Evaluating tank farm capacity

Stochastic simulation provides a refinery operator with the information needed

to optimise storage in the tank farm

Alastair Painter
DNV

R
efineries and petrochemi-
cal facilities have
historically utilised stor-
t
*OEJWJEVBM
QSPEVDU
FGGJDJFODZ
age to ensure the security of t
5"30
FWFOUESJWFO


TJNVMBUJPO
UFDIOPMPHZ
t
*OEJWJEVBM
QSPEVDU
WPMVNFT
feedstock and product supply, Plant-wide performance
t
.POUF
$BSMP
BQQSPBDI
as well as to manage opera-
t
*O
VTF
TJODF
1998
tional issues within the TARO
production complex. Storage Unit utilisation modelling
allows feedstocks to be main- 4BMFT
TUSBUFHZ

tained at levels sufficient to 6OJU
JOUFSEFQFOEFODZ 4UPSBHF

mitigate upstream supply inter-
.VMUJTUSFBN

ruptions or to allow production GFFE
JOUFSNFEJBUF
BOE
QSPEVDU

to continue uninterrupted 0QFSBUJPOBM
GMFYJCJMJUZ

whenever disruptions or upsets FH t
3FWJTFE
TMBUF
Unit availability
occur within the downstream 6OJU

t
4MPXEPXOT
t
#BDLVQ
SPVUFT
process units. The amount of DPOGJHVSBUJPO
.BJOUFOBODF

storage provided for the facility TUSBUFHZ
must be adequate for the Equipment
management of day-to-day availability
.553
routine activities, as well as
allowing upsets associated with
Component Traditional
unplanned events such as ship- reliability RAM modelling
ping and weather delays,
t
.55"
process and utility outages, and t
3$"
unit slowdowns to be t
'.&"

accommodated.
For many facilities, the
response to operational prob-
lems experienced within the
refinery complex has often been
to add more storage. Hence,
the number of tanks within the
tank farm slowly increases with
time, the ways in which they
are used and their interconnec-
Figure 1 DNVs TARO simulation tool
tion with the process facilities
becomes more complex, and
the management of the tank
farm becomes increasingly
challenging. However, tanks
are expensive to build and
maintain, and in todays diffi-
cult economic environment
many refiners are asking
whether it is possible to reduce

