Conference Daily Day Two Thursday, October 11, 2007 ... · PDF filebuilding and leadership development of his ... Training ranged from non-existent ... Nalco Company . . . . .

Thursday, October 11, 2007 NPRA 2007 Q&A and Technology Forum 1

The 2007 Peter G. Andrews Lifetime Service Awards will be presented at 8 a.m. Thursday morning in Austin Grand Ball-room Salon H. These awards honor the contributions made by members to the value and vitality of the NPRA Q&A and Technology Forum.

The recipients all have served as pan-elists, program committee and screening committee members, and, most impor-tantly, active participants in the dialogue that is fundamental to the meeting’s suc-cess and longevity. Over the course of their careers, the recipients have made significant and sustained contributions to the meet-ing’s quality and have put into action their belief that sharing knowledge with others is the source of continuous improvement for the industry.

Award winners Charles LeRoy and Chris McDowell are being profiled in today’s show daily. To read Dr. Pat Ken-nedy’s profile, please pick up tomorrow’s edition of the paper.

Charles F. LeRoyReceiving the 2007 Peter G. Andrews

Lifetime Service Award is particularly meaningful to Charles F. “Charlie” LeRoy because Peter Andrews was his long-time friend and mentor. Mr. LeRoy, vice presi-dent of regional refinery operations for Valero Energy, is a 30 year-plus veteran of the petroleum refining industry who has consistently focused attention on team building and leadership development of his employees and colleagues. The NPRA also has benefited from his knowledge, time and energy over the past 21 years. He has served as a Q&A panelist for Valero in 1986 and participated on the Q&A Screening Com-mittee for 16 years as well as authoring numerous papers.

Over the years, Mr. LeRoy says he has witnessed a number of changes. For exam-ple, he recalls starting out using a slide rule in 1970. This was followed by the change to a personal computer in 1980 and now Internet, e-mail and cell phone.

Like many in the industry, he has expe-rienced such changes as the lead phase out,

Tier II gasoline/RFG, Tier II diesel, envi-ronmental improvements, PSM and auto-mation. He says change has been constant through the years, but with each new chal-lenge, the industry stepped up and figured out how to get the job done. Pointing to the NPRA, he says the organization plays an important role in addressing all these challenges.

Mr. LeRoy notes that the NPRA has provided the forum through the technical conferences to help share and solve signifi-cant technical issues. Further, the associa-tion brings together three key industry elements—the young and new talent, eager to learn and network; the older experienced representatives, to share knowledge and solve problems; and the vendors, who are selling, sharing and entertaining.

Through current and past organization leaders, he says the NPRA has been able to stay on top of the industry and evolve with the challenges.

Mr. LeRoy notes that it is important for the group to remember the key elements that long have been present—teaching, networking and problem-solving, and shar-ing new ideas and products. He encourages all sectors of the industry to get involved, saying, “I have received a lot more from the NPRA than I’ve put in.”

Chris McDowellChris McDowell is a bubbly, fresh breeze

of intelligent conversation—equipped with a sharp mind that is always analyzing and reacting to situations. She is the air com-pliance superintendent at Tesoro’s Golden Eagle refinery in Martinez, California, and has over 30 years of experience in the refin-ing industry.

“Personally, it was a real big shock to find out I was receiving this award,” Ms. McDowell said. “I’ve been awed by the fact that I’ve been chosen by my peers and friends in the NPRA to receive this. This is a really good thing and I don’t know how to deal with it, so I’ve been making jokes about it. For instance, is this in recognition for being the one volunteering for the really dirty jobs over the last five years? But in all

seriousness, this is a great honor.” Ms. McDowell attributes her getting

involved in NPRA to one of her mentors, Chuck McCoy from Chevron Research who was a hydroprocessing guru. She began to work with him, and he saw her enthusiasm for the job. He subsequently recommended her for a position as a Q&A panelist in 1978. She was accepted, and in the process, became the first woman to serve as a Q&A panelist. Being a panelist was exciting for Ms. McDowell, and she realized that once she was involved with the Q&A Screening Committee she would always make a point to work within the NPRA.

“It has always been a priority in my career and my life that I be involved with the NPRA,” Ms. McDowell said. “The NPRA provides the perfect forum for best practices and becoming aware of really good techniques in the industry.”

The NPRA has been a constant for Ms. McDowell in a career that has spanned vir-tually all aspects of the industry.

“I started out doing process and then went into operations, and I’ve done proj-ect construction and ended up getting dragged into the environmental arena,” Ms. McDowell said. While she was joking

about “getting dragged” into environmental work, she does note the increasing impor-tance of that role within the industry.

“The bottom line is, being in Cali-fornia, if you can’t get the environmental aspect going in your direction the agencies have the ability to shut plants down. I’ve seen that happen, and to me that is one thing the industry has become more savvy about is getting more proactive in seeing the coming trends and looking at some of the political changes that are happening in the country and recognizing their impact on our industry.” ■

Carolyn Merritt, former chairman of the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB), kicked off the Wednesday proceedings of the Q&A and Technology Forum with a speech that emphasized the importance of safety in all facets of business life. The impact of a cor-porate culture with misplaced values was examined, which led into a stark descrip-tion of the repercussions of unintended consequences. She also detailed several cata-strophic events across different industries and emphasized commonalities.

“One voice that is heard over all others defines your [corporate] culture,” Ms. Mer-ritt said. “Is it financial, marketing, produc-tion, quality, human capital or safety? There are people who say that it is a mistake for safety to be the number one voice heard because you can’t make any money. But I can tell you that people who don’t have safety as a primary voice are losing a lot of money, and they are losing it because of inefficiencies and unnecessary downtime.”

Ms. Merritt said that the CSB has found in every investigation it had ever done—ranging from refineries to pharmaceuticals plants and various industries in between—there were identical mistakes in common. Process safety management rules for haz-ard awareness identification were not fully

implemented. Written procedures were either nonexistent or so poor that they did not reflect how to react in an emergency.

Training ranged from non-existent to so poor that it did not allow opera-tors to understand how to operate when things were going wrong. Maintenance and management of change was inade-quate—in some places, “duct tape” main-tenance was all they had. Emergency pre-paredness was lacking or did not exist.

Conference Daily Day Two Thursday, October 11, 2007

Visit

INTERCAT’s Hospitality Suite

in Room 2609

2007 Q&A and Technology Forum

See MERRITT, page 9

Carolyn Merritt, formerchairman of the US Chemical Safety Board.

Corporate culture gone bad leads to unintended consequences

Chris McDowell, Lifetime Service Award winner.

Charles LeRoy, Valero Energy, recipient of The Peter G. Andrews Lifetime Service Award, talks with Buddy Ives of Hydrocarbon Processing.

