Energy Consumption Benchmark Guide

Conventional Petroleum Refining in

Canada

December 15, 2002

Prepared by John Nyboer and Nic Rivers of CIEEDAC

Energy Consumption Benchmark Guide:

Conventional Petroleum Refining in Canada

Aussi disponible en français sous le titre:

Guide de référenciation en matière de consommation énergétique

Raffinage classique du pétrole au Canada

Cat. No.: M27-01-1860E

For more information or to receive additional copies of this publication,

write to:
Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation
c/o Natural Resources Canada
Office of Energy Efficiency
580 Booth Street, 18th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4
Tel: (613) 992-3254
Fax: (613) 992-3161
E-mail: [email protected]
www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/cipec

You can also view this publication on-line on the Canadian Petroleum Products
Institute’s website at www.cppi.ca

2
Energy Consumption Benchmark Guide for
Conventional Petroleum Refining in Canada
Benchmarking and the Petroleum Refining Sector
Success in the operation of a business or company depends on many factors. Efficiency
in the production of one’s product is one of these factors. A number of alternatives exist
to drive managers and operators towards efficiency targets, one of which is to compare
one’s operation to others of similar type locally, regionally or internationally. Such
comparisons often involve benchmarking, a tool that provides some mean or norm
against which comparisons can be made. The purpose of this document is to provide
such a tool where one’s own refinery can be compared to others to allow the manager to
make reasonable, appropriate decisions about energy use and efficiency. Thus, the
objectives of this benchmarking guide are to:
• provide a summary picture of the petroleum refining industry in terms of its
energy consumption and production,
• give some indication of the variation of efficiencies and intensities that exist
within the industry,
• provide a benchmark comparison against which one can compare one’s plant to
others and
• provide some indication of a relative road to action regarding energy intensity and
efficiency.

Industry Background
There are currently 21 operating petroleum refineries in Canada.1 The industry is
concentrated in Ontario and Alberta, which have 7 and 5 refineries respectively.2 There
are 3 refineries in each of British Columbia, Quebec, and the Atlantic Provinces, and a
single refinery in Saskatchewan.
The total production of refined petroleum products in 2001 was about 109 million m3.
Fourteen product streams make up the mix of production, with the two dominant products
being motor gasoline and diesel fuel oil at 40% and 22% of the total production by
volume respectively. Figure 1 portrays production of the major refined petroleum
products and the total of all products for 1990 and for 1994 to 2001. In its activity, the
petroleum refining industry alone employs almost 4,000 people and generates over $18
billion in annual sales.

1
STC records 25 as of 1999; the numbers vary depending on the source and definitions of a refinery. Refineries can produce mostly
asphalt, lubricants, or a full slate of products, produced from heavy, light or synthetic crude.
2
In September 2001, the Parkland Refinery in Bowden, Alberta closed its doors, reducing the number of refineries in Alberta to 4. As
the intensity indicators found in this report are based on 2000 data, CIEEDAC lists 22 operational refineries for that year.

3
 120.0

Production (million m 3) 100.0

80.0 Total Production Motor Gasoline

Diesel Fuel Oil Light Fuel Oil
60.0 Heavy Fuel Oil

40.0

20.0

0.0
1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
Figure 1. Refinery Production for Specific Fuels and the Total of all production.
Source: STC RPP Cat No. 45-004.

The information in this report comes from annual surveys conducted by the Canadian
Industrial Energy End Use Data Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC) as well as from Statistics
Canada 45-004: Refined Petroleum Products and Statistics Canada 31-203:
Manufacturing Industries of Canada. The report uses a combination of publicly
available and company confidential data. Canadian refiners have access to much of the
presented information through Statistics Canada (STC) and their contracted participation
in Solomon surveys. The information provided is useful as an element of benchmarking
energy use at petroleum refineries, but inadequate for allocating emissions or energy
targets for individual refineries.

