DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
Demise and keys to
the rise of process control
Modeling the penalty for violating constraints as well as
modeling the credit for approaching them, and shared-risk
shared-reward business practices are the solutions
p. R. LATOUR, Clifftent Inc, Houston, Texas
N umerous articles, editorials and ads in the past few years
described trouble in tbe commercial practice ot process
control and suggested remedies like better quality infer-
entials, basic loop tuning, operator training, process knowledge,
algorithms, models, engineers, instruments, integration and
management faith. The business is fragmented, floundering and
declining. There is no consensus on the cause or remedy, but some
suggestions to improve the industry are provided.
The full business promise of process control, instrumentation,
automation, closed-loop optimization, information technoiogy
(IT) integration and HPI computer integrated manufacturing
(CiM) in 1990 has not been and will not be realized because of:
• Inability to measure fmancial performance of system solu-
tions
• Confusion between products and solutions businesses
• Failure to license solutions based on shared risk-shared
reward (SR2) performance relationships.
In t h e beginning. Chemical process systems engineering
for dynamic analysts and control was inaugurated in universities
and large operating companies like Shell, Esso, Mobil, DuPont,
Phillips, Texaco and Monsanto in the 1960s. Chemical process
operation was deemed the third arena of chemical engineering,
after product development and manufacturing plant design. Con-
trol systems engineering was created for mechanical, electrical,
aerospace, agricultural, chemical and business systems.' ~^'' Analog
instruments and early digital computers were used for feedback
and feedforward control of flow, temperature, pressure, level and
product qualities.
Advanced process control was developed and commercialized
for the HPI in the 1970s by several advanced control suppliers
using general-purpose computers with real-time Unix operating
systems connected to basic pneumatic, electric and new digital
controllers. Investments were initially justified on cost savings like
manpower reduction, which operators despised, or on the notion
that everybody else is doing it because computers are good so we
must keep up-"the taith theory." Soon process yield and utility
credits were seen.
In the 1980s, CIM expanded to distributed control systems
(DCSs), multivarlable control, online optimization, scheduling,
plantwide control and IT integration throughout the worldwide
HPI. Investments were justified by smoother operation that made
no direct money but allowed average targets to be moved some-
LITERATURE REVIEW
A host of papers have attempted to identify the reasons
for the demise of the automation business. A comprehensive
study of numerous publications indicates the confusion. Some
say it's technology; some say it's relationships. Practitioners
seek performance, suppliers promote results, customers com-
plain about invisible benefits. Kane provided insights from a
computer conference full of ideas but lacking sound financial
support to sustain quantified benefits."'"
Technology
Flaws. Many have cited technical flaws. Friedman pushes
better inferential measurements^^"^^ but has no way to quan-
tify the financial consequences and he fears the process control
industry has completely collapsed. Qualities were first commer-
cially inferred from simple measurements in 1971, when crude
unit side-draw TBP cutpoints were inferred from temperatures,
pressures, internal refluxes and steam rates.^^^^^^ King decries
poor engineering practice and shows 14 ways to lose money
with improper property inferential but does not quantify the
losses rigorously.^^' ^° Smith has long proposed knowing how
the process works but never relates process operation to its
associated economics and profit generation.^'-^^ Hill regularly
writes on the value of good operators but cannot quantify
their financial performance.^^^^ A supplier's survey^^ reported
the biggest challenges: limited budget for integrating software
with business performance, 35%. (Budgets shouid never limit
compelling prof it generation.)
Six Sigma management. Doble reports 13 Six Sigma myths,
confirming it has floundered due to lack of proper dynamic
financial performance measurement,^^ as reported by Clif-
ford.^° Welch had the same difficulty.^^"^^ Stewart reports on
CEO Larry Carter's use of up-to-date information to run Cisco,^^
which could probably be standardized with clifftent.^^
Limit setting. Hartmann's refinery LP work clearly shows the
financial importance of setting constraint values properly,^^ as
proposed in 1996.^^-''^ Kalis has an excellent description of the
importance of knockout drum demisters to protect compres-
sors,^'' a large profit opportunity for statistically optimal gas
velocity setting''^'"^j Golden confirms.^^
Continued
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2006 71
BOMUSREPORT DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
Lemmers shows the importance of limit setting for com-
pressor surge and stonewalP^ without a method for setting
them optimally or quantifying the control system financial
value. Amrouche gives tank limit setting standards^*"^ which
could be optimized for uncertainty and financial conse-
quences.^^'^^
Safety
Risk management. A risk management feature'"^ lacks
any sound performance measure. Ghosh claims improved
critical condition management can add at least 5% to prof-
its^^^ but lacks the proper method to measure and prove this
claim. Mannan promotes the Mary Kay O'Conner Process
Safety Center,^^^ long handicapped by lack of a method
for connecting limit violation penalties to process credit
tradeoffs statistically and financially to quantify the value
of safety management, as provided by clifftent. Ayral pro-
motes critical situation management,^"^ but does not include
the power of clifftent risk management to avoid pitfalls to
financial success.
Abnormal situations. Some seek the link between process
operation and abnormal situation reliability management;
between process control and safety alarms. Two magazine
editors see the opportunity that clifftent resolves: Gonzalez
describes the reliability challenges and opportunities in refin-
ing^°^ and Rosenzweig describes the unsolved opportunity
for abnormal situation management in the chemical indus-
.([^106 Alford struggles with the value of alarm management
using ad hoc alarm ranges'°' that was superseded by clifftent
in 1996.''^ Brown gives alarm management guidelines'"^ but
lacks a quantitative measure of financial merit. Hill describes
the importance of alarm managements^ but does not quan-
tify its value. Grosdidier offers a path forward for DCS alarm
management,'°^ but does not quantify its financial value.
Goble offers a risk-reduction approach to manage the safety
life cycle,"° recognizing the need to properly connect to
financial value, as already solved.''^ Nimmo's alarm manage-
ment feature''' lacks any way to measure the financial value
of his proposals.
Plant maintenance. Many seek to connect process opera-
tion to equipment wear and tear; operating credits against
maintenance costs. Clifftent risk tradeoffs abound. FIATECH
reported on plant operations and maintenance information
needs and problems of financial justification."^
Relationships
Successful business partnerships are an HPI hallmark.
Engineering and construction (E&C). Valot has pleaded
for more value-oriented owner/contractor relationships with
properly aligned commercial risk and reward,"^''"'' as pro-
vided by SR2 licensing of CIM solutions. Moore writes about
enterprise resource planning (ERP) maintenance contracting
with questions touching on value-added aligning of risk and
reward."^ Cunic shows the importance of performance-based
E&C contracting,"^ claiming "key to successful performance
contracting depends on understanding (should add measur-
ing) the net effect, impact or benefit that a contracted scope
of work will have on business results long term." Transmar
72 MARCH 2006 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
what in a more profitable steady-state direction.-^'^"•'•' A major
DCS vendors ads featured King Cole surrounded by piles of gold.
The faith theory prevailed, but sav\'y management continued to
inquire: Please show me where the money comes from and how
much is net; we want secure, sustained profits.
At t h e p e a k . By 1990, CIM was poised to profoundly con-
tribute to profitable manufacture of clean fuels like reformulated
gasoline (RFG), enbancing refinery performance by $l/bbl crude
and refining plus downstream petrochemicals by $2/bbl crude.
The technology was known, experienced staff was affordable,
hardware was capable and improving, and economic drivers were
Throughout the 1980s, universities were busy teaching process
control methods, developing algorithms, writing papers, present-
ing short courses and analyzing commercial multivariable control
algorithms. The National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA)
began separate annual process control conferences attracting
300 worldwide. The Instrument Society of America (ISA) had
large annual conferences and exhibits. The American Institute of
Chemical Engineers (AlChE) was active with papers and confer-
ences. Instrumentation suppliers were busy. Major HPI magazines
published articles on developments and accomplishments in every
issue. Articles invariably touted a method, algorithm, controller,
model, system, project or product that generated a payout in <12
months. Books were published. Control systems engineering was
recognized as the technology for profitably mitigating risk, reduc-
ing uncertainty, improving quality and satisfying ctistomers.
Suppliers offered bardware, software, services, studies, projects,
experience, algorithms, models, databases, technology, instru-
ments, analyzers, control systems and a host of other components;
all products, on trust, without guarantees or refunds. Commercial
risk was not properly aligned with technical know-how. Customer
operating companies accepted all the risk for success without
proper knowledge; solution providers took no risk because they
really did not know how to measure the value of their offerings.
Investments were justified on simple, ad hoc, steady-state change
predictions in process performance allowed by smoother control.
(All processes are dynamic; steady-state is a mathematical figment
of human imaginations.) Users pushed project implementers to
leave to cut costs rather than entice them to stay to sustain profits.