Lifetime Service Awards to be presented Thursday morning

Heavy Feeds

cleaner transportation fuelslow sulfur fuel oil(0.1% - 0.5% S)RFCC feed(3-6 MCR)(5-15 ppm V & Ni)coker feed

RDS

Refiners worldwide use our

Letus show you how.

to deliv ercleaner products from lo w q- u ytalidefs.

ewww.clg- leccom

an.

hydroprocessi ng technologies

(O )01 51 0. 24 2.3177


SCHEDuLE oF SESSIoNS AND SpECIAL EVENTS

Thursday October 11, 2007

07:00 am–05:00 pm Registration

08:00 am–08:30 am Lifetime Service Awards

08:30 am–12:30 am Crude & Vacuum Distillation & Coking Principles & Practices

08:30 am–10:00 am Plant Automation: Supermodels (APC and Full Diagnosis)

08:30 am–12:30 pm Gasoline Q&A 08:30 am–05:00 pm Cyber Security Roundtable 10:00 am–10:30 am Coffee Break

10:30 am–12:30 pm Plant Automation: Operator Training

12:30 pm–01:30 pm Lunch

01:30 pm–03:00 pm Plant Automation: Energy Management 01:30 pm–05:00 pm Gasoline Principles & Practices Hydroprocessing Q&A

03:00 pm–03:30 pm Refreshment Break

03:30 pm–05:00 pm Plant Automation: Panel on Energy Management

Check out Topsøe Catalysts and Technologies

Hydroprocessing WSA

••

Hydrogen Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

••

Looking for Clean Fuel Solutions?

Albemarle Catalysts Meeting . . .Room 400

Axens North America Meeting . .Room 410

Baker Petrolite . . . . . . .Meeting Room 412

BASF Catalysts LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Salon D

Champion Technologies . . . . . . . . . Salon C

Criterion Catalysts & Technologies . . . . . .Meeting Room 404

DuPont™ STRATCO®, BELCO® Suite 1532

Emerson Process Management . . . . Salon E

Grace Davison / ART . . .Meeting Room 406

Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical . . . . . .Meeting Room 408

Haldor Topsoe, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . Suite 2601

INTERCAT, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suite 2609

Intertek PARC . . . . . . . .Meeting Room 415

Johnson Mathey Catalysts/ Tracero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Salon A

Koch Heat Transfer Co . Meeting Room 402

Nalco Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suite 1203

OSIsoft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suite 2637

Shaw Stone & Webster . . . . . . . . . . Salon B

SUD-CHEMIE INC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suite TBA

UOP LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suite 1003

Hospitality Suites—ThursdayCompany Location and dates Company Location and dates Company Location and dates

Inside this issue . . .Schedule for sessions and

hospitality suites . . . . . . . . .3

Technology advancements in benzene saturation . . . .4

Part II of jet and kerosine production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Data reconciliation case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Restoring single loop integrity to process control . . . . . . 10

To flare or not to flare . . . . . 12

Executing a successful turnaround . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Scenes from the forum . . . . 14

4 NPRA 2007 Q&A and Technology Forum Thursday, October 11, 2007

Refiners once again face challenges to address benzene in the gasoline pool. The EPA has rolled out new regulations under Mobile Sources Air Toxics Phase 2 (MSAT2) to reduce the annual aver-age benzene content in the US gasoline pool, except California, to 0.62 vol% effective January 1, 2011. Additional regulations of MSAT2 include a maxi-mum benzene content of 1.3 vol% in the gasoline pool effective July 1, 2012. The regulations include the ability for refiners to generate credits under the averaging, banking and trading (ABT) program, which allows refineries to trade credits to meet the 0.62 vol% specification. These new regulations will require most refiners to implement post-fractionation strategies to meet the new lower benzene limit.

As shown in Table 1, the largest con-tributor of benzene in the gasoline pool is reformate.

Refiners will not be able to meet the proposed MSAT2 limits without addressing the benzene content in refor-mate. There are two basic approaches to benzene management in reformate: prevention of the formation of benzene and removal of benzene from the refor-mate.

Dehydrogenation of six-carbon naphthenes, cyclo-hexane or methyl-cy-clo pentane and de-alkylation of heavy aromatics are two routes that lead to the formation of benzene in a reforming unit. The dehydrogenation route is the largest contributor to benzene forma-tion and is best controlled using pre-fractionation strategies to remove C6 naphthenes from reforming unit feed, as well as the benzene present in the straight-run naphtha.

The approach of preventing the formation of benzene by pre-fraction-ation and use of a low pressure reform-ing will reduce the gasoline benzene to about 1 vol%, but in most cases this approach will not achieve the MSAT2 target benzene level of 0.62 vol%. Pre-fractionation processing strategies that include saturation of benzene in light naphtha and low pressure reforming, as shown in Fig. 1, will meet the MSAT2 benzene level, but with little or no compliance margin. A change in feed or product slate could force the refinery out of compliance. Most refiners, even those with low pressure reformers, will need to consider the post-fractionation options.

The post-fractionation approach will need either benzene conversion or benzene removal. Refiners with high pressure reforming units produce enough benzene that post-fractionation solutions will be required to meet the MSAT2 targets. Refiners with low pres-sure reformers can benefit, through the

ABT program from the additional com-pliance margin that post-fractionation will provide.

The simplest post-fractionation solu-tion is saturation of the benzene. UOP’s BenSat process with the UOP H-8 cata-lyst has been the industry standard for benzene saturation for over 25 years.

The BenSat process has been updated in response to demand for improved eco-nomics. The new BenSat process uses a new catalyst, the H-18 catalyst, result-ing in lower catalyst volume, reduced recycle and lower precious metal requirements. The new BenSat process, as shown in Fig. 2, still uses a platinum

catalyst for robust operations, highest yield and minimal hydrogen consump-tion. Unlike nickel-based catalysts, platinum-based saturation catalysts are not permanently poisoned by sulfur or heavies upsets and do not cause crack-ing to light ends. More then 10 BenSat process units are in operation and many of those units with the same catalyst load for over 11 years. No BenSat unit has ever required a catalyst reload due to catalyst deactivation.

The BenSat process will allow refin-ers to target benzene levels well below the 0.60 vol% limit of MSAT2. Lower levels of benzene will allow greater flexibility in the case of pool benzene limits. Table 2 compares the econom-ics of the BenSat process with the new H-18 catalyst for a typical 8,000 bpsd unit processing a light reformate stream of 19 vol% benzene. The benefits are based on Pt at $1,270 per tr. oz.

Benzene separation and saturation will result in an octane loss. For most refiners, this octane loss can be offset by ethanol blending. A common solu-tion for the pre-fractionation approach is to process SRN including benzene precursors in an isomerization unit to saturate the benzene. The post-frac-tionation option is to process SRN plus light reformate in an isomerization unit. UOP offers a wide range of light naphtha isomerization technologies. The most common process is the UOP Penex process with over 100 units in operation. The Penex process can pro-cess up to 5 vol% benzene in the feed.

