PerformanceEvaluation PetroVietnamCaMau Ammoniaplant November 1 2017

PetroVietnam Ca Mau Fertilizer Joint Stock Company Ltd.
Ca Mau City, Vietnam

Date of data: November 1, 2017
Catalyst Performance evaluation of Ammonia plant
Haldor Topsoe A/S – Haldor Topsøes Allé 1
2800 Kgs. Lyngby - Denmark
Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 2 / 39

76230 KMJE, November 16, 2017
Table of contents
Summary 3
Consistency of operating data 3
Evaluation 4
Hydrogenation 4
Sulfur absorption 5
Primary reformer 6
Secondary reformer 9
High temperature shift 11
Low temperature shift 13
Methanator 16
Ammonia synthesis loop evaluation 17
Attached material 20
Appendix 1: Reconciliation of front-end data 21
Reconciliation of ammonia converter data 25
Appendix 2: Historical summary of data 27
Appendix 3: Description of the computer program FRONTEND 36
Appendix 4: Pressure drop normalization 38
C:\Users\kmje\Desktop\PerformanceEvaluation_ PetroVietnamCaMauFertilizerJointStockCompanyLtd._Ammoniaplant_November_1_2017.docm
Information contained herein is confidential; it may not be used for any
purpose other than for which it has been issued, and may not be used by
or disclosed to third parties without written approval of Haldor Topsoe A/S.

Summary
This report concerns the analysis of the performance of the front-end catalysts installed
in your 1350 MTPD ammonia plant. The evaluation is based on operating data from
November 1, 2017, when the plant was running at 108% load.
Based on our calculations and simulations, we have the following comments:
 The feed purification section is working as expected.

 The methane leakage of the primary reformer is within what has been seen
before and it is operating satisfactory
 The normalized pressure drop of the primary reformer is consistent with
previous evaluations.
 The methane leakage of the SR has decreased slightly. However, the
normalized pressure drop has gone up and we suggest that the measurement
is confirmed and monitored closely.
 Based on the operational conditions the SR catalyst is performing satisfactory,
 The HTS and LTS are both reaching equilibrium. The pressure drop
development seems to be stable but we need to continue to monitor this moving
forward. Overall the performance is satisfactory.
 The methanator is performing as expected with pressure drops at levels seen
previously.
 The ammonia converter is performig satisfactorily, however the inlet
temperature to bed 2 could be optimized.
Consistency of operating data

The consistency of the collected data has been checked by means of our in-house
designed data reconciliation program FRONTEND.
The total sum of squares of 12 indicates inconsistencies in the reported dataset.

The main contributors to the sum of squares are the CO and CO2 at the outlet of the
primary reformer. Both compositions seem to be measured too low. This is most likely
due to the shift reaction taking place in the sample lines or gases dissolving in the
process condensate.
In Appendix 1, please find the output sheets from our FRONTEND reconciliation
program.
For further information please refer to

S-300
Date of operating data 01 Nov 06 Sep 13 Jun 11 Jan 18 Nov

2017 2017 2017 2017 2016
Age, 69 67 65 60 58
Production, MTPD 1,452 1,379 1,448 1,465 1,447
Converter inlet flow, Nm³/h 702,157 671,397 711,432 717,734 687,462
ATE of bed 1 , °C 18 11 17 29 26
ATE of bed 2 , °C 23 16 24 34 30
ATE of bed 3 , °C 15 12 15 18 13
H2/N2 ratio, mol/mol 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0
Reconciled NH3 inlet, mol % 3.02 3.05 3.15 3.00 3.26
Reconciled ΔNH3, mol % 13.17 13.08 12.96 12.98 13.47
Converter inlet pressure, 138.6 136.1 136.3 137.5 136.6
kg/cm² g
ΔP, kg/cm² 1.60 1.10 1.32 1.54 1.60
*Reconciled value
Date of operating data 07 Sep 22 Mar 11 Nov 06 Oct 07 Apr

2016 2016 2015 2015 2015
Age, 56 50 46 44 38
Production, MTPD 1,405 1,422 1,422 1,419 1,428
ATE of bed 1 , °C 18 13 11 8 5
ATE of bed 2 , °C 22 18 16 13 10
ATE of bed 3 , °C 11 10 8 6 8
H2/N2 ratio, mol/mol 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0
kg/cm² g
ΔP, kg/cm² 2.20 1.35 1.80 1.92 1.92
*Reconciled value

Date of operating data 16 Jan 28 Oct 01 Aug 13 May 11 Feb

2015 2014 2014 2014 2014
Age, 36 33 30 28 25
Production, MTPD 1,417 1,416 1,389 1,365 1,365
ATE of bed 1 , °C 10 3 3 4 0
ATE of bed 2 , °C 16 11 9 10 5
ATE of bed 3 , °C 12 5 2 7 2
H2/N2 ratio, mol/mol 3.0 2.7 3.5 3.0 3.0
kg/cm² g
ΔP, kg/cm² 1.40 1.70 1.40 1.00 1.09
*Reconciled value
Appendix 3: Description of the computer program FRONTEND.
Evaluation
Hydrogenation
Catalyst information
Reactor 1
Vendor Topsoe
Type TK-261
Size 2.5 mm
Volume 19.1 m3
Installed August 2015
Age 26 months
Below, please find a table summarizing the key elements for your hydrogenation
reactor.

Nov 1, Sept 6, June 13, Jan 11, Nov 18, Sept 7, March 22,
Date of operating data 2017 2017 2017 2017 2016 2016 2016
Age, months 26 24 22 17 15 12 7
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
Organic sulfur in, ppmv N.A. 5.66 7.35 6.70 8.96 6.95 4.90
Organic sulfur out, ppmv 4.74 5.40 6.06 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
H2 in, mol % 4.52 4.19 4.44 4.17 4.27 4.05 4.01
Tin, °C 345.7 345.0 342.0 344.3 346.0 352.4 344.2
Tout, °C 339.2 339.0 335.5 339.0 340.7 346.2 338.6
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.50
∆P normalized, kg/cm2 0.43 0.27 0.34 0.25 0.35 0.19 0.47
The only way to evaluate the catalyst performance for the hydrogenation section is by
measuring the organic sulfur level in the inlet and the exit gas. As no outlet sulfur level
is provided we cannot give a direct comment to the performance. However, based on
the deactivated zone of the LTS, which has not developed, and assuming that the
reformer tubes still look dark and uniform in color, we believe the catalyst is running
satisfactorily.
The pressure drop has been reported as 0.5 kg/cm2, which is in line with previous
evaluations. The normalized pressure drop has been calculated to be 0.43 kg/cm2,
which is in line with previous evaluations. Both trends are depicted in the graph below.
HDS, pressure drop development

