Strike on at Grangemouth

Post by **mikepepler** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:05

Just a thought - will the refinery start up OK?

Now I have absolutely zero experience in chemical plants, but I know from past experience with other types of machinery (e.g. cars, computers) that things that are working just fine when you turn them off don't always come back on again properly. I assume this is due to mechanical/electrical/thermal stresses being greater when things are starting up, compared to when they are operating in a steady state.

Does this apply to chemical plants too? Any experts here?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:15

"Don't blame me: Just because I activated Cracker 3A then Turbine 401, instead of Cracker 401 then Turbine 3A doesn't make it MY fault!"

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:17

Microsoft Refinery 2.0 has a few teething problems...

Mitch · Post by **Mitch** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:24

Is anyone REALLY expecting it to be re-started anytime soon? My personal opinion? No, at least a couple of month's, if ever. I really don't think this only about pensions.........

Post by **mikepepler** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:27

Just answered my own question, with this report from 2004:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/2004-03 ... _PEREZ.PDF

top of page 3:

It is not unusual for occasional problems to occur during the winter maintenance season. The most common problem is an equipment failure during start-up which may delay a refinery?s coming back on line for several days.

http://www.distillationgroup.com/newsletter/N001L.pdf
bottom of page 2

Also, it seems that the big explosion at the BP Texas City refinery was during startup, and this presentation (note PPT file) mentions lack of training, documentation, etc. in start-up procedures being at fault (see the slide notes).

Of course, that's not to say it will happen here, just that at a big and complex site there's always the chance of something not going quite right.

One of the stories I posted earlier mentioned that this will be the first time since it was built that the Grangemouth refinery has had a full shutdown, so we are in somewhat uncharted territory....

EDIT: I just another thought - surely the cooling down at shutdown and then heating up again at restart is just the kind of thing you need to break welds, seals, etc. that were on their last legs?

Post by **mikepepler** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:31

Mitch wrote:Is anyone REALLY expecting it to be re-started anytime soon? My personal opinion? No, at least a couple of month's, if ever. I really don't think this only about pensions.........

Maybe you're right. Buncefield still isn't running, though they are talking about restarting it soon. With all this depletion in the North Sea we won't be needing the capacity anyway...

Once the dust has settled and fuel has fallen back to ?1.50 a litre, we'll just be pleased we can buy it at all...

stumuz · Post by **stumuz** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:33

Shut downs are a real pain in chemical plants. Equipment on a shutdown will have to be recalibrated, purged and tested, replaced altogether and the plant can only be restarted when the slowest component is ready to be replaced or reconnected.

What usually happens in practice is a busting disc or specialist flanges for pumps etc, will need to be replaced when a process is broken into, then you find the manufacturer stopped trading 10 years ago and they have to be made ( time consuming) or a new section of the process has to be installed instead ( even longer)

The older the plant the longer the shutdown.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 24 Apr 2008, 16:38

mikepepler wrote:EDIT: I just another thought - surely the cooling down at shutdown and then heating up again at restart is just the kind of thing you need to break welds, seals, etc. that were on their last legs?

Apparently that's one of the reasons nuke-power can only be used as baseload. Stress is put on various parts as speeds and/or temperatures change, stress which is tolerable if you can regularly send in the wheeltappers (or modern equivalents) to do checks, but some of the parts which would need more maintenance and/or repairs if you had variable loading would be, erm 'too hot to handle'.

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 24 Apr 2008, 17:13

C'mon, you know it isn't going to re-open, this is just a load of old bollocks.

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 24 Apr 2008, 17:13

greg wrote:C'mon, you know it isn't going to re-open, this is just a load of old bollocks.

....gets hat out of cupbiard just in case

Post by **mikepepler** » 24 Apr 2008, 17:29

greg wrote:C'mon, you know it isn't going to re-open, this is just a load of old bollocks.

So what do we think the real reason behind all this is?

I'm guessing the govt hasn't put the workers up to it. Maybe they put he company up to it though, telling them there would be no action from them?

Either way there's been a distinct lack of effort from the govt to prevent it happening, so they are clearly either:
- unworried because they know it will all be OK.
- unworried because they are idiots
- interested to see what happens
- have some other dark and devious motive.

Post by **mikepepler** » 24 Apr 2008, 17:31

A bit of news from Reuters

Hutton said it was essential to prevent the industrial action at Grangemouth from disrupting the flow of North Sea oil and gas from the Forties pipeline system and Kinneil processing plant at Grangemouth.

He said there was no justification whatsoever for action that affected North Sea oil or gas production.

So what's going on here? Hasn't he heard that the flow WILL be disrupted, according to BP? Is this a threat? Has he not read the news? Is the situation going further than the govt "wanted" it to?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Apr 2008, 17:32

mikepepler wrote:Either way there's been a distinct lack of effort from the govt to prevent it happening, so they are clearly either:
- unworried because they know it will all be OK.
- unworried because they are idiots
- interested to see what happens
- have some other dark and devious motive.

I'd say it's a blend of all four.

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 24 Apr 2008, 17:51

emordnilap wrote:
mikepepler wrote:Either way there's been a distinct lack of effort from the govt to prevent it happening, so they are clearly either:
- unworried because they know it will all be OK.
- unworried because they are idiots
- interested to see what happens
- have some other dark and devious motive.
I'd say it's a blend of all four.

I would say this is going to be a rear view mirror event, we don't have full info and can only speculate, the one thing we do know is the Inyerface or whatever they are called have only two criteria:
1. Make money
2. Don't lose money
I think this comes under 2., somehow.

peaky2 · Post by **peaky2** » 24 Apr 2008, 18:08

It's strange really as I rarely take anything from our esteemed leaders at face value, but I had actually assumed that it was shutting down due to the pensions dispute. It sounded plausible to me, but then I know diddly squat about what's actually going on with the pay situation or the realities of refinery operation and maintenance.

Interesting situation to watch unfold though