Penex process unit feed severity is likely to increase beyond 5 vol% ben-zene, in a low benzene world, increas-ing the probability that a Penex-Plus process will be required. A revamp of a Penex process to a Penex-Plus process would allow greater levels of benzene to be saturated.

The proposed lower gasoline ben-zene specifications will require modi-fication of most refineries. The target benzene levels can be obtained by focus-ing on the benzene produced in the reformer. Most solutions will require separation and conversion of benzene. Benzene saturation either in a stand-alone benzene saturation unit such as the BenSat process or in a light naphtha isomerization unit such as the Penex process or the Penex-Plus process are well-established, robust, economical technologies for new benzene manage-ment solutions. ■

Brian Schiavone is the product line manager for gasoline technologies in UOP’s Process Technol-ogy and Equipment business in Des Plaines, Illinois. In his 15 years of experience with UOP, Brian has worked in a variety of roles, most recently as man-ager of the Platforming Technology Center in UOP’s Engineering Department. Brian holds a B.S.Ch.E degree from The Ohio State University.

Technology advancements in benzene saturationBRIAN J. SCHIAVONE, UOP LLC, Des Plaines, Illinois

Table 1. Typical sources of benzene contributions to gasoline

Process stream Range of benzene Influencers Benzene contribution concentrations, vol% to the pool, %

Reformate 0.2–8 Feed PONA, Feed 75– 80 IBP, pressure

FCC naphtha 0.5–1.3 Mode of operation 10 –15 and crude source

Light straight run 0.8 –8 Crude source 2–5 naphtha C5–220ºF

VGO hydrocracked to 1 to 5 Conversion of VGO to 1 – 5 C5 + –380ºF naphtha naphtha, feedstock

Straight runnaphtha Naphtha

splitter

Isomerization

Saturation

0.60 vol%benzene in

gasoline pool

Light napthabenzene, C6naphthenes

Low pressurereforming

unit

FIG. 1. Pre-fractionation with low pressure reforming and benzene saturation or isomerization

MakeupSG

Reactor

Stablizer

Product

Heavyreformate

Reformate

Reformatesplitter

Lightends

Ventgas

FIG. 2. UOP BenSat process unit flows scheme.

Table 2. BenSat process economics with the H-18 catalyst

LHSV Catalyst Pt Pt requirements requirements savings

BenSat unit with Base Base Base H-8 catalyst

BenSat unit with 2.5 * Base 40% * Base 22% * Base $ 1,548,000 H-18 catalyst (by vol) (by wt)

© 2006 Criterion Catalysts & Technologies L.P. Sentry is a trademark of Criterion Catalysts & Technologies. (cri608)

www.cri terioncatalysts.com

Introducing the most complete guard catalyst and support portfolio available

Now there’s Sentry™ Guard Catalysts & Support -- an entire family of products from Criterion Catalysts & Technologies designed to protect your hydroprocessing operations from the contaminants found in opportunity feedstocks. Fouling and contamination can negatively affect your return on investment – that’s why Criterion has committed R&D resources to address these problems you face every day.

The Sentry platform offers solutions for the prevention, diagnosis and resolution of contamination issues -- protecting both your catalyst investment and your bottom line. Contact us to learn more.

GUARD CATALYSTS & SUPPORTSENTRY

Protect your catalyst. Protect your bottom line.

cri633_SentryERTC.indd 1 10/12/06 10:56:14 AM


Strategies for managing specifica-tion, market and technical changes in jet and kerosine production: part two

Market volatility and solid demand growth, along with potential shifts in product specifications, can signifi-cantly affect how refiners produce jet and kerosine. Part one of this article (published yesterday) examined the current and potential specifications, as well as the effects of specification shifts on production. Today’s installment examines the current and projected jet and kerosine market conditions and short and long-term operational and investment options that refiners can utilize to manage these current and potential market forces.

Market condition trends. Cur-rently, jet fuel usage is largely concen-trated in the USA, UK, and Japan, whereas kerosine usage is largely con-centrated in Japan and other parts of Asia, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

According to the Energy Informa-tion Agency (EIA), jet fuel demand in the US is projected to increase by about 1.5% annually over the next 20 years (see Fig. 3). This increase is driven largely by projected increases in international travel and shipping

(see Fig. 4), but it is partially offset by improvements aircraft fleet efficiency.

Global demand is expected to remain healthy, particularly in the expanding economies of India and China. As shown in Fig. 5, transporta-tion energy usage in China is expected to grow by over 10 quadrillion Btu over the next 20 years and jet fuel alone will account for over 14% of the increase.

Given this steady demand growth, refiners need to examine ways to meet the required jet and kerosine usage lev-els, particularly if specification changes evolve over this same period.

Increasing production. With a healthy demand for jet and kerosine projected over the coming years, the refining industry will need to examine ways to increase production, particu-larly if specification changes reduce the volumes currently available. Table 1 provides a summary of some potential options to examine for higher produc-tion.

Some of the options require major capital investment, such as increasing crude rate, installing Hydrocracker, or installing aromatic saturation unit. Other opportunities are operational

changes, such as kerosine selective cata-lyst, adjusting conversion per pass, and kerosine draw in the Hydrocracker.

Altering crude slate can either pro-duce better quality kerosine or increase virgin kerosine production. With the advent of additional bottom-of-the-barrel conversion projects, some refin-ers may be able to increase kerosine production, as the kerosine is no longer needed for fuel oil viscosity and gravity cutter. However, this option may still require some additional treating capac-ity to produce finished product.

In gasoline and diesel, biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are being used to supplement production from tra-ditional fossil fuel based sources. For kerosine and jet, few biofuel opportu-

nities exist currently and the criticality of jet qualities may limit their use in the near future. Still, evolving technol-ogy may provide an alternate source for kerosine range products.

Several small capital options exist to help provide incremental production. One option is improvement of frac-tionation efficiency. The next section discusses a case study where a refiner was able to identify a fractionation efficiency problem that was limiting kerosine production from a Hydroc-racker.