Historical Energy Use Profile

Figure 2 shows the total annual energy use by the petroleum refining industry since 1990.
Figure 3 shows the energy intensity of production, defined through analyses completed
by Solomon Associates on many Canadian plants. Energy data used for both figures are
measured in LHV (Lower Heating Value). HHV (Higher Heating Value) energy levels in
the sector are about 6 to 10% higher than LHV levels.3 In comparing 1990 data with
2001 data and observing the figures, some interesting trends appear:
• Energy consumption declined in the late 1990s from its 1990 level, but has increased
in the beginning of this decade so that it is now about 3% above its 1990 level.
• Production of refined petroleum products increased throughout the period and is now
14% above the 1990 level. See figure 1 above.

3
HHV coefficients include all the energy released upon combustion of the fuel. LHV does not include the latent heat of the water
vapour (steam) generated as a result of combustion. Generally, the lower the hydrogen content of the fossil fuel, the closer the HHV
and LHV coefficients. Statistics Canada and many international organizations use HHV factors to convert from physical units of a
fuel to energy units. In certain industries, such as the petroleum refining industry, LHV factors are used.

4
• One can use these two trends to develop an energy intensity indicator. However,
because processes of production are quite specific to the various plants, the type of
end products generated, plant operations and the petroleum crude feedstock, we
provide here a specific intensity indicator as provided by Solomon Associates as a
result of their analyses of plants. This indicator, called the Solomon Energy Intensity
Indicator (EII), provides a more realistic reflection of refinery energy intensities.
• CPPI member refiners made a commitment to reduce the energy intensity of
production by at least 1% per year from 1995 to 2000. The commitment has been
met and surpassed. Commitment to this rate of intensity reduction has now been
extended to 2004.

290

270
Total Energy (Petajoules)

250

230

210

190

170

150
1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

Figure 2. Total Refinery Energy Consumption.

Source: CIEEDAC, 2002.

5
 120 1.2

100 1.0

Index, 1990 = 1
80 0.8
Solomon EII

60 0.6

40 0.4

Solomon EII 0.2

20
Index

0 -
1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

Figure 3. Average Refinery Energy Intensity based on a composite of Solomon EII for
4
all known refineries.

Fuel Use Trends

By comparing figure 4 with figure 5, we see that the breakdown of primary fuel use by
type has not changed dramatically between 1990 and 2001. Refinery fuel gas continues
to make up the largest fraction of consumption, followed by petroleum coke and natural
gas. Refinery fuel gas shows the largest relative decline (5%) over the period followed
by heavy fuel oil (2%). In part, coke made up for this decline, increasing its share from
18% of consumption to 22%.
Heavy Fuel Oil
Refinery Fuel 10%
Gas
48%
Natural Gas
16%

Electricity
Purchased
6%
Other
2%

Total Coke
18%

Figure 4. Petroleum Refinery Fuel Use in 1990.

Source: CIEEDAC, 2002.

4
Solomon Associates also develops a confidential Canada wide indicator not available to CIEEDAC. The factors presented here are
simply the weighted average of all plants that submitted data to CIEEDAC.

6
 Heavy Fuel Oil
Refinery Fuel 8%
Gas
44%
Natural Gas
16%

Electricity
Purchased
7%
Other
Total Coke
3%
22%

Figure 5. Petroleum Refinery Fuel Use in 2001.

Source: CIEEDAC, 2002.

In absolute terms, the quantity of coke consumed increased by almost 25% between 1990
and 2001 while refinery fuel gas dropped by about 8%. Purchased electricity also
increased significantly over the period, by about 14%. The largest decline in fuel use was
the near 19% decline in heavy fuel oil use. These trends can be observed in figure 6.
140

120

1990
Fuel LHV (Petajoules)

100
2001
80

60

40

20

0
Total Coke Refinery Fuel Heavy Fuel Oil Natural Gas Electricity Other
Gas Purchased

Figure 6. Petroleum Refinery Fuel Use in 1990 and 2001.

Source: CIEEDAC, 2002.