0.5
0.45
0.4
dPnorm, kg/cm2
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2 2015 -
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age, months

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.
Overall, we rate the performance of the hydrogenation catalyst as satisfactory.
Sulfur absorption
Catalyst information Reactor 1 Reactor 2
Vendor Topsoe Topsoe
Type HTZ-5 HTZ-5
Size 4 mm 4 mm
Volume 21.5 m3 21.5 m3
Installed September 2015 January 2012
Age 26 months 69 months
Below, please find a table summarizing the key elements for your sulfur absorption
section.
Reactor 1
Age, months 26 24 21 16 15 12 7
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
Sulfur in, ppmv N.A. 5.40 6.06 3.77 4.78 2.84 4.84
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tin, °C 339.2 339.0 335.5 339.0 340.7 346.2 338.6
Tout, °C 337.0 337.0 334.0 337.4 339.2 344.6 336.7
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.55
Reactor 2
Age, months 69 68 65 60 58 56 50
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
Sulfur in, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tin, °C 337.0 337.0 334.0 337.4 339.2 344.6 336.7
Tout, °C 335.0 335.0 332.0 335.5 337.0 342.8 334.9
∆P, kg/cm2 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.55

The lifetime of the ZnO depends on the actual amount of H2S in the feed. If you can
measure the level of H2S at the inlet, it is possible for you to estimate when the ZnO is
saturated and thereby better predict the sulfur breakthrough. We recommend that you
also measure the level of H2S at the exit in order to confirm that there is no sulfur
breakthrough.
evaluations. The normalized pressure drop has been calculated as 0.43 kg/cm2, which
is in line with previous evaluations.
Overall, we rate the performance of the sulfur absorbent as satisfactory.
Primary reformer
Catalyst information Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
Vendor Topsoe Topsoe Topsoe
Type RK-400R RK-400 R-67-7H
Size 16x11 mm 20x18 mm 20x18 mm
Volume 4.2 m3 11.9 m3 10.6 m3
Installed August 2016 August 2016 August 2016
Age 15 months 15 months 15 months
Below, please find a table summarizing the key elements for your reformer.
Age, months 15 13 10 5 3 1 53
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
S/C, mol/mol 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8
ATE reforming, °C -17 -14 -11 -18 -12 -21 -7
CH4 slip measured, mol % 13.06 12.96 13.56 12.42 12.71 12.77 13.35
Tout measured, °C 756.0 764.7 759.5 761.7 765.0 755.6 764.9
Tequilibrium, °C 773.2 778.8 770.7 780.2 777.3 777.0 771.7
Pout, kg/cm2 g 30.5 30.2 30.6 29.5 30.4 30.5 31.1
∆P, kg/cm2 3.20 2.80 2.69 3.03 2.94 2.71 5.52

The temperature approach to methane reforming equilibrium (ATE) is calculated to be -

17°C. A negative approach is thermodynamically impossible but could be an indication
of heat loss from the outlet to the actual measuring point and/or inconsistencies in the
reported data. The ATE is within what is seen before for this reformer
The measured methane leakage is reported as 13.06 mol %. This is a slight increase
compared to previous evaluation. One explanation could be the slightly lowering of
outlet temperature. However the methane leakage is within levels seen before.
The pressure drop has been reported as 3.2 kg/cm2, which is higher than previous
evaluations for this charge. However the normalized pressure drop has been calculated
as 2.84 kg/cm2, which is in line with previous evaluations. (see graph below).
Primary reformer, Pressure drop development
2.98 2.88
2.91 2.84
2.84 2.8
dPnorm, kg/cm2
2.77 2.76
dP, kg/cm2
2.7 2.72
2.63
2.56 2.68
2.49 2.64 2016 - (dP)
2.42 2.6
2.35 2.56 2016 - (dPnorm)
2.28 2.52
2.21
2.14 2.48
2.07 2.44
2 2.4
0 5 10 15 20
Age, months

All TWT’s have been corrected for radiation based on the reformer wall temperatures
provided. The temperatures in the plot are therefore considered to be the true TWT
temperatures, assuming the estimated tube emissivity is valid for all tubes.
The lowest temperature is calculated to be 824°C, the highest is 880°C with an
average of 853°C. Almost all temperatures are within ±20°C which is according to
Topsoe recommendations. Tube no 142 is operating just above the tube design
temperature of 879°C.
Following the primary reformer performance through our new digital service
TrueTemp™ will make it possible for us to give more in-depth comments on the
reformer as well as on the burner performance.
In addition, it is very important to perform visual inspections of the reformer tubes on a

regular basis in order to ensure a dark and uniform appearance.
Overall, we rate the performance of the reforming catalyst as satisfactory.

Secondary reformer
Type RKS-2 RKS-2-7H RKS-2
Size 25/11x20 mm 16x11 mm 25/11x20 mm
Volume 2.9 m3 23.4 m3 1.9 m3
Installed September 2017 September 2017 September 2017
Below, please find a table summarizing the key elements for your secondary reformer.
Nov 1, Sept 6, Jan 11, Nov 18, Sept 7, March 22,

Date of operating data 2017 2017 k 2017 2016 2016 2016
Age, months 2 0 65 60 58 56 50
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
ATE reforming, °C 10 9 -2 5 9 14 5
Tequilibrium, °C 926.8 931.7 934.8 933.2 938.1 928.3 941.5
Tout measured, °C 936.9 940.5 933.0 938.1 947.0 942.0 946.5
Tout calculated, °C 936.9 940.5 933.0 938.1 947.0 942.0 946.5
∆P, kg/cm 2
0.50 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.27
The temperature approach to methane reforming equilibrium (ATE) is calculated to be

10°C. This is at the same level as previous evaluation and in line with what has been
seen for the SR at Ca Mau, taking the high SSQ into account.
The measured methane leakage is reported as 0.71 mol %. This is a small drop
compared to previous evaluation, and could be explained by the increased S/C. The
lowered outlet temperature would on the other hand result in an increased methane
leakage.
Comparing the methane leakage with S/C and oxygen/carbon (which is an expression
of air flow) it can be seen that the current methane leakage (red color) has lowered to a
level seen before. Please note that these values below are all reconciled values and
not reported values.
However it can also be seen that the methane leakage has been lower at the current
S/C and O2/C. In the plot below the exit temperature of the SR has therefore been
plotted as well. A higher exit temperature of the SR also helps in lowering the methane

leakage of the endothermic reaction.
At the current S/C and airflow it should therefore be possible to lower the methane
leakage further by increasing the outlet temperature of the SR, to conditions seen on
18/11-2016.
The pressure drop has been reported as 0.5 kg/cm2, which is higher than previous
is also higher than previous evaluations.
We strongly recommend you to confirm these measurements as we do normally not

expect a pressure drop increase in the SR.
Based on the ATE and the operational conditions, we rate the performance of the
secondary reforming catalyst as satisfactory.

