Flexible thinking for capital projects

Conventional project planning and execution may not be the best approach for
gas treating and sulphur recovery installations

Mark Duisters Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur Solutions

T
he most common way be prevented by putting more
to execute gas treat- emphasis on the earliest pro-
ing and sulphur recov- Phase 1 ject phases. This article is writ-
Initiation
ery projects is to follow the ten to inspire decision makers
project steps as laid out by to rethink the approach for
the major global oil and gas executing gas treating and
Phase 2
companies. This means that Conceptual sulphur projects.
after feasibility and concep-
tual studies, technology selec- Project phasing
tion and compiling a process Phase 3 Among projects in almost
design package, the project Definition all technical and engineering
moves to a FEED contrac- driven industries, from food
tor and later on to an EPC and pharma to the entertain-
contractor. The basic line-up Phase 4 ment industry, refineries,
of gas treating and sulphur Engineering and procurement terminals, buildings, govern-
recovery units is pretty well mental infrastructure and
known in the industry which automotive, the thing that
makes it tempting for owners Phase 5 stands out in the oil and gas
Construction
to keep feasibility and concep- industry is the rigid way of
tual phases extremely short. following the capital invest-
This approach leaves a lot of ment work process, mainly
Phase 6
available specialist knowledge Start-up developed for mid-size and
and insights untapped whilst large refinery projects.
asking general engineering Most owners use project
contractors to go to the mar- Phase 7 phasing similar to the exam-
ket for pricing on equipment Close-out ple shown in Figure 1 to
items like columns, main steer their capital investment
burners, mixing chambers, process.
reactors, condensers, and so Figure 1 Conventional project phasing This concept makes a lot of
on. sense for projects where the
This article will provide further background exact configuration is yet to be figured out and
and focus on the execution of gas treating and where combinations of equipment are not part of
sulphur recovery projects, with a view to com- a standard line-up.
parable projects in other industries including However, in gas treating and sulphur recov-
formats like engineering and procurement (EP) ery projects, typically the hardware is pretty
and modular delivery. Also, special features of much similar; the main differences can occur in
gas treating and sulphur recovery projects are the smart use of utilities, catalyst and solvents or
highlighted, including project issues that seem to integration of these systems.
occur over and over again and how they could The line-up, determined by the bidders dur-

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001364 May 2017 1

 ing the bidding phase for the In this period, it will be deter-
technology, rarely changes mined what all other parame-
Pre EPC
during the subsequent phases. <1% ters in the plant’s lifetime will
The various hardware items look like.
have been estimated, bought Engineering Skipping an extra well-test
3-5%
and built many times before. or taking some extra sam-
Therefore a full FEED phase Hardware and ples may save a little time
including obtaining price quo- installation and money during the defini-
20-25%
tations from the market does tion phase of the project, but
not make a lot of sense and the reasoning above makes it
will hardly add any value clear that assumptions taken
compared to estimating infor- instead of those tests or a
mation that could be pro- thorough study will have
vided by the licensors as a huge consequences for the
Consumables
scope item of the technology 40-50% use of consumables (including
package. energy) and effectiveness of
Maintenance and operations
This way of thinking con- 25-30% the installed hardware.
nects to the way more or less
standard units are handled in Lessons learned?
the chemical industry. Units Figure 2 Plant life cycle costs Typically, licensors’ special-
like a sulphuric acid unit or ists are heavily involved in
a regenerative thermal oxida- commissioning and start-up
tion (RTO) unit are bought as of the unit using their pro-
a product rather than a pro- cess licences. In cases where
cess installation. generic engineering contrac-
A lot of information from tors are used for FEED and
previously built installations EPC work, basic mistakes
is available in the licensors’ keep occurring, resulting
databases, provided inputs from lack of real understand-
to preparation of the plant ing of the units. Even when
owners’ investment plans can Figure 3 Modular construction can offer those aspects are clearly
be generated very efficiently, many advantages spelled out and explained
and has the benefit of being during the PDP phase, the
directly connected to specialists in the specific experts at Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur Solutions
technology. keep running into typical errors such as:
Besides the availability of data to support cap- • Feed gas quantity deviates more than 40%
ital estimates, significant quality improvements from design basis.
can also be derived by tapping into the licensor’s • Feed gas composition deviates substantially
knowledge. from design basis.
Thinking of a sulphur recovery unit (SRU) as • Importance of very low pressure drop not
a product automatically leads to putting more understood, resulting in too long pipe routes and
emphasis on what product to buy. Translating equipment not located correctly.
this to the capital investment process highlights • Reactor internals seem simple; risk of damaging
another thing that is noticed in other industries: catalyst not recognised.
significantly more time and effort is put into the • Lines sloping the wrong way, resulting in cor-
earliest project phase, to make sure the right pro- rosion issues.
ject is being scoped. In a typical gas treating and • Connections between reactors and condensers
sulphur recovery project, the money spent on the not designed for (very) high temperatures.
phase before EPC execution is less than 1% of the • Importance of temperature control is not
plant’s life cycle cost (see Figure 2). Time spent always understood, resulting in temperature ele-
on tests and studies to determine the right basis ments mounted the wrong way and/or in the
for process design is only a fraction of that 1%. wrong location.

