Group J - Final Report
Transcript of Group J - Final Report
Ammonia Plant
Expansion
Saskferco Ammonia Plant Expansion
By
Brittany Herd and Justin Rieseberg
Department of Chemical Engineering
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
~2007-08~
i
Abstract
The demand for granular urea has increased significantly in the past
number of years. Saskferco, a nitrogen fertilizer plant, out of Belle Plaine,
Saskatchewan, intends to increase production of their granular urea in 2009
because of this fact. In order to do this, the ammonia production needs to
increase by approximately 230 tonnes per day, as this would be a bottleneck in
the process, otherwise.
Motley Consulting was approached by Saskferco, to help solve the
existing problem. Alternative solutions were explored, and ultimately the decision
to change out the catalyst and twin an existing heat exchanger was made.
The following report explores the path taken to arrive at this conclusion, as
well as the economic feasibility, health and safety surrounding the proposed
solution.
ii
Acknowledgements
Motley Consulting would like to give special thanks to the following people for
their guidance. Without them, this project could not have been completed.
Dave Crawford, Owner, Apex Distribution Saskatoon.
Nikhil Das, Process Engineer, Saskferco.
Bob Edmondson, Technical Director, Saskferco.
Dr. Richard Evitts, Professor, University of Saskatchewan Chemical
Engineering Department.
Wesley Godwin, President, W.S. Industrial.
Rodney Godwin, Project Manager, Bomac Construction.
Dr. Gordon Hill, Professor, University of Saskatchewan Chemical Engineering
Department.
Dr. Hui Wang, Professor, University of Saskatchewan Chemical Engineering
Department.
Daryl Weisgerber, Stirling Cranes.
Dave Willfong, Project Manager, North American Construction Group.
iii
Contents List of Tables ....................................................................... v
List of Figures .................................................................... vi Nomenclature .................................................................... vii Chapter One –Introduction to Saskferco .............................. 1
1.1– Company Background ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 – Process Description ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 – Ammonia Reactor System ................................................................................ 4
Chapter Two – Problem Definition ....................................... 6
2.1 – Saskferco’s Dilemma ......................................................................................... 6
Chapter Three – Alternative Solutions ................................. 7
3.1 Addition of a Third Reactor .................................................................................. 7 3.2 – Addition of a Compressor ................................................................................. 8 3.3 – Multi-Pass Reactor ............................................................................................. 9 3.4 – Introduction of Cold Shots ............................................................................... 10
Chapter Four – Proposed Solution .................................... 12
4.1 – Suggested Solution to Increase Ammonia Production ............................... 12 4.2 – Further Recommendations ............................................................................. 17
Chapter Five – Equipment and Installation Sizing ............. 20
5.1 – Amount of New Catalyst .................................................................................. 20 5.2 – Sizing of Heat Exchanger and Piping ........................................................... 21
Chapter Six – Economics of Proposed Solution ................ 23
6.1 – Catalyst Replacement Costs .......................................................................... 23 6.2 – Heat Exchanger Costs ..................................................................................... 25 6.3 – Profitability of Suggested Project ................................................................... 28
Chapter Seven – Health and Safety .................................. 32
7.1 – Material Safety for Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 32 7.2 – Fire & Explosion Index ..................................................................................... 34
iv
7.3 – Hazard and Operability Analysis .................................................................... 35
Chapter Eight - Conclusions .............................................. 37
8.1 – Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Nine - Recommendations ..................................... 40
9.1 – Recommendations ........................................................................................... 40
References ......................................................................... 41
Appendix A – Hand Calculations ....................................... 43
Appendix B – Process Simulation ..................................... 48
Appendix C – Sizing Images .............................................. 50
Appendix D – Piping Images ............................................. 53
Appendix E – Economics of Installation ............................. 56
Appendix F – Material Safety Data Sheets ........................ 61
F.1 – Anhydrous Ammonia ....................................................................................... 62 F.2 Hydrogen .............................................................................................................. 69 F.3 – Methane ............................................................................................................. 74 F.4 – Nitrogen ............................................................................................................. 80 F.5 – Water .................................................................................................................. 86
Appendix G – Dow Fire and Explosion Index .................... 91
G.1 – Dow Fire & Explosion Index ........................................................................... 92 G.2 – Loss Control Credit Factor ............................................................................. 93 G.3 – Process Unit Risk Analysis Summary .......................................................... 94
Appendix H – Hazard and Operability ............................... 95
H.1 – Saskferco Hazard and Operability Worksheets .......................................... 96
v
List of Tables Table 5.1.01: Catalytic Bed Volumes and Catalyst Masses ............................... 20 Table 5.2.01: Heat Exchanger – Important Dimensions ..................................... 21 Table 5.2.02: Concrete Pad Approximate Dimensions ....................................... 22 Table 5.2.03: Bell Pile Dimensions ..................................................................... 22 Table 5.2.04: Piping Approximate Dimensions ................................................... 22 Table 6.1.01: Catalyst Replacement Costs ........................................................ 24 Table 6.2.01: Heat Exchanger Construction and Installation Costs ................... 27 Table 7.1.1 – Material Safety Data for Process Chemicals ................................ 34 Table A.01 – Heat Capacity Constants .............................................................. 45 Table A.02 – Existing Configuration ................................................................... 46 Table A.03 – New Catalyst with Optimized Temperatures ................................. 46 Table E.01 – Pile Quotes from North American Construction Group ................. 57