Project impiementers were anxious to leave to avoid maintenance
rather than stay to sustain profits. There were no performance
standards; confusion reigned; the faith theory prevailed.
Quality control gained visibility from Deming, Crosby, juran"^
and Peters. ISO 9000 quality procedures were inaugurated. Ford's
Jobl wasannounced to compete with Japanese car quality. Quality
circles and Six Sigma were promoted. Arthur D. Little pioneered
hazardous operations (HAZOP) analysis. IT went commercial,
system and business integration was the key. CIM became reen-
gineering, then plantwide controi, then value-added supply chain
management. They are all subsets of process control tbat generate
intangible benefits but suffered due to lack of a rigorous method
for quantifying fmancial value from improved dynamic perfor-
mance. I.e., reduced variance. Financial verification was impos-
sible; faitb theory was victorious.
IT was described in Harvard Business Review and business
schools. Large systems engineering theories and nonlinear opti-
mization methods were published. Risk management was pro-
moted. The mantra was to apply good ideas and post-audit for
 DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
value—not to first seek quantifiable value and deploy what is
necessary to capture and sustain that value to maximize expected
value profit. With the Internet on the horizon, remote mainte-
nance was born.
Paradigm shift proposed. By 1990, the fragmented prod-
ucts/components process control business, armed with power-
ful technology and skilled implementers, was poised and ready
to mature into a performance-based solutions business. A few
recognized that the technology slogan and hype bubble could
not continue. They realized that failing to follow the scientific
method (measure results to confirm theories) leads to chaos and
failure.'^ The question remained: how to measure the financial
performance of dynamic system improvements to prove the value
added and properly guide use, investments and maintenance?
The proposed new mission was to identify, capture and sustain
significant economic benefits for clients and suppliers from prop-
erly integrated CIM solutions.-^**"-^^-''"^" Rather than continue to
offer to install products and projects that payout bandsomely in
six montbs and generate large profits hencefortb without main-
tenance and upgrades in the face of overwhelming evidence that
this approach invariably led to disappointment and failure, the
new proposal was for much more careful attention at the start to
process economics, clear measurement of process plant fmancial
performance improvemetit and the business requirements for
assembling technology solutions to make money for those who
accepted commercial risk. The HPI has had too many six-month
payoffs by intangible and transitory benefits.
Performance measure technology. CIM technology had fatal
flaws related to lack of a method for measuring the fmancial value
of improved dynamic performance, or reduced variance, until the
concept of clifftent was published in a seminal 1996 paper''- and
subsequently extended.'^•^"'^^- '^^~^° It provided the long-sought
method for constructing profit meters for each control variable
(CV) and key performance indicator (KPI). Control engineers
have worked excessively on reducing variance without being
able to quantify the value of sucb improvement. They wrongly
assumed the limit and target mean for CVs. and KPh are properly
given, or optimal, when they never are, and when the value of
setting them optimally is easy'*"' ^^- '*'^ and just as rewarding as
variance reduction by all CIM, i.e., $l/bbl crude refmed.
They failed to model the steady-state profit function for each
CV/KPI, which is invariably shaped like a tent, defining the ben-
efit tradeoff, often with a discontinuous cliff at the most profitable
limit point. They failed to appreciate all process performance
improvement is embodied in modifying the shape and position
of the distribution function of CVs and KPh. That is all one can
do mechanically to change process performance (other than trivial
cost reductions that do not impair process performance). Proper
connection of the distribution function to the steady-state profit
tradeoff tent function for eacb CV7A7V provides the rigorous way
to measure financial benefit from variance reduction and resetting
targets and limits. This is rigorous risk management for maximum
expected profit rate, 'fhe consequences for modeling process
profit are profound and illustrate the disconnects that permeated
the CIM business for 40 years since 1965.
People wrongly assume reduced variance alone has no quan-
tifiable financial value. In fact, the 1996 discovery**-^' ^"^ showed
it was equivalent to simple conventional claims for moving tbe
new mean closer to a spec or limit by some arbitrary amount after
BONUSREPORT
describes the perennial E&C industry contracting troubles
and calls for performance-based strategic alliances."'
CIM. Since CIM performance is easier to measure''^"^^ than
E&C performance, SR2 licensing is much easier for the CIM
solutions business. Cobb has published comments on the
demise of IT by accounting firms and suggests the need for
the right value proposition for sustained results.'^^' "^ Hill and
Walker see Dow collaboration as key to value chain opera-
tional excellence,'^" while seeking a rigorous method for mea-
suring its financial contribution. Bullemer writes on the role
of the operator to push processes to their optimal limits and
seeks a rigorous method to benchmark the value of improved
performance,^^^ as reported in 1996."^-^^ Bullemer endorses
the Abnormal Situation Management Consortium's highlights
that the plant operator's role needs a new profit paradigm,'^^
realizing the need for a proper method for measuring finan-
cial performance. Mohrmann shows how to include the field
work force in the automation loop'^^ but needs a way to
quantify the financial value.
Practitioners
A few control engineers recognize the demise and have
published ideas to reinvigorate process control.
Quantify benefit. White noted the benefit problem and
offered an ad hoc statistical method to value information and
decisions,^^"^ '^^ which is handled rigorously by easier means."^'
'^^ Martin published his understanding of control benefits
with an ad hoc statistical approach'^^that does not rigorously
incorporate economics.^^' "^ Grosdidier offers seven tips for
APC project success and a value proposition for oil account-
ing, claiming $1.4 million/yr without proof'^''^'^^ but excludes
financial performance and misstates the source of value of
APC (APC does not push constraints, it only allows others, like
clifftent, to attempt it). Grosdidier did utilize and reference
clifftent work to analyze blend giveaway economics.'^'
Measure pleas. Fiske frequently promotes the connec-
tion between IT and operations and shows process variability
causes underperformance'^°"'^^ without realizing his problem
is solvable."' "^ Woll also promotes proper organizational
roles for performance'^^' 134-136 without a proper measure to
keep financial score. Mowat, Woertz and O'Malley confirm
the need to quantify the intangible benefits (soft stuff) to
create value.^^ Beautyman assesses profitability of real-time
optimization (RTO) with pre- and post-audits'^^ but does
not provide the rigorous financial performance measure to
quantify profit creation. Pandit's profitability of optimization
letter in response to Beautyman'^^ hints at a weakness of RTO
that emphasizes excessive model rigor for behavior inside the
constraints where the plant should not operate, but unrealistic
modeling at the constraints where it should operate, while
improperly setting the constraints—which was revealed in
1996.^^ Pitt described the need for measuring financial value
for refinery supply chain management and human operators
yygll 139,140 powley described the need and requirements for
financial performance measure for MPCand /CP/s very well.'^'
Lang describes the use of process KPIs but does not relate
them properly to financial value.'''^ Canney tries to explain
the dearth of benefit from 6,000 APC installations by claim-
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2006 73
BOMUSREPORT DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
ing 15 statements are myths, attempting to refute them and
summarizing with "truth."^"'^ Actually only seven were real
myths; Canney refutes six. His three claimed truths illustrate
the reason for the demise.
Suppliers
Results. Many solution providers promote performance
and results but cannot license based on their rightful per-
centage because they cannot measure their solution financial
value-added properly. One database software supplier has
an IT monitor for netvyork performance and enterprise per-
formance management'"^'"^ but investigation revealed it
does not relate physical statistics to profit.''^'''^ A DCS vendor
claims its "solution" or product and its KPI manager improve
plant profitability, promising quick, no-risk payoffs,'"'^"'''^
without any rigorous method for proving such claims. A
large system supplier recognizes the performance oppor-
tunity with its "Prove It" ads '^0-152 ^^^ rnight gain with
a rigorous financial measure and solutions performance
licensing. (If they could really prove It with an unambiguous,
rigorous financial measure of their solutions' performance,
they would undoubtedly offer it privately to selected clients
rather than publicly advertising that their customers want
them to prove it.)
Confusion. Another DCS vendor mixes solutions and prod-
uct components,^^^"''^^ with no measure of financial merit.
An experienced control engineer offers fast operator advi-
sor software, but has no method to quantify its financial
value.^^^ A consulting firm often advertises Optimum Plant
Performance.^^^' ^^^ A supplier offers free public literature on
performance optimization benefits rather than private profit
sharing sustained solutlons.'^° A large system vendor offers a
results-driven automation World Conference & Exhibition'^'
without a rigorous method for measuring the financial value
of improved dynamic solutions. It also offers software to run
plants smarter'^^ without quantifying financial gain.
A compressor controls company has promoted the benefit
of compressor controls with proper attention to limit and tar-
get setting but lacks a rigorous way to quantify the important
financial value.^^^' '^'' A software firm promotes MPC control-
ler performance'^'' '^^- '^^ but does not claim rigorous financial
value. A large CIM solutions, products and control provider
offers fast polymer-grade changes for six-month paybacks'^^
with no method to properly quantify their financial value.
