Simplifying Water Treatment Program Simplifying Water Treatment Program for the Steam Generators for the Steam Generators

Fahad M. AlFahad M. Al--Senayin Senayin Saudi Aramco/Abqaiq PlantsSaudi Aramco/Abqaiq Plants

February 2, 2011February 2, 2011

© Copyright 2011, Saudi Aramco. All rights reserved. No portion of this presentation may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of Saudi Aramco.

• Definition

• Simplified Steam/Water Cycle

• Monitoring Process

• Simplification Reasons

• Simplifying Process

• SummaryOut

line:

Def

initi

on:

• Water Treatment (WT):It is a set of processes that condition water and control the

water’s impact on its surroundings.

• WT Simplification: It is a systematic approach aims to improve water

treatment quality by make it’s processes easier for controlling and monitoring.

Sim

plifi

ed S

team

/Wat

er C

ycle

:6 Condensate

Tanks

Users

Boilers (12)

HRSG (5)

Make Up W ater (ROP)

Water Losses (2)

Water Losses (1)

625# Steam

15% Make up

85% Return Cond.

Chemical Injection

Quality Monitoring

Out-Of-Spec

Frequency

Corrosion Rate

Treatm

ent

chem

ical c

ost

Scale Density

Index

Index, CCI

Quarte

rly/A

nn

ual C

heck

s

Mon

itorin

g Pr

oces

ses:

1. Complexity of the control• Out-Of-Spec frequency is high

• Blow down rate is high

• High chemical cost

• No automation, high human error

2. Change in water feed quality• 100% make up of Reverse Osmosis

3. Reassessment of chemical additive quantities• No consistent of chemical additive vs. BFW quality

• No consistent of chemical additives vs. steam quality

Sim

plifi

catio

n R

easo

ns:

Objectives:• Optimize types and numbers of chemical additives

• Maintain steam quality, reduce human interference and make cost saving

• Conserve natural resources, water & energy

• Reduce the plants’ environmental footprint

Phases:• Phase I: Data collection, analysis and startup of

chemical optimization

• Phase II: Chemical additive reduction

• Phase III: Automation with Documentation

Sim

plify

ing

Proc

ess:

Years

Phase III

Phase II

Phase I

Task

2010

1

2

4

5

3

2011 2012

:Si

mpl

ifica

tion

Proc

ess

Sim

plifi

ed S

team

/Wat

er C

ycle

:6 Condensate Tanks

Users

Boilers (12)

HRSG (5)

Make Up W ater (ROP)

Water Losses (2)

Water Losses (1)

625# Steam

15% Make up

85% Return Cond.

Chemical Injection

WHERE?

Fin Fan

Re-Boiler Re-Boiler

Steam Turbines

Condensate

Tank (6)

Deaerator (6)

Condensate

Water

T=310 FT=750 F

Steam (625 psig)

Steam

(60 psig)T=310 F

Condensate Water

RO Make-up

Return Condensate

•Polymer/PO4

•Caustic

•Antifoam

•Amine

•TSP (PO4)

•Caustic (Intermit)

•AntifoamDEHA

Boiler (12)

HRSG (5)

Fin Fan

Boiler (12)

HRSG (5)

Re-Boiler Re-Boiler

Steam Turbines

Condensate

Tank (6)

Deaerator (6)

Condensate

Water

T=310 FT=750 F

Steam (625 psig)

Steam

(60 psig)T=310 F

Condensate Water

RO Make-up

Return Condensate

•Polymer/PO4

•Caustic

•Antifoam

•Amine

WHERE? - continued

•Polymer/PO4

•Caustic

•Antifoam

•Inspect SGs

•SDI

•Chem. Clean

DEHA

Calculate COCOptimize Neutralizing . Amine

• Switch HRSG to TSP

• Caustic

• Antifoam

Change the control Parameters

TSP (PO4)

Caustic (Intermit)

Antifoam (Optional)

Test Condensate for:

pH, Fe, Cu, D.O2, TOC

Test:

D.O2

1.Reduce DEHA, or

2.Eliminate DEHA

Feed NeutralizingAmine if needed

Phase I:Phase II:

Phase III:• Automate testing of steam/water and feed of chemicals

– ETC: 1st Q 2012

• Develop a training program – ETC: 2nd Q 2012

• Exchange results with others – ETC: 2nd Q 2012

• Update the Water treatment contract conditions of APOD – ETC: 3rd Q 2012

• Utilize applicant software to predict/simulate cases in W/T – ETC: 4th Q 2012

Mai

n Ta

sks

for U

pcom

ing

Phas

es –

2012

, Con

tinue

s:

1. Save natural resources (gas and water)

2. Save $0.3MM annually on chemical costs.

3. Make chemical control easy through simplifying treatment

4. Align water treatment with International Standards

5. Transfer valuable knowledge and hands-on experience

Sum

mar

y:

Questions?

THANK YOU

• Better stability of control with TSP at all HRSGs

• 98% of survey analysis results are within spec

• Steam quality is with spec with no sign of carryover

• Tangible cost saving was $22 M in 2010

2010

:–

Out

com

e of

Pha

se I

Cor

rosi

on R

ate

–20

10:

Out

-Of-S

pec

Freq

uenc

y:

Annu

al C

ost –

2010

:

Che

mic

al In

dex

-201

0:

Area Action

Actual Cost & Saving ($/Y)Before After Saving

1 South Steam Plant

Optimize Amine (Morpholine) addition

43,000 33,444 9,556

2 HRSG of NGL, Plant #499

Change the scale Inhibitor type from Polymer/TSP to TSP

7,132 2,101 5,031

3 HRSG of Power Plant

10,698 3,152 7,546

Che

mic

al C

ost S

avin

g in

Pha

se I:

Total Cost $ 22,133