vi
List of Figures Figure 1.2.0 1 – Block Diagram of Overall Ammonia Plant Process .................... 2 Figure 3.1.0 1 – Block Diagram of Additional Reactor ......................................... 8 Figure 3.2.0 1 – Block Diagram of Addition of a Compressor Between the Reactors ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3.3.0 1 – Simple Representation of a Multi-Pass Reactor ...................... 10 Figure 3.4.0 1 – Simple Representation of a Cold Shot Reactor ....................... 11 Figure 4.1.0 1 – Figure 8.3 from Catalyst Handbook ......................................... 13 Figure 4.1.0 2 – Figure 8.8 from Catalyst Handbook ......................................... 14 Figure 4.1.0 3 – Saskferco’s Planned Design .................................................... 16 Figure 4.1.0 4 – Closer View of Twinned Heat Exchangers ............................... 16 Figure 4.1.0 5 – Breakdown View of First Catalytic Reactor, 08R001 ............... 17 Figure 4.2.0 1 – Recommendation A: Internal Cooler in Reactor 1 .................... 18 Figure 4.2.0 2 – Recommendation B: External Heater Located Before Reactor, 08R001 ............................................................................................................... 19 Figure 6.3.0 1 – Cumulated Discounted Cash Flow Over Time ......................... 30 Figure 6.3.0 2 – Cumulated Discounted Cash Flow Over TIme to Determine IRR ........................................................................................................................... 31 Figure B.01 – Hysys Simulation: Representation of Proposed Process ............ 49 Figure C.01 – Tri-view Worksheet of Proposed Twinned Heat Exchanger ........ 51 Figure C.02 – SolidWorks view of proposed heat exchanger ............................ 52 Figure D.0 1 – Estimated Connection Specifications for Shell Side Inlet ........... 54 Figure D.0 2 – Estimated Connection Specifications for Tube Side Inlet ........... 54 Figure D.0 3 – Estimated Connection Specifications for Shell Side Outlet ........ 55 Figure D.0 4 - Estimated Connection Specifications for Tube Side Outlet ......... 55 Figure E.01 – Rough Chromoly Piping Quotes from Unified Alloys via Apex Distribution .......................................................................................................... 58
vii
Nomenclature
08E003 Gas/Gas Heat Exchanger in Existing Process
08E003A Existing Gas/Gas Heat Exchanger in Proposed Process
08E003B New Gas/Gas Heat Exchanger in Proposed Process
08R001 First Ammonia Reactor in Existing and Proposed Process
90’s 90 degree elbows
a,b,c,d,e Heat Capacity Estimation Constants
A Area
BEP Break Even Point
°C Degree Celsius
CBM Bare Module Cost
CH4 Methane
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Comp. Compressor
CP Heat Capacity at Constant Pressure
CP
CS Base Metal Cost
Cr Chromium
ft Feet
FI
2004 Inflation Correction Factor for 2004
FM
Cr/Mo Material Correction Factor for Chromoly
viii
FP Pressure Correction Factor
GJ Gigajoule
H2 Hydrogen
H2O Water
H&O Saskferco’s Hazard and Operability
HAZOP Hazards and Operability
HX Heat Exchanger
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LD50 Lethal Dose for 50% of Population
LEL Lower Explosion Limit
kg Kilogram
MARR Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return
m Meter
m3 Cubic Meter
Mo Molybdenum
mol% Molar Fraction
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
N2 Nitrogen
N molar flowrate (kgmol/hr)
O2 Oxygen
PBP Pay Back Period
ppm Parts Per Million
STEL Short Term Exposure Limit
ix
TX Temperature of X (°C)
TLV Threshold Limit Value
TWA Total Weighted Average
UEL Upper Explosion Limit
x Mole Fraction
1
Chapter One
Introduction to Saskferco
1.1– Company Background
Saskferco is a privately owned nitrogen fertilizer plant out of Belle Plaine,
Saskatchewan. Since being built in 1992, it is at the forefront of production of
granular urea and anhydrous ammonia in North America1. The Saskferco facility
is designed with two plants, the ammonia side, and the urea side, with most of
the product from the ammonia plant being sent to the urea plant for further
processing to generate granular urea. The ammonia plant, transfers ammonia,
carbon dioxide and steam to the urea plant, which are all components in the
production of the granular urea. When the facility was built in 1992, the process
produced 1,500 tonnes of anhydrous ammonia per day, of which, approximately
77% was used in the production of the granular urea1.
Previous upgrades to the overall process occurred in 1997, and brought
the plant to its current production rate. Current production at the plant is 1,900
tonnes of anhydrous ammonia, of which, just about 90% is used to produce
1 www.saskferco.com
2
2,900 tonnes of granular urea2. Further increase in demand would require plant
upgrades to several areas of both plants in order to overcome existing
bottlenecks.
1.2 – Process Description
A block diagram of the overall ammonia production process is shown, and
then described below.
Figure 1.2.0 1 – Block Diagram of Overall Ammonia Plant Process
2 www.saskferco.com
3
The overall production of ammonia starts with a feed of natural gas. The
natural gas is passed through a catalytic steam reformer, which turns the
methane into carbon monoxide and hydrogen, then further converts the carbon
monoxide into carbon dioxide and hydrogen.
224 3HCOOHCH +→+ 3 (1)
222 HCOOHCO +→+ 3 (2)
Upon exiting the steam reformer, the stream is mixed with air and goes
onto solvent extraction. The solvent extraction ensures that there is no oxygen,
carbon dioxide, or water going onto the ammonia reactors. All of these
components bring their own hassle, from the corrosion associated with the water
to the catalyst poisoning of the oxygen.
The streams are then compressed and passed onto the ammonia reactor
system. The process used is the Haber process, which takes hydrogen and
nitrogen over an iron-based catalyst, to produce ammonia.
322 3 NHHN ↔+ 4 (3)
This area of the ammonia plant will be discussed further in the next
subsection.
After the ammonia reaction, the streams are passed onto refrigeration
where a large portion of the ammonia is knocked out and the remaining ammonia
is then recycled back to the original compression stages. The remaining
hydrogen and nitrogen will also be blended back into the fresh hydrogen rich
3Twigg, Martyn V., eds. Catalyst Handbook: Second Edition. London, England: Manson Publishing Ltd. 1996. P225. 4Twigg, Martyn V., eds. Catalyst Handbook: Second Edition. London, England: Manson Publishing Ltd. 1996. P388.
4
streams. Out of the process, the two main products are ammonia and steam.
Both, of which, are used in the production of granular urea.
1.3 – Ammonia Reactor System
The first step in this process is a gas/gas heat exchanger that heats up the
feed stream before proceeding into the first reactor. This stream contains
4.23mol%5 ammonia from the recycle stream. Due to the nature of the catalyst it
is important to have the reaction proceed at optimal temperatures. This is
because the reaction prefers to proceed at lower temperatures, but the catalyst
requires that the temperatures be at a certain point. In the case of Saskferco’s
current process, the temperature they proceed with after this heat exchanger is
295°C5.
The stream leaves the gas/gas heat exchanger and enters into the first
reactor. In the first reactor the largest portion of ammonia production takes place.
