Solomon’s Worldwide Energy Industry Benchmarking Anniversary Solomon’s Worldwide Energy Industry Benchmarking IAPG CONFERENCE 2006 Mendoza, Argentina

Benchmarking Topics Introduction Solomon’s Key Metrics Performance and Gap Analysis Cat. Cracking Performance Analysis Use of Benchmarks

What We Do Provide comparative performance analysis for the global energy industry Fuels/lubes refining Petrochemicals Pipelines and Terminals Electric Power generation Provide consulting services worldwide to facilitate performance improvement

Knowing Where You Stand Competitively Is Imperative! The pacesetter refineries use their participation in the studies data to drive performance improvement at their refineries. You need to know “where you are starting from” and “where you are headed”…periodically review the progress that has been made.

NSA Participation and Trend Groups USA CAN LTA Total Population 88 13 39 140 Trend Group 76 11 33 120 Trend Group – participation in each of last three studies

Benchmarking Topics Introduction Solomon’s Key Metrics These examples are representative of the data collected-- but do not include every item!!

Refineries Seeking Answers To Two Key Questions To Strengthen Positioning Competitiveness Looking outside the fence Efficiency Looking inside the fence “How competitive is my refinery in the marketplace?” “How well is my refinery operating the facilities that it has today?” Study participants (especially refinery managers) continue to focus on two major areas of interest when assessing how well their refineries are performing. The first is “competitiveness” which is a view of “looking outside the refinery fence” to assess how a refinery compares with other refineries in the region. The second is “efficiency” which is a view of “looking inside the refinery fence” to assess how a refinery compares with what is typically expected of a refinery with the facilities that it has.

How Competitive Is A Refinery In The Marketplace? Strategic perspective – economic viability Comparison of total cost and resources required to manufacture petroleum products Without regard for number or size of process units or other structural aspects contributing to higher costs As a result, competitive positioning may be limited by structural or configuration constraints Customers unwilling to cover differences in cost per barrel of product by refineries supplying the market Competitiveness addresses the economic viability or survivability of a refinery in the market place from a cost perspective. While raw material cost is also an important part in assessing economic viability, it is also important to be competitive in the cost of manufacturing products. Higher costs (per barrel of product manufactured) can result from having smaller process units or multiple units of a similar type. Every refinery would like to recover its total manufacturing costs through the sale of its products. However, the price that customers are willing to pay in the market does not vary based on who produced the product or their specific costs. All suppliers of products to a specific market have a common market price, so the refinery with higher costs has to pay any incremental costs out of a fixed margin…thus reducing its cash profitability. This further emphasizes the need to keep a strong focus on reducing costs and using the best available tools to assess where costs are out of line with the competition. Customers at the pump don’t care if a refinery has higher costs – they only want the lowest price

How Well Is A Refinery Operating The Facilities That It Has Today? Operational perspective – focus on efficiency Comparison of total costs and resources Taking into account actual configuration aspects –number and size of individual process units and other structural aspects While assessing a refinery’s competitiveness is critical, it is also important to assess the operational efficiency of a refinery’s facilities. A key to being competitive often starts by operating a refinery efficiently. Unlike a competitive assessment that does not take into account the size or number of process units, efficiency should be more reflective of actual configuration and structural aspects of a refinery. Efficiency assessments provide new insights into how effective refinery costs are being controlled and its resources managed. While major investments may be required to alter refinery configuration to be more “competitive” in the marketplace, increases in efficiency are typically less capital intensive and are often driven by changes in work practices at a refinery. Focus is on the effectiveness of cost control and resource management typically within a refinery manager’s control

Competitive Metrics Overview Key Metrics (Same As Previous) EDC is the normalization factor for competitive metrics Refinery EDC (UEDC) based metrics Cash Operating Cost, US Cents/UEDC Non-Energy Cost, US $/EDC Maintenance Index, US $/EDC Personnel Index, Work Hours/100 EDC Personnel Cost Index, US $/EDC Capital Investment Index, US $/EDC Solomon has adopted EDC as the normalization factor for competitive assessments. The key metrics are essentially the same as previous EDC metrics, but are now based on the revised EDC methodology and updated configuration factors that will be describe further in this section of the presentation.

Efficiency Metrics Overview Key Metrics Energy Efficiency (no change in methodology) Energy Intensity Index – EII™ Non-Energy Efficiencies (new) Maintenance Cost Efficiency Index – MEI™ Personnel Efficiency Index – PEI™ Non-Energy Cost Efficiency Index – NEI™ The key metrics used for efficiency assessments includes Solomon’s Energy Intensity Index (EIITM) and three new non-energy efficiency metrics. Solomon’s EIITM methodology is unchanged from the previous methodology, while new methodologies have been developed to address refinery efficiency performance in the non-energy areas of maintenance cost, personnel, and total non-energy costs. We will explain each of these in detail.

