How to do a ppt on a technical report

1. Installation of Triethylene Glycol Contactor
Overhead Knock Out Drum in the Propylene
Carbonate system at Process Plant Specialists
(P.P.S), Savonetta

2. General
Manager
Ornella Ramsarran
Process
Consultant
Steffon Mohammed
Chief
Engineers
Dylan
Dhanpaul
Crystalgail
Ali Khan
Monique
LaFoucade
19-Nov-13
2

3. 


To define the activities and equipment required for
the installation and commission of a Triethylene
Glycol (TEG) Knock Out (K.O) Drum.
TEG K.O Drum serves to monitor and control the
level of glycol.
Plant Operation Department projected precise and
minimal cost of the project.
19-Nov-13
3

4. Outline of presentation:
 The Problem: Carryover of TEG into the PC
system.
 Implemented Solution: TEG Knockout Drum
 Details of Solution:
I. Procedure
II. Cost
III. Benefits
19-Nov-13
4

5. 




To determine the problem experienced at the Savonetta
plant, several studies and tests were conducted.
It was concluded that TEG was being carried over to the
Propylene Carbonate (PC) system.
The operating temperatures of the TEG contactors were
causing an increased viscosity of the TEG.
The increased viscosity prevented the elimination of TEG prior
to the PC system entrance. The TEG was then able to escape
into the PC system.
It was found that continuous degradation of the TEG was
occurring. This gave rise to large amounts of suspended
solids in the glycol.
19-Nov-13
5

6. 

This resulted in a deficiency in the CO2 removal process in the
PC system increasing the overall temperatures within the
methanator system.
Through this contamination an increased consumption of TEG
was being experienced. Also PC losses and general excess
expenditure was being suffered.

Due to the deficiency in the PC system an average production
loss of 15 tons of ammonia was being experienced daily.

Historical data of TEG, PC and H2O were observed.

It was confirmed that a loss of 90 drums of TEG averaging a
value of US$36,000.00 was being suffered yearly.
Remediation costs of the PC in the region of US$20,0000.00
yearly was also being suffered.
19-Nov-13
6

7. 



After in- depth study and analysis the origin of the problems
were found to be within the Glycol Stripping Air system of the
PC system.
It was concluded that a TEG Knockout Drum system would be
a successful implementation to the PC system.
To implement the new system properly, specifics of
pipes, nozzles and valves with high pressure. Conditions have
been calculated and sized to be installed prior to initializing
the TEG Knockout drum.
All calculations were done at an earlier time before the arrival
of the drum, so the incorporation of the new upgrade into the
existing system was an uninterrupted process.
19-Nov-13
7

8. 




Performed inspection checks on the existing system.
Inlet and outlet valves were installed before the plant was
brought back up.
Support landing was constructed at the work shop to secure
and mount the K.O. Drum for smooth operation and
maintenance.
Installation was readily done downstream to the existing
glycol contactor without upsetting the already existing
system production.
The TEG K.O. Drum level control system was equipped with
high and low alarm switches.
19-Nov-13
8

9. DETAILS OF SOLUTION
FIGURE 1: Shows design view of TEG Contactor K.O Drum
19-Nov-13
9

10. DETAILS OF SOLUTION
Pressure Saftey
Valve / Manway
Inlet
A
Outlet
Dry air leaves and goes to
CO2 Stripper
Dry air and TEG enters
¼” Weep Hole
below inside Nozzle
Nameplate
Removable Vane Type
LC/LG Bridle
Removable
Dacron Mesh
Drain
LC/LG Bridle
HORIZONTAL CONTACTOR KNOCKOUT DRUM
42” OD X 10 ‘ × 150 PSIG
Cleanout
w/PLG
EST WT: 4,400 LBS
FIGURE 2: SHOWS TEG K.O DRUM
19-Nov-13
10

11. TABLE: Shows Project Upgrade Economics
Production
Cost
MT / day increase in
production
TOTAL increase in
production for year
Contribution 1
SAVING /Year
75
$
2,738.00
$
Production
Cost/Value
Drums PC saving
/year
27.00
Per Drum
$
88.50
675.00
$ 18,225.00
$ 242,268.75
IRR –
5 Year Forecast
Drums of Glycol saving
/year
Per Drum
20.00
$
95%
NPV After 5 Years
$ 514,737.72
PAYBACK PERIOD
13 MONTHS
525.00
Savings /year
$ 10,500.00
Total Savings Per Year
$ 270,993.75
19-Nov-13
11

12. Main Benefits Gained by Usage of the TEG K.O Drum:

Reduced the amount of process gas vented.

With the vessel in series the glycol and moisture carryover
was minimal.

With the contactor bypassed, on–line cleaning of its internals
can be performed without affecting the plant operation.

The piping has been configured for the vessel to operate in
series as well as bypass for the existing contactor.

Production increased by 15 tons per day.

Payback Time of 13 months .

Production increased by 75 metric tons per day with
$270,000.00 saving per year.
19-Nov-13
12

13. 



Plant Operation Department guarantees that the project has
been completed in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract.
We guarantee the project to be free of defects in
workmanship, equipment and materials.
Our department agrees to repair or replace any and all
components of the project, that may have been damaged or
displaced within a two (2) year period.
No expense whatsoever will be charged to Process Plant
Specialists under the warranty.
19-Nov-13
13

14. 


Problem: TEG was being carried over to the PC system.
Solution: Relevant tests and calculations were meticulously
carried out in order to begin implementation of the TEG K.O
Drum system.
Benefit: The Savonetta plant was able to cut financial losses
and excess expenditure, thanks to the initial capital invested
in the TEG K.O Drum.
19-Nov-13
14

15. 19-Nov-13
15