Case study. A client with a tradi-tional four cut (naphtha, kerosine, die-sel, and unconverted oil) distillation tower in a Hydrocracker had observed

PublisherMark [email protected]

NPRA ContactHelen Kutska

EditorBilly Thinnes

Contributing EditorGeorge Ives

Production ManagerBeth Cunningham

Hydrocarbon Processing2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020Houston, TX 77252-77046713-529-4301

ADVERTISERS:Chevron Lummus Global . . 2Haldor Topsøe . . . . . . . . . . . 3Criterion Catalysts . . . . . . . 5 Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . 7, 9KBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intercat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Johnson Matthey . . . . . . . 12Aramco Services . . . . . . . . 13NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Axens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Published as three daily editions, October 9/10, 11 and 12, by Hydrocarbon Processing . If you wish to advertise on the second or third day in this newspaper, or to submit a press release, please contact the Editor at email billy .thinnes@gulfpub .com or 832-656-5341 .

www.Hydrocarbonprocessing.com

2007 Q&A and Technology Forum

Conference News

Strategies for managing specification, market and technical changes in jet and kerosine production—part 2

36%

3%4%5%17%

6%

4%

3%

5%

17%

United States North America exclude US Central & South AmericaUnited Kingdom Europe exclude UK EurasiaMiddle East Africa JapanAsia & Oceania excl Japan

FIG. 1. Global jet fuel usage1

2,500

2,700

2,900

3,100

3,300

3,500

3,700

3,900

4,100

4,300

2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031

Trill

ion

BTU Air energy usage

FIG. 3. Projected US air energy usage2

41%

31%

6%0%

10%

2%4%3%3% 0%

United States North America exclude US Central & South AmericaUnited Kingdom Europe exclude UK EurasiaMiddle East Africa JapanAsia & Oceania excl Japan

FIG. 2. Global kerosine usage1


relatively poor kerosine recovery com-pared to expected results. KBC was asked to benchmark the tower perfor-mance against industry observations. Table 2 shows the gap/overlap analysis results. As shown, the client’s fraction-ation tower showed very poor fraction-ation efficiency in the kerosine section. This inefficiency was confirmed using a Petro-SIM fractionation simula-tion and validating against expected fractionation internals vendor perfor-mance.

By improving fractionation effi-ciency to more typical levels, the tower would be able to increase kerosine yield by over 10%. Assuming a typical dif-ferential of $0.50/bbl between kerosine and diesel, the value of recovering this kerosine was around $0.50 million per year. Hence, benchmarking and exam-ining kerosine producing fractionator efficiency performance may allow for increased production.

With increases in global travel and shipping and expansion of Asian eco-

nomics, the markets for kerosine and jet remain strong. To meet market demands, refiners will need to examine mul-tiple investment and operational options.

Through proper benchmarking and evaluation techniques, the capabilities of an existing facility to increase jet and kerosine production can be under-stood. The refiner can then examine investment alternatives to supplement the existing facility, thereby meeting jet and kerosine production targets. ■

• Petro-SIM is a trademark of KBC Advanced Technologies .

Literature cited1 Energy Information Agency, “International

Energy Annual 2004,” June 2006.2 Energy Information Agency, “Annual Energy

Outlook 2007,” February 2007.3 Energy Information Agency, “International

Energy Outlook 2007,” May 2007.

Robert Ohmes is a senior consultant with KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc., Houston, Texas. His primary responsibilities are centered on hydroprocessing unit consulting for domestic and international clients. Prior to joining KBC, he worked as a refinery engineer for Koch Refining Co. in Corpus Christi, Texas. He holds degrees from Kansas State University (BSChE) and Tulane University (MBA) and is a licensed professional engineer in Louisiana.

OtherHeavy fuel oilJet fuelDieselGasoline

0

5

2004 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

10

Quad

rillio

n, B

tu

15

20

FIG. 5. China’s transportation energy use by fuel type, 2004–20303

0100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031

Pass

enge

r, bi

llion

mile

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Ship

ping

, bill

ion

mile

s

Revenue passenger miles, domesticRevenue passenger miles, internationalRevenue ton miles

FIG. 4. Projected US aircraft miles2

Table 1. Options to increase jet and kerosine productionCrude Unit

• Increase crude charge rate

• Alter crude slate

Hydroprocessing

• Install hydrocracker to produce kerosine

• Operate existing hydroc-racker in kerosine mode

Separation

• Improve crude unit frac-tionation efficiency

• Improve hydrocracker fractionation efficiency

Blending/routing

• Remove kerosine from diesel blendstocks

• Remove kerosine as fuel oil cutter

• Investigate biofuels

Table 2. Kerosine/diesel overlap/gap analysis

Industry Client average average

Diesel 5% – Kero 95%, °C Base Base – 42

Diesel 10% – Kero 90%, °C Base Base – 24Be PreparedTeaming up with Baker Petrolite takes systemprotection to new heights. SMARTGUARDNaphthenic Acid Corrosion Control deliverssafety-focused processing protocols andadvanced corrosion control techniques.

The Baker Petrolite team helps you:

Reduce feedstock costsIncrease feedstock flexibilityMaintain equipment reliabilityAvoid costly corrosion failures

Processing higher TAN crude blends successfullytakes a team effort. Match our specialized technology, expertise and responsive service with your next opportunity.

Contact www.bakerpetrolite.com today.

High TAN Crudes?

For

mor

e in

form

atio

n, v

isit

our

web

site

ww

w.b

aker

hugh

es.c

om. ©

200

7 B

aker

Hug

hes

Inco

rpor

ated

.A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

. SM

AR

TG

UA

RD

is a

tra

dem

ark

of B

aker

Hug

hes

Inco

rpor

ated

. PE

T-07

- 13

464

B e s t - i n - C l a s s

Baker Hughes 100 Years of Service 1907-2007

High TAN ads 4.25x12.25:Layout 1 10/11/2007 10:52 AM Page 1


Plant data is inherently inconsistent due to instrument error and process fluctuation. Yet, companies often use this data directly for KPI calculations, operations support, process debottle-necking, yield monitoring, planning, modeling, optimization, APC or other important functions. Plant engineers and planning personnel can spend considerable time analyzing and inter-preting this unreconciled raw data. A worse situation occurs when data is corrupted by faulty measurements, which can lead to poor or unsafe oper-ational decision-making.

For close to 15 years, Shell Canada Limited has used refinery-wide data reconciliation applications to gener-ate consistent mass balances and to identify flow meters that are reading incorrectly. These applications enjoy strong support from refinery manage-ment because there is a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the reconciled flows. The sharper accuracy gives management the data-and the confidence-to push constraints more aggressively and to make more prof-itable business decisions. This appli-cation also improves reliability and productivity through early, automated detection of faulty instruments and stream routings.

The model. The models are large in scope but simple in detail. There are no reactions, duty calculations, phase equi-librium or even stream compositions. This approach has the advantage of still being manageable for large scope mod-els, whilst reconciling the inter-unit bal-ances, a common point of mass balance mismatches. Model flowsheets consist of mass balance nodes, streams, measure-ments, and tanks, with each major pro-cess unit organized into subflowsheets for the sake of reporting and clarity.

In building the model, the engi-neer first identifies the units or groups of process equipment that have a redundant set of flow meters. He then collapses each of these mass balance envelopes into a single node—a typical refinery model having 50 to 100 nodes connected with 300 to 500 streams. Each stream requires a flow meter and a standard density. Many will have temperature and pressure measure-ments, which are used only for the flowing density calculations required in flow compensation.

The Node unit simply calculates it’s mass, and optionally, volumetric imbalance. Closely related to the node is the Tank unit, which also includes inventory changes in the calculations.

