PS2-6.1

RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT IN BADAK LNG PLANT

AMELIORATION DE LA FIABILITE DE L’USINEBADAK LNG

Bambang S. Santoso, Sr. Reliability EngineerRahmat Safruddin, Process EngineerRanto Manullang, Inspection Engineer

PT Badak NGL, Bontang - East Kalimantan - Indonesia

ABSTRACT

To keep maintain the position as the worlds’ leading LNG supplier, PT Badak NGLimplements various programs to improve the reliability of its LNG plant located in Bontang,East Kalimantan.

The effectiveness of PT Badak reliability improvement programs increased significantlyafter the set up of the Reliability Improvement Team (RIT) in 1996. This team identified thetop ten reliability issues and continuously monitors the results of the strategy implemented toeliminate each issue.

As a result, the Load Factor or uptime has improved from 90 (1996) to 92.5 % (1999),approaching the World Class level of 95 %. The ratio between the Maintenance Cost and theCurrent Replacement Value (CRV) has improved from 0.76 to 0.68 %, exceeding the WorldClass level of 1-3 %.

The objective of this paper is to share PT Badak experience in implementing PTBreliability improvement programs with the LNG 13 Conference attendees in order to improvethe reliability of the world LNG supply in general.

RESUME

Afin de maintenir sa position de leader mondial en fourniture de LNG, PT Badak NGL amis en œuvre plusieurs programmes visant à améliorer la fiabilité de son usine deliquéfaction de gas située à Bontang, Kalimantan Est.

La mise en place d’une Task-Force RIT (Reliability Improvement Team) en 1996 anettement augmenté l’efficacite des programmes d’amelioration de fiabilite.Cette équipeidentifie les Dix Problemes Prioritaires en matières de fiabilité et observe continuellement lesrésultats des stratégies appliquées pour les éliminer.

En conséquence le facteur de charge est passé de 90% (1996) à 92.5 % (1999) en direction desmeilleurs niveaux internationaux de 95%. Le ratio Coûts de Maintenance / Valeur deRemplacement est passé de 0,76 % á 0,68% dépassant les niveaux mondiaux de 1-3%.

La présentation a pour objectif de partager avec les autres participants de ‘LNG13’l’expérience acquise par PT Badak en réalisant les programmes précédents, afin d’améliorerla fiabilité de la fourniture mondiale de GNL.

PS2-6.2

RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT IN BADAK LNG PLANT1. INTRODUCTION

PT Badak NGL operates a LNG plant in Bontang - East Kalimantan, which has thehighest LNG production capacity in the world. The company, a joint venture between theIndonesian Government (Pertamina), TOTAL Indonesie, BP, UNOCAL and Jilco, startedwith two process trains A and B in 1977. Currently, the total LNG production capacity ofthe eight process trains (A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) is 24.1 mtpa or 53 million m3 peryear. This ideal capacity is based on a condition that all process trains always operate attheir current Maximum Sustainable Rate (MSR). The more reliable the plant and the feedgas supply the closer the actual capacity to this ideal capacity.

To systematically improve the plant reliability, PT Badak formed the ReliabilityImprovement Team (RIT) in 1996 and the fully dedicated Reliability Engineering Group(REG) in 1999. Their function is to assess plant reliability, identify top ten reliabilityissues, monitor action program required to address each issue and evaluate the result.

2. RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Until 1997, the main indicator used by PT Badak to assess the plant reliability, is thePlant Availability (PAV) which is defined as:

PAV = (Actual Train Running Hours / Total Train Hours Entire Year) X 100 %

When the RIT started to work, the Plant Availability (PAV) for 1988 - 1997 is asfollows:

Year '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97PAV (%) 94.9 91.8 95.3 93.8 95.5 95.3 94.2 94.7 93.4

During this 10 years the precentages of the total LNG production loss associated withplant equipment problems are as follows :

- Mechanical : 21.0 %- Instrument : 2.9 %- Rotating Equipment : 1.8 %- Electrical : 0.6 %

The PAV calculation is simple but does not count the difference in the individual traincapacity, the transition and the part load production losses. Therefore, to provide a bettermethod to quantify and categorize LNG production losses the RIT developed a LoadFactor Reporting System in 1997 which uses the following definitions:

PS2-6.3

♦ Maximum Sustainable Rate (MSR) :The official individual Train LNG production rates in m3/hr as used in the annualLNG capacity projection

♦ MSR LNG Production :MSR X actual total hours in the evaluated month or year

♦ LNG Production Losses :Train LNG production losses in m3, calculated from the diference between the MSRand the measured actual production rate, multiplied with the duration in hours.

♦ Load Factor (LF) or Uptime :

LF = (Actual LNG Prod / MSR LNG Production) * 100%

The LF is a measure of individual train Reduced LNG Production due to all causes(Plant Related and Outside Related). The LF is a direct measure of all factors thatimpact LNG production.

♦ Production Reliability Factor (PRF):

PRF = [1 - Plant Related Losses / (Actual Production + All Losses)] * 100%

The PRF is an indicator of Reduced LNG Production due to Plant Related lossesonly. The PRF is used to measure individual Train reliability performance relative tothe annual reliability targets.

Badak LNG Plant overall LF and PRF are calculated using the sums of all trains: MSRLNG production, actual LNG production, plant related losses and all losses. The overallLF and PRF statistics for 1997-1999 is displayed and discussed later in Chapter 7.

There are 2 Major Categories and 13 Sub Categories of Production Loss defined andrecorded in the PT Badak online Plant Operation Data System (PODS):

A. Plant Related - Loss elements that are under the direct control and responsibility of PTBadak :

1. Scheduled Shutdown2. Train Trip, Train Related )3. Train Trip, Utilities Related )4. Unscheduled Shutdown )5. On-line Repair ) Unscheduled Plant Related Production Loss6. Mechanical Problem )7. Processing Problem )8. Utilities Problem )9. Export Derime Gas )

B. Outside Related - Loss elements that are under direct control and responsibility ofOutside parties (such as, feed gas supply and LNG cargo shipping):

PS2-6.4

10. Inventory Control11. Idle Shutdown12. Reduced Feed Gas13. Other

The RIT/REG uses the PODS and the Load Factor Reporting System to identify theequipment or systems which cause the most production losses for determination of theappropriate counter measure.

Figure 2.1. below shows the various production loss categories, transition losses andpart load.

Figure 2.1 : Category of production losses

The difference between PAV and LF is shown in the calculation example on Table 2.1.The actual LF values always lower than the actual PAV because of the transition and partload losses.

To improve the PRF, PT Badak performs all effort to reduce the Plant Related losses. TheRIT/REG facilitates discussions between departments responsible for the identifiedreliability issues. The reliability issues discussed include: finding and eliminating the rootcauses of the Plant Related problems, PM/PdM optimization through pilot projects,reduction of scheduled shut down duration, extending time between overhaul, improvinglogistics practices, setting up reliability data base etc.

Two of the top issues and the Pilot Projects will be discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.

0

200

400

600

800

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

OPERATING HOURS

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N R

AT

E (

M3/

HR

)

IDL

E S

/D

SC

HE

DU

LE

D S

/D

UN

SCH

ED

UL

ED

S/D

PLA

NT

TRIP PLANT

PROBLEMINVENTORY

CONTROLFEED GASPROBLEM

MSR

PLANT RELATED OUTSIDE RELATED

PS2-6.5

Table 2.1 : Calculation example of PAV, LF and PRF

Data (Example) Calculation

MSR Production Rate :700,000 m3/hr

MSR Production (in 1 year) : 700,000 X 8760 =6,132,000,000 m3

Down time (excluded idle s/d):200 hrs

PAV = 8560 / 8760 =97.7 %

Actual production :5,850,000,000 m3

LF = 5850,000,000 / 6,132,000,000 =95.4 %

All losses :283,000,000 m3Plant Related Losses :200,000,000 m3

PRF =[1-(200,000,000/5,850,000,000+283,000,000)]X100%=96.7 %

Unscheduled: 50,000,000 m3 Unscheduled : 50,000,000 / 6,132,000,000=0.8 % of the MSR Production

