Capital cost supported

Once production commences (possibly 3-8 years after the first capex) gross revenues are received from the sale of the hydrocarbons. These revenues are used to recover the capital expenditure (capex) of the project, to pay for the operating expenditure (opex) of the project (e.g. manpower, maintenance, equipment running costs, support costs), and to provide the host government take which may in the simplest case be in the form of taxes and royalty. 

Tubular Modules. Tubular modules are generally limited to ultrafiltration appHcations, for which the benefit of resistance to membrane fouling because of good fluid hydrodynamics overcomes the problem of their high capital cost. Typically, the tubes consist of a porous paper or fiber glass support with the membrane formed on the inside of the tubes, as shown in Figure 24. 

However, Lynn and Howland included in the fixed-capital cost not only money invested in production and storage facilities but also that invested in land, research and development costs, and any auxiliary facihties necessaiy to support the process. Typical values of capit ratios for the year 1958 are listed in Table 9-49. 

Of these, fixed-bed adiabatic reactors are the cheapest in terms of capital cost. Tubular reactors are more expensive than fixed-bed adiabatic reactors, with the highest capital costs associated with moving and fluidized beds. The choice of reactor configuration for reactions involving a solid supported catalyst is often dominated by the deactivation characteristics of the catalyst. 

Altogether, the model supports the company to optimize monthly profits based on volume decisions consistent as far as possible to company s profit and loss structures. Ideally, it is fully consistent with the company s profit and loss statement requiring integrating costs for support areas such as further overhead costs or capital costs on receivables. This would be a long-term vision, where further research should be directed to. 

Basis for calculating capital costs on transit and local inventories are the planned product values. The model supports future inventory value planning based on the raw material price offers. Fig. 82 shows results of the inventory value planning. 

Initial capital costs for the Alpheus Model 250 and support equipment used during this experiment are as follows Alpheus Model 250, 107,000 compressor, 81,000 CO2 storage tank, 46,000 air dryer, 21,000. Total capital costs were listed at 255,000 (D15087I, p. 10). 

The soil contained 72,000 lb of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The total cost to complete the project was estimated to be 5.7 million. According to project managers, approximately two-thirds of the funds were allocated for capital costs (including chemicals and the injection process) and one-third for monitoring and support (D18766A, p. 3). 

It is implicit in reaction 9.4 that the equilibrium yield of ammonia is favored by high pressures and low temperatures (Table 9.1). However, compromises must be made, as the capital cost of high pressure equipment is high and the rate of reaction at low temperatures is slow, even when a catalyst is used. In practice, Haber plants are usually operated at 80 to 350 bars and at 400 to 540 °C, and several passes are made through the converter. The catalyst (Section 6.2) is typically finely divided iron (supplied as magnetite, Fe304 which is reduced by the H2) with a KOH promoter on a support of refractory metallic oxide. The upper temperature limit is set by the tendency of the catalyst to sinter above 540 °C. To increase the yield, the gases may be cooled as they approach equilibrium. 

The catalyst beds are mounted in a single reactor vessel because it is more economical than using multiple vessels. The spacing between beds is set at 1 m. The length-to-diameter aspect ratio of the vessel is 10. Because a multibed reactor must have internal piping, flow distributors, and bed supports, a multi-bed reactor vessel is more expensive than a simple vessel. We assume that each additional bed increases reactor capital cost by about 25%, as shown in Table 5.2. 

We gratefully acknowledge the Poole family and Bud Kushnir, whose financial support made this research possible. Sean Sanders of Syncrude Canada provided insight into pump size and pressure drop in the slurry pipeline and also provided heavy gas oil for the experiments. Mark Coolen, woodlands operations superintendent for Millar Western Forest Products, provided wood chips for the experiments and valuable discussions. David Williams, Chief Estimator for Bantrel (an affiliate of Bechtel), provided valuable comments concerning capital cost estimation of pipeline. Vic Lieffers and Pak Chow of the University of Alberta helped carry out the experiments. All conclusions and opinions are solely the authors and have not been reviewed or endorsed by any other party. 

The DOE had announced that this was a synthetic fuel commercialization project it would strongly support. So what has happened After public hearings, the F.E.R.C. staff filed a 24-page motion with the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the case with prejudice. The principal problems in this case, are the high capital cost, and the high initial gas price and - as it will be in all synthetic gas cases - who will take the financial risk. And that case was only for production of 40 billion cubic feet of gas a year, 2/10 of one percent of the current U.S. consumption. (The U.S. consumption is about 20 trillion cubic feet a year). 

This case lends support to the thermodynamic conviction that if fuel can be saved, investment should be lower as well. Note, however, that the thermodynamicist was disappointed by decreasing boiler pressure to 600 psig. Clearly, there must be some limitation to the extent to which energy efficiency can be improved at no Increase in capital cost. 

The second step is to estimate the direct installation costs by summing all the cost factors involved in the direct installation costs, which include piping, insulation, foundation and supports, and so on. The sum of these factors is designated as the DCF (direct installation cost factor). The direct installation costs are then the product of the DCF and X. The third step consists of estimating the indirect installation cost. Here all the cost factors for the indirect installation costs (engineering and supervision, startup, construction fees, and so on) are added the sum is designated by ICF (indirect installation cost factor). The indirect installation costs are then the product of ICF and X. Once the direct and indirect installation costs have been calculated, the total capital cost (TCC) may be evaluated as follows ... 

Three factors are responsible for the forecast increase in chemical prices. Energy intensive materials, such as chlorine and caustic soda, will have a corresponding increase in cost. Mining and recovery expenses for natural minerals will increase with the need to utilize more remote deposits. Capital costs for additional and replacement facilities will continue to rise faster than the forecast rate of inflation. This is especially true for grass-roots plants in remote areas, which entail the additional costs of the supporting infrastructure. 

---