Further, they broadly claim increasing ROI rather than EVA for
customers'^ without offering a rigorous way to quantify and
sustain benefits, profits or ROI, when its technology is pow-
erful enough to allow it to offer a risk-free, zero-cost annu-
ity and infinite (hence, meaningless) ROI to their customers.
(Getting the scorekeeping right is important.) Another report
describes the widespread confusion about ROI as the proper
performance measure for e-business.'^^
Strategic offers. The major IT platform vendor has long
struggled with measuring the financial value of its supply
chain software platform.'"'^' '^' An expanded control solution
that boosts production performance is actually two software
productsthat do noble things that are not financially quanti-
fied."^' '^^ An HPI operating company solutions provider offers
74 MARCH 2006 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
v;iri;)ncc was reduced. The 1996 discovery of how to integrate the
CVdistribution to its associated profit function (shaped Hke a
chfftenr) to give the profit hill vs. CVmean also gave the optimum
setpoint move size and corre.sponding profit gain, providing addi-
tional value at trivial cost. It proved the proper distance between
limit and mean is never six standard deviations or Six Sigma.
It showed how to set limits and targets properly to mitigate
risk. It transformed arbitrary limits for statistical process control
and alarm management into economic optimum limits. It showed
the weakness of rigorous online optimizers that were merely con-
straint corner pickers because they had no model of the physical
and financial consequences of breaking dependent CVconstraints.
It showed that the benefit of process control cannot be properly
determined without the economic sensitivities and discontinui-
ties associated with each CKembodied in its clifftent function, it
showed the financial value of better-performing solution compo-
nents: control valves, analyzers, instruments, models, algorithms,
tuners, databases, computers and maintainers.
Once engineers and managers certify the five economic sen-
sitivity parameters, clifftent gives operators a new paradigm for
running plants by optimizing risk management: forecast CV/KP!
near-term variance. That's it, the basic human input.
Process control benefits can be double traditional claims, but
they must be visible, tangible, current, accurate and accepted.
CliiiFtent connects the statistical properties of dynamic systems to
financial value, like string theory connects quantum mechanics
to relativity,-'^ but with more immediate benefu to people.^"' ^^ It
optimizes tradeoffs under uncertainty, as basic as setting the speed
of your car near the posted limit. It revealed the need to model
the penalty for violating limits to be as important as modeling the
credit for approaching them. Many have sought this mathematical
modeling method to reconcile and optimize ciifftenc tradeoffs."'^'
^'^ The only significant performance claim to quantify financial
benefit for control/IT is CK/AP/variance reduction.
Koppel's elegant, comprehensive ISBEN approach to quantity
information system benefits from all associated business activities
is particularly noteworthy.'''' Koppel bas long advocated greater
attention to proper performance metrics for control and IT sys-
tems."' '^
Lack of proper performance measurement cannot be over-
emphasized. The situation is like 100 million football fans ready to
view the Super Bowl kickoff when one team claims a touchdown
is worth five points and tbe other says six. As tbey argue back and
forth, the fans say they don't particularly care whether it's five or
six, but they really care tbat the opponents agree on one valtte and
agree the team with the most points fairly scored after 60 minutes
is the game winner. The Olympics are viable when all competitors
and viewers understand and agree on the performance scoring
measures. Without that, there is no reason to participate.
As long as CIM practitioners fail to adopt the proper financial
performance measure standard to maximize expected value of net
present value (NPV) profit over a long term, say 30 years, fairly
discounted, they remain unable to prove the value of their work
and solutions to properly serve their customers and themselves.
As long as process control publications continue to describe some
method or tool and claim <12 month payout henceforth and
forever, the CIM demise will continue henceforth and forever.
Financial analysis of CIM solutions should be like a 30-year home
mortgage or a lifetime annuity: economic value added (EVA) with
realization probabilities.
 DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
Products vs. solutions. Process control offers confuse tbe
normal commercial distinction between produces and solutions;
tbe difterencc is profound. Know your customer; know your offer.
Align commercial risk witb know-bow. Process control and IT
businesses are infected with a fatal disease of confused mixing of
products and solutions businesses.
Products, tools, components, software, algorithms, models,
databases, platforms, valves, instruments, projects and services
sbould only be sold to customers seeking product components
(tbat tbey presumably will integrate into sustainable profit-gen-
erating solutions). Products are sold on features, capabilities and
cost; often competiti\ely bid for low price. The customer takes
the risk of generating value from them because he or sbe has the
know-how to do so. Products are sold in grocery stores, lumber
yards, pharmacies, bookstores and Websites.
CIM installation solutions that generate sustaining value-
added are sold to customers seeking solutions. Solutions combine
hardware, software, technology and appropriate people to gener-
ate sustainable process profits for the plant customer and supplier.
Solutions are sustained by performance, results and value added;
never competitively bid for low cost. The supplier takes the risk
of generating value because it has che know-how. Solutions are
offered by restaurants, realtors, physicians and colleges.
Never sell products to customers seekmg solutions; its a com-
mon disconnect. Never sell solutions to customers seeking prod-
ucts; it's a common disconnect. Never buy products based on
sustained financial performance; it's a disconnect. Never buy
solutions on low-cost competitive bidding; it's a disconnect.
(People never select a computer, college, home, suit, car, physi-
cian, attorney, vacation, restaurant or much of anything on low-
cost competitive bid. They buy on value; cost is only one of many
considerations.)
Operating company customers want CIM solutions that gen-
erate maximum expected NPV profit streams sustained over long
periods, like 30 years. They do not want maximum benefits that
may be costly, minimum costs that may have no benefit, six-month
payouts that are not sustained. They do not want to risk capital or
spend money. They really don't care how the solution works, just
how much money it makes. They want clear, large, sustained, easy,
legal, ethical, no-risk profits. They want large variable annuities, for
free. CIM has offered this potential since 1990.
Licensing performance solutions. The CIM business failed
to mature to a sound solutions business, where experienced sup-
pliers knew enough about the financial value of their numerous
installations integrated into operating plants and how to identify,
capture and sustain their value. Had they done so in 1990 they
would have evolved naturally to SR2 licensing arrangements that
endure. Their sales costs would have evaporated. -^'
Since profit-oriented CIM investments are so attractive, sup-
pliers could have easily offered free net revenue streams or free
variable annuities from Sl/bbl profits with expected A'PK(30
yr, 8%) ^ S875 million for a 200-Mbpd refinery. This provides
comprehensive solution suppliers about 25% of that amount.''''^'*
Experience established the existence of an optimum benefit split
between the operating ccompany customer and its CIM solution
supplier to sustain performance over say 30 years to realize such
value.'*^' •*•* This explains why ROT, touted as the performance
measure by one supplier for years,"'^ becomes meaningless; in\'cst-
ment is zero, ROI is infinite. It's the size of the zero-risk profit
stream EVA that matters. No-risk SR2 offers are most appropriate
BONUSREPORT
services and technology to improve margins by squeezing to
make every last drop count'^'' without a sound method for
measuring and proving financial value. A chemical operating
company global service provider offers simulation tools, per-
formance monitoring, manufacturing economics and supply
chain optimization^^^ witbout a rigorous financial perfor-
mance method for sustaining solutions. Another cbemical
operating company offers dynamic benchmarking of plant
performance in physical terms'^^ without standardizing on a
rigorous metbod for financial value.
A tank terminal automation firm offers flexible solutions
to optimize operation^'^ without a way to measure financial
value. A controller tuning expert firm promotes the impor-
tance of proper loop tuning^^^' '^^ but suffers from inability
to connect reduced variance to money.^^-^^ A major computer
firm recommends "the HPI harvest a return on IT investments
by managing risk in terms of individual elements of risk, and
the combined business and operating risk to strike the best
balance between optimization and predictable production
of products to achieve refining excellence,"^^'^ wbich is easily
done with clifftent on every C\/and KPi.''^''^^
An accounting method is offered to define a plant's true
profit potential, generating 20% to 40% profit increases, ^^^
but it is not clear if process behavior and statistical risk man-
agement of dynamic performance are covered. (Accounting
is designed to measure profit after-the-fact, not forecast,
manage and optimize it in real time.) ISA has offered a train-
ing course that includes justifying automation projects'^^ that
lacks a proper method for measuring financial performance
of automation and control systems.
Poor benefits. Since the 1970s, many authors reported
interesting technical successes witb weak financial gains.