Gross error detection and data reconciliation. Before every run, the model downloads averaged process instrument values from the historian. A three-layered approach is then used to close the mass balance and identify gross errors.

Measurement screening. Each measurement is first screened to deter-mine whether its downloaded value is outside of the measurement range of the field instrument. This simple, but effective, approach for identifying measurement errors has proven itself over many years of online modeling.

Simulation case and the con-straint test. This case solves for the node imbalances while holding the flows at their compensated values. If the actual imbalance greatly exceeds the expected imbalance, based on the surrounding meters’ accuracy, then the “constraint test”1 indicates that the node has a gross error. Another pro-prietary statistical test then attempts to identify the offending meter(s).

data reconciliation case and the measurement test. This case calculates the flows that best conserve mass, with the smallest possible adjustment from the metered values. This weighted-least-squares minimization, includes each meter’s error, which discourages the solver from making large adjust-ments to accurately measured (small ) flows.

In post-processing, the application runs the “measurement test,” which locates gross errors based on the mag-nitude of their offset.

Optionally, the model can be con-figured to adjust one stream’s density to conserve volume. Although this results in a nonlinear model, a simultaneous mass and volume reconciliation is the only way to detect certain types of errors.2

Modeling flow meters. While the unit operations can be modeled in a simplified way, the meters must be modeled in detail, since their offsets and accuracy drive the data reconcili-ation solution. A model that casually assumes every meter has a 3% error will not capture the fact that turbine meters are more accurate than vortex meters and that a meter near the middle of its range is more accurate than one near the bottom of scale.

Inaccurate, or lacking flow com-pensation is a common source of mass balances calculation error.. In addition to the meter’s design conditions, flow compensation requires additional input to calculate the stream’s current flowing density. These inputs include good esti-mates of stream density, temperature and pressure and in the case of liquid meters,

how density varies with temperature. This latter effect is best defined by an estimate of the stream’s UOP-K value.

To reduce the modeling effort, the user may select the meter type from a pre-configured library and provide its range. The model then calculates stan-dard deviation () based on the flow, declared meter type and an estimate of the accuracy of the density as shown in FIG. 3. If the meter is compensated, the model selects the appropriate compen-sation equations, e.g., linear for vortex meters and square root for orifice.

Day-to-day usage. Shell Canada Limited management is strongly com-mitted to refinery- wide data recon-ciliation applications and in 2006 contracted The SimSci-Esscor unit of Invensys Process Systems to design a product, specifically designed around their mass balance modeling practice. Built on the SimSci-Esscor ROMeo platform, it supports all modeling activities, from interfacing to the plant historian, through flow compensation modeling, to scheduling runs and E-mailing reports to the user.

The application runs automatically and produces daily results for more than 99% of the calendar days in a year. Some Shell Canada Limited sites require that the results be available for their morn-ing operating meeting. Only a highly automated, easy to maintain model can consistently deliver quality results to meet this organizational requirement. The high frequency runs also ensure meter prob-lems are detected closer to the event that caused them, resulting in easier trouble-shooting and fewer surprises during the monthly yield accounting activities.

When the support engineer arrives at work, an Excel report will be await-ing his analysis, which usually requires 20 to 40 minutes when the refinery is relatively steady. After verifying the results, he sends the data back to the historian and issues reports on the LAN. The results benefit a variety of users and applications including:

• Process engineers, who use the data for energy and yield monitoring

• Instrumentation engineers, who use the data to schedule meter mainte-nance, which reduces the overall instru-mentation maintenance workload. This is because the model uses advanced statistical techniques to narrow down which meter is at fault, when a bad bal-ance or set of balances is observed

• Optimization engineers, who use the data as a check to improve the accuracy of their online models

Refinery-wide data reconciliation case-study: operational decision support based on reconciled dataMICHAEL CRONkwRIgHT and gERALd FREy, Shell Canada Limited, SCOTT BROwN and HARpREET guLATI, Invensys SimSci-Esscor

Use T, P forcompensationBlock valve: simplifies

lineup changes

Tank: Modelsinventory/flowrelationship

Several nodeicons availableF

F

F

F

F

S2A

S1

S3S5

Gas

S4

S6

S7Level

SpGr

Feed tank

Hydrogen

S2

F

F

F P T

T M

MF

FIG. 1. Common features in a material balance model.

Equipment flowsheet Mass balance flowsheet

F

F

F

TF

FF

F

FIG. 2. Mapping part of the flowsheet into a node.

See CASE STUDY, next page


• Yield accountants, who use the data to assist the monthly balance closure.

• Operations planning (LP) staff who particularly benefit from models that produce consistent results through-out the entire refinery. Before deploying the mass balance model, they typically received consistent balances for indi-vidual process units for their LP model. However, the balances linking the pro-cess units were often inconsistent.

Over the years, refinery-wide data reconciliation applications have identi-fied many metering and routing errors refineries that were not obvious without such a tool. One of the higher profile errors was finding a flow compensation error in a fuel gas meter. Correcting this meter, led to a significantly better monthly accounting balance and a more accurate calculation of the site KPI for energy consumption.

A second example occurred on a newly installed custody transfer meter that was a new meter type for the refinery. In this example, the DCS was receiving a signal in actual volumetric units rather than the typical standard volumetric units. The stream temperature was relatively low, so the difference between actual and standard was small and initially went undetected. The data reconciliation application, how-ever, flagged this meter as suspicious and found the error.

Conclusions. Refinery-wide mass balance applications are the cornerstone

of Shell Canada Limited’s long-stand-ing culture of metering excellence, and, thanks to modern software, deploying these large models has become relatively simple. The information these models generate helps plant staff make more informed plant operation and mainte-nance decisions. ■

Literature cited1 Narasimhan, S. and C. Jordache, Data

Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection: An Intelligent Use of Process Data, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1999.

2 Kelly, J. D. and J. L. Mann, “Improve yield accounting by including density measurements explicitly,” Hydrocarbon Processing, February 2005, pp. 93–95.

Vortex meter

02468

10121416

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Range, %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Range, %

Rela

tive

erro

r %

Orifice meter

01

2

3

4

5

6

7

Abso

lute

err

or %

FIG. 3. Default values for meter error.

CASE STUDY, from page 8

Emergency responders and people in the community did not know what to do in case of release of chemicals or some sort of malfunction.

Why were all of these common mistakes allowed to take place and continue unfet-tered?

“The answer to the question is corpo-rate culture. It is because operations and corporate culture do not want to address these problems, and therefore they choose not to do the process safety implementa-tion that would prevent these catastrophic events from happening,” Ms. Merritt said. “Corporate culture should be the intelli-gent management of the potential impact of unintended business decisions.”

To explore the impact of unintended consequences, Ms. Merritt used the example of the BP Texas City incident. The repercus-sions for BP have been severe. The com-pany has seen a loss of goodwill, and their reputation has taken a hit. Earnings and production have plummeted. BP’s stock price has diminished in comparison to its competitors.

