be
displaced to BPC
Santacruz, so that loss will
be NIL since its BPC to
BPC
IOC Sahar heel
quality
Accounting to be based
on KLs received, and
density of parent tank,
as exists for crude at
KR
Lack Of flow
meters
Modify del line-up
to take the mass
flow meter in-line.
SCAMPER ANALYSIS
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

29. CRITERIA SCAMPER LOW COST LOW
COMPLEXITY
EASE
OF
IMPLEMENTATION
Total
WEIGHTAGE 0.7 1.5 1.8
SOLUTION
Sign painting, P&ID availability, training, charge hand's
supervision ( for line-up) C 25.2 54 64.8 144
Surveyor to be deployed A 19.6 54 64.8 138.4
Incorporate Density meter
M 14 54 64.8 132.8
Standardizing gauges and thermometers , sampling , and
measurement of density S 19.6 54 50.4 124
Standard gauging procedure to be made, and put in
training manual and to be followed C 25.2 54 43.2 122.4
When ever possible, HP line content to be displaced to
BPC Santacruz, so that loss will be NIL since its
BPC to BPC R 25.2 54 36 115.2
Adapt the procedure followed by OMC, HPFR A 25.2 54 36 115.2
Surveyor to seal and lock other valves M 25.2 48 36 109.2
Training procedure for gauging/temp measurement to be
formalized, and periodic review/surprise checks by
shift officer M 25.2 54 28.8 108
SOLUTION PRIORITIZATION
MATRIX
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

30. CRITERIA SCAMPER TOOL LOW COST LOW COMPLEXITY EASE
OF
IMPLEMENTATION
Total
WEIGHTAGE 0.7 1.5 1.8
SOLUTION
Retention sample testing /comparison
with QC density
P 25.2 54 28.8 108
Auto gauge temperature indications to
be used, verified, and reliability to
be improved P 25.2 24 57.6 106.8
Modify del line-up to take the mass flow
meter in-line. P 19.6 48 36 103.6
Identify and replace the faulty valves S 22.4 54 21.6 98
A procedure to be made and followed
for PLT to IOC Sahar M 25.2 42 28.8 96
1)Retention sample testing /comparison
with IOC and to be recorded in LD
book for periodic review P 25.2 24 43.2 92.4
SOLUTION
PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

31. CRITERIA SCAMPER
TOOL
LOW
COST
LOW
COMPLEXITY
EASE
OF IMPLEMENTATION
Total
WEIGHTAGE 0.7 1.5 1.8
SOLUTION
Install reversible spectacle
blinds/lockable valves A 19.6 36 36 91.6
Charge hand/Officer to train/conduct
surprise checks P 25.2 30 36 91.2
incorporate Density readings, previous
PLT density (line content quality) in LD
book M 25.2 30 28.8 84
Accounting to be based on KLs
received, and density of parent tank, as
exists for crude at KR S 25.2 30 21.6 76.8
loss control department to be restarted P 11.2 30 28.8 70
Give settling time, as for MMBPL A 22.4 36 7.2 65.6
BPC S'cruz to witness gauging and line-
up C 25.2 24 14.4 63.6
IOC to convey the FRF to PH within 12
Hrs M 25.2 6 21.6 52.8
SOLUTION
PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

32. Least Effort - Maximum
Benefit Solutions
2 Surveyor To be appointed
7
Adapt the procedure followed by OMC,
HPFR
8 Surveyor to seal and lock other valves
9
Training procedure for gauging/temp
measurement to be formalized, and periodic
review/surprise checks by shift officer
11
Auto gauge temperature indications to be
used, verified, and reliability to be improved
14
A procedure to be made and followed for
PLT to IOC Sahar
15
Retention sample testing /comparison with
IOC and to be recorded in LD book for
periodic review
17
Charge hand/Officer to train/conduct
surprise checks
18
incorporate Density readings, previous PLT
density (line content quality) in LD book
20
loss control department to be restarted
22
BPC S'cruz to witness gauging and line-up
23
IOC to convey the FRF to PH within 12 Hrs
2
34
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22
23
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

33. Y REDUCTION IN ATF PLT LOSSES TO IOC SAHAR
PROBLEM Loss incurred in ATF transfer
ROOT CAUSE
Lack of information
about losses to
PH5.
Receipt figure by
OMC is Final. PH5
is unaware of Final
receipt figures/
potential losses.
PH Checks receipt
figures in KL @
Natural temp, but
losses are booked
in KL @ 15deg and
MT.
PLT To airport is the only area
which doesn’t have
intervention of BPC
representatives at recipient
end. No agency to protect
corporation’s interest in PLT.
EFFECT
TDU only
documents the
losses, and does
not investigate
losses. PH5 cannot
investigate as it is
too late by this time.
Loss borne by
refinery even if
migration happens
in AFS tanks.
PH is not aware of
losses at 15Deg,
and MT
In case of a loss booked, we
don’t have enough data to
challenge the loss.
SOLUTION
Surveyor to be
appointed for airport
PLTs.
Surveyor to
monitor the PLT,
and analyze
reasons for losses.
Surveyor to convey
the loss/gain
figures to PH
Reason, as investigated by
the surveyor/PH for each PLT
loss to be recorded, and
solutions to be found for
eliminating the reasons.
SOLUTION TREE ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