Scheduled : 150,000,000 m3 Scheduled : 2.4 % of the MSR Production

3. TOP RELIABILITY ISSUES

3.1. CO2 Removal Unit

The problem in CO2 Removal Unit (Amine Unit) is one of the major cause of thePlant Related Losses in 1989 – 1999. The major problem in this plant is erosioncorrosion that several times caused PT Badak to partially shut down the CO2

Removal Unit or the whole Train. In 1995, for example, PT Badak lost potentialproduction equivalent to 243,000 m3 of LNG due problem in CO2 Removal Unit ofTrain E. In general, the losses are caused by lowering LNG production due to loweramine circulation rate when one bank of the cross exchanger was isolated for repair,shutdown amine and dehydration units while other units were still in operation byutilizing cross lean gas from other train, and extended downtime for equipmentrepair.

Modifications of equipment were done by partial upgrading of piping material fromcarbon steel to stainless steel, especially reducers and enlargers around controlvalves. Some parts of carbon steel pipe on the rich amine side susceptible to erosioncorrosion were also replaced with 304 stainless steel, which eliminated pipingleaks. Modification of the inlet distributor to the perforated pipe type in AmineFlash Drum prevents the incoming solution from falling freely. The new inletdistributor, a standpipe with perforations located below the liquid level, preventsthe solution from directly impinging the vessel wall (see Figure 3.1). The new inletdistributor design eliminated the erosion corrosion problem related to the inletliquid

PS2-6.6

Figure 3.1 : Amine Flash Drum inlet distributor modification to perforatedpipe.

In Amine Stripper, the inlet distributor was modified from to H-type to OpenGallery-Type. This gallery-type inlet distributor reduced the vibration at the inletdistributor by readily releasing the CO2 vapor from the amine solution inside theamine stripper column. With the H-type inlet distributor, the two-phase flow causedby the release of CO2 inside the pipe creates vibration due to impingement effectinduced by the shape of the inlet distributor. The shell and Tube Amine/AmineCross Exchangers were also replaced with Plate and Frame type in Trains D and Fto overcome the erosion corrosion problem experienced in the first MDEA solventuse. However, the replacement has been stopped due to improved condition aftersolvent replacement.

In addition to equipment modification, the amine solvent was also convertedfrom formulated MDEA to activated MDEA. Both are MDEA-based solvents butthey are different in activator. The solvent conversion took place in the period of1997-1999 following the good results of 18-month test period in Train C. Afterbeing operated with the new amine solvent for three years, the erosion corrosion ofthe system has been reduced significantly.

This is indicated by the absence of plant unscheduled shutdown caused byamine unit problems. Other advantages in using the new solvent are 20% lower inamine circulation rate, which contributes to 20% lower steam consumption foramine regeneration and lower erosion corrosion effect and 50% lower in aminesolvent losses. The iron content in solution, as an indication of corrosion, inactivated MDEA was stable at the level of 1.4-1.6 ppm compared to over 140 ppmin formulated MDEA during the first year (see Figure 3.2.).

Before modification After modificationwith perforated pipe

WireScreen

SplashBaffle

LiquidLevel

CorrosionAreas

PS2-6.7

Figure 3.2 : Comparison of iron content in solution during the first one yearoperating with Formulated MDEA and Activated MDEA.

3.2. Main Refrigerant Compressor Impeller

Problems due to cracks of the first stage impeller of the 4K-2 MCR Compressorhave been experienced since March 1994. In some cases, the problem has causedsignificant production loss. Figure 3.3. shows an impeller crack case which resultedin a compressor failure.

