Lessons learned from developing and implementing refinery production scheduling technologies
Marcel JOLY1(), Mario Y. MIYAKE2
1. Institute for Technological Research of the São Paulo State, São Paulo SP 05508-901, Brazil; Centre of Excellence for Industrial Automation, Petrobras SA, São Paulo SP 05508-900, Brazil 2. Institute for Technological Research of the São Paulo State, São Paulo SP 05508-901, Brazil
An increasing number of novel and highly specialized computer-aided decision-making technologies for short-term production scheduling in oil refineries has emerged and evolved over the past two decades, thereby encouraging refiners to permanently rethink the way the refining business is operated and managed. In this report, we discuss the key lessons learned from one of the pioneering, yet daring, enterprise-wide programs entirely implemented in an energy company devoted to developing and implementing an advanced refinery production scheduling (RPS) technology, i.e., the RPS system of Petrobras. Apart from mathematical and information technology issues, the long-term sustainability of a successful RPS project is, we argue, the outcome of a virtuous cycle grounded on permanent actions devoted to improving technical education inside the organization, reinspecting organizational cultures and operational paradigms, and developing working processes.
. [J]. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 2017, 4(3): 325-337.
Marcel JOLY, Mario Y. MIYAKE. Lessons learned from developing and implementing refinery production scheduling technologies. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(3): 325-337.
Better analytical technologies for feed characterization, good phenomenological models for parameter estimation, good and time-efficient identification procedures, expansion toward nonlinear and hybrid (discrete–continuous) systems
Tab.1
Fig.1
Vendor
Solution
Aspen Technology
Aspen Petroleum Scheduler
Haverly Systems
H/SCHED
Industrial Algorithms
IMPL(a)
Invensys
Spiral Schedule
Princeps
Flowers
Prometheus
PROLAV
Soteica
Visual Mesa
Technip
Forward C
Tab.2
Fig.2
Fig.3
Fig.4
Threat
Potential factors
A. Deficient technology
(1) Prohibitive investments in software (e.g., acquisition or licensing costs);
(2) Operational problems related to system failure (e.g., bugs) or availability;
(3) Poor computational performance due to (4) costly computation; (5) System inadequacy in meeting the needs of schedulers (e.g., poor usability and navigability), which may arise from (6) deficient know-how about RPS and related disciplines, such as operations research (OR);
(7) Deficient integration of the RPS solution into corporate systems and databases, thereby possibly causing prohibitive manual workload, which renders RPS impractical;
B. Deficient working processes
(8) Failure to meet certain prerequisites for achieving sustainability; (9) Mature bounding conditions related to database infrastructure building; (10) Local priority at the refinery in the early phases of the RPS project (right people at the right time); (11) Availability of a corporate scheduling support team that can respond quickly to schedulers with regard to technological questions concerning the RPS application (from simple usage doubts up to requests for technology sophistication);
(12) Unavailability of a consulting team with a clear understanding of the RPS project purpose, capabilities, limitations, and (13) complexity as an interdisciplinary activity in which several actors must work together to accomplish desired goals;
(14) Improper implementation strategy, which fails to speed up the production of tangible benefits (e.g., good practices recommend the adoption of increasing scope over time);
(15) The lack of a consistent and automatized (as much as possible) key performance indicator (KPI) model for assessing the decision-making quality in RPS (Fig. 5); if tangible benefits associated with the RPS project are not measured (16) and evidenced (17), then continued investments on RPS may not occur, thereby compromising project sustainability (8);
(18) Ineffective working processes combined with (19) Undisciplined practices for model maintenance, (20) Poor corporate foresight concerning the supply chain operation, (21) Immediatism (high priority for short-term results at the expense of long-term benefits normally associated with good decision making, which may indicate high rates of rescheduling (22) and poor RPS performance (23), thereby compromising the sustainability of the RPS project (8), and (24) “Irreplaceable” people playing key roles in the RPS project;
(25) Improper software development model, which neglects the fact that refinery automation systems require approaches different from those applied to conventional (e.g., transactional) IT systems; (26). In this study, agile (i.e., not bureaucratized [27]) software development methods should be considered to strengthen the collaboration between the organization and third parties (e.g., technology companies and universities) in the appropriate working structure (e.g., center of excellence) (28).
