Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.

(PDVSA)

Updated Final Report

Conceptual Design Assessment

for
Industrial Services Condominium
of
Extra Heavy Oil Upgraders
in
Carabobo Field, Orinoco Belt

Rev.1
July 13, 2011
 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

L
Contents
Page
1. Introduction 3
2. Technical Assessment
2.1 Unit-101 ( NG Supply Unit ) 3
2.2 Unit-102 ( Steam Supply and Condensate Recovery Unit ) 3
2.3 Unit-103 ( Potable and Industrial Water Supply Unit ) 10
2.4 Unit-104 ( Boiler Feed Water Supply Unit ) 11
2.5 Unit-105 ( Cooling Water Supply Unit ) 13
2.6 Unit-106 ( Hydrogen Supply Unit ) 18
2.7 Unit-107 ( Nitrogen Supply Unit ) 22
2.8 Unit-108 ( Plant and Instrument Air Supply Unit ) 2４
2.9 Unit-109 ( Coke Storage Unit ) 25
2.10 Unit-110 ( Sulfur Storage Unit ) 26
2.11 Unit-112 ( Residual Water Treatment and Disposal Unit ) 27
2.12 Unit-340 ( Crude Storage Unit ) 27
2.13 Plot Plan 29
3. Updated Utility Block Flow Diagram 30
4. RAM Analysis 31
5. EPC Cost Estimate (Class VI) 33
　　　

　Attachments:
2-6-1 : Process Description and Features of Toyo's Hydrogen Plant
2-6-2 : Typical Process Flow Diagrams of Toyo's Hydrogen Plant
2-9-1 : Coke Storage Unit

Rev. Updated Final Report 1

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2-9-2 : Reference of Coke, Sulfur Storage Unit

2-10 : Sulfur Storage Unit
2-13-1 : General Plot Plan - Case1
2-13-2 : General Plot Plan - Case2
2-13-3 : General Plot Plan - Case3
2-13-4 : General Plot Plan - Comparison
3-1 : Updated Utility Block Flow Diagram
3-2 : Simple Utility Block Flow Diagram
3-3 : Additional Comments on Conceptual Design
3-4 : Comments on PFD
4 : RAM Analysis Report (by DNV)
5-1 : EPC Cost Report (Base Case)
5-2 : EPC Cost Report (Updated Case)
6 : Comparison of Configuration Location

Rev. Updated Final Report 2

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

1. Introduction

This techno-economics assessment has been prepared by Toyo Engineering

Corporation (“Toyo”) for Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”) as the updated
final report reflecting PDVSA's comments and discussions at the clarification
meeting on May 25 and 26, 2011 on the final report in response to KOM dated
February 18, 2011 and PDVSA’s work order dated February 07,2011 to perform the
technical assessment and cost estimate of the conceptual design (“Conceptual
Design Assessment”)　of the industrial services condominium for the extra heavy oil
upgraders (to 42°API from 8.5°API) in Carabobo Field, Orinoco Belt, Venezuela
prepared by Venezolana de Proyectos Integrados VEPICA, C.A. (“Vepica”) .

2. Technical Assessment

Toyo's technical assessments for Conceptual Design are updated and summarized
unitwisely.

2.1 Unit-101 ( NG Supply Unit )

On the interim report of this assessments, Toyo recommended to install Gas

Expander to recover the energy as electricity, however, this was canceled by
instructions of PDVSA. And also, the elimination of HP fuel gas separator, V-0102,
was canceled.

According to the above PDVSA’s comments to the interim report, Toyo considers
the same system as original scheme issued by Vepica for this assessment.

2.2 Unit-102 ( Steam Supply and Condensate Recovery Unit )

(1) Power Recovery from HP Steam

Current Design:
In the conceptual design, only HP steam is exported to Upgraders and required
MP/LP steam is produced in each Upgrader by let down from HP steam.

Assessment and Recommendation:

Toyo also agrees to transfer only HP steam to Upgraders to avoid draining of
MP/LP steam due to long distance between Condominium and Upgraders.
However, let down from HP to MP/LP steam is loss of energy. To utilize that energy,
we would like to recommend following ideas in Upgraders. These ideas could also
be applied in Condominium because LP steam is produced by let down of HP
steam.

Case-1: Some critical drivers to be driven by backpressure steam turbine drivers

Case-2: Install backpressure steam turbine generator (STG) to meet the
requirement of MP and/or LP steam consumption

Rev. Updated Final Report 3

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Outline scheme and control of each case would be as follows.

Case 1 Case 2

HP HP
Eq.1 Eq.2
STG

PC PC

LP LP

Users Users

In Case-1, as an example of such candidate of critical drivers, the following will be

considered in Upgraders.
- Recycle gas compressor in MHCU, NDHDT
- Coker gas compressor in DCU
- BFW pump in HMU
- Combustion air blower in SRU
- LO/SO pump

Also in Condominium, the following machines will be such candidate.

- Forced draft fan for boiler
- BFW pump
- Demineralized water pump to deaerator
- Plant & instrument air compressor
- Cooling water pump

Selection of steam turbine drivers is to be decided considering overall steam

balance, required steam consumption, kW of drivers, process characteristics, etc.
However in Case-1, let down steam could not become zero, although amount could
be reduced by operating turbines. Depending on the steam balance, operating of
turbines should be adjusted. Also maintenance might be trouble because of lots of
turbines.

Rev. Updated Final Report 4

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

On the other hand in Case-2, let down steam could be zero operating the STG
depending on the requirement of LP steam. Although backpressure steam turbine
cannot control generated power, required power for the Complex could be
controlled by the import power from the PSO/grid. In addition, as STG is the only
turbine, maintenance might be simpler than Case-1.

Summary of qualitative comparison is as below.

  Case 1 Case 2
Turbine Many Turbines Only one STG
Minimized but Not
Let down Steam　 Zero
Zero
Operating turbines to
Operation No adjustment
be adjusted
Maintenance Troublesome Simple
Driver change from Additional STG is
Investment Cost
motor to turbine required

Although detail information for Upgrader steam balance is not available, if half of
exported HP steam to Upgrader, that is 138t/h, is assumed to be utilized as HP/LP
backpressure steam turbine generator (STG) instead of let down, recovered power
by the STG would be approx. 13,000kW. Thus totally 39,000kW would be recovered
for three (3) Upgraders.

In the Condominium, Updated Utility Block Flow Diagram is indicated in Attachment

3-1. If steam turbine drivers are applied in Case 1 based on this balance, steam
balance would be as follows.

Case 1 Steam Turbine Drivers

Item No. Service No Steam
HP P-0403A Demi. Water Pump for Utility 1 2.6 t/h
Steam Turbine Demi. Water Pump for H2
Drivers P-0406A/B/C 3 9.7 t/h
Unit
P-0412A/B BFW Pump for utility 2 17.9 t/h
P-0413A/B/C BFW Pump for Upgrader 3 28.0 t/h
P-0504A CW Pump for Utility 1 2.0 t/h
SG-0201A/B/C Forced Draft Fan 3 11.2 t/h
K-0802A/B Air Compressor 2 35.0 t/h
18.6t/h 106.4t/h Total Steam 106.4t/h
PC

LP
125t/h

Users

Rev. Updated Final Report 5

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Case 2 steam balance would be as follows.

Case 2

HP

Air compressor
STG
11,000 kw

107.5t/h 17.5t/h
P

LP
125t/h

Users

Simple payout time of STG in Case 2 is calculated below comparing with let down
case.

  Let down Case Power Recovery by STG

Recovered Power Base 11,000 kW

Investment Cost Base 25 MM USD
Saving Power Cost Base 6.6 MM USD
Simple Payout Base 3.8 years
Note: Power cost is assumed as 0.06875USD/kWH, which figure is being used in El
Palito refinery

As it is generally said that it would be feasible if simple payout time is within 3-5
years, to have power recovery STG seems feasible at this condition.

Whether to apply Case 1 or Case 2 is to be decided at further stage when the

detailed steam and condensate balances become available. Also necessary turbine
drivers are to be decided to keep steam generation for a while in case of total power
failure.

(2) Condensate Treatment

Current Design:
In the conceptual design, condensate is returned into Condensate Tank and sent to
Deaerator in Condominium without any treatment. Its amount is shown as 108.1 t/h,
which corresponds to 10% of net generated steam in Upgraders and Condominium,
and its temperature is 50 °C. Condensate generated in Upgraders is not included in
this figure.
Assessment and Recommendation:

Rev. Updated Final Report 6

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Condensate generated in Upgraders should be recovered in deaerator. Toyo

proposes that deaerator for Upgrader BFW is located in Condominium as common
for utility.

Under above assumption, condensate return flow of 108.1t/h seems very low
considering export flow to Upgraders for HP steam of 828t/h and BFW flow of
555t/h. 108.1t/h is only 7.8% of exported flow of total 1,383t/h for steam related
system. From our experiences, 50% recovery could be expected. If 50% of exported
flow was recovered, 692t/h condensate would be returned. Consequently capacity
of demineralized water package could be reduced by 584t/h. This could be verified
when detailed steam balance in Upgraders becomes available.