Recent articles continue the practice. Rotava reports an inter-
esting application of MVC and RTO (commercialized in the
early 1980s) on a South American crude unit with no discus-
sion on value.'^^ McFarlane describes improved crude unit
optimization^^^ with benefits from fast project completion
in six months but no proven, quantified process economic
benefits. Bonavita offers a step-by-step approach to APC^^''
that neglects proper scorekeeping at the outset and sustained
financial performance thereafter. Chang offers a well-known
graphic display wheel to capture process control benefits but
cannot quantify the value of bis contribution.'^^ Barsamian
has promoted inline blending analyzers and control witbout
any way to quantify their financial merit.'^^ Sanz & Papon
tout traditional MVC to a batch reactor but cannot determine
its value, relying on faith theory.^^^ Mandal does a nice job
describing improved desalter and level control but cannot
quantify their value.'^^' ^^^ Galante describes a molecule man-
agement technique to improve real-time, process unit optimi-
zation tools with no method for quantifying Its value.^^° Kelly
has published extensively on IT techniques like reconciliation,
scheduling and models without a sound method for quantify-
ing financial merit.'^'"'^^
Moore relates process control to environmental impacts
and H2 management but cannot quantify tbe financial
value.''^^' '^^ Sivaraman recognizes the critical nature of proper
control limit setting for loss control but his statistical method
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2006 75
BOMUSREPORT DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
does not connect to economics.'^^ A control systems supplier
offers polymer process advanced control and optimization
after acquiring an advanced control company and its powerful
controller, but has no way to determine its financial value.'^^
Wilson reports statistical control of an FCC witb classic statis-
tical quality control (SQC) limits because he does not bave a
rigorous way to convert dynamic improvement into money.^"*^
Matbur features superfractionator MVC without plant tests
and significant CV variance reduction^"^ but is not able to
convert his accomplishment properly into dollar profit. Martin
offers a new control scheme for an SRU, reducing standard
deviation by five and sulfur emissions approximately 250 mt/
y,^°-^ describing the air/gas clifftent tradeoff without properly
determining the value of standard deviation reduction or
optimally setting the setpoint.''^' ^^
Sharpe justifies tools and services on cost reduction^°^
rather than rigorous process performance improvement, which
is an order of magnitude larger but impossible to prove if you
don't know bow. Cheng offers another algorithm for distilla-
tion control^"'' without showing any superior profit genera-
tion. Sayyar-Rodsari reports on MPC for nonlinear processes^^^
without showing any superior profit generation. Desbpande
claims turbocharging a constrained model predictive control-
ler with fuzzy logic allows application to nonlinear systems,^"^
but cannot quantify the financial merit of his idea.
Novak writes on SCADA's support of business processes
and supply chains,^''^ without quantifying financial value.
Kern implements expert online operator advisors,^"^ without
quantifying its profit generation. Valleur describes optimiz-
ing refinery scheduling comprehensively but omits any mea-
sure of financial performance; benefits are listed as words.^°^
Gilbert writes on implementing an environmental, health
and safety management information system^"^ with ten tips,
none of which include a measure of financial performance.
Karagoz claims a breakthrough in polymer control improves
the business cycle^" but does not rigorously convert statisti-
cal improvement to profit. Hall extols the importance of MVC
plant testing and that recognized big money comes from
pushing constraints properly,^'^ but he cannot quantify the
value of his proposals.
Singh describes business-to-manufacturing integration
using XML throughout the supply chain,^'^ which can col-
lect data input to KPii.^^ Moore offers several ways to cap-
ture value from supply chain management and ERP,^'''' ^'^
which require a rigorous method to determine financial
performance.''^' ^^ Catalyst monitoring software^'^ would
be strengthened if it incorporated a rigorous method for
quantifying tbe financial value of dynamic performance and
optimizing tradeoffs.'*^'^^
Sim claims optimizing asset utilization through process
engineering improves ROC up to 4%^'^ with no way to prove
it without a rigorous metbod relating risk abatement to
^' ^^ Sim also reports on advanced cubic equations of
but offers no way for his customers to determine their
worth or value over his price; clifftent tradeoffs to optimize
limits and setpoints require process models and can quantify
comparisons with less rigorous approaches to guide when
model fidelity is sufficient.''^-''^ HP
75 MARCH 2006 HYDR0CAR80N PROCESSING
for tbe doubting, skeptical, risk-adverse, inexperienced operat-
ing companies. Sharing a percentage, a piece of the action, is an
old, proven way to higher profitability for both parties. It affects
behavior in meaningful ways. Think about the Super Bow! and
Olympic games. Refinery control engineers who add value by
specifying clifftent input factors should earn 2% to 3%. Supplier
employees shouid earn 3 % to 4%. Researchers should earn 3 % .
SR2 licensing eliminates the need for the solution-supplier
sales staff. Rather, supplier executives manage and expand each
client SR2 relationship as his or her profit center, integrating and
deploying appropriate products to sustain the engineered solution.
Advertising and publications are useful for product offers, not
sustaining CIM solutions.
SR2 licensing eliminates the need for operating company tech-
nology-product appraisal staff. Rather, operating company execu-
tives focas on economic factors like margins, differential values and
consequences for breaking limits as input to clifftent for optimizing
KPh, They forecast risk (in terms of variance based on historic vari-
ance) to optimize sensitive tradeoffs, operate plants as profit centers
with CIM solutions and are delighted to share meaningful benefits
to their risk-taking solution providers because they understand
sustaining success depends on fair, mutual profit and risk sharing.
No interest. Performance measurement and solution licensing
know-how was offered to all HPI CIM solution providers and
major operating companies—privately and publicly—-during
the early 1990s,^'*"^'''^'*"^" but the obsolete faith theory products
features business paradigm prevailed.
S i t u a t i o n t o d a y . What happened since 1990? What is the
situation in 2006? What's next?
Academia no longer teaches, researches or publishes chemical
process control or CIM. Process control and instrument engineers
at operating companies and suppliers have left their profession.^''
Association conferences like NPRA, ISA, AIChE and JACC have
declined dramatically in content, attendance and interest. The
NPRA plant automation conference declined from over 300
attendees In the 1980s to fewer than 100 in September 2004
and was combined with process engineering In September 2005.
Literature has declmed. Few books are written. Magazme articles
are repetitious and unconvincing, still superficially touting meth-
ods with <12 month payouts. Quillin wrote about some "critical
issues" for CIM in the H P r " but repeated old hoopla and cannot
prove the magnitude of any financial value from his assertions.
Suppliers are offering the same familiar tools and products
while creating insufficient profit for their shareholders and facing
declining revenues, layoffs and consolidations in shrinking mar-
kets. They struggle with ill-conceived mergers and acquisitions.
Suppliers are not very profitable. One stock with no dividends
should have grown from $40/share in July 1997 to 40(1.3)**8 =
S326/share by June 2005, yet it has languished below $ 10/share
since July 2002 with weak competition; a massive destruction of
shareholder wealth. (Analysts attribute this to the sum of prof-
its over a decade <0.) Most CIM suppliers have failed to create
shareholder wealth. Recently, a Western European oil movements
CIM specialist since 1980 disclosed it lost a contract for a Viet-
namese refinery to a new group in Eastern Europe which was
under-bidding engineering services at S25/hour. This is a natural
consequence of failure to offer assured performance with no risk.
At a time when blending for boutique RFG and low-sulfur diesel
(LSD) provides large incentive to get it right, this is a tragedy.
 DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL

Suppliers of alarm management, abnormal situation manage-
ment, HAZOP analysis and safety .shutdown still struggle with
ftnanciai performance measurement of their systems because
they do not connect to process operation control. Plants risk
unplanned atmospheric emissions and catastrophes like BP's Texas
City isomerization unit raffinate splitter explosion in 2005.^'^
Operating companies continue to complain about process
control performance—the inability to see tangible benefits.
They are disappointed; they have lost interest. Control engineers
blame management for lack of vision and budgets; management
still says show me the money first. Operating limit violations
cause unplanned damage like Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) settlements'^": Valero $705 million, Motiva $550 mil-
lion and ConocoPhillips $525 million. Company CEO William
Wise reported El Paso lost a suit charging they withheld natural
gas pipeline capacity from California, raising prices, because
"EPNG did not consistently operate at or near its maximum
allowable operating pressure on a continuous basis."'^'"'^'-^ Had
EPNG understood and deployed the principles of clifftent,'*^
they would bave a mathematically sound legal defense. Tbe US
Supreme Court ruled that economic factors could not be used by
the EPA in setting air quality standards because it "could simply
complicate the procedure witbout improving it."^'-''*"*^^ Justices
Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Rehnquist were seeking a
sound basis for economically optimizing limits and targets, but
the American Chemistty Council, EPA and Solicitor General wete
unaware that clifftent provided a simple mathematical method to
do it. The relief valve sizing standards^^ do not properly optimize
risk tradeoffs.