C. HR-related deficiencies at operational levels
(29) Low commitment, which may be unavoidable if the refinery is understaffed (30) and/or highly demanded at the time of project implementation (31);
(32) Deficient technical education (i.e., lack of managerial understanding of the strategic significance of OR for the modern refining business), which underscores unfruitful bounding conditions (33) for developing costly actions devoted to improving the decision-making quality (34);
(35) Deficient project leadership by a corporate consulting team, which may also introduce serious obstacles for achieving and sustaining success in RPS projects; (36) Deficient planning for implementing this kind of project, which emerges from the lack of timely and integrated actions involving many actors (37) or the poor expertise or experience of the leading staff (38), which must be appropriately sized and multidisciplinary (e.g., backup personnel should be available) (39);
(40) Reduced celerity from these technological areas to satisfy the short- and long-term needs of RPS system users, which may be due to insufficient human resources (41) or deficient HR qualifications (42);
(43) Loss of RPS expertise in the IT and R&D areas, which can be solved by adopting efficient knowledge management policies (44) that consider the importance of continuous learning (e.g., advanced educational programs and participation in technological consortia) (45) for achieving excellence and increasing staff motivation;
(46) Volatility of valuable human resource; (47) Costly learning curve normally associated with the RPS activity, which is particularly problematic if the staff does not have preexisting interdisciplinary expertise (48), and is an additional factor that negatively contributes to the sustainability of excellence in human resource qualifications (42);
(49) Deficient work processes and educational policies (50), which may produce “irreplaceable” people in the IT and R&D departments (51), thereby causing project failure;
D. HR-related deficiencies at strategic levels
(52) Immediatism, which is a well-known threat to RPS projects, from conception to operation, the hallmark of deficient strategies for knowledge management at the highest levels of the corporation (53), and is among the major nontechnical reasons for poor plant-wide optimization (54); (55) Deficient technical education at the managerial level, which damages business performance given that principals are responsible for strategic definitions;
(56) Principals who do not know about OR possibilities and cause the strategic role of OR in refining the business to not be acknowledged in the highest levels of the company (57);
(58) Cultures and myths that are still present in the minds of some individuals (e.g., “maximal load indicates maximal profit”), which may result in the design of improper KPI models (59) that hinder the accurate measurement of RPS benefits (60, 61), thereby causing poor appreciation of OR-based technology within operational environments (62) and leading to a global result that is of low priority to enterprise-wide efforts in developing the RPS activity in business areas (63), as well as in technological areas (64), where RPS projects compete for available resources with other corporate projects (65).
Bonner and Moore (1979).RPMS (Refinery and Petrochemical Modeling System): A System Description. Houston: Bonner and Moore Management Science
3
CutlerC R, RamakerB L (1979). Dynamic matrix control: A computer control algorithm. In: AIChE 86th National Meeting. IEEE, 51–B https://doi.org/10.1109/JACC.1980.4232009
GareyM R, JohnsonD S (1979). Computers and Intractability—A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company
6
HorganJ (1995). From complexity to perplexity. Scientific American, 272(6): 104–109
7
JolyM (2012). Refinery production planning and scheduling: The refining core business. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 29(2): 371–384 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-66322012000200017
8
JolyM, MoroL F L, PintoJ M (2002). Planning and scheduling for petroleum refineries using mathematical programming. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 19(2): 207–228 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-66322002000200008
9
JolyM, PintoJ M (2003). Mixed-integer programming techniques for the scheduling of fuel oil and asphalt production. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 81(4): 427–44710.1205/026387603765173691
10