Another concern is leakage of oil into condensate. There is a possibility of oil

leakage into condensate where process fluid pressure is higher than steam
pressure at heat exchangers. Such condensate is classified as possibly
contaminated condensate. For protection of oil contamination of condensate, Toyo
recommends the following countermeasures.

1) Segregate condensate collection system into clean condensate and possibly

contaminated condensate.
2) Install oil detector on possibly contaminated condensate line unit wise or
equipment wise to detect leakage.
3) Install oil removal unit for treating possibly contaminated condensate.

For oil removal unit, following treatment methods are considered.

- Coalescer
- Precoat Filter
- Activated Carbon Filter
Coalescer is to treat condensate through media (fiber, membrane, resins…) packed
in the vessel. Dispersed micrometer-order droplets are captured by the
microfilaments of media and coalesce as they move along the media to form
millimeter-order drops, which readily undergo gravity-driven stratification on
emergence from the element. As media don’t hold coalesced oil, it is not required to
replace media. Coalescer is able to separate comparatively higher concentrated oil.

Precoat filter is to treat condensate through a layer of precoat material (aluminum

hydroxide, cellulose, etc.) on a screen. Oil in water accumulates on the precoat
gradually increasing the filter’s pressure drop. Once the pressure drop reaches set
point, the filter is scoured with air. Once the backwash is completed, the additional
precoat material is pumped to precoat filter. Oil content will be reduced from the
order of 10mg/L to 1mg/L

Rev. Updated Final Report 7

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Activated carbon filter is to treat condensate through packed bed of activated

carbon in the vessel. Activated carbon has porous formation and adsorbs oil. When
activated carbon is saturated with oil, it is replaced by new one. As adsorption
capacity is better at lower temperature, hot condensate, usually more than 100 °C ,
should be cooled down less than 60 °C . Cooling is also required to avoid silica leak
from activated carbon itself. Oil Content will be reduced from the order of 1mg/L to
0mg/L

Outline of the comparison of these treatment methods is as below.

Advantage Disadvantage
Coalescer No replacement is required. Further treatment is required.
Much oil could be treated.
Precoat Filter Not a little oil could be Precoat material injection unit
treated. is required.
Activated Carbon Filter Lower investment cost Condensate cool down is
required to avoid silica leak
Precise treatment can be
from activated carbon
done

Among the above treatment methods, Toyo recommends to apply Activated Carbon
Filter after cooling down by air cooler for possibly contaminated condensate
because of lower investment cost and many experiences.

Cooler Activated Deaerator

Carbon Filter
Possibly Contaminated
Condensate
100℃ 60℃

Steam

Cleaned condensate is to be recovered directly into deaerator. If there is turbine

condensate from condensing turbine, its temperature would be around 50 °C.
　
(3) Steam Header Pressure Control
Current Design
Pressure control system on each steam header is shown in PFD.

Assessment and Recommendation:

Consumption for each user such as Upgrader, air compressors is controlled by
upstream PIC. However, steam requirement for each user should not be regulated

Rev. Updated Final Report 8

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

and should be sent depending on the need. Such control is effective only when user
is the target for steam shedding to protect HP steam header pressure in case of
emergency.

Toyo recommends the following pressure control system.

- There are two sources for HP steam generation, one is from Hydrogen Supply
Units and the other is from Utility Boilers. As generated steam from Hydrogen
Supply Units depends on hydrogen requirement, control cannot be done.
Therefore, HP steam pressure control should be done by utility boiler master
controller depending on steam requirement.
- LP steam header pressure control should be done by adjusting steam flow to
backpressure type STG. Therefore, load for the STG is floating depending on LP
steam requirement.
- Let down station should be operated when normal control described above is not
done due to STG failure, etc.

Schematic of the control system is indicated as below.

from Hydrogen Unit

PC PC

HP
Air
STG Compressor
Users
Boiler ABC*

PC

Users
* Automatic Boiler
Control System

Localization of Unit-102 (comparison of configuration location) is referred to

Attachment-6.

Rev. Updated Final Report 9

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2.3 Unit-103 ( Potable and Industrial Water Supply Unit )

(1) Water Balance and Storage Capacity

Current Design:
Total industrial water and potable water is shown as 3,721m3/h and 33m3/h,
respectively. Storage capacity for each receiving tank is specified as one (1) day
storage for industrial water and three (3) day storage for potable water.

Assessment and Recommendation:

As break down of industrial water of 3,721m3/h, consumption of Boiler Feed Water
Supply Unit is shown as 2,308m3/h. This amount will be 3,704m3/h for industrial
water and 2,290m3/h for Boiler Feed Water Supply Unit if deaerator is shifted to
adequate location as pointed out in Par. 2.4 Unit-104 and Attachment 3-1 Upgraded
Utility Block Flow Diagram. In case more condensate of 692t/h is returned as
pointed out in Par. 2.2 Unit-102 instead of 108.1t/h, imported industrial water will be
reduced to 3,120m3/h.

Cooling water make up of 621m3/h seems adequate considering concentration

number of five (5) as pointed out in Par.2.5 Unit-105.

Consumption for each Upgrader of 200t/h seems utility station use. If it is for utility
station, it is not necessary to count the simultaneous consumption for three (3)
Upgraders into normal.

As for storage capacity of receiving tank, it would be adequate.

From the economic and environmental view point, it is important to reduce industrial
water consumption. As for water saving idea, following is considered including
recycle of treated waste water from Upgraders.

- Reuse of stripped sour water for ADU desalter wash water

- Reuse of stripped sour water for DCU coke cutting water
- Reuse of stripped sour water for spray water for coke and sulfur storage and
handling
- Reuse of biologically treated waste water as cooling water make-up if quality such
as TDS (total dissolved solids), organics, chloride, etc. would meet the
requirement. In this case cooling water blow down could be utilized for plantation if
concentrated TDS would meet the requirement. For advanced biological treatment,
Membrane Bio Reactor could be considered. MBR could also reduce required plot
area.
- Reuse of treated waste water for boiler feed water. In this case, further treatment
by such as Reverse Osmosis method, etc. would be required for treated waste
water.

Whether to apply the above water saving idea is to be decided at the further stage
when detail balance becomes available by making economic evaluation, etc.

Rev. Updated Final Report 10

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Localization of Unit-103 (comparison of configuration location) is referred to

Attachment-6.
2.4 Unit-104 ( Boiler Feed Water Supply Unit )
　　　　
(1) Location of Deaerator
Current Design:
In the conceptual design, three Deaerators are located just downstream of
Demineralized Water Package and deaerated water is sent to two(2) sets of
Demineralized Water Tank at the temperature of 27 °C. From Demineralized Water
Tank, BFW is transferred to Utility Boilers, Hydrogen Supply Units and Upgraders.

Condensate
LP Steam

BFW
Industrial Water

Deaerator
Demineralizer

Assessment and Recommendation:

This configuration of installing Deaerators upstream of Demineralized Water Tank is
quite strange. Deaerated water temperature will be more than 100 °C to get
effective deaeration and therefore deaerated water cannot be stored in atmospheric
tank.

Therefore, Toyo recommends installing Deaerators downstream of Demineralized

Water Tank. Thus, flow is Demineralized Water Package  Demineralized Water
Tank  Demineralized Water Pump  Deaerator  Boiler Feed Water Pump 
Steam Generators.

Condensate

Industrial Water
LP Steam

BFW
Demineralizer Deaerator

Rev. Updated Final Report 11

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

As for location and number of Deaerators, Toyo recommends the following

configuration from the view point of reliability, economics and safety view points.

- Dedicated deaerator in each Hydrogen Supply Unit because of following reasons.

・ for efficient heat recovery in Hydrogen Unit to reduce operation cost
・ for minimizing high pressure BFW line to reduce investment cost
・ for stable operation because operation of Hydrogen Unit will not be disturbed
from other units if deaerator is installed in Hydrogen Unit

- One common deaerator for Utility Boiler and Upgraders. Recovered condensate
from Upgraders will be returned to the deaerator.

- Dedicated BFW Pump for Utility Boiler

- Dedicated BFW Pump for Upgraders

Short specification of BFW system for Utility would be as follows.

- Utility Deaerator : 910t/h x 1
- BFW Pump for Utility Boiler : 220t/h x 66bar x (2+1)
- BFW Pump for Upgraders : 220t/h x 66bar x (3+1)

Localization of Unit-104 (comparison of configuration location) is referred to

Attachment-6.

Rev. Updated Final Report 12

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2.5 Unit-105 ( Cooling Water Supply Unit )

(1) Location of Cooling Tower

Current Design:
In the conceptual design, one common cooling water system of 31,721m3/h is
provided for Upgraders and Condominium and located in the Condominium.

Assessment and Recommendation:

Configuration of conceptual design would suggest the following disadvantages.

- Large size of cooling water line is distributed from Condominium to Upgraders for
long distance to result in higher investment and operation cost.
- In case oil leakage into cooling water line is observed in Upgraders, leakage in
one Upgrader would affect to whole cooling water system. From a maintenance
point of view, such system is not recommendable.

To overcome such disadvantages, segregated cooling water system is considered

as follows.