Figure 3.3 : A case of impeller crack which caused a MCR Compressor failure.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

01-O

ct-97

30-N

ov-97

29-Ja

n-98

30-M

ar-98

29-M

ay-98

28-Ju

l-98

26-S

ep-98

Fe C

onte

nt in

Sol

utio

n (p

pm)

Formulated MDEA

Activated MDEA

PS2-6.8

Analysis of the problem root cause is very difficult due to the problemcomplexity and disputes between PT Badak and the compressor manufacturer. PTBadak tried to convince the manufacturer that the original 15 vanes - 3 pieceimpeller needs to be totally redesigned. The manufacturer tried to collect data withspecial data acquisition equipment to support their argument that the failure cause isnot the design. In any case the acquired data did not show any evidence ofoperational error.

Several impeller design configuration, including the latest 17 vanes - 2 piececonfiguration, have been tested, installed and proposed by the manufacturer as thefinal solution. PT Badak accept it as a temporary solution until another failurepushed the manufacturer to come with a better solution.

South West Research Institute (SWRI), USA has been involved to determinethe blade natural frequencies of the latest impeller configuration by conductingimpact tests. Based on these data, the blade natural frequencies are plotted in aCampbell diagram. See Figure 3.4.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Speed, RPM

Fre

qu

ency

, Hz

16

17

18

Available Speed Range

Figure 3.4. Campbell diagram for a two-piece impeller. Critical frequency ranges ofare presented for 16th, 17th, and 18th multiples of operating speed.

This diagram shows that the blade natural frequency will still be excited at the17X multiple frequency of the operating speed. A valid option is to totally redesignthe impeller so that the blade natural frequency is shifted sufficiently above the

PS2-6.9

influence of the operating speed. For some reasons, the manufacturer was for longtime reluctant to accept this option.

In the last 2 years, careful monitoring, planning and opportunity inspectionconducted on the trains, have prevented unnecessary unscheduled shut down due tothe 4K-2 impeller cracks.

During the October 2000 warranty shut down of the new train H, the MCRcompressor was inspected. Again, cracks are found in the vane-to-back weld area ofthe first stage impeller which has the latest 17 vanes - 2 piece configuration.

With this latest finding, finally the manufacturer agrees to design a newimpeller with a higher impeller natural frequency, increased about 11 % from theprevious design.

This increase will eliminate the resonance in the compressor operating speedrange up to 4835 RPM. As short term measure, to reduce the possibility of cracks inother trains, the compressors speed is limited to a maximum of 4,620 RPM until thenew design impeller is available. This speed reduction will have no impact on thetrains LNG production capacity.

4. RCM AND RBI PILOT PROJECTS

4.1. RCM Pilot Project

Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) analysis was implemented in 1996 on15 units of 3.5 MW Cooling Water Pump. Counting of the unit trips in thesubsequent years revealed an encouraging result:

YEAR UNIT TRIP CAUSES1997 5 X 3X Electrical ; 1X Instrument ; 1X Mechanical related

1998 4 X 2X Electrical ; 1X Instrument ; 1X Operational related

1999 2 X 2X Electrical related

However, further analysis of the trips can not find a direct correlation betweenthe trip counts reduction and the PM/PdM tasks change resulted from the RCManalysis. The new set of tasks is about 70 % the same with the original set ofPM/PdM tasks.

RCM is a comprehensive but time consuming tool to evaluate an existingPM/PdM tasks or to create new PM/PdM tasks. Implementation on the 15 pumpunits required 1200 manhours or one full month with 6 full timers from variousdepartments excluded a third party consultant.

