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

2. 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

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF REFINERY FACILITY

8. PROPOSED LAYOUT OF REFINERY FACILITY

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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.

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

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

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