- Three cooling water systems dedicated for each Upgrader and Hydrogen Supply
Unit assuming that Hydrogen Supply Unit is installed in each Upgrader area.
- One cooling water system for Utility Facilities

Short specifications for each system would be as follows.

System/Equipment Specification
1 Cooling Water System for No. 1 Upgrader and No. 1
Hydrogen Supply Unit:
- Cooling Tower
10,500m3/h x (44 – 34) °C
- Cooling Water Pump
5,300m3/h x (2+1)
2 Cooling Water System for No. 2 Upgrader and No. 2
Hydrogen Supply Unit:
- Cooling Tower
10,500m3/h x (44 – 34) °C
- Cooling Water Pump
5,300m3/h x (2+1)
3 Cooling Water System for No. 3 Upgrader and No. 3
Hydrogen Supply Unit:
- Cooling Tower
10,500m3/h x (44 – 34) °C
- Cooling Water Pump
5,300m3/h x (2+1)
4 Cooling Water System for Utility Facilities:
- Cooling Tower 250m3/h x (44 – 34) °C
- Cooling Water Pump 250m3/h x (2+1)

Rev. Updated Final Report 13

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Then following alternatives were compared including current design.

Case-1 : 3 Cooling Water Systems for each Upgrader located in each Uprader and
1 Cooling Water System for Utilities in Condominium

Case-2 : 3 Cooling Water Systems for each Upgrader and 1 Cooling Water
System for Utilities, all located in Condominium

Case-3 : 1 Centralized Cooling Water System located in Condominium (current

design)

Advantages and disadvantages for each case are described as follows.

Case-1:
- From the view point of investment cost, this case is the lowest as pipe size is
minimum and distribution length is also minimum.
- From the view point of operation cost, this case is the lowest as pumping power
is minimum due to short distribution pipe.
- In case oil leakage into cooling water is observed, only the subject system is
affected. Other systems are sound.
- Operation management of cooling water quality control including chemical
injection is done separately for each system and location is widely dispersed.
- Maintenance of equipment might require more time due to increased number of
equipment

Case-2 :
- From the view point of investment cost, this case is near to Case 1, however a
little bit higher than Case 1 due to longer distribution pipe length than Case 1.
- From the view point of operation cost, this case is near to Case 1, however a
little bit higher due to longer distribution pipe length than Case 1.
- In case oil leakage into cooling water is observed, only the subject system is
affected. Other systems are sound.
- Operation management of cooling water quality control including chemical
injection is done separately for each system. However, location of each system
is near than Case 1.
- Maintenance of equipment might require more time due to increased number of
equipment

Case-3 (Current design):

- From the view point of investment cost, this case is the highest as pipe size is
maximum and distribution length is also maximum.
- From the view point of operation cost, this case is the highest as pumping
power is maximum due to long distribution pipe.
- In case oil leakage into cooling water is observed from one Upgrader, whole
system is affected.
- Operation management of cooling water quality including chemical injection is
easier comparing with segregated cooling water systems.
- Maintenance of equipment is easy due to small number of equipment

Rev. Updated Final Report 14

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Economic comparison of three alternatives is as follows.

(Unit: MMUSD)
  Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Investment Cost
132 141 146
(Facility + Interconnection)
5 year Operation Cost
21 24 38
(Pump & Fan)
Investment + 5 year Operation 153 165 184
Note: Power cost is assumed as 0.06875USD/kWH, which figure is being used in
El Palito refinery

As a summary, following comparison was made from various view points.

Case 3
　 Case 1 Case 2
(Current design)
Investment cost Excellent Moderate Inferior
Operation cost Excellent Moderate Inferior
Countermeasures in Easy Easy Inferior
case oil leakage
Management of cooling Moderate Moderate Easy
water quality
Maintenance Moderate Moderate Easy

From the economical view point, Case 1 is the most attractive. Case 2 would also
be acceptable if difficulty of operation & maintenance management and accessibility
in Case 1 is weighted.

On the other hand, Case 3 is not recommendable due to following reason.

- Higher investment and operation cost due to long distance interconnecting line.
- If common pumps and interconnecting pipe are selected, selection of pumping
head would consider the largest friction loss to result in higher power
consumption.
- In case oil leakage into cooling water is observed from one Upgrader, whole
system is affected.

In the current design, area for cooling tower is given as 20m width x 100m length
for 31,721m3/h. This seems so small. According to our experiences, 20m with x
160 m length would be adequate for many suppliers to offer.

In case, dedicated cooling tower is planned, estimated area would be as follows.

Cooling Tower for each Upgrader and Hydrogen Supply Unit:

20m width x 55m length

Cooling Tower for Utility Facilities : 4m width x 6m length

Area estimation of the above is based on our experiences below.

Rev. Updated Final Report 15

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Specification Size of Tower Remarks

15,000 m3/h x (43 – 33) °C 14 x 79 m Pit is not included
14,400 m3/h x (37 – 27) °C 16 x 56 m Pit is not included
13,200 m3/h x (40 – 30) °C 16x 42 m Pit is not included
10, 000 m3/h x (38.5 – 28.5) °C 15x 49 m Pit is not included
8,000 m3/h x (41 – 31) °C 13x 48 m Pit is not included
200 m3/h x (40 – 30) °C 3.2x 5.5 m Pit is not included

(2) Design Wet Bulb Temperature

Current Design:
Design wet bulb temperature is shown as 24.2 °C in the conceptual design.

Assessment and Recommendation:

However, we think 24.2°C seems lower for design considering air temperature and
relative humidity. Climatic conditions are given in the conceptual design table
below .

　　　Given data in Doc. No. 0008-105-IP147000

Temperature
Maximum absolute air temperature 29.8 °C
Minimum absolute air temperature 25.5 °C
Min/max air temperature 27.7 °C
Wet bulb temperature 24.2 °C
Relative humidity
Monthly average recorded 74.9%
Maximum recorded 82.0%
Minimum recorded 64.0%

From the above data, calculated wet bulb temperature based on various
combination of dry air temperature and relative humidity is shown in the table
below.

Calculated wet bulb temperature in combination dry bulb temperature and relative
humidity
Dry air temperature Relative humidity Wet bulb temperature
Max. absolute 29.8 °C Max. recorded 82.0% 27.3°C
Max. absolute 29.8 °C Monthly average 74.9% 26.1°C
Min/max temp 27.7 °C Monthly average 74.9% 24.2°C

From the calculation result, given wet bulb temperature of 24.2 °C seems the
combination of min/max temp of 27.7 °C and monthly average humidity of 74.9%.

Rev. Updated Final Report 16

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Usually design wet bulb temperature is decided approx. 98% probability of the
hottest month. Considering this, 24.2 °C wet bulb temperature seems lower than
98% probability.

According to the above Toyo comments in the Interim Report, PDVSA suggested to
use 27.3°C wet bulb temperature in this engineering phase. This should be verified
in further engineering stage by reviewing more climatic data.

(3) Cooling Water Temperature

Current design:
Design cooling water supply temperature of 34 °C is specified in the conceptual
design.

Assessment and Recommendation:

This temperature seems higher even if wet bulb temperature is 27.3 °C. Approach
temperature, which is the difference of supply cooling water temperature and design
wet bulb temperature, is usually applied approx. 4 to 6 °C. This is to be carefully
investigated and decided at further engineering stage. Parameters affecting
investment and operation cost are as follows.

Cooling Tower Surface area for Cooling Water

process Heat Pump
Exchanger
Lower CW Size increase Decrease (*) No difference
Temperature
Fan kW increase
Higher CW Size decrease Increase (*) No difference
Temperature
Fan kW decrease
Note (*): Extent of surface area decrease/increase depends also on process fluid
temperature.

(4) Make-up Water Flow Rate

Current Design:
In the conceptual design, make up water flow is shown as 621.2m3/h for circulating
cooling water flow of 27,581m3/h with the temperature of 34 – 44°C.

Assessment and Recommendation:

This seems that the concentration number of cooling water is assumed as five (5).
This is reasonable to keep good quality of cooling water considering raw water
quality and water balance view point. However, evaporation and mist loss of
569m3/h seems high. Estimated evaporation will be around 496m3/h, which is
approx. 1.8% of circulating flow with 10 °C temperature difference. From this, mist
loss is calculated as 73m3/h. This loss corresponds to 0.26% of circulating flow.
Usually mist loss of cooling tower is limited less than 0.1% of circulating water,
which is 28m3/h. Then, evaporation and mist loss will be 524m3/h and blow down
will be 97m3/h in case of concentration number of five (5).

Rev. Updated Final Report 17

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2.6 Unit-106 ( Hydrogen Supply Unit )

Assessment and Recommendation of Hydrogen Supply Unit

　 In the conceptual design, Hydrogen Supply Unit as 3 working + 1 spare and
installation in Condominium are considered. However, currently Hydrogen Supply
Unit is being considered same as one of process plant and it is no problem to
achieve two years consecutive operation. Toyo designs Hydrogen Supply Unit
considering two years consecutive operation normally and these plants are
operating without any problems actually. 　 And DNV reported according to their
experiences and data that unavailability of current Hydrogen Supply Unit is 0.42%
as unavailability of best 50% units and 0.05% as unavailability of best 20% (Refer
to Upgrader Utility RAM Analysis of the attached DNV’s report). Therefore, Toyo
recommends Hydrogen Supply Unit should be installed in each Upgrader without
spare.