PS2-6.10

Within 3 years of RCM implementation, the maintenance cost per unitdecreased significantly. This is mainly because the pump motor overhaul interval isextended from 5 to 7 years. Actually the same decision can be made withoutfollowing the RCM method. The decision only requires a judgement of the personwho has a good knowledge of the motor overhaul process and the motor conditionbefore and after the overhaul. The second source of cost reduction is the strategychange on the pump impeller replacement: from time based to condition based andimplementation of an open bid purchasing rather than sole source. This decision canalso be taken without RCM.

The most benefit of the RCM is as a training tool for PT Badak plant personnelto work together at a fixed schedule to improve understanding on system approach(instead of equipment approach) and failure analysis.

The RCM method is currently used by PT Badak only as a knowledge, forPM/PdM task improvement when there is a PM/PdM related equipment failure.

4.2. RBI Pilot Project

Analysing inspection interval requirement of all plant equipment can be timeconsuming. The Risk Based Inspection (RBI) method could be used to minimise theanalysis work and to focus on the high-risk items. As we know, RBI is a method toplan inspection based on an analysis of Risk of events whose probability orconsequence can be affected by the inspection.

The prime concern is physical damaged caused by corrosion, erosion, fatigue,etc., rather than malfunctions due to improper operation or human error. It is alsopertinent to note that Risk is a function of both failure probability and theconsequences of failure. In its simple form: Risk = Probability x Consequence.

PT Badak has implemented this RBI method on stationary equipment of CO2

Removal Unit of a Process Train as a pilot project. This unit consists of 93stationary equipment (pressure vessels) and 283 piping items. Tables 4.1. and 4.2show the Risk distribution for stationary equipment and piping items resulted fromthe RBI assessment.

The Risk Distribution for Stationary Equipment Component items indicate that2 items (2.15%) fall within the High Consequence/High Probability area (Criticality1) and 10 (10.75%) items fall in the Medium/High and High/Medium area(Criticality 2). This distribution reflects the spread of the majority of the stationaryitems in the Low Probability and Medium Consequence (Criticality 4).

PS2-6.11

Table 4.1 : Stationary Equipment Risk Distribution

PROBABILITY

CONSEQUENCES LOW(59.14%)

MEDIUM(30.39%)

HIGH(9.67%)

HIGH(5.38%)

-(0%)

3(3.23%)

2(2.15%)

MEDIUM

(93.82%)

55

(59.14%)

26

(27.16%)

7

(7.52%)

LOW

(0%)

-

(0%)

-

(0%)

-

(0%)

Table 4.2 : Piping Items Risk Distribution

PROBABILITY

CONSEQUENCESLOW

(67.84%)MEDIUM(24.38%)

HIGH(7.77%)

HIGH(0.35%)

1(0.35%)

-(0%)

-(0%)

MEDIUM(96.81%)

183(64.66%)

69(24.38%)

22(7.77%)

LOW(2.83%)

8(2.83%)

-(0%)

-(0%)

The Risk Distributions for piping indicate that no items fall within the HighConsequence/High Probability area (Criticality 1) and 22 items (7.77%) fall in theMedium/High and High/Medium are (Criticality 2). This distribution reflects thespread of the majority of piping items in the Medium Consequence and LowProbability area (Criticality 4).

The interval of inspections can be determined through a scheduling tool thatuses grade (confidence factor), probability (likelihood) and consequences of failure.The Inspection Grade indicates the inspection interval depending on PT Badak

PS2-6.12

confidence in the criticality rating. Table 4.3 shows the inspection intervals inmonths.

Based on the Risk distribution of Stationary Equipment, we have two stationaryequipment that falls in criticality 1. The confidence level of both equipment refer toour experience are grade 1. Therefore, the interval inspection for this equipment is36 months. By using the same way we can determine the inspection interval for allof the equipment that has been assessed by Risk Based Inspection method.

The RBI method will be continued to be used by PT Badak to determineinspection intervals of other stationary equipment of one process train in 2001.