High temperature shift

Type TK-20 SK-201-2 Canister
Size 16x11 mm 6x6 mm
Volume 4.4 m3 44 m3 0 m3
Installed July 2014 July 2014 July 2014
Below, please find a table summarizing the key elements for your high temperature
shift (HTS) reactor.
Age, months 40 38 35 30 28 26 20
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
S/DG, mol/mol 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.49
ATE shift, °C -3 -15 -15 -23 -5 -7 -17
CO slip measured, mol % 3.00 3.10 2.92 2.80 2.98 3.00 2.82
CO slip simulated, mol % 3.11 3.42 3.24 3.26 3.09 3.13 3.14
Tin measured, °C 350.3 352.6 351.0 350.5 345.5 353.3 352.4
Tout measured, °C 425.6 431.2 427.5 428.0 423.8 430.1 431.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.54 0.46 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.46
The temperature approach to shift equilibrium (ATE) has been calculated to be -3°C. A
negative approach is thermodynamically impossible. The theoretical optimum range of
the shift ATE is 5-10°C. Based on the measured compositions the ATE is always
negative, while our simulation calculates an ATE of 3°C for the current data set.
The measured CO leakage is reported to be 3 mol % which is within what has been
seen before and close to equilibrium.
The pressure drop has been reported as 0.54 kg/cm2, which is an increase compared
to previous evaluations. The normalized pressure drop has been calculated as 0.47
kg/cm2, which is in line with previous evaluations. As can be seen from the graph
below it seems like the development of the normalized pressure drop has stopped
increasing. We should still monitor this during the next evaluations.

HTS, pressure drop & normalized pressure drop

0.6
development 0.6
dPnorm, kg/cm2
dP, kg/cm2
0.5 0.5
2014 - (dP)
0.4 0.4 2014 - (dP)
2014 - (dPnorm)
2014 - (dPnorm)
0.3 0.3
0 10 20 30 40
Age, months
In order to determine the catalyst activity in your HTS reactor, we have used our
REACTOR program. The aim of the program is to reproduce the measured
temperature profile and the CO leakage. The graph below illustrates the result of the
HTS simulation.
HTS, Simulation, Operational data 1-11-2017
440
420
Temperature, ºC
400
380
360
01-11-2017
340
320
300
0 20 40 60 80 100
Thermocouple position, bed vol%

As seen from the above plot, we have been able to reproduce the measured
temperature profile reasonably well. The CO leakage has been simulated to be 3.11
mol %, which is similar to the measured CO leakage of 3 mol %.
The activity of the catalyst is found to be as expected for a catalyst of this age, running
under similar conditions.
Overall, we rate the performance of the high temperature shift catalyst as satisfactory.
Low temperature shift

Catalyst information Layer 1 Layer 2
Vendor Topsoe Topsoe
Type LSK-2 LK-853 FENCE
Size 4.5x4.5 mm 4.5x3.4 mm
Volume 4.3 m3 51.5 m3
Installed August 2015 August 2015
Age 26 months 26 months
Below, please find a table summarizing the key elements for your Low temperature
shift (LTS) reactor.
Age, months 26 24 22 17 15 12 7
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
S/DG, mol/mol 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.35
ATE shift, °C -7 -10 -10 -11 -6 -3 -8
Tin measured, °C 206.4 205.4 206.5 205.6 205.7 203.0 202.7
Tout measured, °C 228.8 229.6 230.5 229.1 229.5 230.0 226.1
∆P, kg/cm2 0.70 0.60 0.66 0.67 0.64 0.57 0.58
The temperature approach to shift equilibrium (ATE) has been calculated to be -7°C. A
negative approach is thermodynamically impossible. The theoretical optimum range of
the shift ATE is 5-10°C. As with the HTS the ATE is always negative based on the

measured compositions. By evaluation of the simulation and temperature profile it is

clear that the LTS reaches equilibrium around 50% into the catalyst bed.
The measured CO leakage is reported to be 0.25 mol %. This is similar to all previous
evaluations for this charge.
In order to determine the catalyst activity in your LTS reactor, we have used our
REACTOR program. The aim of the program is to reproduce the measured
temperature profile and the CO leakage. The graph below illustrates the result of the
LTS simulation.
LTS simulation, operational data, 01-11-2017

235
230
Temperature, ºC
225
220
215
01-11-2017
210
205
200
0 20 40 60 80 100
Thermocouple position, bed vol%
As seen from the above plot, we have been able to reproduce the measured
temperature profile reasonably well. The CO leakage has been simulated to be 0.28
mol %, which is similar to the measured CO leakage of 0.25 mol %.