Refmery and petrochemical margins reached historic higbs
in August 2005; a golden age for HPI profits has arrived.*"^ ARC
forecast the process industries automation market in 2003 to
grow 4.7% to $58 billion and fieldbus adoption was growing
Process control and CIM businesses are in a long decline,
failing to realize promised benefits, because they do not properly
measure the financial value of dynamic performance of installed
solutions, commercially confuse products and solutions, and
remain unable to pursue performance-based licensing of sustain-
ing solutions.
With so mucb time lost, so many mistakes made, such wide-
spread confusion, so many competent and experienced con-
trol engineers retired or gone, so few newcomers and so much
damaged infrastructure, the demise of process control and CIM
appears destined to continue. Is anybody delighted?
HPI profit increase potential exceeding $2-S3/bbl crude refined
X 85 million bptl worldwide will remain unrealized until the CIM
demise is reversed. The main lesson is never invest or embark on an
automation activity without a rigorous measure of financial value
from improved dynamic system performance. Never. Don't gamble
on a game that does not have a clear method of scoring either. Don't
neglect tbe scientific method; it works for business too. Ignoring
tbese is a recipe for failure, perhaps disaster. HP
LITERATURE CITED
Ceaglske, N. H., Automatic Procesi Control, John Wiley, 1956.
Smith, O. J. M., Feedback Control Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1958.
Caidwdl, W. I., G. A. Coon, L. M. Zoss, Frequency Response for I'roceis Control,
McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Chang, S. S. L., Synthesis of Optimum Control Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Bellman, R., Adaptive Control Processes. Dynamic Programming. Princeton Press,
1961. ^ , ,
Lonnnued

President G.W Bush and the Saudi Oil Minister have publicly
agreed fuel availability in the US will be limited by oil refinery
capacity ratber than producing field capacity. If so, refmery mar-
gins will grow. Tben proper determination and setting of equip-
ment limits and targets as well as product quality limits and targets
with clifFtent becomes the main operating challenge for produc-
tion and profit. The CIM benefit potential in 1990 of$I-$2/bb!
crude has undoubtedly increased to >S3/bbl by July 2005. (See
the literature review sidebars for insigbts into the reasons for the
demise of tbe automation business and the confusion.)

Outlook. While control and modeling technology is sound,

instruments work and computers are fast and cheap, the wbole
computer application to manufacturing field, CIM, suffers from
failure to adopt a definitive, comprehensive, rigorous, standard
method"^^ for measuring tbe financial value of dynamic systems
performance.
Once solution suppliers and tbeir customers agree on that,
solutions can be offered based on proper SR2 profit sharing.'*^'*'*
In most cases, tbe cost of generating compelling value is so low
tbe supplier can offer selected plant clients a variable annuity,
for free. Once clifftent optimizing modules and CV/AT*/profit
meters are standard components in commercial databases, every
CVand AV/setpoint will be optimized based on forecast vari-
ance, and the financial consequences of variance changes will
be quantified.
Select 86 at wwnw.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
77
BOMUSREPORT DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
I'ontryagin, L. .S., V. G. Boltyanskii, R. V. Gamkrelidze, and E. F. Mishchcnko,
The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes, John Wiley, 1962.
Zubov. V. 1., Mathematical Methods for the Study i/f Automatic Control Systems,
Macmillan, 1%3.
Gibson, J. E., Nonlinear Automatic Control, McGraw-Hill, 1963.
Shinners, S. M., Control System Design, John Wiley, 1964.
Harrioit, P., Process Control, McGraw-Hill. 1964.
Coiighanowr, D. R.. and 1.. B. Koppel. Process Systems Analysis and Control,
McGraw-Hill, 1965,
Lapidus, L, R. t.uus. Optimal Control of ^Engineering Processes, Blaisdell. 1967,
Athans, M., P. L. Falb. Optimal Control. McGraw-Hill, 1966,
Koppel. L. B., Introduction to Control Theory with Applications to Process Control,
McGraw-Hill, 1%8.
Ciould, L. A.. Chemical Process Control: Theory and Applications, Add i son-Wesley,
1969.
Denti, M. M., Optimization by VariationalMethods, McGraw-Hill. 1969.
Silvester, E.T., Computer Process Control, GuidebookfrrManagement. Technomic,
1970.
I.iiwe, E. I., and A. E. Hidden, Computer Control in Process Industries, IV-regrinus,
1971.
Douglas, J. M., Process Dynamics and Control. Vol I Analysis of Dynamic Systems.
Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Douglas. J, M., Process Dynamics and Control, Vol 2 Control System Synthesis.
Prentice-Hall. 1972.
Welier. T. W.. An Introduction to Process Dynamics and Control. John Wiley,
197.1.
Luyben. W. I.., Process Modeling, SimuLition. and Control for Chemical Engineers,
McGraw-Hill. 1973.
Borer, J, K., Design and control of chemical process systems, McGraw-Hill,
1974,
Rademaker, O.. J. E. Rijnsdorp, and A. Maarleveld, Dynamics and Control of
Continuous DistitUtion Units. Elsevier, 1975.
Fisher, D. G., and D. E Seborg, Multivariable Cotnputer Control. North-
Holland, 1976.
Shinsky, F G., Distillation Control. For Productivity and Fnergy Conservation,
McGraw-Hill, 1977.
Shinsky, F. G.. Process-Control Systems. Application, Design. Adjustment. McGraw-
Hill, 1979.
Juran, J. M.,Juran on Leadership for Quality—An Fxecutwe Handbook, The Free
Press. 1989.
Bodington, C. F.. I'Linning, Scheduling, and Control Integration in the Process
Industries. McGraw-Hill, 199'i.
I.atoiir. P. R.. "Chemic:i! Proce.ss Control Engineering Quadrangle: Economic,
Process, Goniputer. Mathematics." 74th Annual Meeting. AICtiE. New Orleans,
LA. November 12. 1981 and Senior Control Seminar. Chemical Engineering
Dept.. University of'lWas. Austin. I'X., February 23, 1982.
Latour. P. R.. "Control in Petrochemical Industry," Article 180B-III-9,
Encyclopedia of Systems and Control, M. Singh. Editor, Pergamon Press, Oxfotd,
England, 1985.
Sharpe. J. H. and ljtour. P. R., "Calculating Real Dollar Savings from Improved
Dynamic Control," Texas A&M University Annual Instrumenrs and Controls
Symposium. College Station, TX, January 23, 1986.
Latour. P R., "Petrochemical Industry: Process Control," pp. 3673-3680,
Section in Madan G, Singh, Ed., Encyclopedia of Systems and Control. Pergamon
Press, Oxford. UK. 1987.
Latour. P R., "Advanced Computer Control of Oil Refineries—Where We
Are, Where We Are Going." Paper 21, Petroleum Refining Conference, Tokyo.
Japan. 1988. The Japan Petroleum Instiruce, October 21, 1988. and Paper 6A,
Fourth Refinery TechnologV' Cxjnference. Center for fiigh Technology, Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., Vadodara. India, June 9, 1989.
Latour, P R., "Modeling Intangible. Hidden Benefits from Better Product Quality
Gonttol," International Conference on Productivity and Quality in the Hydrocarbon
Process Industry, Hydrocarbon ProcessingKZoapel^i and Lybrand. Hou.ston, TX.
February 27, 1992. Hydrocarbon Processing, V7I. n5. May 1992. p. 61.
Latour, P R.. "Role of RIS/APC for Running Refineries in the 1990s." Fuel
Reformulation, Wl. n2, March 1992, p. 14.
Amos, J. D. and Latour. P. R., "Advancements in Refining Control and
Information Technology." Presentation for WEEA-European Oil Refining
Conference, Hamburg. Germany. June 16. 1992.
Greene. B.. The Fabric of the Cosmos. Knopf. 200^.
Latout. P R.. "Role of RIS/APC fot Manufacturing RFti/LSD." National
Pettoleum Refinets Association 1994 Annual Meeting, San Antonio. TX, March
21, 1994,
Urour. ?. R., "Mission; Plan to Use RIS/APC for Manufacturing RFG/LSD,"
Fuel Reformulation. V4, n4, July/August 1994. p. 20.
Latour, P. R.. "Benefits ot Modern Refinery Intormation Systems for
Manufacturing Cleaner Fuels." API Rt-fotmulated Fuels C]onference, American
Energj' Week 1995, George R. Brown Convention Centet, Houston, TX,
January 31. 1995.
78 MARCH 2006 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
Latout. P. R.. "Ptoccss control: t!!LIFFTENT shows its mote ptofitable than
expected." Hydrocarbon Processing, V75, nl2, December 1996, pp. 75-80.
Latour. P R., "CIM FUELS," bi-monthiy contributing editorial. Fuel
Reformulation, September 1995-February 1998.