Toyo evaluated three cases that 4 (3+1, actually all 4 plants are being operated at
lower load normally) H2 plants are installed in Condominium, 3 (3+0) H 2 plants in
Condominium and individual H2 plant in each Upgrader (3 H 2 plants totally) in
terms of safety (trip of H2 plant), Operability, Economics and TIC below.

Original
Case Updated Alt. Updated (Vepica's Report)
Location Each Upgrader Condominium Condominium
Number of H2 Plant 3 3+0 3+1
99.95%
H2 Plant Availability 99.95%
(higher than other units) 99.95%
(RAM Analysis) (slightly up)
→ No Spare

Backup by spare H2
Safety (Backup steam Plant (But backup by
supply @ one H2 plant Smooth backup by boiler Smooth backup by boiler boiler is quicker and
trip smoother)
A B C
Operability (close communication)
Easy due to integration 　 　
with process plants
TIC MMUS$ 1145.4 (- Inconn piping) 1145.4 1391.2

And also Toyo proposes each Hydrogen Supply Unit shall install dedicated
Deaerator based on the following reasons.
1) Each Upgrader can operate and manage easily and independently such as
start-up, shut-down, change of unit load, etc. without fluctuation of other
Upgraders and utility plants.
2) H2 plant is a big producer and also consumer of steam. Therefore, from view
points of effective heat recovery and reduction of construction cost, deaerator
shall be installed in each H2 plant.

Rev. Updated Final Report 18

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Toyo studied Hydrogen Supply Unit using our system and experiences. And the
followings are our estimations and results of our study.
(Refer to Attachment 2-6-1 for process description and features of Toyo’s Hydrogen
Plant and Attachment 2-6-2 for the Typical Process Flow Diagrams of Toyo's
Hydrogen Plant.)

(1) Process Parameter & Scheme

Steam Methane Reformer Conditions

・Inlet Temperature 500 °C (Assumption)
・S/C 3.0 (Process Description)
・Outlet Pressure 33.5 barG (Determined from Pressure Balance)
・Outlet Temperature 869.3 °C
(Control Temperature in order to adjust H2 Product Flow Rate to Vepica’s one)
・Approach Temperature REF 10 °C (Assumption)
Shift 0 °C (Assumption)

HTS Conditions
・Inlet Temperature 350 °C (Assumption)
・Approach Temperature 28 °C (Assumption)

PSA Outlet Condition (Process Description)

・H2 Purity 99.9 vol%
・H2 Recovery 88 %
・Outlet Pressure 29.3 barG
・CO + CO2 50 ppmv (max)
・H2 Product 918,144 Nm3/h (total)
306,048 Nm3/h(1 train of Hydrogen Supply Unit without
Spare)
(This H2 product rate seems to exceed PSA capacity of 1 train,
Therefore, actually multiple t rains of PSA will be required.)

Remarks
・Recycle H2 line is added
・Combustion Air Preheater in convection section of SMR is added.
・E-0601 is changed into Waste Heat Boiler.
・Deaerator is added.
・Hot Condensate Separator before E-0606 is added.
・E-0605 is changed into Deaerator Economizer.
・Hot and cold process condensates are sent to Deaerator directly.

(2) Flue Gas Balance & Steam Balance Calculation

Air Composition
・Composition(Dry Base) N2 0.7809
O2 0.2095
CO2 0.0003
Ar 0.0093
・Relative Humidity 74.9 % @ 27.7 °C

Rev. Updated Final Report 19

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Flue Gas Balance

・Air Temperature at APH Out
・Combustion Air
・Radiant Box Out Temperature
・Stack Inlet Temperature
・Heat Loss
300 °C (ΔT hot approach = 50 °C )
10% Excess (Burner Standard)
1020 °C (Toyo Reformer Simulation)
150 °C (Assumption)
2% (Assumption)

Steam Balance
・Blow down flow rate is 2% of BFW flow rate.
・BFW sent to deaerator recovery heat as much as possible in order to generate
much more steam than that of Vepica.
・Heat loss of HP steam after steam super heat coil is 5 °C equivalent.
・Deaerator conditions
1. Outlet Temperature 110 °C (Assumption)
2. Deaerator Eco. Outlet Temperature 95 °C (Assumption)
3. Vent Steam (1 train) 0.5 t/h (Assumption)

(3) Result

Table 1 Calculation Result

　 　 　 　 Toyo Vepica
NG Consumption
Feed NG Nm3/hr 347,395 347,395
Fuel NG Nm3/hr 50,302 74,123
　 Total 　 397,696 421,518
Steam Generation & Consumption
Exported HP t/h 902.0 721.9
Steam
Imported LP t/h 30.8 -
Steam
Utility 　 　 　 　
　 Imported BFW t/h 1,310.5 1,502.1

4) Conclusion
Toyo has some merits from our own result.
・ Total natural gas consumption decreases by 6%.
・ Exported HP steam production increases by 25%.
・ Imported BFW consumption decreases by 13%.

Addition of PSA (Pressure Swing Absorption) Units in Hydrocracker Units

Rev. Updated Final Report 20

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

As an alternative for reduction of total hydrogen consumption in Upgraders, Toyo

proposes addition of PSA units in Hydrocracker units. Because operation pressure
of Hydrocracker unit and hydrogen concentration in off-gas from Hydrocracker unit
are high, therefore, high hydrogen recovery rate using PSA unit can be expected.
By recirculation of the recovered hydrogen from PSA unit, Toyo considers that the
capacity reduction of Hydrogen Supply Units can be achieved. Therefore, Toyo
recommends that installation of PSA unit shall be considered as one of
alternatives at the selection of Upgrader’s scheme.

Rev. Updated Final Report 21

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2.7 Unit-107 ( Nitrogen Supply Unit )

　　　
(1) Consumption of Nitrogen Supply Unit
Current Design:
In the conceptual design, total nitrogen continuous consumption of 20,813Nm3/h is
shown.

Assessment and Recommendation:

According to the break down of 20,813Nm3/h, consumption is 350Nm3/h for each
Upgrader, 14,882Nm3/h for crude oil storage tank, 4,881Nm3/h for BFW supply
unit. We suppose that 14,882Nm3/h for crude storage tank and 4,881Nm3/h for
BFW supply unit (Demineralized Water Tank) are thermal inbreathing for nitrogen
blanketing tank. As thermal inbreathing does not constantly occur, it is preferable
for such consumption as intermittent consumption.

(2) Capacity of Nitrogen Supply Unit

Current Design:
In the conceptual design, only design flow rate of 24,405Nm3/h is given. Production
modes for cryogenic type Nitrogen Supply Unit are not specified. For liquid nitrogen
storage, two (2) day hold up of 24,405Nm3/h is specified.

Assessment and Recommendation:

Cryogenic type Nitrogen Supply Unit has various operation modes like gas
production only and gas & liquid production. Usually normal consumption is covered
by normal production of gaseous nitrogen from cryogenic type Nitrogen Supplier
and intermittent and peak consumption is covered by vaporized nitrogen through
Vaporizer from Liquid Nitrogen Tank.

For liquid nitrogen storage, if storage capacity is calculated based on two (2) day
hold up of 24,405Nm3/h, it will be approx. 2,100m3, which is too large. As peak
consumption is not expected to continue long time, it would be not necessary to
consider two (2) day hold up at peak flow.

Therefore, Toyo tentatively recommends following equipment short specification for

Nitrogen Supply Unit. This is to be further studied considering pattern of
consumption modes, requirement at Upgrader start up, etc. in detail. Cost
estimation will be done based on this specification.

- Cryogenic Nitrogen Supply Unit:

- Mode 1 : Gas & Liquid mode (Gas 5,000Nm3/h / Liquid 500Nm3/h)
- Mode 2 : Gas only : Vendor to specify
- Liquid Nitrogen Vaporizer: 24,405Nm3/h
- Liquid Nitrogen Storage Tank: 8hr storage at peak flow of 24,405Nm3/h,
thus 350m3

(3) Alternative selection of Nitrogen Supply Unit

Alternatively, floating roof type could be applied for diluted crude tank instead of
cone roof type with nitrogen blanketing as referred in Par. 2.12. In this case,
estimation of nitrogen consumption would be as follows.

Rev. Updated Final Report 22

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

(Unit: Nm3/h)
Normal Intermittent Remarks
Upgrader 1 759 Peak consumption for one Upgrader
Upgrader 2 350
Upgrader 3 350
Tank blanketing 4,881 DM water tank

Start up 3,000 Each Upgrader

Emergency shut down 9,000 For 3 Upgraders simultaneously
Back up for Instrument Air 9,850
Total 1,459 9,850

In this case, specification of nitrogen supply unit would be as follows.