2004 Competitive vs Efficiency Metrics Maintenance Competitive Metric 118.1 US Study Average MEI™ 76 184.7 88.9 155.1 157.5 87.6 158.9 77.7 Efficiency Metric 86.3 138.0 149.9 94.5 US EDC Group US $/EDC 26.6 US Study Average Using New EDC Factors 1 23.8 43.7 2 18.6 48 3 21.0 38.4 4 35.6 20.3 Performance comparisons for US EDC Groups are provided on these charts for both the competitive maintenance cost metric and the maintenance cost efficiency metric. In this case, we are comparing the updated maintenance cost competitive metric with the new maintenance cost efficiency metric. A comparison of average performance lines on each bar for the competitive metric versus the efficiency metrics illustrates the impact of economy of scale. On an efficiency basis, the averages of all of the US EDC Groups are now much closer to the study average, indicating that disadvantages related to economy of scale have been essentially eliminated with the new standard factors. Small refineries can now compete on an “apples to apples” basis with larger refineries when assessing efficiency. 5 37.9 16.7 6 20.1 32.9

Benchmarking Topics Introduction Solomon’s Key Metrics Performance and Gap Analysis

Impact on 2004 Company Results Maintenance – US Quartiles Competitive Metric, US $/EDC 15.3 49.3 Efficiency Metric, MEI™ 66.3 184.7 This chart again compares competitive assessments with efficiency assessments using study quartiles to illustrate the differences in these two perspectives on refinery ranking/positioning. Small refineries with low maintenance costs are no longer disadvantaged by size and thus may move up in their ranking/positioning. However, small refineries with high maintenance cost for their size may not improve in their relative ranking/positioning. Large refineries with low maintenance costs may not see much of a decline in ranking/positioning, while high cost large refineries will no longer benefit from economy of scale and may move more in ranking/positioning.

Two-Dimensional Analysis Example – Maintenance Cost US Average Refinery Competitive Gap Here is an example of a refinery being compared against at target peer group (either a standard study peer group or a custom peer group selected by the participant). Notice that the target group in this example is not necessarily the best four in maintenance competitiveness or efficiency. We have shown by an arrow, the movement of the refinery required to close the gap in performance. Next we have shown the gap from solely a competitive perspective (using delta $/EDC) and the gap solely due to efficiency differences. We will next look at the associated gap analysis for this example comparison. Target Peer Group Efficiency Gap US Participants

Gap Analysis Refinery Vs Peers – Maintenance Cost US $M Key Gap Components Efficiency (15) Size/Complexity* (8) Total Competitive Gap (23) In this example, the total gap to be analyzed is the competitive gap. There are two major components driving the competitive gap – differences in efficiency and differences in non-efficiency related areas, described here as size/complexity differences. The efficiency gap is known and determined separately using the difference in the efficiency metric, however, the size/complexity gap is determined by subtracting the efficiency gap from the competitive gap. Size/complexity gaps can result from having relatively smaller units, multiple units of similar process types, more tankage than covered by tankage EDC, high amount of off-sites, etc. In this particular case, the refinery has a negative competitive gap which means it is disadvantaged versus its peer group. Efficiency gap is also negative and makes up about two-thirds of the competitive gap. Therefore, this results in a negative size/complexity gap as well by difference. Clearly, there are situations where refineries can have positive or negative gaps in either of two these areas. For example, a small refinery can have a negative competitive gap due to its size, but have a positive efficiency gap. These are the insights that were not possible with the previous factors. * Size/Complexity = Competitive Gap – Efficiency Gap

Closing The Gap Efficiency Vs Size/Complexity Gap – Maint. Cost US Average Closing 100% of Efficiency Gap Refinery Competitive Gap Size/Complexity Gap It is important to note the path to closing the gap is typically not the straight line connecting the two points, but rather a two-step effort. In this case, if the refinery closes all of the efficiency gap, it has also improved it’s competitiveness by closing about two-thirds of the total gap. To close the remaining gap, the refinery must address its size/complexity gap. This can be done by addressing unit consolidations, tankage consolidation, etc., which my required significant investment. However, if the refinery can further improve efficiency beyond what is needed to close the efficiency gap, then the competitive gap may also be closed possibly without significant investment. Since there are refineries that have demonstrated better efficiency than this example peer group, there is a possibility of further driving efficiency improvements and totally closing the competitive gap in this case. Target Peer Group Efficiency Gap

Impact on 2004 Company Results Maintenance – US Quartiles Competitive Metric, US $/EDC 15.3 49.3 Efficiency Metric, MEI™ 66.3 184.7 This chart shows both the competitive and efficiency positions of the refinery and example peer group. The refinery is totally closing the efficiency gap and thus moves from third quartile to first quartile. However, the competitive gap is not totally closed, but the refinery does move up from third quartile to second quartile. As mentioned in the notes on the prior slide, further efficiency improvements could help close the remainder of the competitive gap, however, if constrained on efficiency improvements, then investment may be required to close the gap.