Latour. I' R.. "Does the HPI do its GIM business right?" HPln Control guest
columnist. Hydrocarbon Processing, V76. n7. July 1997, pp. I 5-16 and "Optimize
the $l9-billionClMftiels profit split." V77,n6. June 1998. pp. 17-18,
Latout. P R., "CLIFFTENT: Determining Full Financial Benefit from Improved
Dynamic Performance." Paper Cfll. Third International Conference on
Foundations of Computer-Aided Process Operations, Snowbird, Utah. July
5-10, 1998. Proceedings ptiblisbed in AIGhE Symposium Series No. 320, V94.
1998, pp. 297-302.
Latour, P. R.. "Decisions about risk reduction," letter to editor. Hydrocarbon
Processing, V80, n6, June-2001, p. 39.
Latout. P. R.. "Quantifying financial values," HPln Conttol guest columnist.
Hydrocarbon Processing, V80, n7, July 2001. pp. 13-14.
Latour, P R., "Why Invest in Process Control?," Control, Vol. XV, n5. May
2002, pp. 41-46.
Latour. P R., "Why tune control loopsi' Why make control loops:," editorial.
Hydrocarbon Processing, V81, n9. Sept 2002, pp. 11-12.
McMahon. T. K., "CLIFFTENT For Process Optimization." Control, V17. nl2.
Dec 2004, p. 66.
Latour, P R., "Whai is the optimum U.S. moga,s ,™irur conientr." Hydrocarbon
Processing, V81, n 11. Nov 2002, pp. 45-50.
Ryan. M.. " What s Really Risky?," Parade Magazine, 15Jun97. p. 12.
Ross, J. F. "What's Really Risky?." Parable Magazine, 11 Apr99, pp. 12-13.
DeHaven. J,, "Gamblers' secret of success: managing risk," Houston Chronicle,
10Feb03.
Vendantam. B.. "The fear factot: High anxiety over low risks," Houston
Chronicle. 5Apr96.
Koppel. L. B., "Quantify information system benefits," Hydrocarbon Processing.
V74, n6,June 1995. pp. 41-56.
Boyes. W, "How Can We Save- ISA?," Control JulO5. pp. 19.
Quillin, D. "Processing at a critical point." Petroleum Technology Quarterly,
Spring 04, p. 5.
Belli, A., "BP must fix safety culture, board says," Houston Chronicle. l8AugO5.
Gappiello, D.. "Oil teftnet Valero mtist rtiake upgtades." Houston Chronicle,
17JunO5.
Wise. W.A.. "Open Lettct from Fl Paso CFO," Hotmon Chronicle, 9Oct02.
Davis. M., "GEO Wise begins swan song, pteparcs to exit Fl Paso." Houston
Chronicle. l2FebO3.
Goldbetg. L., "El Paso's CEO Wise out early. Troubled company names new
leader." Houston (Chronicle. 13MarO3.
Hogtae. C . "Clean Air Acts Day in Court," Chemical and Engineering IVews.
13No\'00. p. 9; "Health-based rules endorsed." Chemical and Engineering New.
5MarOl. p. 9.
Cole. C . "Court hints at striking Clean Air Act; broad legal questions at
issue. Court overturns EPA's revised o^one and PM standards." Octane Week.
24May99, pp. 1,4-5,
Cone, M.. "Scientists are debating whether FPA is moving too fast on air pollu-
tion," Houston Chronicle, 15Jun97,
Stitnmers, A.E,, "Consider an Instrumented System for Overpressure Protection."
Chemical Engineering Progress, No^'OO, pp. 65-68.
Mowat, D,. Woertz. P, O'Malley, T "Hard and soft stuff botb important to HPI
value generation." Hydrocarbon Processing, AprO4, pp. 25-27.
ARC report. "Automation market in process industries forecast for $58 billion.'
Hydrocarbon Processing. Oct03. p. 21.
ARG Advksory, "Fieldbus adoption 'skyrocketing.' Hydrocarbon Processing.
SepO3, p, 7, '
Kane, L, A,, "Insights from the ERTC Computer Conference." Hydrocarbon
Processing. SepO3. p. 132; "Include conttol loops in asset management."
Hydrocarbon Processing, JunO3. p. 138; "Consider other control system benefits,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, May99, p, 21; "Other ways to justify control and info
systems." Hydrocarbon Processing, Jun94. p. 23,
Kane, L. A.. "2002 ISA show: hot topics, ongoing trends." Hydrocarbon
Processing, DecO2, p. 102.
Ftiedman. Y, Z,. "What is advanced process control?' Pi !, Hydrocarbon
Processing, MayO5. p. 15; Pt 2, Hydrocarbon Processing, JunO5, p, I 14; Pt 3.
Hydrocarbon Processing, IulO5, pp, 19-20,
Friedman. Y. Z.. "Website provides u.seful advanced process control informa-
tion." Hydrocarbon Processing, MarO5, pp. 17-18,
Ftiedman. Y. Z., "More about mtetential conttol models," Hydrocarbon
Processing. FebO5, pp. 17-18,
Friedman. Y. Z,. "Has the advanced process control industry completely col-
lapsed?," Hydrocarbon Processing, JanO5. pp, 1 5-16,
Friedman. Y, Z,. "First-principles inference model improves deisobutanizer col-
umn control." Hydrocarbon Processing, MatO3, pp, 43-47,
Friedman, Y, Z.. "APG. modeling and optimization insigbis," Hydrocarbon
Processing, MarO3. p, 158, "Dt, Pierre Latour's views on APC," Hydrocarbon
 DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
Processing. Nov05. pp, 17-18,
King, M. J., "How to lose money with infereniial properties," Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct04. pp, 47-52,
King, M. J., "How to lose money wich basic controls," Hydrocarbon Processing.
Oct03, pp. 5!-54.
Bras. A, and Smith, G. L,, letters. "Enhance control performance." Hydrocarbon
Processing. JanO4. pp, 36-37; Smith. C.L.. "Enhance process control perfor-
mance," Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct04, p. 57,
Smith, C, L,, "Cxinsider process control a specialty witbin chemical engineering,"
Part 1, Hydrocarbon Processing, SepO2; Pan 2, Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct02. pp.
75-83; Part 3, Hydrocarbon Processing, DecO2, pp. 71-75,
Hill, D, "Operator training practices revealed," Hydrocarbon Processing, JunO5.
p. 17; "Can metrics reveal automation as a "profit maker'?." Hydrocarbon
Processing, SepO5. p l 5 .
Hill, D., "Alatm management: more important than ever," Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct04, p. 19,
Hill. D,, "Issues continue with IT in manufacturing," Hydrocarbon I'rocessing,
JanO4, p, 17,
Hill, D., "Is performance being managed in real time?," Hydrocarbon Processing,
SepO3, pp, 19-20,
Hill. D., "Ten questions for your process automation system migration partner."
Hydrocarbon Processing, AprO3, pp. 15-16.
Chromolox, "Trends in control system enhancements," Hydrocarbon Processing,
JiinO5, p. 9,
Doble, M., "Underscandmg the myths surrounding Six Sigma," Hydrocarbon
Processing MarO5, pp, 80-82,
Clifford. L,. "Why You Can Safely Ignore Six Sigma." Fortune, 22Jan01, p,
140.
Welch, J,, "To Share Owners—Six Sigma Quality," General Electric 1999 Annual
Rfport, p. 5.
Deutsch, C.H., "Intuition's Out. 6 Sigma"s In ai GE," Herald Tribune.
13Jun00,
Deutsch, C H , . "GE uses Six Sigma method to get closer to quality conttol
solution," Houston Chronicle. 20Dec98.
Deutsch, C.H,. "A Boardroom Theology—Executives Embrace Quest for
Flawlessne.ss." HeraU Tribune. 9Dec98,
Stewart, T., "Making Decisions In Real Time." Fortune, 26JunOO, pp. ^32-
334,
Hartmann, J, C M,, "Ramp up LP models with audits and transparent report-
ing methods," Hydrocarbon Processing. SepO4, pp, 91-96; "Decision-making and
modeling in petroleum refining." Hydrocarbon Processing. Nov97. pp, 77-81,
Kalis. B,. "Cure liquid carryover from compressor suction drums." Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct04, pp. 77-84,
Barletta, T and S, W. Golden, "Gentrifugal compressor operations," Petroletirn
Technology Quarterly. Summer 04, pp. 11.5-119.
Lemmers, S, P B,, "Segregated and integrated process and antisurge compressor
control systems." Hydrocarbon Processing, AugO4, pp. 47-54.
Amrouche, Y. et al,, "General Rules for Tank Design and Operation," Chemical
Engineering Progress. DecO2. pp, 54-58,
Williams, D,, "Rjsk Management. Convergence within the Enterprise." Fortune.
19Feb01,pp. Sl-SlO.