- Cryogenic Nitrogen Supply Unit:

- Mode 1 : Gas & Liquid mode (Gas 2,000Nm3/h / Liquid 500Nm3/h)
- Mode 2 : Gas only : Vendor to specify
- Liquid Nitrogen Vaporizer: 10,000 Nm3/h
- Liquid Nitrogen Storage Tank: 8hr storage at peak flow of10,000Nm3/h,
thus 150m3

In this case, cost reduction of Nitrogen Unit would be expected by approximately

25 million USD comparing with updated case described in above Par. 2.7 (2).

Localization of Unit-107 (comparison of configuration location) is referred to

Attachment-6.

Rev. Updated Final Report 23

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2.8 Unit-108 ( Plant and Instrument Air Supply Unit )

(1) Instrument Air Reservoir

Current Design:
In the conceptual design, instrument air reservoir capacity is calculated as 444m3
based on 2 minute hold up.

Assessment and Recommendation:

As instrument air is essential for plant operation, it should be supplied even at
emergency case such as power failure, etc. for plant safety shut down. Then Toyo
recommends installing 20-30 minute hold up reservoir. In case 20 minute holds up
from 8 barg to 4 barg, which is minimum allowable pressure for instrument air,
required reservoir capacity would be approx. 1,050m3 instead of 444m3. During
this time, Upgraders could be safely shut down at emergency even if air
compressor is stopped. As time to be required for emergency shut down is
depending on the nature of process plant, required hold up time should be further
studied in detail. In addition, Toyo recommends installing such reservoir in each
Upgrader because distance of Condominium and Upgrader is long.

(2) Consumption of Plant Air

Current Design:
In the conceptual design, consumption of plant air and instrument air is
5,456Nm3/h and 9,850Nm3/h, respectively. This is based on that plant air per utility
station is 170Nm3/h and instrument air per controller is 3.5Nm3/h.

Assessment and Recommendation:

Break down of plant air consumption of 5,456Nm3/h shows simultaneous usage of
utility stations. As utility station usage is intermittent, it is too conservative to count
this simultaneous usage in normal consumption. Therefore, plant air consumption
and air compressor capacity could be reduced in the detail stage, however as cost
estimation basis, current equipment specification will be used.

Localization of Unit-108 (comparison of configuration location) is referred to

Attachment-6.

Rev. Updated Final Report 24

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2.9 Unit-109 ( Coke Storage Unit )

Coke Storage Unit shall be designed with the aim of handling coke produced by Delayed
Coking Units (DCU) and minimizing dust emissions that will be generated by moving and
storing of the material. As a global movement to consider the environmental issue, it will be
better to cover coke pile to prevent dust emission. But on the other hand, on the view point
of economic aspect, it is also required to assess the actual situation, whether coke dust is
actually polluted surroundings of the existing coke stock yard without cover as well as
window direction, housing conditions of the neighborhood. In consideration with above merit
and demerit on installation of coke storage cover, it is advisable to examine the actual
environmental impact of the PDVSA existing coke storage such as Jose refinery. If
measured pollutant level is higher than environmental acceptable limitation for working
and/or residential areas, such coke storage cover is recommendable.

The same system was once decided to apply to project of El Palito Refinery, PDVSA.

Description of System (refer to Attachment 2-9-1)

Coke produced at the DCU is discharged into Coke Pad located within DCU. The coke
includes high moisture and this moisture functions to avoid dangerous dust emissions from
coke.
The produced coke is charged to movable hopper from coke pit by Grab Crane or Front
ENf Loader and transferred to Coke Storage Unit through Feeder Breaker by Belt
Conveyors.
Feeder Breaker Hopper as a part of the Feeder Breaker, A-0910, receives the piled up
coke. In the Feeder Breaker, coke agglomerate is broken and reduced the size before
transport to the storage. And the coke with suitable size is transferred by Feeder Breaker
Outlet Conveyer, X-0910, inclined upwards to pass and make the clearance to the road.
After the Feeder Breaker and before closing the belt to form the tube, Magnetic Separator,
A-0911, removes ferrous material.
The coke is stored in barn type longitudinal covered storage with semi-circular or semi-
elliptical roofing and end walls. This enclosed storage can preclude the dust emission to
the surroundings.
Coke Storage Distributing Conveyer, X-0911, transfers the coke to Coke Piling Boom
Conveyer, X-0912, and run along the full length of the storage.
Coke Piling Boom Conveyor starts to form coke pile at one storage end and travels on the
rails to entire length of the storage. When not discharging, the Coke Piling Boom Conveyer
can pass above the Reclaiming Machine, A-0912, in whatever position without interfering
and shall have the discharge tip or chute with hose for adjustment of elevation to minimize
free fall of the coke and the dust generation during the discharge.
The reclaiming of coke from storage is accomplished using Portal Scraper. The Portal
Scraper travels continuously as it will remove layer by layer of the coke from the sloping
side of the pile. At the end of lengthwise pass, the machine reverses automatically and the
boom is lowering one increment at a time to reclaim the next layer until material in the pile
has been reclaimed completely and the booms become a near horizontal position. And
coke from The Reclaimed Machine is transferred from storage by the Reclaimed Coke
Conveyor, X-0913.

Rev. Updated Final Report 25

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

The required area and number of coke storage building (storage capacity: 45 days)
and are shown below.

Required Size of 1 Coke Storage Required No.

320m L x 85m W x 42m H 10

The TIC comparison of Base Case (storage without building) and Updated Case
(storage with building) are shown below.

Base Case Updated Case

Million US$
109 869.7

Note: For Base Case, Toyo considers the functions of stormwater facility in Coke
Storage Unit are included in A-0903, Coke Water Collection Pit. TIC of A-
0903 is included in the above.

And also the reference drawings of Coke Storage Unit (same drawings can be
applied for Sulfur Storage Unit) according to PDVSA’s request are attached as
Attach 2-9-2.

2.10 Unit-110 (Sulfur Storage Unit )

According to PDVSA’s comments to the interim report and global movement to

consider the environmental issue, Toyo considers the same system of Sulfur
Storage Unit as Coke Storage Unit that sulfur produced at Upgraders is stored in
barn type longitudinal building with 45 days capacity as storage. And the sulfur is
transferred to the building by conveyors and discharged by reclaiming machine. Please
refer to Attachment 2-10 as details of this system.

The required area and number of sulfur storage building (storage capacity: 45 days)
are shown below.

Required Size of 1 Sulfur Storage Required No.

320m L x 85m W x 42m H 1

The TIC comparison of Base Case (storage without building) and Updated Case
(storage with building) are shown below.

Base Case Updated Case

Million US$
28 252.3

Note: For Base Case, Toyo considers the functions of stormwater facility in Sulfur
Storage Unit are included in A-1004, Sulfur Water Collection Pit. through
Vapica report. TIC of A-1004 is included in the above.

Rev. Updated Final Report 26

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

2.11 Unit-112 ( Residual Water Treatment and Disposal Unit )

　Current Design:
Rain water is once collected in Lung Pit which has the retention time of 15 minutes,
and then oily water is treated through CPI separator and Nutshell Filter. Cooling
water blow down is treated in this flow when it is contaminated by leaked oil. In
case treated water does not meet the environmental regulation, water is recycled
for reprocessing.

Assessment and Recommendation:

This treatment flow is reasonable. However, following points are to be examined at
the further engineering stage.

- Oily contaminated area is estimated as 470,400m2 in the calculation sheet.

However, oily area in utility area will be limited.
- Rainy water in crude tank area is once stored inside dike and then discharged into
oily sewer or clean sewer by manual operation of operator. Therefore, it is not
necessary to consider rainy water in this area as instantaneous flow.
- Run off coefficient of 0.4 is taken in calculation sheet. However, oily area is usually
paved area, of which run off coefficient will be 0.9.
- As pointed out in Par. 2.5 Unit-105, cooling water blow down will be increased
because mist loss of cooling tower is expected to be reduced. However, as cooling
water system is recommended to be located in each Upgrader, blow down from
each cooling water system for Upgrader is recommended to be treated in
Upgrader waste water treatment unit.

2.12 Unit-340 ( Crude Storage Unit )

Diluted Crude Tanks (T-4001/4002/4003 A-F), Diluent Tanks (T-4004/5/6 A-C) and
Upgraded Crude Tanks (T-4007/4008/4009 A-C) have 536,094m3, 110178m3 and
261,963m3 as total working capacity respectively. And Diluted Crude Tanks have
capacity to receive from Production Facilities and send to 3Upgraders for 4 days
and Diluent Tanks and Upgraded Crude Tanks have capacity to receive from
3Upgraders and send to OSBL for 3 days respectively. Toyo consider this capacity
is reasonable.

Toyo proposes the review of the appropriate size and the required number of each
tank at suitable stage. Toyo’s proposal is described herein as one of alternatives.

Generally, ordinary tank suppliers can design up to 60mD x 20m T-TL as each tank
size (Special suppliers can design bigger size, however, Toyo considers to use
ordinary tank supplier and the above size as tank size limitation in this report).