Table 4.3 : Inspection intervals (in months)

Criticality’s Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade3 Consequence

1 24 36 N/A N/A H

2 24 36 96 N/A H/M

3 36 48 96 240 H/M/L

4 48 60 144 300 M/L

5 60 72 180 360 L

Deterioration High (H) Medium (M) Low (L) Negligible

5. RELIABILITY AND SAFETY

In achieving a maximum result from reliability and safety improvement efforts, theRIT/REG works closely with PT Badak Process Safety Management Committee. Thelatest result is the integration between Project Procedure (PP Guide 0305-01) andManagement of Change (MOC) Procedure through revisions of both procedures.

With this improvement, all plant modification projects will be better controlled anddocumented. No modification, start up of new installation nor project closing is allowedprior to meeting a predetermined M.O.C. criteria.

A procedure on Mechanical Integrity, another element of PSM, will be revised andimproved in 2001 under the REG coordination. Equipment which is critical for safety aswell for production reliability will be included in the scope of Mechanical Integrityimplementation program which is one candidate of the Top Reliability Programs in 2001.

PS2-6.13

6. LIFE CYCLE COST

A survey quoted by Ron Moore [1] found, while expenditures for plant and equipmentoccur later in the acquisition process, most of the life-cycle cost of a plant is committed atthe preliminary stages of the design and acquisition process. The survey also reported thatabout 60-75 % of the life cycle cost is associated with maintenance and support. Thismeans that design and installation efforts can have a dramatic effect on maintenance costand therefore on life cycle cost. The life cycle cost concept is shown in Figure 6.1. Thedotted line shows the life cycle cost curve characteristics when the maintenance cost ishigh relative to the initial cost.

Figure 6.1 : Phases of Life-Cycle Cost Commitment

Being concern with this life-cycle concept, PT Badak engineers have been proactivelyinvolved in every Badak Plant Expansion Projects, using their experience to provide inputon maintenance and operational aspects. The engineers have been involved in the FrontEnd Engineering & Design (FEED), Detail Design, Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT),Construction, Commissioning and Operational Acceptance of Badak LNG PlantExpansion Projects.

An example result of the involvement is the installation and expansion of the on lineMachinery Monitoring Systems (MMS) for critical Rotating Equipment of train E throughH. By having this system installed, the severity of problems such as the 4K-2 CompressorImpeller cracks can be assessed on line, before planning a train shut down.

PT Badak engineers also involved in Life Extension Project, Debottlenecking of trainsA through F and DCS retrofit project.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LIFE CYCLE PHASE

LIF

E C

YC

LE

CO

ST

(%

)

CO

NC

EPTU

AL

DE

SIG

N

PRE

LIM

INA

RY

DE

SIG

N

FIN

AL

DE

SIG

N

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

OPE

RA

TIO

N &

MA

INT

EN

AN

CE

66 %

95 %85 %

LOW COST

HIGH COST

PS2-6.14

7. BENCHMARKING AND STATISTICS

The RM Group Inc. conducted reliability surveys in PT Badak in 1996 and 1999. Theconsultant estimation for PT Badak 1996 and 1999 performance is as depicted in table7.1. below:

Table 7.1: PT Badak World Class Performance Indicators

ParameterBadak1996

Badak1999

WorldClass Typical

Load Factor (LF) 90 % 92 % 95%+ 80-90 %Maintenance Cost / CRV 0.76 % 0.68 % 1-3 % 3-6 %Planned Maintenance 90 %+ 90 %+ 90 %+ 50-80 %Unplanned down time - 2.6 % < 1 % 5 %Reactive Maintenance 58 % 50 % < 10 % 40-60 %Injury rate (OSHA recordable) 1.45 1.5 < 0.5 3-4

Note: Typical is the average score of, and World Class is the highest recorded score atsingle facility from, all eighty assessment performed in private industry in North America.conducted by Ron D. Moore, President of The RM Group Inc. and Alan K. Pride, SeniorEngineer, EMR, Inc.