Ghosh, A,, "Improve your bottom Ime with critical condition management."
Hydrocarbon Processing. FebO3, pl9,
Mannan, M. S,, "The Mary Kay O'Gonner Process Safety Center - the first ten
years," Hydrocarbon Processing. MarO5, pp, 65-71.
Ayral, T. E., "Critical situation management-—avoid the pitfalls." Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct02. pp. 37-40,
Gonzalez. R. G.. "Reliability Ghallenges." Petroleum Technology Quarterly. Q3
05. p. 3.
Rosenzweig, M,, "Plants get smarter," Chemical Processing. JunO5, pp. 16-21.
Alford, J, S.. et al,, "Alatm Management for Regulated Industries," Chemical
Engineering Progress. AprO5, pp. 25-30,
Brown, N.. "Effective alarm management." Hydrocarbon IVocessing. JanO4, pp.
65-71-
Grosdidier, P et al,. "A path forward for DCS alarm management," Hydrocarbon
Processing, Nov03, pp, 59-64,
Goble, W., "Using the safety life cycle," Hydrocarbon Processing, JulO3, p. 96.
Nimmo, 1.. "Alatm Management." Chemical Engineering Progress. Nov02, pp.
30-38,
EL\TECH. "Ownets seek better data delivery to operations functions."
Hydrocarbon Processing, MayO4. p. 27,
Valot, D., "Owner/contractor relationships," Hydrocarbon Processing. DecO4, p,
7.
Valot, D., "ECCs, owners exchange views at annual meeting," Hydrocarbon
Processing. necO2, pp, 19-21,
Moote, J., "Negotiating FRP Maintenance Contracts," Chemical Engineering
Prop-ess, MayO4, p. 16.
Gunic, B., "Performance-based contracting," Hydrocarbon Processing, DecO3,
pp. 43-46,
BOMUSREPORT
Transmar offer, "Strategies needed to rehuiid weakened ECC industry."
Hydrocarbon Processing, JulO3, p, 19-21.
Mullin, R, & C, Cobb, "Calculating a Comeback." Chemical and Engineering
News. 15AugO5, pp, 17-22.
Cobb, C, B., "A forward look at the refinery of tbe future," Petroleum Technology
Quarterly, Spring 2004. pp, 21 -27,
Hill, D,, M, Walker, "Dow sees collaboration as the key to operational excel-
lence," Hydrocarbon Processing. MayO3. pp, 17-18.
Bullenier, P, ei al., "Sbaping a New Role for the Operator," Chemical Engineering
Progress. MayO4, pp, 42-46,
ASM Consortium offer, "Process plant operator's role needs new paradigm,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. MarO3, pp. 23-25,
Mohrmann. C,. "Include your field work force in the automation loop,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. Oct02, pp. 61-62,
White. D, C , "Determining the trtie econotiiic value of improved plant infor-
mation," Hydrocarbon Processing, DecO4. pp. 53-58.
White, D, G,. "Creating the 'smart plants" Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct03. pp.
41-50.
Martin, G. D., "Understand control henefits estimates," Hydrocarbon Processing,
Oct04, pp. 43-46.
Grosdidier, P., "Improve APC' project success," Hydrocarbon Processing. Oct04,
pp, 37-41,
Grosdidier, P, "Value proposition fot oil accounting," Part 1, Hydrocarbon
Processing. AprO3, pp. 85-88; Part 2, Hydrocarbon Processing. MayO3, pp, 105-
109,
Grosdidier, P, "Economics of blend giveaway," Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov97,
pp. 55-60.
Fiske, T , "Gollaboraiion between IT and operations leverages common tech-
nology and enhances performance," Hydrocarbon Processing. MayO5, p. 13.
Fiske, T and Woll. D., "Unifying operations to improve business performance,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, DecO4, p. 15.
Fiske, T , "Optimizing asset effectiveness through performance monitoring,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. MayO4, p. 19,
Fiske. T . "Real-time performance management unlocks hidden value in assets."
Hydrocarbon Processing, AugO3, p, 15,
Woll. D,, "Time to rethink process plant roles and responsibilities," Hydrocarbon
Processing, SepO4, pp, 15-16,
Woll, D., "Incteased performance dictates more effective plant human assets,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, AprO4, pp, 17-18.
Woll, D,T "Effective opetations management." Hydrocarbon Processing. SepO2,
pp, 17-18,
Beautyman, A. C , "Assessing profitability of teal-time optimization."
Hydrocarbon Processing, JunO4, pp. 39-42.
Pandit, H.. "Ptofitability of process optimization," letter to the editor.
Hydrocarbon Processing, SepO4, p. 18,
Pitt, R., "The intelligent refinery—or is it?' Hydrocarbon Processing, DecO3, p,
Ii.
Pitt. R,. "IT makes fortber beadway into the refinery." Hydrocarbon Processing,
JunO3, p, 17,
Powley. G., "Performance visibility and the road to su,stainab!e profitability,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, DecO3, p. 96.
Lang, L, and Cerrj', J., "Universal key performance indicators for process
plants," Hydrocarbon Processing, JunO5, pp. 83-85,
Canney, W. M., "Are yoti getting the full benefits from your advanced process
control .systems?," Hydrocarbon Processing, JunO5, pp. 55-58.
OSlsoft offet, "Real-time insights into operational tnetrics," Hydrocarbon
Processing. AprO3, pp, 29-30,
OSlsoft offer. "Optimize in\entory management," Hydrocarbon Processing.
DecO2, p. 89.
Kennedy, J. P, "Executive interface for the process industty," Petroleum
Technology Quarterly. Summer 02, pp, 113-117.
Honeywell ofTer, "Comprehensive simttlation solution for proces.sing plants,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. MayO5- p, 98.
Honeywell ad, "Honeywell automation quickly pays for itself," Hydrocarbon
I'rocessing, SepO3, p, 133; Hydrocarbon Processing, AugO3, pp, 2, 30-31,
Honeywell offer, "KPI Manager." Gulf Publishing Company Software Reference,
Fall 03, p, 10.
Emerson ad. "Prove it," Hydrocarbon Processing. Oct04, p. 48 and Hydrocarbon
I'rocessing, SepO3, p, 21.
Emetson offer, "Model predictive control software application," Hydrocarbon
I'rocessing, Oct03, p, 105,
Emerson ad, "?tove it," Petroleum Technology Quarterly. Summer 04, p.
68.
Jackson, K, M., "lnven,sys solution components," Hydrocarbon Processing, JanO5,
SimSci-Esscor offer. "Improved advanced process control solution, " Hydrocarbon
Processing. janO5. p, 88,
Invensys ad. "ArchestrA technology." Hydrocarbon Processing, SepO3, pp. 8-9,
Ranganathan, S., A. Offetman, J. Gijntie, R, McFarlane, V, Lough, "Improved
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2006 79
BOMUSREPORT DEMISE/RISE OF PROCESS CONTROL
optimization of a refitiery crude unit." Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Spring
2003, pp. 159-67.
Cutler Tech ad, "Operator Advisor." Hydrocarbon Processing, AprO5, p. 67.
KBC ad, "Opcimum Plane Performance,' Hydrocarbon Processing, JunO3, p. 8.
HP/KBC po«ei, "2005 Refining Advanced Process Control—Profit. Ability,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. JanO5.
Performance Plus offer, "Perfortnance optimization services," Hydrocarbon
Processing. MarO5, p. 85.
ABB ad, "Results-Driven Automatioji," Hydrocarbon Processing, FebO5, p. 71.
ABB offer, "Data Acquisition and Analysis Software," Chemical Engineering
Progress, FebO3, p. 53.
CCC offer, "Control system to increase olefins production," Hydrocarbon
Processing, DecO4. p. 25.
CCC ads, "Turbomachinety Control Prnfit Enhancement," Hydrocarbon
Processing, AugO3, pp. 29, 31.
Marrikon offer. "Operarional excellence in controllet perfottnance," Hydrocarbon
Processing. Apifl4, p. 32.
Matrikon offer, "Software solution purcha.sed," Hydrocarbon Processing. AugO3,
p. 91.
AspenTech offer. "Resin Producers' New Ally in Fast Grade-Change Transitions,"
Chemical Engineering Progress, AugO3, p. 10.
AspenTech ad, "ROI," Hydrocarbon Processing, AptO4, p. 55 dnd MatO4, p.
20.
Aberdeen Gtoup Ad Section. "Growing Technology ROI," Fortune, 24Nov03,
pp. S M 8 .
SAP ad, "If we can't afford the solution, then it's not a solution," Fortune,
24Nov03, p, S7,
SAP offer, "Adaptive supply chain network solution," Hydrocarbon Processing.
AiigO3, p. 97.
Pavilion offet, "Expanded control solution boosts production performance.'