Billions of dollars have been invested to upgrade infrastructure and personnel at all of BP’s operations, not just Texas City. The company has already been saddled with $2 billion in litigation costs, with 1,700 more cases still out there and criminal investiga-tions underway. Finally, perhaps the most

disconcerting fact is that BP’s leadership has been called before Congress three times in the past year.

After detailing BP’s woes after Texas City, Merritt asked the audience to reflect upon the culture of their company, and how prepared they would be to respond to a catastrophe.

With the BP Texas City incident well documented in her remarks, Ms. Merritt turned to two other incidents outside of the refining business to underline the com-monalities of catastrophic events. The worst chemical incident on record took place in Bhopal, India, in 1984. 10,000 people died and 100,000 were impacted. The over-whelming factor to draw from this disaster was that there was no emergency response plan in place.

Ms. Merritt also discussed the Colum-bia space shuttle accident in her remarks. The accident was the result of a corporate culture gone horribly awry.

According to Ms. Merritt, “If you wanted to be promoted at NASA and you came to the management and said, ‘Some-thing bad is going on here and I think we need to fix this,’ and they would say, ‘It is going to cost a lot of money and that is going to delay the schedule and you aren’t a team player, are you?’ And you didn’t get promoted within NASA. So pretty soon if you wanted to succeed in your career, you began to play ball with the schedulers and managers.” ■

MERRITT, from page 1

High Metals Crudes?

Be PreparedTo help keep your processes running smoothly,Baker Petrolite delivers specialized skills andexperience. EXCALIBUR Contaminant RemovalTechnologies combine industry-leading additivesand expert applications.

The Baker Petrolite team helps you:

Increase feedstock flexibilityImprove desalter and waste water treatment operationsReduce FCC catalyst deactivationProduce on-spec coke and heavy fuel oilsMeet effluent water quality targets

Processing high metals crudes successfully takes a team effort. Match our specialized technology,expertise and responsive service with your next opportunity.

Contact www.bakerpetrolite.com today.

For

mor

e in

form

atio

n, v

isit

our

web

site

ww

w.b

aker

hugh

es.c

om. ©

200

7 B

aker

Hug

hes

Inco

rpor

ated

. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

. EX

CA

LIB

UR

is a

tra

dem

ark

of B

aker

Hug

hes

Inco

rpor

ated

. PE

T-07

- 13

464

B e s t - i n - C l a s s

Baker Hughes 100 Years of Service 1907-2007

High TAN ads 4.25x12.25:Layout 1 10/11/2007 10:53 AM Page 2


Proven methodologies. Unique plant-wide software applications. Unparalleled technical expertise. Thorough understanding of key drivers in the global business environment and within oil and gas, refining, or petrochemical facilities. Independent consulting. Experienced

people. Expert strategic advice. Combine all of the above attributes, and you’ll see what makes KBC strong.

KBC is the leading independent global consulting organisation with over 300 clients in 50 countries. After nearly three decades of experience, we understand the complex issues facing processing facilities. KBC provides a comprehensive range of service offerings, which are custom-designed to reflect your needs while focusing on successful implementation and sustainable competitive advantage.

Independent Advice.Global Reach.

For more information on how KBC can help you achieve Operational or Capital Excellence, contact us at:

AMERICAS +1 281 293 8200 • EMEA +44 (0)1932 242424ASIA +65 6735 5488

[email protected] • www.kbcat.com

KBC_CorpAd_Mar2007.indd 1 7/12/2007 10:14:24 AM

With today’s evolving strategies for plant automation, many end users are asking: Should process control loops remain in a centralized distributed con-trol system (DCS) or programmable logic controller (PLC), or can they be implemented in a “truly distributed” architecture with control residing in intelligent instrumentation?

Although some companies are reluc-tant to abandon the familiar DCS or PLC environment, an increasing num-ber of users are now choosing to locate most, if not all, regulatory and advanced control functions in field devices.

Background. Starting in the early 1990s, the rise of fieldbus technology had a significant impact on process automation strategies. Plants installing a Foundation fieldbus system are free to implement batch and logic control at the field level. The technology enables primary PID and secondary PID (cas-cade) functions, as well as feed-forward and lead/lag, to reside in the smart con-trol valve positioner/controller.

Foundation fieldbus is distinctive because its architects created a “user layer” where Function Blocks (FBs) are

configured and executed. These FBs con-form to the Fieldbus Foundation’s stan-dards and are consistent across both H1 (31.25 kbit/s) and HSE (100 Mbit/s) devices, regardless of the vendor. All fieldbus FBs innately utilize signal status and diagnostics to dramatically heighten robustness and fault tolerance.

Fieldbus as a control system. Dating back to the Instrumentation, Sys-tems and Automation Society’s (ISA) SP50 initiative, it’s clear there were enlightened end users and suppliers who saw fieldbus functioning as a control system. Users

who fail to make use of this capability are missing out on one of the big deliverables of fieldbus technology: process integrity. For large process plants, this is where the big payout lies. Asset management has sig-nificant value, but process integrity-staying online-is the big-dollar payout.

Some of the value offered by Foun-dation fieldbus can be captured with-out placing control in field devices, depending upon the degree to which fieldbus signal status and diagnostics are utilized in the host system. At least one DCS supplier uses fieldbus FBs in its host. Even in these systems, however, users can “drop the ball,” as it were, if they aren’t diligent about propagating and utilizing signal status in custom-coded blocks

In contrast, when one uses device-resident FBs in registered H1 and HSE devices, this functionality is inherent.

Cascade master-slave initialization, bumpless transfer, local mode shedding on bad quality, fault-state to position, antireset-windup, signal select for hot backup, control select functionality for constraint control, and many other key aspects of basic and “advanced basic” control are built-in.

Some end users view Foundation fieldbus as “just another bus.” In real-ity, many of the features expected from a DCS are available with Foundation technology, with the added value of tightly integrated device intelligence. Some of this capability can be approxi-mated on other platforms (i.e., by employing user-coded functions that read device status bits), but with Foun-dation fieldbus it’s included, out-of-the-box, in each and every registered device. No user-coded mode shedding, bumpless initialization, or status han-dling is needed.

Real-world experience. BP, who built the chemical plant where I work in Lima, Ohio, chose to implement field-based control in 80% of the facil-ity’s loops. Seven years later, those loops continue to function reliably and none have been moved into the host.

Today’s fieldbus devices are much more advanced than earlier models, especially with regard to block execu-tion times. It is not uncommon for FBs to execute in less time than the “compel data” portion of the macrocycle (typically 30 ms or less). Compared to the 100 ms and up execution times of the early days, this really opens up H1 implementations to fast cycle times and multiloop seg-ments. Segment macrocycle times are no longer a concern for any loop previously solved in the DCS, and the degree of determinism is unparalleled.