LTS, pressure drop development, operational data, 1-11-

1 2017 0.7
0.9 0.63
0.8 0.56
dP, kg/cm2
dPnorm, kg/cm2
0.7 0.49
0.6 0.42
0.5 0.35
0.4 0.28
0.3 0.21 2015 - (dP)
0.2 0.14 2015 - (dPnorm)
0.1 0.07
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age, months
The activity of the catalyst is found to be as expected for a catalyst of this age, running
under similar conditions.
Overall, we rate the performance of the low temperature shift catalyst as satisfactory.
Methanator
Catalyst information
Vendor Topsoe
Type PK-7R
Size 5 mm
Volume 20.4 m3
Installed January 2012
Age 69 months
Below, please find a table summarizing the key elements for your methanator.
Age, months 69 68 65 60 58 56 50

Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105

CO slip, ppmv NIL N.A. 0 0 0 0 0
CO2 slip, ppmv 3.7 N.A. 0 1 2 5 4
Tin measured, °C 285.0 285.0 285.0 284.1 284.0 283.0 295.9
Tout measured, °C 309.9 311.0 311.0 310.2 311.1 309.5 324.1
∆P, kg/cm2 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.10 0.90 1.00
The pressure drop has been reported as 1 kg/cm2, which is in line with previous
The temperature profile indicates that the reaction takes place in the upper part of the
catalyst bed.
Normally, we expect a maximum carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide slip from the
methanator below 10 ppm oxygen equivalents, where carbon monoxide contributes
with one equivalent and carbon dioxide with two equivalents. In the received dataset,
the carbon monoxide slip is reported to be NIL and the carbon dioxide slip is reported
to be 3.69, which corresponds to minimum of 7.5 ppm oxygen equivalents.
Overall, we rate the performance of the methanation catalyst as satisfactory
Ammonia synthesis loop

evaluation
Consistency of operating data

The consistency of the operating data has been checked by means of our data
reconciliation program AMCHECK.
The calculated sum of squares (SSQ) is 3.7, which indicates inconsistencies in the
measured data. The main contributors to the SSQ is ammonia in the outlet of the
converter.
In Appendix 1 please find the output from our AMCHECK reconciliation program.

Separator check
The separator check is based on the assumption that there is phase equilibrium in the
separator.
A satisfactory performance implies that the measured ammonia concentration in the

converter inlet gas is equal to the calculated equilibrium ammonia concentration in the
gas phase at the outlet of the separator. Additionally this check may be used to confirm
the measured inlet concentration of ammonia.
Results from separator check

Separator temperature, °C -8
Separator pressure, kg/cm² g 128.6
Calculated NH3 concentration at converter inlet, mol % 3.89
Measured NH3 concentration at converter inlet, mol % 3.09
The measured ammonia concentration is 3.09 mol %, which is similar to the calculated
ammonia concentration of 3.89 mol %.
The separator is considered to operate satisfactorily.
S-300
Catalyst information Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3

Layer 1 Layer 1 Layer 1
Vendor HT HT HT
Type KM1R KM1 KM1
Size 1.5 - 3 mm 1.5 - 3 mm 1.5 - 3 mm
Volume 14.8 m3 20.0 m3 41.9 m3
Installed Jan 2012 Jan 2012 Jan 2012
Please find a table summarizing the key elements for the ammonia converter in
Appendix 2: Operating data.
Performance and reactor simulation

In order to determine the catalyst activity of your ammonia synthesis catalyst and
confirm our reconciliation we have used our REACTOR program to make a simulation
of the temperature profile and ammonia production. The graph below illustrates the
result of the simulation as well as the equilibrium temperatures.
As can be seen from the graph, we have been able to reproduce the measured
temperatures reasonable well. Only discrepancy is the inlet temperature to bed 2,
which seems to have been measured too high, However this is a general trend seen in
all evaluations and is most likely due to thermocouple positions.
The temperature approaches at the outlet of the beds have been calculated to be:
Bed 1: 18°C
Bed 2: 23°C
Bed 3: 15°C
The optimum approach to equilibrium for ammonia synthesis catalysts is 10-20°C.

Based on these calculations you may be able to optimize bed 2 slightly by increasing
the inlet temperature.
The inlet H2/N2 ratio of 2.6 is outside of our recommended optimum range of 2.8-3.1.
The calculated inert level (CH4 + Ar) is 9.42 mol%, which is lowered compared to
previous evaluations.

The catalyst activity is found to be as expected for a catalyst of this type and age
operated under similar conditions.
Conclusion of catalyst performance

Overall, we rate the performance of the ammonia synthesis catalyst as satisfactory.
Attached material
Please find the following material attached:
 Appendix 1: Reconciliation of front-end data and ammonia converter data

 Appendix 2: Historical summary of data
 Appendix 3: Description of our front-end program
 Appendix 4: Description of pressure drop measurements
We trust that you will find our evaluation interesting, and we are always at your service
to discuss the report in more detail as well as matters related to the operation of our
catalysts in general.
HALDOR TOPSOE A/S
Kaj Mikael Jensen
Senior Catalyst Engineer
www.topsoe.com

Appendix 1: Reconciliation of front-end data
Feedstock
Raw Reconciled Standard
value value BIAS* deviation SSQ
H2, dry mol % 0.00 0.00
N2, dry mol % 1.51 1.48 -0.03 0.20 0.03
Ar, dry mol % 0.00 0.00
CO, dry mol % 0.00 0.00
CO2, dry mol % 7.55 7.53 -0.02 0.10 0.03
CH4, dry mol % 78.33 78.39 0.06 1.00 0.00
C2H6, dry mol % 6.98 6.98 0.00 0.05 0.00
C3H8, dry mol % 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.05 0.00
C4H10, dry mol % 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.05 0.00
C5H12, dry mol % 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.05 0.00
C6H14, dry mol % 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00
Dry flow, Nm3/h 37425 37647 221.74 1871 0.01
* Reconciled – raw value
Recycle
H2, dry mol % 76.38 76.42 0.04 1.00 0.00
N2, dry mol % 22.09 22.06 -0.03 1.00 0.00
Ar, dry mol % 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.10 0.00
CO, dry mol % 0.00 0.00
CO2, dry mol % 0.00 0.00
CH4, dry mol % 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.10 0.00
Dry flow, Nm3/h 2341 2368 27.43 234 0.01
Primary reformer
Steam flow, in, kg/h 102800 101403 -1397.41 10280 0.02
Temperature, in, °C 536.2
Temperature, out, °C 756.0
Dry flow, out, Nm³/h 128819
Steam flow, out, Nm³/h 87567
Outlet composition

H2, dry mol % 66.35 64.40 -1.95 2.00 0.95

N2, dry mol % 0.72 0.84 0.12 0.20 0.35
Ar, dry mol % 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.00
CO, dry mol % 8.23 9.02 0.79 0.50 2.48
CO2, dry mol % 11.63 12.67 1.04 0.50 4.35
CH4, dry mol % 13.06 13.06 0.00 0.20 0.00
Secondary reformer
Air flow, in, Nm³/h 57600.00 56038.61 -1561.40 5760.00 0.07
Temperature, in, °C 758.3
Temperature, out, °C 936.9
Outlet composition
H2, dry mol % 54.41 54.20 -0.21 2.00 0.01
N2, dry mol % 23.19 22.77 -0.42 2.00 0.04
Ar, dry mol % 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.10 0.01
CO, dry mol % 12.94 13.26 0.32 0.50 0.40
CO2, dry mol % 8.49 8.79 0.30 0.50 0.35
CH4, dry mol % 0.71 0.72 0.01 0.10 0.00