Benchmarking
Figure 7 shows the Solomon Energy Intensity Index (EII) for participating refineries (16
refineries participated in 2001). The Solomon EII value indexes the energy efficiency of
a plant using a technology explicit computer model that determines the "standard" energy

7
efficiency of a plant by computing standard energy consumption for each technology
present in the plant and the type of crude charged to these technologies. A Solomon EII
value of 100 is standard. A Solomon EII plant-specific value below 100 indicates a more
efficient plant, while a value above 100 indicates a less efficient plant. In this
representation, we see that 6 of Canada’s plants are better by up to 22% than the
Canadian average while the remainder are worse.
Note that, while the graph displays a Canadian average, this average is an estimate from
the weighted averages of all operations undergoing a Solomon analysis. The actual
Canadian average as determined by Solomon Associates is considered confidential; the
estimate here is to be taken as indicatory rather than actual.
Many different factors can affect energy use in a plant. For example, differences in crude
characterization, petroleum products generated, technology and general practices can all
be significant in determining a plant's energy use. Solomon Associates’ analyses of these
plants take these differences into account and provide the most reliable view of the
efficiencies of the various plants. Comparing the differences between the most energy
efficient plants and the least efficient plants show that there probably is potential for
energy efficiency improvements in many plants. Because of the importance of reduced
energy consumption to both society and industry competitively and environmentally,
these potential improvements deserve attention. By generating benchmarks such as
these, we hope to stimulate such a review and encourage economic actions that improve
energy efficiency.

130.0

120.0

110.0
Solomon EII

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0
10

11

12

13

14

15

16
1

Average

Figure 7. Solomon Energy Intensity Index of Participating Individual Refineries.

Source: CIEEDAC, 2002.

8
How to Benchmark Your Plant
1. Participate in a Solomon Analysis for your plant(s).
2. If your plant’s EII is lower than 100, your plant’s performance is better than standard.
If your plant’s EII is higher than 100, your plant’s performance is worse than the
standard.
3. Compare your plant's EII value with that of other petroleum refineries (see figure 7).
4. If the energy intensity in your plant is equal to or better than those in the top 4
(upper quartile), your plant could be considered to be an energy use innovator. Keep
it up by maintaining your energy monitoring program and excellent operating
practices and continue looking for opportunities to improve your efficiency.
If your plant energy use ranks between 5 and 11 on the graph, your plant may need
to invest more effort in determining how to improve energy use.
If your plant energy use ranks between 12 and 16 on the graph, your plant is not as
energy efficient as your competitors' plants, for many possible reasons. An energy
audit may identify areas in which plant performance could be improved.
Energy efficiency in petroleum refineries is not simply a matter of best technologies and
best maintenance practices; each refinery is, in some sense, unique because both the input
crudes and the mix of outputs from a plant are likely to be unique. Activities such as
reviewing the processes, installing new heat recovery systems, improving upgrade and
maintenance practices, and running on-site assessments or audits of energy performance
can all contribute to enhance energy efficiency and potentially reduce GHG emissions.
Efficiency levels may currently be structurally based, or merely be an artefact of initial
installation and construction specifications. If this is the case, it is likely that such
structural “inefficiencies” can be addressed only as your plant modernizes its facilities
and processes.

Achievements
Petroleum refineries have recognized the value of improved energy efficiency for some
time and have steadily improved their aggregate energy efficiency since 1990. This, in
itself, is an indication of the degree to which the modern plant operator / manager finds
improved efficiency important (see figure 2). Member refineries of the CPPI have
committed to continual improvement in energy intensity by 1 percent per year through
2005. Refineries have accomplished these gains through innovative capital investments
and improvements to operations.
! Petro-Canada installed a heat recovery system on a crude unit at one of its refineries
to recover waste energy and reuse fuel in feed furnaces. The $750,000 project will
save substantial amounts of fuel and emissions each year, in addition to saving about
$250,000 per year in reduced fuel costs.

9
! Shell Canada Limited initiated a number of process upgrades at its facilities that
improved efficiency of steam and hot water systems, vacuum pumps, furnaces, and
compressors. The net effect of the upgrades was a 70,000 tonne downstream
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and a 1.7 percent improvement in energy
efficiency.
! Imperial Oil Limited launched its Global Energy Management System (G-EMS) by
putting its Strathcona refinery through an intensive assessment of energy usage.
Twenty experts spent two months assessing on-site energy efficiency performance
and preparing recommendations for improvements based on global best practices.
Imperial Oil Limited plans to undergo a similar process for other refineries. This
work is part of an ongoing effort by Imperial Oil Limited to seek and capture energy
efficiency opportunities.

10