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

61

Appendix F

Material Safety Data Sheets

62

F.1 – Anhydrous Ammonia

69

F.2 Hydrogen

74

F.3 – Methane

80

F.4 – Nitrogen

86

F.5 – Water

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

group j - final report

Documents