2 May 2017 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001364

• Not able to deal with complexity of advanced
burner control.
• Sample points for proper process monitoring
mounted in inaccessible locations.
The cost of increasing the scope of the PDP
package to make sure critical elements are
embedded in the design at a very early stage is
easily compensated by reduced redo in the field.
An extended licensor package can even rule
out the need for a FEED phase, saving significant
time and money by ruling out a complete ten-
dering sequence.
It almost needs no explanation that when at
the moment of commissioning and start-up it
turns out that feed gas conditions are signifi-
cantly different from the design basis, needless
capital is wasted and a lot of cost and effort is
needed to correct for hasty decisions taken at the
early stages of project planning.
Going modular
In cases where the licensor also has capabilities
to deliver the whole unit or part of the unit, the
thought of buying a product instead of going
through all the traditional project execution
stages can be taken even further. For smaller
units, a packaged unit or modular approach
would be the ultimate result of this line of think-
ing where process guarantees, execution and
delivery are all in one place.
For gas treating and sulphur recovery projects,
this would apply to smaller treaters and SRUs,
but especially for add-on units like amine enrich-
ment units, extra (Super)Claus stages or scrubber
type units to lower SO2 emissions.
Those relatively small add-on units with a total
investment cost well below $10 million are in
most cases to be integrated during a plant turn-
around of 3-4 weeks. Looking at those units as
package units will make preparation for turna-
round much easier and will shorten the duration
of these projects considerably.
Modular construction can offer many advan-
tages, including improved safety, lower cost,
faster schedules and controlled quality. Sulphur
recovery plants up to a certain capacity lend
themselves well to modular construction because
of their size and geometry.
In modular construction, a plant is built in
smaller parts or modules, typically at an off-
site location. The modules are transported to
the final destination, put in place and intercon-
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001364
nected. Each module is fabricated in a workshop
and contains all the steel, equipment, piping and
instrumentation. In addition, tracing, insulation,
conduit, cable trays, and cabling are already
installed. Commissioning, inspection and testing
are completed as much as possible before the
modules are shipped out.
Next to significant savings in time and money
during the front end loading phases, this also
brings the advantage of keeping responsibili-
ties in one place and prevents finger pointing
between PMC, FEED contractor, EPC contractor
and licensor. Especially for smaller, add-on units,
it takes little imagination to understand that the
advantages of keeping responsibilities in one
place and have the licensing, design and delivery
of the skid carried out by subject experts, easily
outweighs the possible advantages of going for
competitive tendering two or three times, intro-
ducing coordination and interfacing tasks to the
owner’s turnaround organisation.
When an SRU is part of a larger capital
investment, like a refinery expansion, the ben-
efits of this approach become even larger. The
main reason for this is that sulphur recovery
in most cases is not a core refinery process but
does require specialist knowledge. By putting
the responsibility for such ‘off-plot’ units in the
hands of specialists, the main EPC contractor can
focus on the core process units whilst making
sure the gas treating and sulphur recovery block
receives the attention it deserves.
Advantages of modular construction are many
and can be summarised as follows:
• Using off-site labour that generally is cheaper
and more readily available. This is especially
relevant when there are big expansion projects
going on in the region.
• Efficient fabrication in a workshop type envi-
ronment. Important factors for this are better
controlled working conditions and specialisation
in the workshop.
• Enhanced safety because working at heights
can be avoided or is well controlled (safe plat-
forms), the work area is easily accessible,
weather conditions cannot cause unsafe condi-
tions and there are no (uncontrolled) dangerous
activities near the work area.
• Improved quality with a consistent workforce
in a controlled environment without extraneous
influences.
• Time saving by preventing delays due to
May 2017 3
 weather conditions and permitting issues, and
by performing off-site construction and on-site
preparation in parallel.
• Reduced cost that arises from the higher effi-
ciency that can be achieved in well-conditioned
and specialised shops. Also standardisation con-
tributes to lower cost and the cost for capital is
lower because of improved schedules.
• Testing, inspection and pre-commissioning will
generally be cheaper when done in the shop.
• One aspect that is often overlooked is that by
doing the construction off-site and away from
day to day operations, scope growth can be
prevented.
Conclusion
Established technologies like gas treating, sulphur
recovery and tailgas treating carry the risk of tak-
ing the feasibility and concept phase too lightly.
Getting the design basis right is of extreme
importance for licensed processes because they
are hardly challenged and changed during the
subsequent project phases.
Once the licensor is selected, carrying expert
knowledge, this article encourages use of this
knowledge for more than just checking main
equipment drawings. Lessons learned from
many plant checks and start-ups are available;
too often this knowledge is not used because of
4 May 2017
contracts with independent licensors, FEED and
EPC contractors are involved.
The ultimate way of tapping all the knowledge
available on a technology is to make the licensor
responsible for the entire delivery. For smaller
and add-on units treating a gas treating or sul-
phur recovery project, the purchase of a product
makes sense as those smaller units can be mod-
ularised and add-on units can be delivered as
packaged units.
The overall conclusion is that allowing some
flexibility in the thinking around capital invest-
ment processes can save a lot of time, money
and effort when a tailored approach is followed
for planning gas treating and sulphur recovery
projects.
Mark Duisters is Project Director with Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur
Solutions and Petrochemical Technologies. He has been serving
the industry for more than 25 years and holds degrees in
engineering and in management and organisation.
LINKS
More articles from: Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur Solutions
More articles from the following categories:
Gas Processing and Treatment
Sulphur Removal and Recovery
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001364