PTQ Q4 2024 Issue

$13.42 million, indicating higher utility usage and operational demands due to its configuration. NPV Case 1 exhibits the highest NPV at $186 million, indicating that it generates the most value over the project’s life, con - sidering both revenue and costs, under a 10% discount rate.

Financial overview comparing dryer configurations based on Capex, Opex, NPV, IRR, and PI calculations

Parameters

Case 1 26.71

Case 2 28.02 13.42

Case 3 30.03

Case 4 28.63

Capex, MM$/yr Opex, MM$/yr

0.79 186

0.74 184

0.72 185

NPV @10% discount, MM$

117

IRR,%

Profitability index

6.96

4.18

6.13

6.46

Payback after commissioning, years

While Cases 3 and 4 are close contend- ers with NPVs of $184 million and $185 million, respectively, the lower Capex and Opex of Case 1 make it the most financially viable option. Profitability index (PI) The PI is highest for Case 1, further establishing its superior - ity in terms of return on investment. This evaluation provides a clear picture of the finan - cial implications of each dryer configuration, offering vital insights for decision-making regarding the optimal setup for ULSD drying operations based on both initial investment and ongoing operational costs. Case 1 emerges as the most economically favourable option, balancing initial costs with operational efficiency and overall profitability. Benchmarking of different configurations Benchmarking activities were conducted across various facilities as part of this study, encompassing a total of 18 ULSD systems. These investigations revealed that both single- and two-stage VDs are commonly employed. Industry engagements with licensors involve the imple- mentation of a combination of coalescers and salt dryers from Axens to achieve a water content of 80 wppm in ULSD, while UOP offers multiple solutions aiming to maintain water content below 100 wppm in ULSD: • A fired reboiler for the ULSD stripper, with 50% vapori - sation, maintaining the maximum outlet temperature below 385 °C to avoid colour degradation. • For steam-operated ULSD strippers, a preference for single-stage VDs is noted. None of the surveyed facilities utilise a coalescer upstream of their VDs. These dryers generally operate at higher tem- peratures, with one exception: a refinery reported that its VD for light cycle oil (LCO) HT, located downstream of a coa - lescer, operates effectively at 60°C, consistently achieving water content below 100 wppm without any operational or reliability issues. All VDs in these facilities are designed to operate on full reflux, with the option for occasional bleeding to the slop system, enhancing flexibility in operation and maintenance. Benchmarking results show the following preferences and trends: u Three ULSD systems do not require any drying as the ULSD strippers are configured with reboilers. v Three ULSD systems use a coalescer only. w Two ULSD drying systems are provided with salt dryers after a coalescer. x Five ULSD systems use a single-stage VD.

Table 2

• MP steam: $6.14 per ton • Cooling water circulation: $0.0164 per ton • Electricity: $0.07 per kWh Basis for net present value (NPV)/internal rate of return (IRR) calculations: • Feed/product pricing: ■ Feed – high water content (200 wppm) ULSD: $697/ton ■ Product – ULSD with <80 wppm water: $707/ton • Financial assumptions: ■ Capex and Opex sensitivity: 0%

■ Discount rate: 10% ■ Project life: 20 years ■ Project execution time: Four years • On-stream days/year: 350 • Cost estimate accuracy: ±50% • Capital expenditure distribution: ■ 10% in first year ■ 35% in second and third years ■ 20% in fourth year

Profitability index (PI): Calculated as NPV divided by total Capex. Table 2 provides a financial overview comparing the dif - ferent dryer configurations based on Capex, Opex, NPV, IRR, and PI calculations. Capex Case 1, with a Capex of $26.71 million, offers the lowest ini - tial investment among the configurations, which is advan - tageous for budget management and financial flexibility. Case 2 requires a Capex of $28 million, which is higher than Case 1 due to the need for a larger overhead drum, a bigger sour water pump, and a higher duty after cooler to handle the substantial ejector MP steam load. The two-stage VD (Case 3) demands the highest Capex at $30.03 million, reflecting its complexity and the addi - tional equipment required. Incorporating a flash vessel (Case 4) slightly reduces the Capex to $28.63 million compared to Case 3 due to a reduction in equipment size and complexity. Opex Case 1 also benefits from significantly lower operational costs ($0.79 million), enhancing its operational efficiency and long-term cost savings. In contrast, Case 2 has a substantially higher Opex at

PTQ Q4 2024