When it makes sense, most modern

hosts seamlessly accommodate solving selected parts of a scheme in either the host or field devices. One host supplier now offers a feature whereby host-resi-dent FBs can be executed in sequence-deterministically-with device-resident blocks on an associated fieldbus seg-ment.

While redundant architectures worked well in legacy DCS installations, the complexity, expense and network/processor overhead of this approach meant it was purchased and applied in a “blanket” fashion. With Foundation fieldbus, plants can now engineer the desired degree of single-loop integrity on a loop-by-loop basis. If the user deter-mines that a class of loops is extremely critical, they can, if needed, implement them on separate segments. Even physi-cal layer redundancy is available for the H1 trunk. The vast majority of loops do not result in an imminent catastrophe for the process, and their segments can be “loaded up” to the limits of power supplies, geography, or the host. In practice, H1 has proven to be extremely reliable, and many of the conservative decisions made seven or more years ago are unnecessary.

Conclusion. Thanks to Foundation fieldbus, a truly distributed control strat-egy minimizes the complexities of the DCS environment and restores single-loop integrity. Locating basic control in field devices improves loop reliability and increases availability. It also reduces the need for complex and costly control room hardware, and minimizes external link requirements.

Fieldbus instruments with built-in control functions provide utmost flex-ibility for configuring control loops. Their instantiation capability simplifies incorporating and/or changing con-trol strategies over time. Fieldbus also eliminates the need to send cyclic control information to higher levels; only super-visory and operation-related data must be passed to the central control system.

In addition, fieldbus users locating control at the field level can reduce costs associated with centralized processing capacity, power supplies, signal condi-tioning, panel space and redundancy hardware. ■

Restoring single-loop integrity to process controlJOHN REZABEk, ISP Chemicals, Lima, Ohio

John Rezabek serves as lead process control specialist for ISP’s BDO (1,4 butanediol) business at its manufacturing plant in Lima, Ohio. After completing a BS degree in systems engineering

at Case Institute of Technology (CWRU) in 1981, he served the refining and chemical businesses of Standard Oil and later BP for 24 years, before the Lima plant was sold to ISP. Mr. Rezabek serves on the steering committee for ISA’s Expo 2007 techni-cal conference, and is chairman of the end-user advisory council for the Fieldbus Foundation .

Fieldbus instruments with built-in control functions provide utmost flexibility for configuring control loops.


Katalco

hydroprocessing catalysts in conjunction with SINOPEC

speciality purification solutions:

catalysts for hydrogen production

specialist measurement and diagnostic services

Johnson Matthey CatalystsDelivering high performance

products for refineries

Please visit our hospitality suite for more details.

JM_593 ERTC-NPRA Advert ART 18/9/07 10:57 Page 1

Executing a successful turnaround: the never-ending cycle

Greg Mullins is a technical services manager for Marathon Oil Co.’s Detroit, Michigan, refinery. He is also an expert in executing a well-managed turnaround. A turnaround is a planned, periodic shutdown of a refinery process unit or plant to per-form maintenance, overhaul and repair operations. In his remarks, he offered some useful tips in the form of a five-year turnaround strategy outline that can help a refinery control costs and improve

safety performance. Here are some highlights:

Turnaround minus five years• Begin conceptual design• Perform test runs

Turnaround minus four years• Compare expected catalyst life to design to determine if you will

make your five-year cycle• Provide feedback to maintenance team• Begin feasibility work for larger projects

Turnaround minus three years• Complete FEED for larger projects• Develop “punch list” management strategy• Check design of equipment to be replaced

Turnaround minus two years• Provide maintenance team with equipment design changes• Confirm where catalyst change-out is needed and where required

manpower needed• Work with maintenance to develop a catalyst storage plan (new

and used)• Deliver construction packages for larger projects to maintenance

team for turnaround integration• Develop pre-startup safety reviews and management of change

strategies • Identify potential waste volumes and characteristics for disposal• Review operating startup and shutdown procedures

Turnaround minus one year• Finalize list of heat exchangers to be cleaned• Finalize which heaters need to be decoked or pigged• Deliver vessel loading diagrams to maintenance team (reactors, salt

dryers, etc.)• Order catalyst flow bins• Notify oil movements and storage of required feedstocks for

startup • Develop updates for plant information system• Identify chemicals and procedures required for unit shutdown

Turnaround• Work shift• Attend countless meetings• Crawl through many vessels • Measure everything you can• Check tray level• Take lots of pictures• Work safe• Start the cycle again

Flare management and flare gas recov-ery have become big issues in California, particularly the Bay Area. Tery Lizarraga, the health, environment and safety man-ager for Chevron in Richmond, Cali-fornia, talked about these issues and her experiences in working with regulators. She says that a large amount of her time is spent addressing local (the Bay Area Air Quality District) and state (Califor-nia Air Resources Board) regulations of emissions.

“Chevron Richmond seeks to be a stealth refinery,” Ms. Lizarraga said. “Our goal is not to be seen, heard or smelled. We operate at the pleasure of the local community, and there is zero tolerance for missteps.”

Ms. Lizarraga explained that the Bay Area was the first part of California to have to implement flare minimization plans and flare control. She noted that these plans were developed in consulta-tion with industry, and reminded the audience that flare emissions are actu-ally a small fraction of total emissions.

According to Ms. Lizarraga, it doesn’t matter what the cause of the flaring is, you still have to do a causal analysis,

and report to the appropriate agency on the cause of flaring. Routine flaring must be addressed in the company plan. These new roles and responsibilities, as mandated by local community and Cal-ifornia law, are causing refinery opera-tors to move quickly into this new way of operating. It should be remembered, though, that ultimately the operators are responsible for the final decision whether flaring is necessary. Flares are still an important final safety device. Management must support the opera-tors’ efforts and work to figure out how shutdowns can avoid flaring.

“The public is hard to convince,

and their opinion will only change with long-term, improved performance by refineries,” Ms. Lizarraga said. “When-ever you have flaring, criticism occurs. There is continued and unjustified pub-lic skepticism that refineries don’t flare for routine purposes and will not adjust operations to avoid flaring.”

Ms. Lizarraga noted that regula-tors want to minimize flaring and have shown a willingness to work with Chev-ron in trying to understand the techni-cal issues the company is facing. ■

To flare or not to flare: local and state entities in California have already come to a conclusion Criterion announces

agreementCriterion Catalysts and Technolo-

gies LP has an agreement with Po-rocel International, LLC for the con-struction of a catalyst extrusion line at Porocel’s Little Rock, Arkansas, alumina processing plant . Criterion previously announced the construc-tion of a world scale alumina pow-der and catalyst plant at Port Allen, Louisiana, to be operational in late 2008 or early 2009 . This project is currently underway .

NEwS IN BRIEF

Tery Lizarraga, Chevron


worldMake a change the

will feel.