This reaction takes place over an iron-based catalyst. The first reactor consists
of two reactor beds, separated by an internal heat exchanger. As the reaction of
hydrogen and nitrogen to produce ammonia is highly exothermic, it is important
to cool the stream to achieve a higher conversion. After passing through the two
beds, and internal heat exchanger, the stream leaves the first reactor. This
exiting stream has an increase in ammonia content to 16.46mol%5.
After the first reactor the stream is split with the majority of it going
through a hot gas/cooling water heat exchanger. The heat exchanger cools the 5 Saskferco Blueprints. 1995.
5
hot gas stream and in turn vaporizes the cooling water creating high pressure
steam.
Upon leaving this heat exchanger the stream enters the second reactor,
containing only one reactor bed, and no internal heat exchange. This reactor
increases the ammonia content from 16.46mol%6 to 19.74mol%6. Again, due to
the highly exothermic nature of the reaction, the temperature of the stream
increases dramatically. Therefore after leaving the second reactor, it enters a
second hot-gas/cooling water heat exchanger, cooling the ammonia-rich stream,
and creating more high-pressure steam.
The steam, from both hot-gas/cooling water heat exchangers, is a
byproduct of this process, and is sent to the urea plant where it is used in the
production of the granular urea, thus not unnecessarily wasting energy.
The ammonia-rich stream then passes through the initial gas/gas heat
exchanger which will cool the product stream before refrigeration and will bring
the temperature of the original feed stream up to optimal reactor temperature.
The more heat removed now means less is required to be removed in
refrigeration, which could be costly. Therefore this exchanger is ideal, to save
energy costs.
6 Saskferco Blueprints. 1995.
6
Chapter Two
Problem Definition
2.1 – Saskferco’s Dilemma
Due to a desire to increase production of urea to counter the increasing
demand, Saskferco requires upgrades to be made to both plants, to overcome
process bottlenecks. Motley Consulting was contacted by Saskferco to look at
their existing ammonia reactor system and ensure the compatibility of it with an
increase in ammonia production of 230 tonnes per day7. Major concerns
included the increase in flow rate through the system causing an increase in
pressure drop over process vessels, and the increase in ammonia production
would create an increase in released energy in the form of heat due to the
exothermic reaction of the Haber process.
7 Meeting with Bob Edmondson and Nikhil Das, October 3, 2007.
7
Chapter Three
Alternative Solutions
In order to increase the production of granular urea, Saskferco needs to
overcome the bottleneck at the ammonia production section of the process. As
stated in the problem definition, ammonia production needs to increase by 230
tonnes per day8. Some solutions that were looked at include addition of a third
reactor, addition of a compressor, using multi-pass reactors, and introduction of a
cold shot method. These will be discussed in detail, and explained why they were
ruled out.
3.1 Addition of a Third Reactor
First, the discussion of the addition of a third reactor, a simple block
diagram of this option can be seen in figure 3.1.01.
This option is relatively straight forward, as the addition of a third reactor
will, lead to a higher conversion. However, when looking in terms of percent
recovery of an equilibrium reaction, without removing the desired product from
the stream, the harder it is to increase recovery of that product. When working
8 Meeting with Bob Edmondson and Nikhil Das, October 3, 2007.
8
with an equilibrium reaction, Le Chatelier’s principle needs to be taken into
consideration; therefore the more products that are made, the less likely this
reaction will proceed in that direction. Another problem with the addition of
another reactor, is the space required for this option. It is just not feasible to put
in another reactor for the minor increase in ammonia production that is available
with this option.
Figure 3.1.0 1 – Block Diagram of Additional Reactor
3.2 – Addition of a Compressor
An additional controller could be installed after the first reactor in the
process to increase the pressure of the gas, as converting 3 moles of hydrogen
and 1 mole of nitrogen to 2 moles of ammonia decreases the pressure of the
9
stream. Addition of a compressor would increase the pressure again, before the
second reactor, and based on Le Chatelier’s principle this could increase the
production of ammonia. Below is a figure describing this option
Figure 3.2.0 1 – Block Diagram of Addition of a Compressor Between the Reactors
3.3 – Multi-Pass Reactor
Another suggestion to increase conversion of ammonia was a multi-pass
reactor. This type of reactor is internally different from typical reactors, in that it is
set up with columns inside. The gas is then passed by the catalyst more than
once, to achieve a higher conversion of ammonia, as is presented in figure
3.3.01. While the installation of reactors of this variety may prove to be beneficial,
10
it is not feasible to replace the already existing reactors with new multi-pass
reactors.
Figure 3.3.0 1 – Simple Representation of a Multi-Pass Reactor9
3.4 – Introduction of Cold Shots
The last alternative that was decided against was the introduction of a cold
shot method into the reactors. Cold shots are another approach used to cool
down the reaction, to allow it to proceed further. The feed leading into the reactor
is split before it enters the reactor. The split portion is transported up the side of
the reactor, and is introduced half way into the reactor in order to quench the
reaction. An image of this arrangement is presented below. The main portion of
9 Meeting with Bob Edmondson, October 3, 2007.
11
the feed stream that has gone through the reactor will have increased
dramatically in temperature. Addition of a cool stream part way up the reactor
will cool this already reacted hot gas down. Due to the need to change the
structure of the existing reactor, and the inefficiency of this type of reactor, this
option was deemed unsuitable.
Figure 3.4.0 1 – Simple Representation of a Cold Shot Reactor10
10 Meeting with Dr. Gordon Hill. November 5, 2007.
12
Chapter Four
Proposed Solution
4.1 – Suggested Solution to Increase Ammonia Production
After all the solutions and optimizations were looked over, the process
changes decided upon are the following:
1. Replace Catalyst: Old Catalyst – Magnetite
New Catalyst – Wustite
2. Twin Heat Exchanger 08E003
The idea of replacing the catalyst was created by Bob Edmondson. Upon
further inquiry the catalyst in the reactors in 2008 were 11 years old. The
Catalyst Handbook edited by Martyn V. Twigg states “The ammonia synthesis
catalyst generally has a much longer life than other catalysts used in an ammonia
plant, and many plants are designed so the catalyst is only changed every 5-10
13
years”.11 So changing of the catalyst is essential and to reduce downtime,
replacement should happen during the downtime of the expansion. Since
replacement was a must, a decision on what type of catalyst to use was required.