Rev. Updated Final Report 27

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Vepica’s Report
　 　 T-4001/2/3/A-F T-4004/5/6A-C T-4007/8/9A-C
Upgraded Crude
　 　 Diluted Crude Tanks Diluent Tanks Tanks
Diameter m 55 41 55
T-T Length m 14.63 12.192 14.63
Net Volume m3 34588 16093 34588
Working Volume m3 29783 12242 29107
Effective Volume % 86.1 76.1 84.2
Total No. of Tanks 　 18 9 9
Tank No. of 1 train 　 6 3 3

Toyo’s Recommendation
　 　 T-4001/2/3A-D T-4004A-C T-4007A-F
Upgraded Crude
　 　 Diluted Crude Tanks Diluent Tanks Tanks
Revised Diameter m 55.1 51.3 55.1
Revised T-T Length m 20 20 20
Total No. of Tanks 　 12 3 6
Tank No. of 1 Train 　 4 Common Use Common Use

Based on the above study, Toyo recommends to reduce tank numbers using bigger
tank size. And Diluent Tanks and Upgraded Crude Tanks shall be used commonly,
not independently.

Regarding tank type of T-4001/4002/4003, Diluted Crude Tank, Toyo recommends

floating roof type since cone roof type same as original has loss of volatile
components such as naphtha comparing with floating roof type. And also, TIC of
floating type and cone roof type do not have significant difference. The following list
shows TIC, technical, safety and environmental issue of difference of tank type.

Case Base Case Updated Case

Tank Type Cone Roof Cone Roof Floating Roof
Tank NO. 18 12 12
TIC million US$ 421 420.5 420.5
Technical (Experience) Many Many Many
Safety No (diffusion of volatile) OK
Environmental No (diffusion of volatile) OK
Remarks for small & middle capa for large capa

2.13 Plot Plan

　　　
Toyo made the following case study to develop the general plot plan (0008-000-
IM301000) with conditions that east area is available for the Condominium and
Toyo's recommended configuration for the Condominium ( Hydrogen Supply Unit
and Cooling Water Supply Unit are installed in each Upgrader).

Rev. Updated Final Report 28

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Case-1 Case-2 Case-3

(Attach. 2-13-1) (Attach. 2-13-2) (Attach.2-13-3)
Wind Direction A C B
Safety A C B
Constructability A A B
@Phasing of Upgraders
Interconnection A A C
Pipeway Length
Conveyor Length A B C
A : Recommend, B : Good, C : No Good

Note : Priority for prevailing wind direction

1) Administractive (gate, admi, building, parking lot.)
2) Ancillary ( fire station, labo, warehouse, control room )
3) Flare stack
4) Production (process units, utilities, loading)
5) Waste water treatment
6) Storage

Attachment 2-13-4 showing comparison of three cases with area scope is referred.

Toyo recommends Case 1 from the technical and economical view points.

Rev. Updated Final Report 29

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

3. Updated Utility Block Flow Diagram

Based on the technical assessment above, Toyo’s recommended block flow for
Condominium steam and water system is shown in the Attachment 3-1.

1) Hydrogen Supply Unit is located in each Upgrader.

2) Dedicated deaerator is installed in each Hydrogen Supply Unit. In
Condominium, Utility Deaerator is installed for BFW supply to Utility Boiler and
Upgraders. Location of the deaerator is downstream of Demineralized Water
Tank.
3) Heat and material balance is taken around Utility Deaerator.
4) Backpressure type Steam Turbine Generator is installed to recover energy
instead of steam let down from HP to LP steam.
5) Cooling water system is segregated for Upgrader use and Condominium use,
and Cooling Tower for Upgrader is installed in each Upgrader.
6) Steam production from Hydrogen Supply Unit is same as Vepica base.
　　　　

The simple block flow diagram shown in the proposal book is also updated and
attached as Attachment 3-2.

Additional comments on conceptual design are included in Attachment 3-3.

Comments on PFD are also attached in Attachment 3-4.

Rev. Updated Final Report 30

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Rev. Updated Final Report 31

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

4. RAM Analysis

RAM analysis was done for following utility units based on the Toyo’s updated system
and it was subcontracted with DNV.

- Natural Gas Supply

- Steam Supply and Condensate Recovery
- Potable and Industrial Water Supply
- Boiler Feed Water Supply
- Cooling Water Supply
- Nitrogen Supply
- Plant and Instrument Air Supply

In addition, for Hydrogen Supply Unit, data for 30 units over the years were collated.

Report of RAM analysis is referred to Attachment-4.

Summary of Availability results is as follows.

System Availability Remarks

NG System 99.935 %
Steam Boiler System 99.990 %
Potable Water System 99.993 %
Industrial Water System 100.000 %
Demineralizer Water Package 99.728 % (*1)
Cooling Water for Utility/Upgrader 98.929% /99.295% (*2)
Nitrogen Production 99.663 % (*3)
Supply of IA/PA 99.971% / 99.986%
(*1): Availability to downstream user is nearly 100% due to proper sizing of demineralized
water tank.
(*2): Increase of design capacity allowance of cooling tower will improve supply efficiency.
For example, if the Utility cooling tower cell arrangement would be changed from 2 x
57.5% to 2 x 100%, the availability of the system would increase to 99.984%. If the
Upgrader cooling tower cell arrangement would be changed from 4 x 28.75% to 4 x
33.3%, the availability of the system would increase to 99.969%.
(*3): Availability will be increased by sparing of air compressor or buying liquid nitrogen.

For Hydrogen Supply Unit, summary of research for 30 units is as follows.

Average unit Availability Losses (not weighted for observation years) 1.8%
Equivalent down days per annum 6.5 days
Average unit Availability Losses (weighted for observation years) 2.2%

Rev. Updated Final Report 32

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Equivalent down days per annum 8.2 days

Unavailability of best 80% Units 1.12%
Unavailability of best 50% Units 0.42%
Unavailability of best 20% Units 0.05%

5. EPC Cost Estimate ( Class VI )

5.1 Executive Summary

The capital cost for the project has been estimated on the basis and methodology
described herein-under, where, the executive summary is shown below.

Rev. Updated Final Report 33

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Here, for updated case, the cost of the units recommended to locate in up-grader area
has been excluded from the estimate. (Hydrogen Supply Unit, Cooling Water Supply
Unit)

Capital Cost Summary Unit : Equiv. Million US$(*1)

Unit Base Case(*2) Updated Case(*2)
Description Remarks
No. Onshore Offshore Total Onshore Offshore Total
101 Natural Gas Supply 6.4 5.0 11.4 8.2 5.5 13.6
102 Steam & Condensate Recovery 108.7 78.7 187.4 102.6 77.4 179.9
103 Potable & Industrial Water Supply 26.2 19.0 45.3 26.2 19.0 45.3
104 Boiler Feed Water 105.8 76.6 182.4 100.9 76.1 176.9
105 Cooling Water 69.9 50.6 120.4 7.4 5.6 13.0
106 Hydrogen Production 694.3 696.9 1,391.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
107 Nitrogen Generation 92.8 67.2 160.0 41.8 31.5 73.3
108 Plant & Instrument Air 21.5 15.6 37.1 22.3 14.8 37.1
109 Coke Storage 69.2 39.8 109.0 654.7 215.1 869.7
110 Sulfur Storage 16.0 12.0 28.0 175.5 76.8 252.3
112 Waste Water Treatment & Disposal 7.0 5.1 12.1 6.9 5.2 12.1
340 Crude Oil Storage 543.6 185.8 729.4 529.3 178.5 707.8
- Flare System 2.9 2.1 5.0 2.9 2.1 5.0
- I/C Piping & Common Bldg 227.3 88.0 315.3 203.4 79.0 282.3
- Common Area Services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Out of Scope
- Fire Fighters Services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Out of Scope
- Fire Water Supply Service 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Out of Scope
- Power Supply & Distribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Out of Scope
Total 1,991.7 1,342.4 3,334.1 1,882.0 786.5 2,668.5
Notes

(*1) Unit
The capital cost is shown in equivalent US$ or Million US$ where the onshore cost or the cost originated inside Venezuela
is converted to US$ from Bolivar Fuerte(VEF) and, the offshore cost or the cost originated outside Venezuela is converted from
each currencies to US$ by the FX rates shown here-under.

(*2) Cases
Base Case presents the result of the estimate in accordance with the original plant configuration.
Besides, Updated Case presents the result of the estimate in accordance with the plant configuration recommended by TOYO.

(*3) FX Rates
FX rates applied for this estimate are as follows.

4.3 VEF/US$, 82 JPY/US$, 113 JPY/Euro

(4) Cost Date

The cost has been estimated on overnight constructoin basis of 2011-1Q and, no escalation afterward to expected
plant completion is included.

5.2 Cases

The estimate has been prepared for the following two cases.