Join an industry leading team in powering our planet. Enhance your

career outlook with a greater vision of achievement. Tap into exciting

and vital opportunities with the world’s foremost energy company,

Saudi Aramco. Explore your role in bringing energy to the world, and

discover the rewards of living and working overseas.

From an unmatched work/life balance to a host of rewarding

possibilities, you can help drive the next stage of global energy

exploration and production in Saudi Arabia.

For more information and to apply, visit:

w w w. a r a m c o . j o b s / N P R A

Energy to the world.

Deliver energy solutions with Saudi Aramco


Shapin

g a

secu

re

energ

y futu

re.

In the

energ

y bus

iness,

the

ques

tion i

sn’t w

hethe

r there

will

be di

fficult

times

. It’s h

ow to

add v

alue w

hile m

anag

ing th

e

challe

nges

. Rec

ent e

vents

have

only m

ade t

he st

akes

high

er.

For ov

er 10

0 yea

rs – t

hroug

h

good

times

and b

ad –

NPRA has

helpe

d to m

ake t

he in

dustr

ies

we serv

e bett

er an

d stro

nger.

We’re t

he re

fining

and p

etro-

chem

ical in

dustr

ies’ ad

voca

te

on pu

blic po

licy iss

ues li

ke

clean

fuels

, the e

nviro

nmen

t,

energ

y polic

y and

secu

rity. W

e

inform

the p

ublic

on ho

w our

indus

tries’ p

roduc

ts im

prove

the qu

ality o

f our

lives. A

nd we

spon

sor m

eetin

gs whe

re

inform

ation

is ex

chan

ged a

nd

best

practic

es sh

ared.

Whethe

r you

’re fa

cing n

ew fu

el

spec

ificati

ons,

a majo

r proj

ect a

t

your

refine

ry or

a prob

lem with

petro

chem

ical fe

edsto

cks,

chan

ces a

re we’v

e got

a

meetin

g to h

elp yo

u cap

ture

the rig

ht op

portu

nity, i

denti

fy

proble

ms and

forge

strat

egic

new di

rectio

ns.

The an

nual

line-up

of m

eetin

gs

includ

es th

e NPRAAnn

ual

Meetin

g and

Inter

natio

nal

Petroc

hemica

l Con

feren

ce in

March;

the Nati

onal

Safety

Confer

ence

and R

eliabili

ty &

Mainten

ance

Confer

ence

and

Exhibit

ion in

May

; the

Enviro

nmen

tal Con

feren

ce in

Septem

ber; t

he Q

&A and

Tech

nolog

y Foru

m in O

ctobe

r;

and t

he Lu

brica

nts & W

axes

Confer

ence

in Nov

embe

r.

World-c

lass m

eetin

gs. It

’s a re

al

NPRA stren

gth. A

nd on

e more

way we’r

e help

ing ou

r mem

bers

shap

e a se

cure

energ

y futu

re.

To le

arn m

ore, v

isit ou

r web

site

at www.np

ra.org

or ca

ll us a

t

202.4

57.04

80.

ShowDaily_Ldrshp07.qxd 9/20/07 2:30 PM Page 1

Scenes from the NpRA 2007 Q&A and Technology Forum . . .

Tom Ayral, INOVx Solutions visits with Mark Peters and Les Kane of Hydrocarbon Processing.

Simulated bowling, tennis and batting is a crowd pleaser in the Criterion Catalyst suite.

The opening session was well attended for the keynote address.

Tuesday evening’s reception started the week’s networking opportunities.

Registration was busy Tuesday afternoon as attendance reached a five-year high of 1,041.

Kevin Kunz, Zoe Stonebreaker and Rob Van Der Meij, all of Criterion Catalysts attend the reception.

Kenny Painado and Julie Cabacunjan of Chevron Lummus Global greet visitors to their sponsorship stand.

Donald Mulraney, CB&I and Lee Turpin, Turpin Consulting discuss events between sessions.

Shapin

g a

secu

re

energ

y futu

re.

In the

energ

y bus

iness,

the

ques

tion i

sn’t w

hethe

r there

will

be di

fficult

times

. It’s h

ow to

add v

alue w

hile m

anag

ing th

e

challe

nges

. Rec

ent e

vents

have

only m

ade t

he st

akes

high

er.

For ov

er 10

0 yea

rs – t

hroug

h

good

times

and b

ad –

NPRA has

helpe

d to m

ake t

he in

dustr

ies

we serv

e bett

er an

d stro

nger.

We’re t

he re

fining

and p

etro-

chem

ical in

dustr

ies’ ad

voca

te

on pu

blic po

licy iss

ues li

ke

clean

fuels

, the e

nviro

nmen

t,

energ

y polic

y and

secu

rity. W

e

inform

the p

ublic

on ho

w our

indus

tries’ p

roduc

ts im

prove

the qu

ality o

f our

lives. A

nd we

spon

sor m

eetin

gs whe

re

inform

ation

is ex

chan

ged a

nd

best

practic

es sh

ared.

Whethe

r you

’re fa

cing n

ew fu

el

spec

ificati

ons,

a majo

r proj

ect a

t

your

refine

ry or

a prob

lem with

petro

chem

ical fe

edsto

cks,

chan

ces a

re we’v

e got

a

meetin

g to h

elp yo

u cap

ture

the rig

ht op

portu

nity, i

denti

fy

proble

ms and

forge

strat

egic

new di

rectio

ns.

The an

nual

line-up

of m

eetin

gs

includ

es th

e NPRAAnn

ual

Meetin

g and

Inter

natio

nal

Petroc

hemica

l Con

feren

ce in

March;

the Nati

onal

Safety

Confer

ence

and R

eliabili

ty &

Mainten

ance

Confer

ence

and

Exhibit

ion in

May

; the

Enviro

nmen

tal Con

feren

ce in

Septem

ber; t

he Q

&A and

Tech

nolog

y Foru

m in O

ctobe

r;

and t

he Lu

brica

nts & W

axes

Confer

ence

in Nov

embe

r.

World-c

lass m

eetin

gs. It

’s a re

al

NPRA stren

gth. A

nd on

e more

way we’r

e help

ing ou

r mem

bers

shap

e a se

cure

energ

y futu

re.

To le

arn m

ore, v

isit ou

r web

site

at www.np

ra.org

or ca

ll us a

t

202.4

57.04

80.

ShowDaily_Ldrshp07.qxd 9/20/07 2:30 PM Page 1

For more information

Paris +33 1 47 14 25 14 Houston +1 713 552 9666 Email [email protected]

The performance improvement specialists www.axens.net

Leading-edge technology, an experienced teamand operational efficiency keep you ahead of the competition

Refining islike sailing

• Refining technology

• Catalysts

• Services

Documents

Conference Daily Day Two Thursday, October 11, 2007 ... · PDF filebuilding and leadership development of his ... Training ranged from non-existent ... Nalco Company . . . . .