Closing The Gap Efficiency Vs Size/Complexity Gap – Maint. Cost US Average Closing 100% of Competitive Gap Via Efficiency Improvements Refinery Competitive Gap If the refinery can further improve efficiency beyond what is needed to close the efficiency gap, then the competitive gap may also be closed possibly without significant investment. In this case, there are refineries that have demonstrated better efficiency than the example peer group, so there is a possibility of further driving efficiency improvements and totally closing the competitive gap in this case. Target Peer Group Efficiency Gap

Impact on 2004 Company Results Maintenance – US Quartiles Competitive Metric, US $/EDC 15.3 49.3 Efficiency Metric, MEI™ 66.3 184.7 This chart shows that by further improving efficiency, the competitive gap is totally closed and the refinery moves even higher in competitive positioning.

Benchmarking Topics Introduction Solomon’s Key Metrics Performance and Gap Analysis Cat. Cracking Performance Analysis

Study Focus Raw material selection Product yields Plant utilization Operating cost analysis Energy efficiency Maintenance and reliability effectiveness Labor productivity The focus of the study was on: Raw material selection – more details than in main study Product yields Plant utilization Operating cost analysis Energy efficiency Maintenance and reliability effectiveness – with scope-adjusted turnaround Labor productivity

Operating Expense Breakdown All Other Fixed Costs, 1% Energy, 59% T/A Maintenance, 7% Non-T/A Maintenance, 7% Non- Maintenance Personnel, 8% Energy outweighs all other expenses. Maintenance is only 14% on average. Part of the reason is that energy and catalyst costs are so high that it lowers the percentages for things such as maintenance and personnel. Other Volume- Related, 4% Chemicals, 3% Catalysts & Catalyst Additives, 11%

Yields and Margins Raw Material Breakdown 1% 36% 4% Unhydrotreated Feedstock 2% 4% 21% 2% For the overall study, one-third of the feedstocks were hydrotreated. However, many units had 100% hydrotreated feed. Hydrotreated Feedstock 20% 4% 6% Vacuum Gas Oil Heavy Gas Oil Atmospheric Reduced Crude All Other Light Gas Oil

Yields and Margins Raw Material Pricing Adjustments Various gas oils – sulfur and aniline point Heavier feeds – sulfur and Concarbon residue Feed prices are adjusted for quality. For example, high aniline point (high UOP K factor) gas oils will be priced higher, and can reduce gross margin if the unit does not have a high yield of good products.

Yields and Margins Product Pricing Catalytic naphtha based on gasoline blending value Light-cycle oils valued as distillate feed or blending stock; dependent on local market Heavy-cycle oils and slurry valued as fuel oil blending stocks Butylenes and i–butane valued as alkylation feeds Propane and n–butane valued as finished products Propylene valued as chemical feed Because few of the FCC products are finished products, most of them have to be valued based on their usage as intermediate feedstocks or blending components.

Net Cash Margin Distribution By Region Non-US Countries 1Q/2Q Break 2Q/3Q Break United States 3Q/4Q Break There is fairly uniform distribution of Net Cash Margin across the study, for both US and Non-US units.

Range of Study Performance US $/bbl Average Value Gross Product Value 60.27 47.19 Raw Materials Cost 49.21 29.25 Gross Margin 24.56 5.95 Operating Cost 4.43 1.67 Note: For a private presentation, the points for the company’s unit(s) will appear on the bars. For regional presentations, the companies will have to refer to their handout sheets of their results, or refer to their client tables and output files. Gross Margin and Net Margin vary much more than Operating Cost. Net Cash Margin 21.10 3.68 US $/bbl Higher Values Lower Values

Net Cash Margin 19 MRCC or RCC 16 Net Cash Margin, US $/bbl 13 10 FCC There are similar distributions of Net Cash Margin per barrel for the resid crackers and conventional FCCs. However, the resid crackers do much better overall. 7 4 25 50 75 100 Percent of Participation

Percent of Participation Return On Investment 70 60 MRCC or RCC 50 Return on Investment, % 40 FCC 30 When viewed on a Return on Investment basis, the relative advantage of the resid crackers is not as great, due to their greater investment requirements. The ROI was calculated by dividing their annual NCM (GM minus operating expenses) by their replacement value. The average ROI for the study was just under 40%. On a simple payback basis, this means that with 2004 prices, the average unit had a payback period of two and a half years. 20 10 25 50 75 100 Percent of Participation

Benchmarking Topics Introduction Solomon’s Key Metrics Performance and Gap Analysis Cat Cracking Performance Analysis Use of Benchmarks

Use of Benchmarks Establishing a plant’s performance level Quantification of improvement opportunities by expense type and maintenance category Confirming causal plant characteristics Discovery of practices responsible for performance gaps with “Peer Group” Provide “business case” for change programs Convince personnel of need for new targets

Anniversary