 Base Case
 Updated Case

5.3 Scope
The estimate covers the plant and cost scope as shown belo w.

Plant Scope

Rev. Updated Final Report 34

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Capacity
Unit # Description UOM Base Updated Remarks
Cap./Q'ty Q'ty Cap./Q'ty Q'ty
101 NG Supply Nm3/h 476,462 1 476,462 1
102 Steam Generation Package Boiler(Gas Firing) ton/h 272 3 177 3 Dp : 51.2 barG
Industrial Water m3 34,200 3 34,200 3
103 Service etc Water
Potable Water m3 3,054 1 3,054 1
Deaerator ton/h 925 3 910 1 Dp : 3.5 barG
104 BFW & Demin. Water Demineralizer m3/h 885 3 885 3
Polisher m3/h 0 0 0 0
Upgrader Area m3/h 0 0
105 Cooling Water Cooling Tower 31,721 1
Utility Area m3/h 250 1
Nm3/h 267,885 0
106 HPU H2 Production 4 0
MMSCFD 227 0
GN Nm3/h 23,934 5,000
IGG 1 1
LN Nm3/h 24,405 500
107 Nitrogen
LN Tank m3 350 1 350 1
LN Vaporizer
LN Vaporizer Nm3/h 24,405 1 24,405 1
Air Compr. Nm3/h 9,650 4 9,650 4 2M + 2T
108 Air System
Air Dryer Nm3/h 11,328 2 11,328 2
Coke Storage ton 855,630 1 855,630 1 45 days
109 Coke Storage Coke Loading ton/h 1,056 1 1,056 1
Coke Storage Bldg m2 0 0 27,200 10
Solid Sulfur Storage ton 120,690 1 120,690 1
110 Sulfur Storage Solid Sulfur Loading ton/h 149 1 149 1
Sulfur Storage Bldg m2 0 0 27,200 1
For Upgrader Area ton/h 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
112 Waste Water Treatment
For Utility Area CPI ton/h 259 1 259 1
Diluted Crude Oil m3 34,588 18 47,690 12
340 Crude Oil Storage Upgraded Crude Oil m3 34,588 9 41,339 6
Diluent m3 16,093 9 47,690 3
Upgrader ton/h 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Elevated
- Flare Stack Utility & Offsite ton/h 344 1 344 1
Burn Pit Upgrader ton/h 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Normal - MW 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
- Power Generation
Emergency DEG MW 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Main Power Receiving MW 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
- Power Receiving
Utility Area Power Receiving lot 1 1 1 1
Railway Expansion Lm 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
- Product Loading & Unloading
Coke & Sulfur Loading to Rail Car Lot 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Upgrader m3/h 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Fire Water Network
Utility & Offsite m3/h 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
- Fire Fighting
Upgrader lot 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Air Foam etc
Utility & Offsite lot 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Crude Oil Inch-Km 112 1 112 1
Pipelines NG Inch-Km 96 1 96 1
- I/C Piping Others Inch-Km 342 1 342 1
Upgrader lot 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
I/C Piping
Utility & Offsite lot 1 1 1 1
Operator's Housing m2 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Admin. Bldg m2 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Common Service Bldg CCR/Labo/Main Sub Station m2 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
Mech. Shop/Warehouse m2 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
- Cafeteria etc m2 0 0 0 0 Out of Scope
CCR m2 0 0 400 1
Utility Area Service Bldg Sub Stations m2 0 0 300 4
Others m2 0 0 200 4

Project Cost Scope

Rev. Updated Final Report 35

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Description Scope Remarks

Detail Design & Engineering Yes
Procurement Service Incl. Expediting & Inspection Yes
E Construction Plan & Sub-Contracting Yes
Project Management Yes
As Built Drawing Yes
Itemized Equipment Yes
Piping & Support Yes
Local Instrument & Control Yes
Permanent Electrical Eqiup. & Cabling Yes
Material Cathodic Protection(If Req'd) Yes
Thermal Insulation & Fire Proofing Yes
P Paint Yes
Steel Structure Yes
Module & Skid N.A
Fabrication Piping - Site Pre-fabricated Yes
Steel Structure - Shop pre-fabricated Yes
Spare Parts Erection & Pre-commissioning Spares Yes
Packing & Transportation of Goods to Site Yes
Expats & Local Supervisors Yes
Construction
EPC Cost Field Engineering Yes
Mgmt
Vendor Supervisors Yes
Mechanical Work Yes
E & I Work Yes
Construction
Archtectural Yes
Construction Civil Work Yes
Work Pre- Test & Flushing Yes
C Commissioning Chemical Cleaning Yes
Work Others Yes
Waste Disposal & Treatment Yes
Expats & Labor Camp Facility Yes
Camp Land Charges Yes
Temporary
Office,Workshops etc Yes
Work Temporary
Gate Security/Fire Wall Yes
Construction
Power & Water etc Yes
Local Tax & Duties related to EPC execution Yes
Insurances related to EPC Execution Yes
Allowances Yes
Common
Escalation No
Contingency Yes
Licensor’s Basic Engineering & Royalty No Out of Scope
FEED No Out of Scope
Pre-EPC EIA, Authority Engineering & Construction Permit Work No Out of Scope
Land Survey and Soil Investigation No Out of Scope
Site Preparation No Out of Scope
rd
PMC, Consultant and 3 Party Inspection No Out of Scope
Operator Training No Out of Scope
Owner’s Resident Cost at EPC Contractor’s Office No Out of Scope
IDC & Project Financing Charges No Out of Scope
Expense Owner’s Staff, Operators and their Expenses No Out of Scope
Owner’s Site Office and Accommodation No Out of Scope
Public Relations & Local Compensation No Out of Scope
Start Up & Commissioning Work No Out of Scope
Water & Electricity for Construction & Pre-Commissioning No Out of Scope
Capital & Operational Spares No Out of Scope
Owner's Cost
Catalyst & Chemicals for Initial Charge No Out of Scope
O&M Lubricants No Out of Scope
Laboratory Instrument & Tools No Out of Scope
Maintenance Equipment and Tools No Out of Scope
Fire Fighting Services No Out of Scope
Security & Guard Services No Out of Scope
General Services Cafeteria & Bank Services No Out of Scope
Clinic Services No Out of Scope
Training Center & Other General Services No Out of Scope
IWC Initial Working Capital No Out of Scope
Plant Area No Out of Scope
Land Land Purchase or Lease Cost
Laydown Area No Out of Scope
Escalation No Out of Scope
Contingency Contingency No Out of Scope
Management Reserve No Out of Scope

5.4 Accuracy

Rev. Updated Final Report 36

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

For the accuracy of the estimate, class 4 for the feasibility study is applied in accordance
with AACEI RP 18R-97 “Cost Estimate Classification System.
(AACEI: The Association for the advancement of Cost Engineering, International)

AACEI Cost Estimate Classification

5.5 Basis of Estimate

The estimate has been prepared on the basis and assumptions as follows.

 General Assumptions
 Procurement Policy - Material
 Site Management & Labor Policy
 Design & Engineering Service Policy

For the details, refer to the following pages.

Rev. Updated Final Report 37

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

General Assumptions
Description Assumption Remarks
Site Location Carabobo Field,Orinoco,Venezuela TBA:To be Adviced
Site
Distance From Sea/Water TBA Km
Client/Owner PDVSA
Client/Owner
PMC/Consultant TBA
G-Root New Revamp SDM SDM : Shutdown Maintenance
Type of Project Construction Type
●
Month from EDC Expected M/C EDC : Effective Date of Contract
Schedule EDC to M/C
TBA Month TBA M/C : Cold M/C
E EP EPC EPCM
Service Type
●
FP FP+ CPIF GMP FP : Fixed Price
Consideration Type
● FP+ : FP + Escalation Clause
Contract
Prime Contractor Local Constructors CPIF : Cost Plus Incentive Fee
Contractor Select Process
Bid/Tender Bid/Tender GMP : Guarantee Max. Price
Advance Progress Retention Total
Payment Term
10% 85% 5% 100%
Design & Material ANSI/ASME
Code & St'd Plot Plan & Safety OSHA/NFPA
Construction ANSI/ASME
Language & Language English
Measurement Measurement System Metric or SI
Seizmic TBA g TBA UBC
Rainfall Intensity TBA mm/hr TBA mm/day
Max Min. Aver.
Design Condition Soil Bearing Cap. (ton/m2)
TBA TBA TBA
Feeder HV MV LV
Voltage Level (KV)
115.0 34.5
Max Size (TBA) mW X (TBA) mH X (TBA) mL
Logistic Constraint
Max WGT TBA ton
Standard Hours
Site Working Hours per week per year
Actual Hours
Local Contents Local Cost Ratio 0 Min. %
Foreign Labor Limited
Special Constraints
Mandatory Vendor None
Others
VEF/US JPY/US JPY/Eur
FX Rates
4.3 82 113
Cost Year 2011-1Q
Excluded
Cost Year E - %/Year
Escalation Local
P - %/Year
Escal.
C - %/Year
Class 1st Tier
Prime Contractor
Contractor Single or Multi. Multi.
PMC/Consultant None
Construction Method ■Conventional □Moduled
Custom Duty Imposed(Not Exempted)
Corporate Tax Imposed(Not Exempted)
Local Tax Pers. Income Tax Imposed(Not Exempted)
Exemption VAT Imposed(Not Exempted)
Sales Tax Imposed(Not Exempted)