Upon studying the process reaction and observing the relationships of the system
equilibrium with respect to temperature and pressure, one was able to point out
the catalyst that allows the ammonia reaction to occur at lower temperatures
would be the best. This is represented below:
Figure 4.1.0 1 – Figure 8.3 from Catalyst Handbook12
11 Twigg, Martyn V., eds. Catalyst Handbook: Second Edition. London, England: Manson Publishing Ltd. 1996. P404. 12Twigg, Martyn V., eds. Catalyst Handbook: Second Edition. London, England: Manson Publishing Ltd. 1996. P389.
14
Further investigation led to the fact that the kinematics of the reaction are
favoured at higher temperatures and this is represented below:
Figure 4.1.0 2 – Figure 8.8 from Catalyst Handbook13
Therefore “the most effective catalyst is clearly the one which will give the
highest rate of conversion of ammonia at the lowest temperature.”13 The
ammonia Industry has been implementing a newer catalyst, Wustite, with much
13 Twigg, Martyn V., eds. Catalyst Handbook: Second Edition. London, England: Manson Publishing Ltd. 1996.P413.
15
success. The reason behind this success is that it does just what the catalyst
handbook explains as being the most effective. With the conversion percentages
provided by SudChemie, Wustite was chosen as the new catalyst.
With the required increase in production one needs to increase inlet flow
rates over the reactor system. This increase will mean that the existing pressure
drops in the reactor system will increase dramatically, as well as the heat
exchange through the whole system will need to increase. To compensate for
these two effects, the twinning of heat exchanger 08E003 was decided upon.
Twinning this heat exchanger compensates for the pressure drop over the
system twice, compared to the single compensation effect of twinning any other
vessel in the reactor system. On top of the correction for pressure drop, heat
exchange increases should be accounted for especially if one increases the
cooling water flow rate. The HYSYS model shown below predicts this behavior
with the new catalyst dynamics, the increased gas flowrate, specified optimal
reactor temperatures and increased water flowrate.
s
The t
hown below
Fi
Figur
twinned he
w:
gure 4.1.0
e 4.1.0 3 –
eat exchang
4 – Closer
Saskferco
ger arrange
r View of T
o’s Planned
ement of 0
Twinned He
d Design
08E003 is
eat Exchan
represente
ngers
16
d as
T
4
w
re
b
d
T
a
The first cata
Figure
4.2 – Furth
A cou
water flow
efrigeration
e utilized
isadvantag
Reco
This cooler w
t the optim
alytic reacto
4.1.0 5 – B
her Recom
uple of furt
rate throug
costs dow
to acquire
ges.
mmendatio
will ensure
al reacting
or 08R001
Breakdown
mmendatio
ther recom
gh the rea
wnstream. O
e such be
on A is the a
the temper
temperatu
is represen
n View of F
ons
mendations
actor syste
Only one of
nefits, but
addition for
rature of the
re. This w
nted as sho
First Cataly
s were dev
m, and m
f these reco
each opt
r an interna
e reacting s
will be done
own below:
ytic Reacto
vised to de
ore import
ommendatio
tion comes
al cooler in t
stream to c
so the tem
or, 08R001
ecrease co
tantly decre
ons will nee
s with its
the first rea
atalytic bed
mperature to
17
oling
ease
ed to
own
actor.
d 2 is
o the
fi
to
o
a
th
a
h
rst reactor
o the first r
ver the init
rrangemen
Figure
Reco
hese disadv
lready func
eat exchan
can be kep
reactor sug
ial pair of g
nt is shown
e 4.2.0 1 –
mmendatio
vantages a
ctioning che
nger obsole
pt at a maxi
gests that
gas/gas hea
below:
Recomme
on A, as p
are an incre
emical reac
te.
mum. This
there will b
at exchang
endation A
previously s
ease in proj
ctor, and re
s high temp
be a large
ers 08E003
A: Internal C
stated, has
ject costs,
endering the
perature of t
amount of
3A/08E003
Cooler in R
s disadvant
the require
e existing i
the feed str
heat excha
B. This rea
Reactor 1
tages. Am
ed altering t
nternal gas
18
ream
ange
actor
mong
to an
s/gas
R
0
te
h
0
in
la
re
The
Recommend
8E003A/08
emperature
eat exchan
8R001, as
Figure 4
The m
ncrease in
arge energ
ecommend
other rec
dation A.
8E003B w
es. The solu
nger pair 0
represente
4.2.0 2 – Re
major down
temperatur
gy waste.
ation A is re
commendat
Such
while ensu
ution consis
8E003A/08
ed below:
ecommendR
nside of this
re dramatic
The ma
eactor 08R
tion adds
as the i
ring the
sts of the a
8E003B, bu
dation B: Eeactor, 08R
s solution is
cally downs
ajor benefi
R001 does n
similar
ncrease i
streams a
addition of a
ut before th
External HeR001
s the heatin
stream, by
it of this
not need to
outcomes
n heat e
are at op
a heater af
he first cata
eater Loca
ng of a gas
itself. Th
solution,
be modifie
compared
exchange
ptimal rea
fter the gas
alytic react
ated Before
stream tha
his will crea
compared
d.
19
d to
over
ction
s/gas
or 1,
e
at will
ate a
d to
20
Chapter Five
Equipment and Installation Sizing
The two suggested modifications to Saskferco’s existing plant are the
replacement of the catalyst in the two ammonia reactors and the twinning of heat
exchanger 08E003.
5.1 – Amount of New Catalyst
The volume of catalyst required was determined by the volume of the
existing reactors as presented by the Saskferco drawings14, illustrating the three
catalytic beds. The drawings showed the volume of each bed and therefore the
volume of catalyst was easily determined. Knowing the density of the Wustite
catalyst the mass of the catalyst was also determined. The catalyst volumes and
masses are illustrated in the table below:
Table 5.1.01: Catalytic Bed Volumes and Catalyst Masses
14 Saskferco Blueprints, 1995.
21
5.2 – Sizing of Heat Exchanger and Piping
To size the heat exchanger one had to make reference to the existing
08E003 heat exchanger. Because of the high explosion risks due to high
concentrations of hydrogen in the ammonia plant streams, keeping piping
connections to a minimum is preferential. For this piping situation one can only
use straight run piping, with no flanges or valves. This being the case the heat
exchangers should be exactly identical to ensure even flow through each. To do
this, one could follow the existing specifications of the existing heat exchanger
08E003. The heat exchangers will be made of Chromoly. Solid works drawings
of the new heat exchanger are included in the appendix along with several
important dimensions shown below:
Table 5.2.01: Heat Exchanger – Important Dimensions
On top of the sizing of the heat exchanger dimensions were received from
Bob Edmondson on approximate sizes for a concrete pad, four bell piles, and the
22
piping, connecting existing equipment to the new heat exchanger. In the
Appendix there are Solidworks drawings of the pad and piles, as well as the
supplied piping drawings from Bob Edmondson. A number of important
dimensions of each structure are as follows:
Table 5.2.02: Concrete Pad Approximate Dimensions
Table 5.2.03: Bell Pile Dimensions
Table 5.2.04: Piping Approximate Dimensions
23
Chapter Six
Economics of Proposed Solution
The economics of the two modifications were broken down and estimated
in a few different ways, trying to ensure and obtain the most accurate
assessment possible with the resources at hand. It was assumed there would be
a general contractor for all installations and construction, and that Saskferco
would be purchasing the heat exchanger as well as the catalyst to avoid paying
contingency fees on each item. Also the cranes to lift the heat exchanger were
excluded from a contingency fee. It was assumed that the construction of the
heat exchanger would take place in India, and would be shipped to Belle Plaine,
Saskatchewan, by way of cargo ship, and rail cars.
6.1 – Catalyst Replacement Costs
The catalyst replacement costs were broken down into a few different
divisions. Bob Edmondson supplied the catalyst costs he received from
SudChemie, and it was assumed that those costs included delivery. The material
cost of the catalyst itself then was calculated to be $1,923,083. Wes Godwin at
W.S. Industrial bid on this replacement of the catalyst and most likely made a
24
lowball estimate for it. A cost of $7500 to remove 300 tonnes of catalyst is quite
low. From further inquiry though, he went on to explain that other estimates may
have been a bit high, that the crane would have been on site already, and the aid
of a vac truck made this quote reasonable. There was also a disposal charge
that was added to cover the cost to truck it to a disposal site. The ammonia
conversion catalysts require no special disposal precautions and this is the case
with the old magnetite. The total catalyst replacement cost was calculated to be
1.95 million dollars, with a breakdown of the costs shown below:
Table 6.1.01: Catalyst Replacement Costs
25
6.2 – Heat Exchanger Costs
The majority of the economics behind the twinning of heat exchanger
08E003 were estimated by contractor quotes, however due to lack of resources
referring back to textbook estimation techniques to estimate the construction cost
of the heat exchanger was necessary. The heat exchanger was estimated with
Ulrich15, with a material correction factor created by the ratio between a twenty
foot length of chromoly pipe compared to one of carbon construction. This
textbook estimation calculated the cost of the heat exchanger to be $930,038.
The shipping costs appeared to be quite large at $633,984 but one could assume
this would be the case due to the large mass as well as the significant length of
the heat exchanger.
The costs to install were broken down quite dramatically with some
contractors giving very detailed quotes. The costs will be explained in the order
they would happen in a construction phase. Initially the piles and foundation
would be prepared before anything happened on site. Dave Willfong at North
American Construction Group gave a very detailed quote for the pile. The quote
was broken down into the hours it would take and estimated to the nearest
hundred dollars. The total piles cost was $30,800.
After the piles are in place the heat exchanger would need a concrete pad
to sit on. The concrete pad was estimated by Rodney Godwin, at Bomac
Construction. Bomac Construction quoted it would cost approximately $30,000
15Ulrich. Chemical Engineering: Process Design and Economics, A Practical Guide.
26
to install the rough estimated pad. Even though this quote should be fairly
accurate for the size of pad we are working with, to ensure a better estimate one
would have to have a detailed rebar design.
Once the pad is complete and cured, the heat exchanger will be installed
on top of the concrete pad. To place this heat exchanger on top of this pad,
large cranes will be required. The general contractor, Wes Godwin gave a rough
estimation at first of what size cranes would be required. He estimated that a
500 tonne crawler, with a 300 tonne demag as a tail would be sufficient. After
passing the lifting information off to Daryl Weisgerber at Stirling Cranes, Daryl
estimated that the previously mentioned cranes would be sufficient, and the total
cost for the setting up and lifting of this heat exchanger would cost approximately
$300,000. Wes Godwin also added in approximately 50 man hours to cover the
wages for the tradesmen helping direct the lift.
After the heat exchanger is in place it will be required to be connected to
the existing piping. This means that the piping materials and labour to do so
need to be accounted for. After pulling apart the pipe drawings Wes Godwin
provided a material list, as well as an estimation of $175,000 to cover the labour
to weld and fit the pipe. This quote also includes the use of a crane during the
installation. Wes also included a budget of $72,000 to cover the costs of
preheating the pipe before welds, the 100% x-ray testing of the welds, and then a
final hydrostatic test. The testing of the piping is essential to ensure it passes
code. The cost of material to complete the job was estimated by Dave Crawford
at Apex Distribution in Saskatoon. Dave went out of his way to get pricing on the
27
extra heavy wall chromoly piping that is being used in the installation. The
material quote is highly accurate and was calculated to $293,772. After a 15%
contingency placed on the bid by the general contractor, the total heat exchanger
cost was calculated to be $2.56 million. The broken down costs are presented
below:
Table 6.2.01: Heat Exchanger Construction and Installation Costs
With the catalyst replaced, and the heat exchanger installed the total project cost
was calculated to be $4.498 million.
28
6.3 – Profitability of Suggested Project
With the total estimated project cost known, the economics of the entire
project could be looked at even further. With an increase in ammonia production
one needs to increase the use of feed streams, as well as the amount of heat
recovery achieved. Due to the difficulty of obtaining a relationship between
ammonia production and downstream refrigeration costs, and the relationship of
ammonia production and electrical usage, these results were neglected in the
overall economic analysis.
The revenues of the increased ammonia production were based upon a
lowball estimate of ammonia cost of $400 per tonne, of which included
transportation costs, even though all the ammonia will be shipped to the urea
plant. With an increase in ammonia production of 230 tonnes per day, the
projected increase in ammonia revenues are $92,000/day or $33.58 million per
year. The increased natural gas requirement was considered to be linear with
respect to ammonia production and it was estimated to be 110 tonnes of
methane per day. With an estimated cost of natural gas of $7.00/GJ, this
increase in natural gas use correlated to an increased cost of $38,591/day or
$14.1 million per year. With the proposed modifications, the amount of steam
recovery will drop with a projected decrease in revenue of $1,572/day, or
$574,000 per year.