Steam/dry gas, in, mol/mol 0.48
Temperature, in, °C 350.3 351.5 1.18 5.00 0.06
Temperature, out, °C 425.7 425.7 -0.01 0.50 0.00
Outlet composition
H2, dry mol % 58.17 58.34 0.17 2.00 0.01
N2, dry mol % 21.42 20.71 -0.71 2.00 0.13
Ar, dry mol % 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.10 0.00
CO, dry mol % 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.05 0.00
CO2, dry mol % 16.51 17.05 0.54 1.00 0.29
CH4, dry mol % 0.66 0.65 -0.01 0.10 0.01


Steam/dry gas, in, mol/mol 0.35
Temperature, in, °C 206.4 205.7 -0.65 5.00 0.02
Temperature, out, °C 228.8 228.8 0.01 0.50 0.00
Outlet composition
H2, dry mol % 60.85 59.46 -1.39 2.00 0.49
N2, dry mol % 19.90 20.16 0.26 2.00 0.02
Ar, dry mol % 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.10 0.00
CO, dry mol % 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.01 0.00
CO2, dry mol % 18.11 19.26 1.15 1.00 1.33
CH4, dry mol % 0.65 0.63 -0.02 0.10 0.03
** Omitted from calculation
CO2 removal
Outlet composition
H2, dry mol % 73.90 73.59 -0.31 1.00 0.10
N2, dry mol % 24.66 24.95 0.29 1.00 0.08
Ar, dry mol % 0.28 0.30 0.02 0.10 0.03
CO, dry mol % 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.01 0.00
CO2, dry mol % 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
CH4, dry mol % 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.10 0.00
Methanator
Temperature, in, °C 285.0 284.0 -1.00 5.00 0.04
Outlet composition

H2, dry mol % 73.10 73.27 0.17 1.00 0.03

N2, dry mol % 25.43 25.25 -0.18 1.00 0.03
Ar, dry mol % 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.00
CO, Dryppm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00
CO2, Dryppm 3.69 3.69 0.00 1.00 0.00
CH4, dry mol % 1.17 1.18 0.01 0.10 0.01
H2/N2 Ratio 2.90
Flow, Nm³/h 177527.00 178428.58 901.58 17752.70 0.00
Total SSQ 11.86
Summary of reconciled data

PR SR HTS LTS METH
Temperature, in, °C 536.2 758.3 351.5 205.7 284.0
Dew point, in, °C 225.6 189.5 179.0 167.7 22.4
Pressure, in, kg/cm2 g 33.7 30.5 30.0 28.9 27.2
2
Pressure, out, kg/cm g 30.5 30.0 29.5 28.2 26.2
S/D gas, in, mol/mol 3.15 0.68 0.48 0.35
S/C, in, mol/mol 2.82 1.96 2.12 1.68 0.09
Transferred heat, Gcal/h 69.08 -0.88
PR SR HTS LTS METH

H2, dry mol % 64.40 54.20 58.34 59.46 73.27
N2, dry mol % 0.84 22.77 20.71 20.16 25.25
Ar, dry mol % 0.01 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.30
CO, dry mol % 9.02 13.26 3.00 0.25
CO2, dry mol % 12.67 8.79 17.05 19.26
CH4, dry mol % 13.06 0.72 0.65 0.63 1.18
Dry flow, Nm3/h 128819 196777 216372 222306 177443
Steam flow, out, Nm³/h 87567 94724 75129 69194 986
ATE, reforming, °C * -17.23 10.06
ATE, shift, °C ** -16.31 -26.19 -2.93 -7.09
* Approach to equilibrium, reforming, **Approach to equilibrium, shift
Calculation number: 2121028, 2121028

Reconciliation of ammonia converter data
Converter inlet pressure, kg/cm² g 138.6

Converter pressure drop, kg/cm² 1.6
Reconciled values of parameters

Converter inlet flow, Nm³/h 702,157
Make-up flow, Nm³/h 182,220
Purge + LD flow, Nm³/h 23,005
Ammonia production, MTPD 1,452
Converter inlet temperature, °C 247
Converter outlet temperature, °C 438
Equilibrium temperature, °C 455
Reconciled values of gas analysis (dry mol %)

Converter Converter Purge
inlet outlet gas
Hydrogen 63.2 52.1 60.0
Nitrogen 24.3 21.0 24.2
Ammonia 3.0 16.2 3.5
Argon + helium 2.1 2.4 2.7
Methane 7.3 8.2 9.5
Ammonia converter reconciliation results

Raw Reconcile BIAS Standard SSQ
value d value deviation
Make-up, Nm³/h 177,527 182,220 4,693 17,753 0.07
Flow in, Nm³/h 704,075 702,157 -1,918 70,408 0.00
Purge + LD, Nm³/h 23,329 23,005 -324.15 4,666 0.00
Production, MTPD 1,452 1,452 -0.30 14.52 0.00
Temp in, °C 244 247 2.81 5.00 0.31
Temp out, °C 441 438 -2.81 5.00 0.31
H2-in, mol % 63.3 63.2 -0.08 2.00 0.00
N2-in, mol % 24.4 24.3 -0.05 1.00 0.00
NH3-in, mol % 3.1 3.0 -0.07 0.20 0.14
Ar-in, mol % 2.2 2.1 -0.05 0.50 0.01
CH4-in, mol % 7.1 7.3 0.25 0.50 0.25
H2-out, mol % 53.2 52.1 -1.01 2.00 0.26
N2-out, mol % 21.0 21.0 0.05 1.00 0.00
NH3-out, mol % 14.9 16.2 1.34 1.00 1.79
Ar-out, mol % 2.4 2.4 -0.05 0.50 0.01

CH4-out, mol % 8.6 8.2 -0.34 0.50 0.45

H2-purge, mol % 59.9 60.0 0.16 2.00 0.01
N2-purge, mol % 24.4 24.2 -0.20 1.00 0.04
NH3-purge, mol % 3.6 3.5 -0.01 1.00 0.00
Ar-purge, mol % 2.7 2.7 0.04 0.50 0.01
CH4-purge, mol % 9.5 9.5 0.02 0.50 0.00
Sum 3.67
Temperature and conversion profile