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000374 PTQ Q4 2011 1

 the number of storage tanks
that they have in operation,
thus allowing significant
savings on tank inspection and
maintenance activities to be
realised. The key challenge that
the refinery operator consider-
ing this option faces is in
understanding just how much
storage is sufficient.
Risk assessment
Understanding the optimum
level of storage to provide for a
given service requires a risk
assessment approach; that is,
both the frequency and conse-
quence of events that affect the
utilisation of the storage must
be considered. Ultimately, the
problem facing the operator is
that of minimising capital and
operational expenditure associ-
ated with the storage while
ensuring that revenue (produc-
tion) is not compromised as a
result of a lack of available
storage. The traditional LP
model used by refineries for
planning purposes is not suffi-
cient to provide a solution to
this problem, since it assumes
that plant operations are
predictable and steady state in
nature. However, as noted
previously, the utilisation of
storage capacity is affected by
sporadic events such as process
unit outages, export and import
delays, as well as other unpre-
dictable events that may occur
within the refinery. Hence, the
solution adopted must allow
the impact of such unpredicta-
ble events to be captured and
quantified. Stochastic (or
discrete event) simulation is
one means that has been
successfully used to predict the
behaviour of complex systems
such as a refinery complex.
DNV utilises its total asset
2 PTQ Q4 2011
review and optimisation
(TARO) simulation tool to
assist refinery operators, with
the quantitative assessment of
performance achievable from
their facilities. It is a discrete
event simulation tool that is
capable of quantifying the
expected performance of an
entire asset (a refinery complex)
or of individual equipment
items (pumps, compressors,
and so on). Figure 1 illustrates
the various components that
comprise a TARO simulation
model. While it utilises the core
concepts and algorithms found
in traditional reliability, availa-
bility and maintainability
(RAM) modelling, it differs
from such tools in that it has
been explicitly designed to
allow the performance model-
ling of refinery and chemical
complexes. Hence, while proc-
ess unit availability is normally
an output of the traditional
RAM modelling process, for
TARO it is actually a starting
point; the model comprises
information regarding unit
availability, unit capacities,
stream routings and flow rates,
storage tanks, sales strategies,
and so on.
The software operates by
simulating the occurrence of
fundamental events that result
in changes to the operational
state of the plant over time.
Events are described to the
simulator in terms of failure
and duration distributions that
are generated from historical
operating information obtained
from the refinery or chemicals
facility. These virtual events,
combined with the simulators
knowledge of the refinery
configuration and flows, permit
the performance of the facility
to be tracked and reported. By
simulating many operational
lifecycles of the facility and
aggregating the output, the
software is able to predict the
future performance of both the
overall system and the individ-
ual components that comprise
it. Performance is typically
measured in terms of metrics
such as annual product
volumes, crude charge rates
and storage utilisation.
Case study: refinery/
petrochemical complex
DNV has been working with a
major European refiner over
the past few years to deploy
performance simulation as a
decision support tool at one of
the refiners principal refining
and chemicals production sites.
The culmination of this work is
an integrated performance
simulation model of the entire
refinery and chemicals produc-
tion complex comprising more
than 22 process units, utility
systems and all intermediate
storage tanks (of which there
are approximately 50 in total).
Early in 2010, the refiner
embarked upon an initiative to
drive reductions in operational
expenditure through optimisa-
tion of the number of storage
tanks at the site. DNV assisted
with this initiative through
application of the simulation
model to generate information
that could be utilised for deci-
sion support purposes.
Naphtha storage
One particular area of concern
was that of naphtha storage,
located between the crude unit
and the downstream process
units; a naphtha hydrotreater
and an ethylene cracker. The
existing storage consisted of
four tanks, providing a total of
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000374
132 000 m3 of naphtha storage
(see Figure 2). Under normal
operation, one of the two large
(50 000 m3) tanks was allocated
to storage of naphtha feed to
the downstream hydrotreater
and cracker respectively.
Tank T-113, which normally
stores naphtha feed for the
ethylene cracker, had to be
taken out of service for inspec-
tion and repair in advance of an
upcoming turnaround of the
cracker. To eliminate the
expenditure associated with this
work, it was suggested that T-
113 could be removed
permanently from service. Two
alternative configurations were
proposed regarding the disposi-
tion of the remaining tanks once
T-113 was out of service. The
system could be operated using
the three remaining storage
tanks, with the large tank (T-
112) dedicated to cracker service
and the two smaller tanks (T-
107 and T-102) being deployed
for hydrotreater feed service. As
an alternative, the idea of
converting an existing light
cycle oil (LCO) storage tank (T-
220) to naphtha service was also
considered. This would allow
an additional 20 000 m3 of naph-
tha storage to be made available
upstream of the ethylene
cracker. Table 1 summarises the
various operational scenarios
considered.
Using the integrated simula-
tion model, DNV analysed the
various alternative operating
scenarios under consideration
by the operator. The analysis
indicated that operation of the
system with only the three
remaining tanks in service
(Option 1) would have a
significant adverse impact on
performance. Crude charge
was predicted to decline by
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000374
T-112
50000 m3
Naphtha
hydrotreater
T-107
Crude units 12000 m3
Ethylene
T-102 T-113
20000 m3 50000 m3
cracker
Figure 2 Naphtha storage
approximately 2.7 million refurbishment and repair of
barrels over the simulated T-113 should proceed given
period, a reduction in crude the effect that its removal from
throughput of nearly 0.5% service would have on
compared to the existing oper- crude throughput and gasoline
ation. Gasoline production was production.
predicted to suffer even more,
declining by around 1.3 million Fuel oil storage
barrels (1.2%) as compared to Modifications were also
the existing operational case. planned to the refinery that
In economic terms, the analy- would result in increased fuel
sis indicated that permanent oil production. The operator
removal of T-113 from service wished to assess whether the
would result in a revenue 60 000 m3 of storage presently
reduction of approximately available would be adequate to
$11 million over the next six manage the new production
years of operation. Increasing rates. It was recognised that the
the volume of naphtha stored fuel oil production rate on a
upstream of the hydrotreater monthly and annual basis
by converting T-220 to naph- would be somewhat greater
tha service (Option 2) served than predicted by the
to mitigate a portion of the refinery LP model (1000 t/d),
impact of removing T-113 from since HVGO, atmospheric resi-
operation. However, the analy- due and coker feed would be
sis predicted that the revenue routed to fuel oil during proc-
loss incurred by the refinery ess unit outages. Hence, the
was still significant. It was analysis needed to address the
therefore concluded that the following questions:
Naphtha storage scenarios
Option T-112 T-113 T-107 T-102 T-220
Normal operation NHT EC NHT EC
Option 1 EC NHT NHT
Option 2 EC NHT EC NHT
Option 3 NHT EC
Table 1
PTQ Q4 2011 3
 relatively large probability
35 33.1 Monthly fuel oil production 120 (17%) that monthly fuel oil
17% probability that production in any production could be in excess