Since the proposed changes are very minimal to amount of the labour that
would be required to operate the existing plant, one assumed a single operator at
29
a pay of $65,000 per year with an annual increase of 5% would be sufficient.
This being said the only real modification to the process is the heat exchanger
due to the catalyst only being replaced. The income tax rate was assumed at
25% per year and the depreciation was not included since the margins looks
fairly large. The inflation rates between the natural gas and ammonia were
assumed to be relative, and so no adjustments were made to the future annual
costs.
The economic analysis was based on an eleven year period with
construction starting immediately and requiring two years, with production
starting at the beginning of the second year. The project loans were based upon
half of the initial project cost being lent immediately and the rest of the loan
becoming available at the start of first year. The cumulative discounted flow of
project was based upon a MARR of 7%, and created a breakeven point and
payback period, both which were in the second year. This is represented below:
30
Figure 6.3.0 1 – Cumulated Discounted Cash Flow Over Time
The internal rate of return was determined to be very large and it should
be, because the initial investment is proportionally smaller then the projected
profit per year. Again this is represented below:
31
Figure 6.3.0 2 – Cumulated Discounted Cash Flow Over Time to Determine IRR
These numbers look very promising, but one needs to consider other
factors to the project, such as the neglected downstream refrigeration and
electrical consumption costs, as well as other ammonia plant expansions. Other
plant expansions are required to ensure the increase of 230 tonnes per day of
ammonia, such as modifications to the existing steam reformer, and addition of
another compressor. With all these factors, this project should still show very
promising numbers, and it would be suggested to further investigate the
economics.
32
Chapter Seven
Health and Safety
Saskferco has implemented their own safety training that is tailor made for
the chemicals and processes that Saskferco employees encounter. Also in
practice, are regular safety meetings, and regular scheduled inspections, to keep
standards met, and a safe work environment for employees. Saskferco takes the
stance that it is each employee’s responsibility to ensure a safe workplace, for
themselves and others16.
There is an on-site lab, where testing of materials is done to ensure the
highest quality product is being sent out from the facility, and that no serious
contaminants have entered the product16.
7.1 – Material Safety for Hazardous Materials
For the scope of this project, the materials in the stream are hydrogen,
nitrogen, methane, ammonia and water. Each of these can pose some danger to
those involved with them, and therefore basic information about them should be
known.
16 www.saskferco.com
33
Starting with hydrogen, it is known that hydrogen is a simple asphyxiant,
and therefore is dangerous, even in moderate concentrations. If hydrogen’s
concentration is too high, symptoms can include, but are not limited to nausea,
headache, dizziness, and even unconsciousness17. When oxygen
concentrations are low, these symptoms can appear without warning, and rather
quickly; one could be unconscious without any warning at all. If oxygen is not
introduced into the system, or the concentration drops below 6%, it can lead to
death.
The increased hazard due to hydrogen being at high pressure will be
discussed in a later section.
Nitrogen and methane are both also considered simple asphyxiants18,19
and can lead to the same symptoms as hydrogen, if the oxygen levels in the area
drop too low. Because oxygen is a poison for the catalyst in the reactor beds,
and is extracted from the system, oxygen levels in the ammonia reactor section
of the plant are nonexistent, and therefore it is important to ensure that leaks are
not present. Because the units in the ammonia production process are located
outdoors, a leak in the system poses less of a threat.
The hazards associated with ammonia are a little more severe. It was
determined that at levels of 300 ppm, ammonia is considered immediately
dangerous to life20. Ammonia has guidelines regarding threshold limit value. For
an 8-hour work day, the total weighted average that is not to be exceeded is 25
17 Hydrogen; MSDS No 1009. Air Products and Chemicals: Allentown, PA. 18 Methane Gas; MSDS No G-56. BOC Gases: Mississauga, ONT. 19 Nitrogen Gas; Amerex Corporation: Trussville, AL. 20 Ammonia Gas; CAS # 7664-41-7. Saskferco Products: Belle Plaine, SK.
34
ppm21. Short term exposure limit for a 15 minute period is 35 ppm21. Due to its
pungent odor, ammonia has an odor threshold limit of 5 ppm21. This is beneficial
because the presence of ammonia can be detected by its smell long before it
becomes a hazard to anyone.
Water has relatively little hazard associated with it, however once it is
converted to steam it is at high pressure and temperature, and therefore poses
the expected hazards associated with steam.
The LD50, and explosion limits, where available, are located in table 7.1.1.
Table 7.1.1 – Material Safety Data for Process Chemicals
7.2 – Fire & Explosion Index
The hazards posed by the use of high pressure hydrogen were
determined using Dow’s Fire and Explosion Index. This found that on the
ammonia conversion process, using hydrogen as the basic material, a material
factor of 21 is used, and an index of 345.93 is obtained. This value is considered 21 Ammonia Gas; CAS # 7664-41-7. Saskferco Products: Belle Plaine, SK.
35
to be an extreme hazard, but because the ammonia facility is built outside and
they already work with the extreme hazard of high pressure hydrogen, the risk is
not as much of a concern. Saskferco is already aware of the potential hazard.
Moving to the next step, the Loss Control Credit Factor was found to be
0.5552 and the radius of exposure found to be just over 190 ft, which would take
out most of the Saskferco facility. A highly conservative estimate of the
equipment and property that would be damaged in this radius was found to be
$50,000,000. With all these numbers then using the Process Unit Risk Analysis
gives a business interruption of $52,500,000. The potential days’ outage would
be 150 days, or five months.
This analysis shows how dangerous working with high pressure hydrogen
is, and therefore it is of the utmost importance to ensure that pressures and
temperatures are monitored constantly, and changes should be dealt with
immediately. As the current process at Saskferco already involves high pressure
hydrogen, they are well equipped to deal with it, as well as already having safety
practices in place.
7.3 – Hazard and Operability Analysis
In accordance with Saskferco’s own safety meetings, instead of
performing a HAZOP analysis of this process, a Saskferco Hazard and
Operability analysis was performed. Step one is to acknowledge what the
process change will affect. Factors in categories such as process conditions,
engineering hardware and design, operating methods and engineering methods
36
are evaluated and circled if affected. It is also concerned with environmental
conditions, access to equipment, and safety equipment. Looking at the proposed
changes, only process conditions, hardware and design are affected. Such
things as pressure, temperature, flowrate, composition and reactor conditions will
be affected by the proposed changes to this process. In terms of hardware and
design, because of the addition of a new unit, piping to and from the equipment,
as well as the supports for the equipment will be affected.