S-300
Temperature Ammonia Approach to
Bed no. Location °C dry mol % equilibrium
°C
1 Inlet 383 3.02
1 Outlet 493 10.26 18
2 Inlet 414 10.26
2 Outlet 457 13.31 23
3 Inlet 402 13.31
3 Outlet 441 16.19 15
Calculation number: 2122413

Appendix 2: Historical summary of data
Hydrogenation
Age, months 26 24 22 17 15 12 7
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
Organic sulfur in, ppmv N.A. 5.66 7.35 6.70 8.96 6.95 4.90
Organic sulfur out, ppmv 4.74 5.40 6.06 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
H2 in, mol % 4.52 4.19 4.44 4.17 4.27 4.05 4.01
Tin, °C 345.7 345.0 342.0 344.3 346.0 352.4 344.2
Tout, °C 339.2 339.0 335.5 339.0 340.7 346.2 338.6
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.50
Nov 11, Oct 6, April 7, Jan 16, Oct 28, Aug 1, May 13,
Age, months 3 1 39 36 33 30 28
Load, % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
Organic sulfur in, ppmv 10.20 6.79 6.40 10.57 10.01 N.A. 9.58
Organic sulfur out, ppmv N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 9.40
H2 in, mol % 3.97 4.41 4.13 4.42 4.15 4.14 3.92
Tin, °C 341.5 346.5 343.0 339.1 339.2 336.0 336.2
Tout, °C 334.5 339.9 336.7 333.1 333.4 330.5 330.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Feb 11, Nov 22, Sept 4, June 12, April 15, Nov 27, April 15,
Age, months 25 22 20 17 15 10 3
Load, % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
Organic sulfur in, ppmv 9.33 9.84 15.20 13.70 14.60 11.03 10.80
Organic sulfur out, ppmv N.A. N.A. N.A. 4.67 N.A. N.A. N.A.
H2 in, mol % 3.82 3.92 3.93 3.87 3.87 3.84 3.98
Tin, °C 333.2 331.7 333.0 341.0 339.0 341.6 333.0
Tout, °C 326.6 325.9 326.8 334.2 335.2 335.0 N.A.
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.50 N.A. 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50
∆P normalized, kg/cm2 0.50 0.50 N.A. 0.29 0.47 0.48 0.50

Desulfurization, reactor 1
Age, months 26 24 21 16 15 12 7
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
Sulfur in, ppmv N.A. 5.40 6.06 3.77 4.78 2.84 4.84
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tin, °C 339.2 339.0 335.5 339.0 340.7 346.2 338.6
Tout, °C 337.0 337.0 334.0 337.4 339.2 344.6 336.7
∆P, kg/cm 2
0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.55
Age, months 2 1 18 15 13 10 7
Load, % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
Sulfur in, ppmv 9.10 2.41 4.05 8.15 7.97 7.12 9.40
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tin, °C 334.5 339.9 336.7 333.1 333.4 330.5 330.3
Tout, °C 332.2 338.1 335.5 330.8 331.6 329.4 328.9
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Age, months 4 1 20 17 15 10 3
Load, % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
Sulfur in, ppmv 8.47 7.06 6.56 4.67 6.56 6.33 4.50
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 N.A.
Tin, °C 326.6 325.9 326.8 334.0 333.0 335.0 328.0
Tout, °C 325.1 324.0 325.3 331.9 331.0 333.0 326.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.50 0.70 1.60 0.70 0.80 0.50

Desulfurization, reactor 2
Age, months 69 68 65 60 58 56 50
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
Sulfur in, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tin, °C 337.0 337.0 334.0 337.4 339.2 344.6 336.7
Tout, °C 335.0 335.0 332.0 335.5 337.0 342.8 334.9
∆P, kg/cm2 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.55
∆P normalized, kg/cm 2
0.69 0.36 0.34 0.17 0.26 0.29 0.50
Age, months 46 45 39 36 33 30 28
Load, % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
Sulfur in, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tin, °C 332.2 338.1 335.5 330.8 331.6 329.4 328.9
Tout, °C 330.1 336.5 333.4 328.8 329.6 326.0 327.3
∆P, kg/cm2 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.60 0.50
Age, months 25 22 20 17 15 10 3
Load, % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
Sulfur in, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 N.A.
Sulfur out, ppmv 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08
Tin, °C 325.1 324.0 325.3 331.9 331.0 333.9 326.0
Tout, °C 323.2 321.8 323.4 329.5 329.0 331.9 324.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.30 0.90 0.90 0.50

Primary reformer
Age, months 15 13 10 5 3 1 53
Load % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
S/C, mol/mol 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8
ATE reforming, °C -17 -14 -11 -18 -12 -21 -7
Tout measured, °C 756.0 764.7 759.5 761.7 765.0 755.6 764.9
Tequilibrium, °C 773.2 778.8 770.7 780.2 777.3 777.0 771.7
Pout, kg/cm2 g 30.5 30.2 30.6 29.5 30.4 30.5 31.1
∆P, kg/cm2 3.20 2.80 2.69 3.03 2.94 2.71 5.52
Age, months 49 48 42 39 36 33 31
Load % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
S/C, mol/mol 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8
ATE reforming, °C -8 -17 -9 -3 1 -9 -8
Tout measured, °C 756.2 753.8 754.9 764.6 761.7 762.8 762.0
Tequilibrium, °C 764.4 770.9 763.8 767.3 760.8 771.7 769.5
Pout, kg/cm2 g 29.8 30.4 29.9 31.1 31.0 29.8 30.9
∆P, kg/cm 2
5.24 4.96 4.62 4.32 4.34 4.14 3.94
Age, months 28 25 23 20 18 13 6
Load % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
S/C, mol/mol 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9
ATE reforming, °C 0 -5 -2 9 -8 -11 -14
Tout measured, °C 761.8 761.2 759.0 762.2 759.8 756.9 755.5
Tequilibrium, °C 761.4 766.3 761.3 753.4 767.5 767.6 769.8
Pout, kg/cm2 g 31.0 30.6 30.7 31.1 31.1 30.8 32.5
∆P, kg/cm2 3.79 3.72 3.72 3.70 3.35 3.38 3.20
3.76 3.79 3.88 3.55 3.19 3.24 3.20