Cumulative probability, %
30 given month will exceed 1330 tpd. 100
of 1330 t/d.
Monthly production of fuel oil could be
25 The local market for fuel oil
Probability, %

as high as 2500 tpd. 80

20.3 19.8 is not unlimited and hence the
20
60 analysis had to account for the
15 amount of fuel oil that can be
40 absorbed by the market in any
10
6.2 6.2
given month. Figure 4 summa-
5 3.5
20 rises the crude throughput
2.1 2.5
0.9 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.3
0.1 losses that are expected to be
0 0 incurred, assuming various
19 190
38 380
57 570
76 760

0- 0
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
00 00
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50

0
volumes of available storage
95 -95

04
11 11
13 -13
15 -15
17 -17
19 -19
20 -20
22 -22
24 -24
26 -26
28 -28
0-
0-
0-
0-

-3
0

and alternative views of the

Monthly fuel oil production, tpd monthly market for fuel oil
sales.
The analysis indicated that,
Figure 3 Monthly fuel oil production given the expected market for
fuel oil sales, achievable crude
How much fuel oil will be point values, but will vary throughput would decline by
produced by the refinery on a month on month and year on approximately 1% when oper-
monthly and annual basis? year, dependent upon the ating with the existing fuel oil
What is the optimum volume events that manifest them- storage volume of 60 000 m3.
of fuel oil storage for the modi- selves within the refinery Furthermore, crude throughput
fied production system? during any given time frame. losses would be expected to
How does the market for fuel Figure 3 shows the predicted increase significantly, to as
oil sales affect performance? distribution of fuel oil produc- much as 3%, should the market
It is important to note that tion on a monthly basis. While for fuel oil deteriorate in the
the monthly and annual average daily fuel oil produc- future.
production figures are not tion is 1114 t/d, there is a
Further work
The original study demon-
strated the ability of the model
Pessimistic Realistic Optimistic to provide valuable informa-
market view market view market view tion to support decisions
6 regarding the reduction of
Storage = 20000 m3
Crude throughput losses, %

operational costs. As a result,

5 Storage = 40000 m3
Storage = 60000 m3
further work was commis-
Storage = 80000 m3 sioned to extend the simulation
4
model to include a nearby tank
farm that is used for refinery
3 Base case storage blending operations as well as
2 for product storage. Extension
of the model to include this
1 additional facility was designed
to permit storage optimisation
0 to occur on a wider scale, as
1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 well as allowing the potential
Monthly maximum fuel oil sales, tpd impact of leasing a portion of
the tank farm to third parties to
Figure 4 Impact of fuel oil storage on crude throughput losses be studied.

4 PTQ Q4 2011 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000374

Conclusions
The ending of the brief golden
age of refining is forcing many
operators to examine new
means through which profitable
operations may be sustained
into the future. Many are
looking at exploiting the oppor-
tunities that optimisation of
their existing storage facilities
might provide, either through
a reduction in operating
costs or through the ability to
improve operational flexibility.
Optimising the storage within
a refinery facility is, however, a
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000374
complex task given the many
interrelated parameters that
affect the way that storage
capacity is utilised. Stochastic
simulation has been shown to
provide refinery operators with
valuable information that can
be utilised to evaluate the opti-
mum amount of storage
necessary for a given service.
Alastair Painter is DNVs Segment
Director for Refining and Petrochemicals,
based in Katy, Texas. He is responsible for
global business development activities
within refining and petrochemicals, as
well as developing DNVs plans for the
segment. He has a background in asset
risk management methodologies and
during the past 15 years has assisted
major energy operators in enhancing the
reliability and performance of their assets.
He holds a BSc in chemical engineering
from the University of Strathclyde,
Scotland. Email: alastair.painter@dnv.com
Links
More articles from the following
categories:
Storage & Handling
PTQ Q4 2011 5