Next a series of questions are asked, to determine certain areas that could
potentially be overlooked. The highlights obtained from this worksheet include
focusing on the possibility of leaks, and acknowledging the disposal of unused
components.
It is believed that the main concern with this process is leaks within the
lines, or increase in the conditions of temperature or pressure. The main way to
avoid major hazards it to monitor temperatures, pressures, flowrates, and
compositions; and ensure that alarms and warning systems are functioning
appropriately, this will ensure any process changes are corrected early.
Leaks also pose the potential threat of static discharge, and when dealing
with high pressure hydrogen, this could lead to explosion or fire.
It is also important to monitor levels of oxygen in the feed stream, as
oxygen poses a large threat to the production of ammonia. Oxygen is a poison
for the catalysts used in the production of ammonia, and can render the reactors
useless, if enough of it enters the reactor beds.
The H&O Safety Assessment sheets can be found in the appendices.
37
Chapter Eight
Conclusions
8.1 – Conclusions
As per Saskferco’s request, Motley Consulting looked into improving the
already existing ammonia production at their location, in Belle Plaine,
Saskatchewan. Increase in the production of urea was the ultimate goal, and in
order to increase that, there needs to be higher ammonia production. Looking
through different options, from adding more reactors, or compressors, to altering
the existing reactors to make multi-pass reactors or applying a cold shot method;
a final decision was made that included twinning an existing heat exchanger and
changing the old catalyst out, for one that is more efficient at lower temperatures.
These solutions were the most cost effective and efficient way to increase
ammonia production.
By changing the catalyst in the reactor beds, the reaction proceeds at
lower temperatures, and can achieve a higher conversion. With a higher
conversion, the highly exothermic ammonia producing reaction has a higher
exiting temperature from the second reactor. This, as well as the slight increase
38
in demand for fresh hydrogen and nitrogen, leads to an increased flowrate
through the initial gas/gas heat exchanger.
The existing gas/gas heat exchanger with the ammonia deficient feed
stream entering the cold side, and heating up, and the ammonia-rich product
stream entering the hot side, and cooling before heading to refrigeration, is a
shell-and-tube heat exchanger. It is this heat exchanger that is being twinned, to
account for the increase in demand on the existing piece.
The new piece of equipment will have an overall length of 27.165m, and a
shell inner diameter of 1.35m. Inside the shell there will be 24 baffles, and 2930
tubes, each with an inner diameter of 0.0127m. The overall heat transfer surface
area is 2420m2.
Economics on this project were very favourable. It was broken down into
two parts, the cost to change out the old catalyst, including replacement and
disposal. The total cost to replace and dispose of the new catalyst is
approximately $1,950,000. The other major cost in this project was the cost to
build, ship and install the heat exchanger. Final numbers were an estimated
$2,560,000. For a total projected cost of $4,510,000.
With this initial cost, and using current figures for the costs associated with
the loss of steam production and increase in methane usage, as well as
accounting for the increase in ammonia production, profitability leads to profits of
almost $19,000,000 a year.
In terms of health and safety, because the problem is only to change an
existing process to produce more ammonia, there are not many concerns that
39
Saskferco is not already aware of. The safety standards in place for the existing
ammonia production are considered to be quite high. The safety training in place
at Saskferco is tailor made to apply to the reactants used, products made, and
the equipment used at Saskferco. Major concerns, are easily dealt with by
constant monitoring of temperatures, pressures and compositions.
When dealing with high pressure gases of any variety it is important to be
cautious. Ammonia also poses concern as it has threshold limit values of 25 ppm
(TWA) and 35 ppm (STEL), but has an odor threshold of 5 ppm. This allows it to
be detected long before it becomes a concern.
This is a profitable option for Saskferco to proceed with, but the same
standards of safety that are already implemented at the plant need to be upheld,
to ensure that a safe and profitable environment continues to exist.
40
Chapter Nine
Recommendations
9.1 – Recommendations
Beyond the plan laid out above, it is important for Saskferco to keep an
eye on the temperature of the ammonia-rich product stream, heading towards
refrigeration. If the temperature of this stream increases due to changes in the
process, profits might be affected by increase in energy to cool the stream, in
order to remove the ammonia. Motley Consulting came up with a few selections
to save cost in energy. Placing more hot gas/cooling water heat exchangers into
the process could generate more steam, to be used in the urea plant, and would
save costs in refrigeration by lowering the inlet temperature to that unit.
41
References
Ammonia Gas; CAS # 7664-41-7. Saskferco Products: Belle Plaine, SK. 24
February, 2008.
Crawford, Dave. Numerous Phone and Email Conversations. February-March.
2008.
Das, Nikhil. Numerous In Person and Email Conversations. September 2007–
March 2008.
Edmondson, Bob. Numerous In Person and Email Conversations. September
2007–March 2008.
Edmondson, Bob, forwarded. 2009 Plant Expansion Proposal. Saskferco.
Godwin, Rodney. Numerous Phone Conversations. February. 2008.
Godwin, Wesley. Numerous In Person and Phone Conversations. January-
March. 2008
Hydrogen; MSDS No. 1009. Air Products and Chemicals: Allentown, PA. 5
March, 2008.
Incropera, Frank P., and David P. Dewitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer. United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
Kenny, Michelle. “Optimization and Control Studies for Ammonia Production.”
M.Sc. thesis. University of Alberta, 2001.
42
Methane Gas; MSDS No.G-56. BOC Gases: Mississauga, Ontario. 5 March,
2008.
Nitrogen Gas; Amerex Corporation: Trussville, AL. 5 March, 2008.
Reklaitis, G. V. Introduction to Material and Energy Balances. United States:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1983.
Twigg, Martyn V., eds. Catalyst Handbook: Second Edition. London, England:
Manson Publishing Ltd., 1996.
Saskferco 2007. Saskferco, 20 February, 2008. <www.saskferco.com>
Saskferco Blueprints. Approved by Bob Edmondson. 1995.
Saskferco Blueprints. Made by UDHE. 1990.
Ulrich, Gael D., and Palligarnai T. Vasudevan. Chemical Engineering: Process
Design And Economics: A Practical Guide. Durham, New Hampshire:
Process Publishing, 2004.