34. SR
NO
DESCRIPTION OF SOLUTION
ACTION
POINTS
BY WHOM BY WHEN SUPPORT REQD.
1
Surveyor To be appointed Under process S&B 15th
Sept-09 Management approval for
expenditure, around Rs 50,000
per month.
ED logistics to get approval
form OMC for surveyor witness.
2
Adapt the procedure followed by OMC,
HPFR
Check existing
procedure at HPFR
Six Sigma
team
15th
Sept-09 Appointment with HPFR,
marketing to introduce the SSG
group.
3
Surveyor to seal and lock other valves After Point no-2 Surveyor
4
Training procedure for gauging/temp
measurement to be formalized, and periodic
review/surprise checks by shift officer
Done Six Sigma
team
15th
Sept-09 B&M operations to support
5
Auto gauge temperature indications to be
used, verified, and reliability to be improved
*Verify reliability of
autogauge
temperature
indications
*Autgauge temp
indication to be used
for verified tanks
B&M
operations
30th
Sept-09 Support from B&M operations is
required.
6
A procedure to be made and followed for
PLT to IOC Sahar
*Procedure to be
made
Six Sigma
team
15th
Sept-09 B&M operations to support
Solution Implementation
Action Plan
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine
Microsoft Word
Document
Microsoft Word
Document
Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

35. HPFR BPMR
HPFR BPMR
Digital thermometers used for all
products, including ATF. Temperature
displayed while probe is in liquid. Least
count 0.1 Deg C
Reported in two decimals. More
accurate
Mercury thermometers, dipped in sample
bottles. Least count 0.5 Deg C.
All product delivery lines outside
refinery have Mass flow meters
MS/SK HSD delivery lines to installation
have the mass flow meters, which are un
utilized from the day of installation.
Positive isolation (spading) of all lines
connected with the tank/pump, except
the one that is delivering is done as a
procedure for all white oils.
No spading done. The practice was
existing prevoiusly(10 years back), which
has been slowly discontinued.
While Delivering to OMC, marketing
bears the loss gain.
While delivering to OMC, refinery bears
the loss/gain.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

36. SR
NO
DESCRIPTION OF
SOLUTION
ACTION POINTS BY WHOM BY WHEN
SUPPORT
REQD.
7
incorporate Density readings,
previous PLT density (line content
quality) in LD book
This shall be a part of
the standard
procedure, mentioned
in pt no-14
Six Sigma team 15th
Sept-09 B&M operations to
support
8
New loss control department to be
set-up.
Scope of work for the
department to be
finalized.
GM(0) 30th
Sept-09 Request from
B&M section
head, to GMO for
the need
9
BPC S'cruz to witness gauging and
line-up
*Supplies to talk to
Aviation SBU, for BPC
Scruz to witness.
S&B
department
head
15th
Sept-09 ED Logistics, ED
aviation
10
Retention sample testing
/comparison with IOC and to be
recorded in LD book for periodic
review
11
Charge hand/Officer to train/conduct
surprise checks
*After surveyor is
appointed, he will witness
the gauging
12
IOC to convey the FRF to PH within
6Hrs
*It has to be
incorporated as a
standard procedure,
with concurrence from
Avition SBU, and
industry.
S&B
department
head
30th
Sept-09 ED Logistics, ED
aviation, GMO
Solution Implementation
Action Plan (HIDDEN)
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

37. 45
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine
CO
NTR
O
L
PLAN
FM
EA
MASURE
DEFINE
ANALYZE
IMPROVE
2
MEASURE

38. LOSS FACTOR
COMPARISON
1110987654321
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Obser v at ion
IndividualValue
_
X= 0.394
UCL= 1.405
LCL= -0.616
I Char t of st age
554943373125191371
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Obser v at ion
IndividualValue
_
X= 0.536
UCL= 1.671
LCL= -0.600
1
1
1
I Char t of Loss Fact or _ 1
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

39. PROCESS
MANAGEMENT
Project
Y
Metric UOM Respon
sibility
Frequency of
data
collection
Type of
Control
Chart
What to
respond
Who will
respond
Corrective Action to be
initiated
PLT Loss Loss
Factor
%(On
Qty del
in MT)
Shift
Officer
Every
Transaction
IMR Loss
Factor>0.3
Shift
Officer
Surveyor to re-confirm
figures at receiving end
Vital X’s
Audit
Surveyor log
NA NA S&B
Section
head
Once a week IMR Deviations
from
SOP’s
Shift
Officer
Review the SOP’s for
migrations etc.
Density Diff
(Ref QC Vs
IOC tank)
Diff g/cc Shift
Officer
Every
Transaction
IMR >0.0025 Shift
Officer
1)Surveyor to check
recipient density.
2)Testing of refinery
retention samples
3)Surveyor to cal effect of
heel, l/s density
Difference in
dip (Manual
Vs Auto
gauge)
Dip diff cms Shift
Officer
Every
Transaction
IMR Diff in
mass >12
MT
Shift
officer
Verify the correctness
Diff in Temp
(Manual Vs
Auto gauge)
Temp
diff
Deg C Shift
Officer
Every
Transaction
IMR Diff in
mass >12
MT
Shift
officer
Verify the correctness
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

40. BENIFIT ANALYSIS
Period April 2008 to
Feb 2009
April 2009 to 10th
Sept-09
Total Loss while delivering to IOC
Sahar
in MT
1872 495
Loss Factor in
%
0.596 0.393
AVG RTP of ATF (Duty paid) for
the period,
Rs./MT
39696 25942
Total Financial Loss for the period
Rs. Crores
7.43 (9 Crores per
annnum)
1.28 (3.1 Crores per
annum) – savings of
59 Million INR/ 1.2
Million USD per
annum)
Total financial savings envisaged
by bringing down the loss factor
from 0.59% to 0.3%
In Rs Crores
3.7 0.97
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

41. INTANGIBLE
BENIFITS
•The system adapted in ATF PLT can be
extended to all other products
•The reduction in overall loss, will reduce
refinery loss, improve the PRISM parameter
of F&L.
ControlImproveAnalyzeMeasureDefine

42. 52