Hydrocarbon Processing, JanO4, p. 83.
Pavilion oiifer, "Pavilion Technologies Acquires Business Threads," Chemical
Engineering Progress. HebO3, p. 23.
Shell Global Solutions ad, "Squeeze. Make ever>' drop count," Petroleum
Technology Quarterly, Autumn 03, p, 87.
Bayer offer, "New company transforms HPI ideas itito reality," Hydrocarbon
Processing, JulO3, p. 29,
DuPont offer, "Dynamic benchmarking of plant performance," Hydrocarbon
Processing, MarO3. pp. 28-29.
Enraf ad, "Terminal Auromation solutions," Petroleum Technology Quarterly,
Autumn 03. p. 88.
ExperTune offer. "Process control constiltaiit accessible iti a box," Hydrocarbon
Processing, DecO3, p. 25.
ExpetTune offet, "Loop Perfottnance Monitor Mines Knowledge From [iata
Historians," Chemical Engineering Progress, JunO3, p- 32.
IBM offer, "Refiners: Manage key funaiotis for success," Hydrocarbon Processing,
AiigOi, p. 17.
Hagen offer, "Accounting approach defines plant's true profit potential,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct02. p. 31.
y^jj ^y course, "Planning, Jtistitymg, and Executing Automation and Control
Ptojects," ISA Training Courses, Houston. 22Oct03.
Rotava, O., and A. C. Zanin, "Multivariable control and real-time optimiza-
tion-—an industrial practical view," Hydrocarbon Processing. JunO5. pp. 61-71.
Bonavita, N.. et al., "A step-by-step approach to advanced process control,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. Oct03, pp. 69-73.
Chang. E., "Pattern recognition displays capture advanced process control ben-
efits," Hydrocarbon Processing, JiitiO5, pp. 93-96.
Barsamian. A., "Consider near infrared methods fot inline blending,"//yfyrofur/'o^
Processing, JunO5, pp. 97-100.
Sanz, A, J. Papon, et al., "Model-based predictive control increase batch reactor
production." Hydrocarbon Processing. MayO5, pp. 61-65.
Mandal, K. K,, "Improve desalter control." Hydrocarbon Processing. AprO5. pp.
77-81,
Mandal, K. K., "New level control techniques," Hydrocarbon Processing. Oct04,
pp. 71-74; "Optimi2c surge vessel control," Hydrocarbon Processing. MarO3, p.
41.
Galante, E. G.. "F'xx an Mobil's molecule-management," Hydrocarbon Processing.
AprO5, p. 17.
Kelly, J. D.. "Improve accuracy of tracing production qualities using successive
reconciliation." Hydrocarbon Processing. AprO5, pp. 65-72.
Kelly, J. D.. "Improve yield accounting by including density measutements
explicitly," Hydrocarbon Processing, FebO5. pp. 93-95.
Kelly, J. D., "Crude oil blend scheduling optimization: an application with
mtiltimillion dollar benefits" Part I, Hydrocarbon Processing. JunO3. pp. 47-53;
Part 2, Hydrocarbon Processing, Ju!03. pp. 72-7'X
Keliy, J, D.. "Modeling Production-Chain Information.' Chemical Engineering
Progress. FebO5, pp. 28-31.
Kelly, J. D., "Formulating Production Planning Models," Chemical Engineering
I'rogress. janO4. pp, 43-50.
SO MARCH 2006 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
Moore, I., "Reducing COi emissiotis." Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Q2 05,
pp. 97-103.
Moore, I. et al., "Hydrogen optimization at minimal investment." Petroleum
Technology Quarterly. Spring 03, pp. 83-90.
Sivaraman, S. et al., "Determining system capabihtj' tor loss control and custody
transfers," Hydrocarbon Processing, MarO5. pp. 45-51,
PAS/DOT offet, "Polymer process advanced control and optimization,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, JanO5, p. 28.
Wilson, J. W., "Statistical process control in FCC operations," Petroleum
Technology Quarterly, Summer 04. pp. 69-73.
Marhur, U., R. J. Gonroy, "Successful multivariable conttol without plant tests."
Hydrocarbon I'rocessing, JunO3, pp. 55-65.
Martin, R. G., et al., "New control scheme improves SRU control," Hydrocarbon
Processing, SepO3, pp. 101-106.
Sharpe. P.. and J. Rezabek, "Embedded APC tools reduce costs of the technol-
ogy." Hydrocarbon Processing. Oct04, pp. 53-56.
Cheng, G. S., "Model-free adaptive technology improves distillation column
chain control," Hydrocarbon I'rocessing. Oct04, pp. 57-62.
Say)'ar-Rodsari, B. et al.. "Model predictive control for nonlinear processes with
varying dynamics," Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct04, pp. 63-69.
Deshpande, P. B. et aL, "Control and Optimize Nonlinear Systems," Chemical
Engineering Progress, FehO3, pp. 63-73.
Novak, R.. "SCADA's new capabilities support business processes and supply
chaiti." Hydrocarbon Processing, AugO4, pp. 17-18.
Kern, A. G., "Impletnentitig expert online operator advisors," Hydrocarbon
Processing, JunO4, pp. 43-45.
Valleur, M and J. L. Grue, "Optimize short-term refinery scheduling,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. JimO4, pp. 46-49.
Gilbert, J. B., "Implementing an EHS Management Infottnation System,"
Chemical Engineering Progress, MayO4, pp. 28-32.
Karagoz, O., Versteeg, ]., Metcer, M., P. Turner, "Advanced control methods
improve polymers' business cycle," Hydrocarbon Processing, AprO4, pp. 45-49.
Hall. J., "Benefits of platit testing for multivariable controllers," Hydrocarbon
Processing, MarO4, p. 92.
Singh. S., "Business-to-manutacturing integration using XML," Hydrocarbon
Processing, MarO3, pp. 62-65,
Mootc, |., A. Gonzalez, "The Supply Chain Cornerstone," Chemicai Engineering
Progress, Nov02, p. 2').
Moore, J., "The Big Squeeze is on in ERI'," Chemical Engineering IVogress, SepO2,
p. 30.
GRI/Pavilion offer, "Real-time catalyst monitoring software—CATSCAN,"
Hydrocarbon I'rocessing. DecO2, p, 27.
Sim, W., et aL. "Engineering to Business: Optimizing A'iset Utilization Through
Process Engineering," Chemical Engineering Progress, SepO2, pp. 54-63 and
Roberts, W. T., letters. Chemical Engineering Progress, FebO3, p. 8.
Sim, W. D., C. H. Twu, V. Tassone, "Getting a Handle on Advanced Cubic
Eqtiarions of State." Chemical Engineering I'rogress, Nov02. pp. 58-65.
Latour, P R., "Ptocess Design Decisions Related to Process Control," Papet 60b.
74th Narional Meeting. AIChF, New Orleans, lA. March 1973.
Latour, R R., "Process Computer as a Tool for Golden Eagle Refinery
Etiergy Conservation." 68th Annual Meeting, AIChE, Los Angeles, California,
Novembet 18. 1975 and Chemical Engineering Progress, V72. n4, April 1976, pp.
76-81.
Latour, P. R., "Ptocess Computer Monitors, Reduces Energy Use." Oil & Gas
joumal, Fehruary 23. 1976. p, 92.
Van Horn, L D. and Latour, P. R., "Crude Distillation Computer Cotitrol
Experience," ISA-76 Conference, Houston, TX. October 12, 1976,
Van Horn, L. D. and latour, P. R., "Computer Control of a Crude Still,"
Instrumentation Technology, V 2 3 . n i l . N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 6 , p . ^i.
Latour. P R.. "The Hidden Benefits from Better Process Control," ISA-76
Conference, Houston, TX, October 13. 1976 and Cleveland ISA 3rd Annual
Conference and Exhibit, Ohio, May I6, 1977.
P i e r r e R. L a t o u r is an independent consultant specializing in
measuring financial performance of HPi information and process
control systems {Clifftent) to support shared risk-shared reward
(SR2) licensing of profit-sustaining solutions. He has been a vice
president of engineering, marketing, business development, proj-
ect implementation and consulting at Aspen Technology, Dynamic Matrix Control
Corp, Setpoint and Biles & Associates. Dr Latour cofounded the last two firms and
held senior positions at Shell Oil and DuPont. He fias worked on contracts for 50 HPI
companies worldwide on most processes like ACU, FCC and olefins. Dr. Latour holds
a BS degree, ChE from Virginia Tech and a PhD degree, ChE from Purdue. He served
as Captain U.S. Army, NASA, Houston. Dr. Latour has authored 60 publications. He
was cimfuels editor for FUEL and is a registered PE in Texas and California, He resides
in Houston, Texas. E-mail: clifftent@hotmaiLcom.