JolyM, RochaR, SousaL C F, TakahashiM T, Mendon�aP N, MoraesL A M, QuelhasA D (2015). The strategic importance of teaching operations research for achieving high performance in the petroleum refining business. Education for Chemical Engineers, 10: 1–19 doi:10.1016/j.ece.2014.11.001
11
KellyJ D, MannJ L (2003). Crude oil blend scheduling optimization: an application with multimillion dollars benefits. Hydrocarbon Processing, 82(7): 47–53
12
KellyJ D, MenezesB C, GrossmannI E (2014). Distillation blending and cutpoint temperature optimization using monotonic interpolation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 53(39): 15146–15156
13
LasiH, FettkeP, KemperH G, FeldT, HoffmannM (2014). Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(4): 239–242
14
LeeJ, BagheriB, KaoH (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3: 18–23
15
LeeH, PintoJ M, GrossmannI E, ParkS (1996). Mixed-integer linear programming model for refinery short-term scheduling of crude oil unloading with inventory management. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 35(5): 1630–1641
16
LenasP, LuytenF P (2011). An emerging paradigm in tissue engineering: from chemical engineering to developmental engineering for bioartificial tissue formation through a series of unit operations that simulate the in vivo successive developmental stages. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 50: 482–522
17
LiporaceF S, GomesM V C, KatataA C, ZaninA C, MoroL F L, Porf�rioC R (2009). PETROBRAS experience implementing real time optimization. Computer-Aided Chemical Engineering, 27: 1245–1250 doi:10.1016/S1570-7946(09)70598-X
18
Magalh�esM V O (2004). Refinery Scheduling. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. London: Imperial College London
19
Magalh�esM V O, MoroL F L, SmaniaP, HassimottoM K, PintoJ M, AbadiaG J (1998). SIPP—A solution for refinery scheduling. In: NPRA Computer Conference. San Antonio: NPRA
20
MendozaD F, PalacioL M, GracianoJ E A, RiascosC A M, Vianna JrA S, Carrillo Le RouxG A (2013). Real-time optimization of an industrial-scale vapor recompression distillation process. Model validation and analysis. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 52: 5735–5746
21
MonostoriL (2014). Cyber-physical production systems: roots, expectations and R&D challenges. In: Proceedings of the 47th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems. Elsevier, 17: 9–13
22
MoroL F L (2003). Process technology in the petroleum refining industry- current situation and future trends. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 27: 1303–1305
23
MoroL F L, ZaninA C (2014). The role of industrial automation in the operational excellence of petroleum refining. In: Anais do XX Congresso Brasileiro de Autom�tica, Belo Horizonte MG (Brazil), 3790–3797 (in Portuguese)
24
NishiokaG K, JolyM, Le RouxG A C (2012). Scheduling of offshore wells activities in petroleum specific resources. In: EngOpt2012- 3rd International Conference on Engineering Optimization. Code 351
25
OreskesN, Shrader-FrechetteK, BelitzK (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the Earth sciences. Science, 263: 641–646
26
OttinoJ M (2003). Complex systems. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 49(2): 292–299
27
OttinoJ M (2011). Chemical engineering in a complex world: grand challenges, vast opportunities. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 57(7): 1654–1668
28
PinottiR, ZaninA C, MoroL F L (2008). Advanced control monitoring in PETROBRAS’ refineries: Quantifying economic gains on a real-time basis. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 25: 495–500
29
PintoJ M, JolyM, MoroL F L (2000). Planning and scheduling models for refinery operations. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24: 2259–2276
30
RigbyB, LasdonL S, WarenA D (1995). The evolution of TEXACO’s blending systems: from OMEGA to StarBlend. Interfaces, 25(5): 64–83
31
ScheuermannC, VerclasS, BrueggeB (2015). Agile factory—An example of an Industry 4.0 manufacturing process. In: IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, Networks, and Applications
32
SteinschornD, HofferlF (1997). Refinery scheduling using mixed integer LP and dynamic recursion. In: NPRA Computer Conference
33
SymondsG H (1955). Linear Programming: The Solution of Refinery Problems. New York: Esso Standard Oil Co.
34
XuC, ShiQ (2016). Structure and Modeling of Complex Petroleum Mixtures. Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
35
ZhangN, ValleurM (2010). In: Riazi M R, Eser S, Diez J L P, et al. eds. Handbook of Petroleum Refining and Natural Gas Processing. Chapter 18. Conshohocken: ASTM International