Secondary reformer
Age, months 2 0 65 60 58 56 50
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
ATE reforming, °C 10 9 -2 5 9 14 5
Tequilibrium, °C 926.8 931.7 934.8 933.2 938.1 928.3 941.5
Tout measured, °C 936.9 940.5 933.0 938.1 947.0 942.0 946.5
∆P, kg/cm2 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.27
Age, months 46 45 39 36 33 30 28
Load, % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
ATE reforming, °C 2 -12 -6 -3 -1 -5 -3
Tequilibrium, °C 932.5 935.1 932.5 947.2 942.6 941.9 941.0
Tout measured, °C 934.0 923.3 926.0 944.0 942.0 936.8 938.0
∆P, kg/cm 2
0.26 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.26
Age, months 25 22 20 17 15 10 3
Load, % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
ATE reforming, °C 15 7 13 7 -4 -7 -12
Tequilibrium, °C 926.3 936.4 924.9 931.8 941.0 939.7 934.8
Tout measured, °C 941.0 943.0 938.0 939.0 937.0 933.0 923.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.28 0.29 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.17
0.28 0.29 0.25 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.17


Age, months 40 38 35 30 28 26 20
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
S/DG, mol/mol 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.49
ATE shift, °C -3 -15 -15 -23 -5 -7 -17
Tin measured, °C 350.3 352.6 351.0 350.5 345.5 353.3 352.4
Tout measured, °C 425.6 431.2 427.5 428.0 423.8 430.1 431.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.54 0.46 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.46
0.47 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44
Age, months 16 15 9 6 3 1 28
Load, % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
S/DG, mol/mol 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.52 0.52 0.47 0.48
ATE shift, °C -13 -22 -19 -13 -2 -21 24
Tin measured, °C 349.6 350.1 344.6 343.2 343.1 343.3 361.6
Tout measured, °C 426.7 426.7 421.8 422.3 422.2 423.4 431.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.39 1.20
0.42 0.42 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.38 1.18
Age, months 25 22 20 17 15 10 3
Load, % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
S/DG, mol/mol 0.51 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.49 0.50 0.50
ATE shift, °C 40 31 36 11 11 5 3
Tin measured, °C 361.4 360.7 359.6 355.7 347.0 346.7 340.0
Tout measured, °C 433.5 432.8 430.1 437.0 427.8 427.0 424.7
∆P, kg/cm2 1.34 1.24 0.95 0.75 0.60 0.49 0.41


Age, months 26 24 22 17 15 12 7
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
S/DG, mol/mol 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.35
ATE shift, °C -7 -10 -10 -11 -6 -3 -8
Tin measured, °C 206.4 205.4 206.5 205.6 205.7 203.0 202.7
Tout measured, °C 228.8 229.6 230.5 229.1 229.5 230.0 226.1
∆P, kg/cm2 0.70 0.60 0.66 0.67 0.64 0.57 0.58
Age, months 3 1 39 36 34 31 28
Load, % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
S/DG, mol/mol 0.36 0.32 0.33 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.36
ATE shift, °C -8 -15 -9 6 4 26 -5
Tin measured, °C 204.6 204.6 216.3 216.1 214.9 203.2 204.0
Tout measured, °C 225.4 226.6 236.7 234.5 235.5 220.6 234.0
∆P, kg/cm 2
0.55 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.45
Age, months 25 22 20 17 15 11 3
Load, % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
S/DG, mol/mol 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.36
ATE shift, °C 9 3 4 3 4 0 -5
Tin measured, °C 204.7 203.3 203.4 200.0 203.0 202.0 190.0
Tout measured, °C 232.2 231.7 231.1 224.0 227.0 225.0 215.3
∆P, kg/cm2 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42
0.44 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.42

Methanator
Age, months 69 68 65 60 58 56 50
Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105
CO slip, ppmv N.A. N.A. 0 0 0 0 0
CO2 slip, ppmv N.A. N.A. 0 1 2 5 4
Tin measured, °C 285.0 285.0 285.0 284.1 284.0 283.0 295.9
Tout measured, °C 309.9 311.0 311.0 310.2 311.1 309.5 324.1
∆P, kg/cm2 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.10 0.90 1.00
Age, months 46 45 39 36 33 30 28
Load, % 105 105 106 105 105 103 101
CO slip, ppmv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO2 slip, ppmv 5 5 5 1 6 3 5
Tin measured, °C 293.6 292.0 300.0 294.8 295.1 285.1 285.3
Tout measured, °C 319.0 318.0 325.8 321.8 327.0 325.2 316.9
∆P, kg/cm2 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.63 0.80
Age, months 25 22 20 17 15 10 3
Load, % 101 103 100 103 103 102 104
CO slip, ppmv 0 4 2 4 4 4 4
CO2 slip, ppmv 7 3 8 3 3 3 3
Tin measured, °C 285.3 284.5 285.1 285.1 285.1 284.1 278.0
Tout measured, °C 320.8 309.1 318.0 311.0 318.0 314.0 296.0
∆P, kg/cm2 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.60 0.89
0.89 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.93 0.57 0.89

S-300
Date of operating data 01 Nov 06 Sep 13 Jun 11 Jan 18 Nov

2017 2017 2017 2017 2016
Age, 69 67 65 60 58
Production, MTPD 1,452 1,379 1,448 1,465 1,447
ATE of bed 1 , °C 18 11 17 29 26
ATE of bed 2 , °C 23 16 24 34 30
ATE of bed 3 , °C 15 12 15 18 13
H2/N2 ratio, mol/mol 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0
kg/cm² g
ΔP, kg/cm² 1.60 1.10 1.32 1.54 1.60
*Reconciled value
Date of operating data 07 Sep 22 Mar 11 Nov 06 Oct 07 Apr

2016 2016 2015 2015 2015
Age, 56 50 46 44 38
Production, MTPD 1,405 1,422 1,422 1,419 1,428
ATE of bed 1 , °C 18 13 11 8 5
ATE of bed 2 , °C 22 18 16 13 10
ATE of bed 3 , °C 11 10 8 6 8
H2/N2 ratio, mol/mol 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0
kg/cm² g
ΔP, kg/cm² 2.20 1.35 1.80 1.92 1.92
*Reconciled value