Water; CAS# 7732-18-15. Sciencelab.com: Houston, TX. 5 March, 2008.
Weisgerber, Daryl. Numerous Phone and Email Conversations. February-March.
2008.
Willfong, Dave. Numerous Phone and Email Conversations. February-March.
2008.
43
Appendix A
Hand Calculations
44
Sample Calculation of Energy Removal Over Heat Exchanger #1 for stream #1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
75
1
5
1
33222244
5
1
5
1
5
1
45
1
5
1
33222244
5
1
5
1
5
1
25
1
5
1
33222244
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
33222244
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
51
52
5
1
41
42
5
1
31
32
5
1
21
22
5
112
5
1
5
112
12
104.12
0.04230.0668639-0.02820+0.23520.0513186+0.61161.05883+0.08272.63849-/hr28344kgmol
105.15
0.04230.099004+0.02820+0.23520.0545064+0.61161.31485-0.08272.9098/hr28344kgmol
100.100
0.04232.56278+0.02820+0.23520.300681-0.61166.70055+0.08277.36639-/hr28344kgmol
4.642
0.042327.55+0.028220.7723+0.235229.4119+0.611617.638638.770.0827/hr28344kgmol
5432
)()(
)()(
2
1
2
1
−
=
=
=
==
−
=
=
=
==
−
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
==
======
=
×=
∗∗∗∗∗=
⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅=
=
×−=
∗∗∗∗∗=
⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅=
=
×=
∗∗∗∗∗=
⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅=
=
=
⋅⋅⋅⋅+⋅=
⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅=
=
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧ −
+−
+−
+−
+−=
=−
=−
∑
∑
∑
∑∑
∑
∑
∑
∑∑
∑
∑
∑
∑∑
∑
∑
∑
∑∑
∑∑∑∑∑∑ ∫
∑ ∫
Sss
Sss
NHNHArArNNHHCHCHS
ss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
NHNHArArNNHHCHCHS
ss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
NHNHArArNNHHCHCHS
ss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
NHNHArArNNHHCHCHS
ss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
S
T
T PS
S
T
T PS
dxN
dxN
dxdxdxdxdxNdxN
dxNdN
cxN
cxN
cxcxcxcxcxNcxN
cxNcN
bxN
bxN
bxbxbxbxbxNbxN
bxNbN
axN
axN
axaxaxaxaxNaxN
axNaN
eNTTdNTTcNTTbNTTaNTTdTCN
dTCNTHTN
energyTHTN
S
S
45
[ ]
[ ]
115
1
5
1
33222244
5
1
5
1
5
1
107.34
0.04230+0.02820+0.23520.425308-0.61162.91803-0.08278.00679/hr28344kgmol
−
=
=
=
==
×−=
∗∗∗∗∗=
⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅=
=
∑
∑
∑
∑∑
Sss
Sss
NHNHArArNNHHCHCHS
ss
Sss
Sss
exN
exN
exexexexexNexN
exNeN
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ]( ) [ ]( ) [ ]( )[ ]( ) [ ]( )
hrkJdTCN
KK
KKKKKK
dTCN
eNTTdNTTcNTTbNTTaNTTdTCN
S
T
T PS
S
T
T PS
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
Sss
S
T
T PS
S
S
S
/228639
1047.35
2.3062.5681024.1
42.3062.568
1055.13
2.3062.56800.1
22.3062.568
4.6422.3062.568
5432
5
1
1055
644
33322
5
1
5
1
51
52
5
1
41
42
5
1
31
32
5
1
21
22
5
112
5
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
=
⎪⎪⎭
⎪⎪⎬
⎫
⎪⎪⎩
⎪⎪⎨
⎧
×−−
+×−
+
×−
+−
+−=
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧ −
+−
+−
+−
+−=
∑ ∫
∑ ∫
∑∑∑∑∑∑ ∫
=
−−
−
=
======
Table A.01 – Heat Capacity Constants
46
Table A.02 – Existing Configuration
Table A.03 – New Catalyst with Optimized Temperatures
47
Sample Calculations from Ulrich for Heat Exchanger Costs Sample Calculation of Chromoly Correction Factor
16.200.349$00.752$
/
/
/
=
=
=
MoCrM
MoCrM
MoCrM
F
F
onCostofCarbmolyCostofChroF
Sample Calculation of Heat Exchanger Bare Module Costs With Following Data Obtained By Ulrich: Surface Area A = 2420 m2 Base Metal Cost CP
CS = $200,000 Material Correction Factor FM
Cr/Mo = 2.16 Pressure Correction Factor FP = 1.45 Inflation Correction Factor FI
2004 = 1.48
038,930$48.145.116.2000,200$
2004/
=∗∗∗=
∗∗∗=
BM
BM
IPMoCr
MCSPBM
CC
FFFCC
48
Appendix B
Process Simulation
49
Figu
re B
.01
– H
ysys
Sim
ulat
ion:
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of P
ropo
sed
Proc
ess
50
Appendix C
Sizing Images
51
Figu
re
C.0
1 –
Tri-v
iew
W
orks
heet
of
Pr
opos
ed
Twin
ned
Hea
t E
h
52
Figure C.02 – SolidWorks view of proposed heat exchanger
53
Appendix D
Piping Images
54
Figure D.0 1 – Estimated Connection Specifications for Shell Side Inlet
Figure D.0 2 – Estimated Connection Specifications for Tube Side Inlet
55
Figure D.0 3 – Estimated Connection Specifications for Shell Side Outlet
Figure D.0 4 - Estimated Connection Specifications for Tube Side Outlet
56
Appendix E
Economics of Installation
57
Table E.01 – Pile Quotes from North American Construction Group
58
Figure E.01 – Rough Chromoly Piping Quotes from Unified Alloys via Apex Distribution
59
60
61
Appendix F
Material Safety Data Sheets
62
F.1 – Anhydrous Ammonia
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
F.2 Hydrogen
70
71
72
73
74
F.3 – Methane
75
76
77
78
79
80
F.4 – Nitrogen
81
82
83
84
85
86
F.5 – Water
87
88
89
90
91
Appendix G
Dow Fire & Explosion Index
92
G.1 – Dow Fire & Explosion Index
93
G.2 – Loss Control Credit Factor
94
G.3 – Process Unit Risk Analysis Summary
95
Appendix H
Hazard and Operability Worksheets
96
H.1 – Saskferco Hazard and Operability Worksheets
97
98