Procurement Policy - Material

Rev. Updated Final Report 38

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Assumed Vendor Origin

Description Remarks
Candidate-A Candidate-B
Fired Heater USA EU
Reactor Korea EU
Tower/Drum Korea China
Deaerator Korea USA
Static Equipment
Air Cooler Korea USA
Heat Exch. - Special EU USA
Heat Exch. - General Korea China
Storage Tank Local S.E Asia
Process Compressor Japan EU
Turbines USA EU
Rotating Equipment
Centrifugal Pump EU Japan
Recip. Pump EU Japan
Boiler USA Japan
Demineralized Water Unit EU S.E Asia
Cooling Tower Korea USA
Package Equipment
Chemical Injection Unit USA Japan
Inert Gas Generator EU Japan
Air Compressor USA Japan
Conveyor EU USA
Material Handling Feeder EU USA
Equipment Reclaimer EU USA

Piping - Valve, Special etc EU Japan

Piping - Pipe, Fitting etc EU S.E Asia
Electrical - Power Equipment Local USA
Electrical - Cabling etc Local USA
Bulk Material Local Instrument USA EU
DCS & Control USA EU
Insulation Local USA
Paint Local USA
Steel Structure USA Local

Site Management & Labor Policy

Site Mgmt & Labor Source
Assumed Source
Description Remarks
Candidate-A Candidate-B
Site Management Japanese
Site Management Expats S/V Japanese Misc. Nationality
Local S/V Local
Steel Structure USA
Prefab. Piping Local
Module Fab. N.A
Heavy Erection Local
Tank Fabricator Local
General Erection Local
Site Construction Piping Work Local
E & I Work Local
Insulation/Paint Local
Archtectural & Civl Local
Camp Local
Temporary
Site Office & Misc.Bldg Local
Construction
Misc. Local

Design & Engineering Policy

Engineering Source
Assumed Source
Description Remarks
Candidate-A Candidate-B
PM & Control Japan Korea
Engineering Japan Korea
EPC Service Drafting India Korea
Procurement Service Japan Korea
Construction Planning Japan Korea

5.6 Inputs to Estimate

Rev. Updated Final Report 39

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

The estimate has been prepared with the inputs listed as follows.

Inputs List to Estimate

Prepared by Quality
Description Remarks
Owner Toyo Other NA A B C NA
Design Basis & Dwg
Basic Engineering Design Data * * NA : Not Available
Soil Condition & Data * *
Process Flow Diagram * * Quality
Utility Flow Diagram * * A : Conceptual
Process P&ID * * B : Preliminaly
Utility & Supporting System P&ID * * C : Definitive
Interconnecting Piping P &ID * * NA : Not Available
General Plot Plan * *
Area Plot Plan w/Side View * *
Site Level Plan * *
Equipment List w/Short Spec * * *
Equipment Data Sheet * *
Motor List & Electrical Load Schedule * *
Single Line Diagram * *
Local Instrument & I/O List * *
Building List & Layout * *
Piping Routing Dwg * *

Existing Plant & Tie-Ins Information

General Plot Plan for related existing plant * *
Transport Route Map in Existing Plant * *
Above Grade Piping Tie-Ins List * *
Buried Piping Tie-Ins List * *
Sewer & Drainage Tie-Ins List * *
Fire Water Tie-Ins List * *
Instrument Tie-Ins List * *
Electrical Tie-Ins List * *

Civil Information for MTO etc

Piperack & Structural Plan w/Loading Data * *
Hazardaous Area Plan * *
Road & Paving Plan * *
Main Cable Routing Plan * *
Tank Diking Plan * *
Fire Water Network Dwg * *

Project Scope & Executing Plan

Project Scope Description * *
Project Executing Plan * *
Master Project Scheduling * *
Engineering Outsourcing Plan * *
Construction Sub Contracting Plan * *
Vendor List * *

Construction & Logistic Plan

Heavy Erection Plan * *
Laydown Area Map * *
Temporary Office, Workshop Plan * *
Temporary Electrical Power Supply Plan * *
Temporary Water Supply Plan * *
Camp Plan * *
Site Supervisor Dispatch Plan * *
Inland Transport Route Survey * *
Sea Port Capability Survey * *

MTO * *

RFQ & Vendor Quotation * *

5.7 Methodology

Rev. Updated Final Report 40

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

The cost estimate has been prepared on so called equipment factored methodology in
general, with the assistance with the following database and methodologies.

 In-house cost database

 Parametric costing
 Quantity ratio quantity generation
 Cost factored methodology

5.7.1 Material Cost

Because of the nature of the estimate class 4 as well as the limited time framing, no
vendor inquiry is conducted. FOB cost of itemized equipment is estimated by the
following methodologies.

 In-house cost database

 Parametric costing

Input and output of the estimate are as follows.

Input Output
1. Equipment Short Spec 1. Equipment FOB Cost
2. Vendor Origin 2. Equipment Weight(Empty)
3. Cost Year 3. Standard Labor Mhs
4. Delivery Condition(FOB) 4. Freight Ton
5. (Driver KW)

Likewise, bulk material cost such as piping, instrument, electrical is estimated by the
following methodologies.

 In-house cost database

 Quantity Ratio

For the detail, refer to the table below.

Methodology

Rev. Updated Final Report 41

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Item Methodology Remarks

Itemized Equip. One by one for all items @ : Composite
Piping Piping Ton X @ Unit Rates
Electrical Power Motor KW X @
Lihting Fixture Nos X @
Cabling Power Cabling m X @
Others % of Above Sum
Cathodic Protection Protected m2 X @
Instrument Instru Loops X @
& Control CV etc C.V Q’ty X @
Analyzer Analyzer Q’ty X @
Material % of Above Sum
DCS I/O X @
Insulation Equipment Area m2 X @
& Paint Piping Area m2 X @
Steel Stru. Area m2 X @
E&I %
Steel Structure Steel Ton X @
Catalyst/Chemical Owner’s Cost
Labo./Maintenance
Spare Parts

Transportation cost of Equipment & Material to site is estimated as follows.

Methodology
Item Methodology Remarks
Ocean Transport FT X @ ($/FT) - Ocean Freight
- Marine Insurance
- Port Charge
- Demurrage
Inland Transport FT X @ ($/FT) - Heavy Cargo
- General Cargo
Notes FT: Freight Ton
5.7.2 Labor Cost

Labor cost or direct site construction cost are estimated as follows.

Composite unit rates applied for the estimate are assumed from latest construction cost
database in Venezuela collected and normalized by TOYO.
Methodology
Item Methodology Remarks
Erection Installation Labor MH X @($/MH) @: All-In rates
Piping
Electrical
Instrument
Insulation
Painting
Misc. %
Architect Building Floor m2 X @($/m2)
& Civil HVAC HVAC Floor m2 X @($/m2)
Steel Stru. Steel Ton X @($/ton)
Fire Proof Fire proof m2 X @($/m2)
Concrete Concrete m3 X @($/m3)

Rev. Updated Final Report 42

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

General %

5.7.3 Engineering Service Cost

Engineering service cost is estimated by the methodology shown below.

Methodology
Item Methodology Remarks
Licensor Work By Owner
FEED Work
Detail PM MH X @($/MH) PM & Control
Engineering DE MH X @($/MH) Design & Eng’g
PS MH X @($/MH) Procure. Service
CP MH X @($/MH) Const. Plan
OE MH X @($/MH) Outside Eng’g
Insurances EPC Cost X %

5.7.4 Site Service Cost

Site service cost is estimated by the methodology shown below.

Methodology
Item Methodology Remarks
Site Supervisors Service MM X @($/MM)
Pre-Commissioning Incl. in Construction
Commissioning Owner’s Cost
Local Employee Service MM X @($/MM)
Camp & Catering Expats MM X @($/MM) (*1)
Temporary Facility Labor Cost X % (*1)
Construction Aid Labor Cost X % (*1)

(*1): For Prime Contractor’s cost only.

Those cost for Sub-Contractors are incl. in labor cost.

5.7.5 Allowances

The allowances required for EPC work such as shown bellow are included in each cost
for material and labor.

 Design development allowance

 Construction growth allowance
 Erection & pre-commissioning spare

5.7.6 Contingency & Markup

Contingency and Markups related to EPC contract is estimated as follows.

Rev. Updated Final Report 43

 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Methodology
Item Methodology Remarks
Escalation 0 Excluded
Contingency Net Cost X 5%
Overhead & Profit EPC Cost X 10%

Attachments:

2-6-1 : Process Description and Features of Toyo's Hydrogen Plant

2-6-2 : Typical Process Flow Diagrams of Toyo's Hydrogen Plant
2-9-1 : Coke Storage Unit
2-9-2 : Reference of Coke, Sulfur Storage Unit
2-10 : Sulfur Storage Unit
2-13-1 : General Plot Plan - Case1
2-13-2 : General Plot Plan - Case2
2-13-3 : General Plot Plan - Case3
2-13-4 : General Plot Plan - Comparison
3-1 : Updated Utility Block Flow Diagram
3-2 : Simple Utility Block Flow Diagram
3-3 : Additional Comments on Conceptual Design
3-4 : Comments on PFD
4 : RAM Analysis Report (by DNV)
5-1 : EPC Cost Report (Base Case)
5-2 : EPC Cost Report (Updated Case)
6 : Comparison of Configuration Location

Rev. Updated Final Report 44