Table 7.2. provides a summary of the reliability survey result. Description of the usedterminology and coloured rating is as follows :

INTENT – Stated Policy, Mission Statement or verbal recognition by the management incommon objective goal for the need to undertake the activities normally associated with aparticular Element of Reliability Program.TOOL – The experience either of formally documented or informal procedures, practices,methodologies and skills to perform the activities associated with the stated policy of aparticular Reliability Element.ANALYSIS – Systems which are in place to collect, collate, analyse, and translate thedata obtained or resulting from the reliability activities into useful information formanagement to make decisions.INTEGRATED - The effectiveness of the interaction, communication and co-ordinationof the affected groups to execute the Basic Factors in order to achieve the desiredreliability objectives.

Table 7.2. : PT Badak Reliability Elements and Factors Representing BestIndustry Practices

= Best Practices

= Above Average

= Typical

= Needs Significant Improvement

Note:For each evaluated element, thefirst row and the second row arerespectively showing the 1996 andthe 1999 survey result.

PS2-6.15

ELEMENT INTENT TOOLS ANALYSIS FEEDBACK INTEGRATED

1996COMPANY RELIABILITYPHILOSOPHY PRACTICES 1999

RELIABILITY CONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENT PLAN

RELIABILITY AUDITSPRACTICES

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCT.FOR RELIABILITY PRACTICES

STAFF LEVELS & EXPERTISEFOR RELIABILITY PRACTISE

TEAMWORK, CULTUREPRACTICES

PMPRACTICES

PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCEPRACTICES

PROACTIVE (RCFA, ETC)PRACTICES

OVERHAUL & SHUTDOWNPRACTICES

INSTALLATION &COMMISSIONING PRACTICES

ENGINEERINGPRACTICES

QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA/QC)PRACTICES

OPERATIONSPRACTICES

INVENTORYPRACTICES

RELIABILITY DATA BASE(MMMS, EQUIP. HISTORY, ETC)

TRAININGPRACTICES

Recent benchmarking survey among LNG plants by Shell Global Solution (SGS)confirms the following results for 1999:1. Badak LNG plant is one of the best in asset utilization (which is for all practical

purpose the same as Load Factor).2. PT Badak NGL has one of the lowest operating cost index.

PS2-6.16

Table 7.3 below contains Production Reliability statistics in 1997-1999, taken from PTBadak Load Factor Reporting System :

Table 7.3 : Reliability Performance Comparison 1997, 1998 & 1999

LNG Production& Losses

1997 1998 1999

MSR LNG Production 100% 100% 100%Plant Related Losses:Scheduled 4.8% 6.6% 4.5%Unscheduled 2.7% 2.7% 1.0%

Plant Sub-total 7.5% 9.3% 5.5%

% Unscheduled includes:4K-2/3 Compressors 0.6% 0.8% 0.0%CO2 Removal Units 0.5% 0.8% 0.0%

Prod. Rel. Factor (PRF) 92.6% 90.7% 94.6%

Outside Related Losses: 0.8% 6.9% 3.0%

Load Factor (LF) 92.0% 84.1% 92.5%Plant Availability (PAV) 93.4% 92.0% 94.8%Std. Cargoes shipped *) 275.9 290.4 323.4

Note:*) Standard cargo = 125.000 m3 cargo.

8. CONCLUSION

Badak LNG Plant has moved forward in the period of 1997-1999, with significantprogress or capability, i.e.:1. Establishment of the Load Factor Reporting System and measurement of all losses

from the ideal train production capacity.2. Use of the Load Factor report and related information for a root cause analysis process

at the executive and managerial level. E.g. solution to the CO2 removal plant and theMCR Compressor impeller problems.

3. Improvement of Production Reliability Factor (PRF) which supports continuedcapability for meeting customer cargo requirements.

PS2-6.17

REFERENCE CITED

[1] Moore, Ron. "Making Common Sense Common Practice: models for manufacturingexcellence", Gulf Publishing Company, Houston - Texas, 1999.