Group 8 David Boley, Deneb Bosch, Nathen Miller, Thanh-an Sam Refinery facility Group 8 David Boley, Deneb Bosch, Nathen Miller, Thanh-an Sam

Introduction Three Value Engineering teams Teams had 15 members Professionals from the oil company Potential initial savings of $55 million $1 million annual saving if the changes were implemented

Team 1: Project Layout Team 2: Process Team 3: Electrical/Mechanical/Piping

Team 1: Layout IMPLEMENTING VE Purpose: Value engineer (VE) the layout space of refinery facility by rearranging of pipe to reduce $. Result: After the VE study, it is estimated that the potential savings would be 8.5 million in initial costs due to reduction of interface cost and size of building to meet the project objective rather than desired future requirement.

TOOLS Team One conducted the VE based on function analysis using the Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) Diagram to help it determine which component meets its project objective. Team One implemented the Weighted Evaluation to narrow down on the less important focus in the VE study.

IDEAS At the beginning of the study, the team came up with many ideas for development, four were selected. Twelve suggestions were also developed. Team One had four proposals for VE study, one of which was the main focus for the team to recommend was the revise layout of site.

ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF REFINERY FACILITY

PROPOSED LAYOUT OF REFINERY FACILITY

ORIGINAL DESIGN *(costs all $x1,000) ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Not known Unnecessary quantity of piping used High in present worth costs of $6,028 High in annual cost of $642

PROPOSED DESIGN *(costs all $x1,000) ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Low in quantity of piping used Not known Low in present worth costs $3,368 Low in annual costs of $364 Life cycle present worth savings of $2,938 Result- Reduction in on-site piping from $7,847 meters to 4,499 meters.

Team 2: Process proposals P-14 Use Seawater for Process Cooling] P-17 Eliminate/Reduce Seawater pumps P-25 Product Pipeline Scrapers P-36 Combine/Reduce Size of Storage Tanks

Implemented Proposal P-36 Combine/Reduce Size of Storage Tanks Feeding the Process Product Storage By-Product Storage

Feeding the Process Original Design Two Stock Tanks One filling while the other feeds the system Proposed Design Directly feed the process One stock tank available for off-spec product, catch feed if the process is down or to feed the system if pipeline is down

Product Storage Original Design Intermediate tanks to test the product before it is pumped to the port Proposed Design No on-site storage the product is pumped directly to the port Product is tested continuously by taking frequent samples directly from the process

By-Product Storage Original Design By-product stored in day storage until shipped to the port Proposed Design By-product pumped directly to the port

Actual Reductions/Savings Reduced the quantity of the monitoring wells Eliminated storage tanks Eliminated concrete pads for 9 tanks Eliminated 14 pumps Replaced 5 miles of 10”, 12” and 14” pipes with 4”, 6”, and 8” pipe Reduced energy consumption Increased Reliability

Summary of Cost Savings Original Design Total Initial cost $60.9 million Total Annual Cost $830,000 Total PW Cost $67.973 million Total Saving Proposed Design Total Initial cost $27.1 million Total Annual Cost $145,000 Total PW Cost $28.334 million $39.6 million

Team 3: Electrical/Mechanical/Piping M-10 Eliminate One Loading Arm. M-17 Combine Wastewater & Off-Plot Tank feed. M-21 Eliminate Tank Area Fill E-2 Reevaluate Substation E-3 Revise 115 KV Plant Feed

Implemented Proposal E-3 Original Design: 115 KV Plant Feed Installed Underground Proposed Design: Install 115 KV Plant Feed Above Ground Note: Local utilities require 115 KV feed to be installed underground. VE team felt that above ground service is suitable for this industrial application. Waiver must be requested.

Functional Analysis Proposed Design offers the same function as the original design of delivering the 115 KV plant feed.

Cost Worksheet Cost Reduction for Proposal E-3 Cost Additions for Proposal E-3

Present Worth Cost Savings Initial Cost Savings: $4,299,696 + Annual O+M Cost Savings: $0 ______________ Total PW Cost Savings: $4,299,696