Date of operating data 16 Jan 28 Oct 01 Aug 13 May 11 Feb

2015 2014 2014 2014 2014
Age, 36 33 30 28 25
Production, MTPD 1,417 1,416 1,389 1,365 1,365
ATE of bed 1 , °C 10 3 3 4 0
ATE of bed 2 , °C 16 11 9 10 5
ATE of bed 3 , °C 12 5 2 7 2
H2/N2 ratio, mol/mol 3.0 2.7 3.5 3.0 3.0
kg/cm² g
ΔP, kg/cm² 1.40 1.70 1.40 1.00 1.09
*Reconciled value
Appendix 3: Description of the computer program FRONTEND
Analysis of front-end operating data

The computer program FRONTEND uses the raw measured operating data from a
complete front-end (i.e. the following units, if present: prereformer, primary reformer,
secondary reformer, shift reactors, CO 2 removal section, and methanator) and
calculates a set of smoothed values which satisfies the basic heat and mass balances
in the front-end.
𝑛
𝑋𝑅,𝑖 − 𝑋𝑆,𝑖 2
𝑆𝑆𝑄 = ∑ ( )
𝑆(𝑋𝑖 )
𝑖=1
where 𝑋𝑅,𝑖 is the raw measured value for the variable i

𝑋𝑆,𝑖 is the smoothed value for the variable i
𝑆(𝑋𝑖 ) is the standard deviation for the variable i
𝑛 is the total number of measured variables.
For the standard deviations, the program uses built-in values based on our experience
with many datasets.

The program considers the following balances:
1. For each reactor, the fractional conversions calculated from inlet and outlet
analyses for each component should all be equal.
2. The sum of the mole per cent of the components at each measuring point
should be 100.
3. Based on the inlet and exit temperatures, the heat balance over the adiabatic
reactors (prereformer, secondary reformer, shift reactors, and methanator)
based on the inlet and exit temperatures should be fulfilled. For the primary
reformer, the duty transferred to the process gas is calculated.
4. The total mass balance for hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and argon
should be fulfilled.
Based on the smoothed gas analyses and flows in the front-end, the program
calculates the equilibrium temperatures and temperature approaches to equilibrium at
the exit of each reactor.

Appendix 4: Pressure drop normalization
Why normalize the pressure drop?

The pressure drop development across each catalyst bed is an important parameter to
monitor as this will give a hint of the physical condition of the catalyst and ensure a
cost-effective operation of the plant.
Apart from the catalyst itself, the pressure drop across the catalyst depends mainly on
the throughput. Temperature and pressure are other parameters of importance, but
these most often remain relatively constant even when the plant load is changed.
Therefore, to make a proper comparison at different plant loads, the pressure drop is
normalized with respect to the total gas flow. This allows a comparison of the pressure
drop measured at varying plant loads. Please note that in case there are great
variations in the plant load the normalized pressure drop will be somewhat unreliable.
Pressure drop normalization formula

In order to normalize the pressure drop, the following simplified formula is applied:
𝐺𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑠 1.9
∆𝑃𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚 = ∆𝑃𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 ∙ ( )
𝐺𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
where G is the total flow.
From the formula it is seen that the measured pressure drop is corrected by a ratio
comprising the basis flow in the numerator and the actual flow in the denominator. The
ratio is raised to the power of 1.9.
The basis flow will usually be determined based on the first set of operating data
received from the plant. However, in case of great changes in the operating conditions,
such as revamps, the basis flow can be changed.
The basis flow for each reactor is determined as follows:

Hydrogenation, sulfur absorption Gbasis = dry flow
Prereformer, steam reformer Gbasis = 1.5 · dry flow + steam flow
Secondary reformer Gbasis = 1.5 · dry flow + steam flow + air flow
Shift reactors Gbasis = dry flow · (1 + (steam flow / dry flow))
Methanator Gbasis = dry flow outlet

PerformanceEvaluation PetroVietnamCaMau Ammoniaplant November 1 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PerformanceEvaluation PetroVietnamCaMau Ammoniaplant November 1 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PetroVietnam Ca Mau Fertilizer Joint Stock Company Ltd.

Ca Mau City, Vietnam

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 2 / 39

Appendix 1: Reconciliation of front-end data 21

Reconciliation of ammonia converter data 25

Appendix 2: Historical summary of data 27

Appendix 3: Description of the computer program FRONTEND 36

Appendix 4: Pressure drop normalization 38

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 3 / 39

Based on our calculations and simulations, we have the following comments:

 The feed purification section is working as expected.

Consistency of operating data

The total sum of squares of 12 indicates inconsistencies in the reported dataset.

For further information please refer to

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 4 / 39

Date of operating data 01 Nov 06 Sep 13 Jun 11 Jan 18 Nov

Date of operating data 07 Sep 22 Mar 11 Nov 06 Oct 07 Apr

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 5 / 39

Date of operating data 16 Jan 28 Oct 01 Aug 13 May 11 Feb

Appendix 3: Description of the computer program FRONTEND.

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 6 / 39

HDS, pressure drop development

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 7 / 39

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.

Overall, we rate the performance of the hydrogenation catalyst as satisfactory.

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 8 / 39

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.

Overall, we rate the performance of the sulfur absorbent as satisfactory.

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 9 / 39

The temperature approach to methane reforming equilibrium (ATE) is calculated to be -

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 10 / 39

In addition, it is very important to perform visual inspections of the reformer tubes on a

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.

Overall, we rate the performance of the reforming catalyst as satisfactory.

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 11 / 39

Nov 1, Sept 6, Jan 11, Nov 18, Sept 7, March 22,

The temperature approach to methane reforming equilibrium (ATE) is calculated to be

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 12 / 39

leakage of the endothermic reaction.

We strongly recommend you to confirm these measurements as we do normally not

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 13 / 39

High temperature shift

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 14 / 39

HTS, pressure drop & normalized pressure drop

Thermocouple position, bed vol%

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 15 / 39

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.

Low temperature shift

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 16 / 39

measured compositions. By evaluation of the simulation and temperature profile it is

LTS simulation, operational data, 01-11-2017

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 17 / 39

LTS, pressure drop development, operational data, 1-11-

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 18 / 39

Load, % 108 102 107 109 107 104 105

Please refer to Appendix 2 for an overview of the historical operating parameters.

Overall, we rate the performance of the methanation catalyst as satisfactory

Ammonia synthesis loop

Consistency of operating data

Performance evaluation of front-end, Ammonia plant 19 / 39

A satisfactory performance implies that the measured ammonia concentration in the

Results from separator check