Success Stories

For over 20 years, Ascent is proud to have helped our clients succeed by looking for solutions outside the box, above and beyond what is asked of us. We provide problem-solving techniques that are unique to your needs and bring fresh ideas that make your project profitable.

Customer Success

Operational Change: Increased tower pressure allowed increased stripping steam

Results: Increased diesel yield by 14%

Bottom Line: Additional profits of $5 MM/year

Capital Investment: NONE

The plant was unable to increase stripping steam rates because of tower flooding.

Simulation determined that slightly increasing the atmospheric tower operating pressure allowed an increase in stripping steam rate to the tower, which improved diesel yield.

Operational Change: Adjustments to crude tower pumparound rates

Bottom Line: Additional profits of $1.1 MM/year

Capital Investment: NONE

Ascent recommended adjustments to crude tower pumparound rates to reduce the AGO pumparound, while increasing the diesel pumparound and maintaining the crude charge temperature.

Capital Modification: Replacement of atmospheric tower trays

Result: Increased kerosene and diesel yield

Bottom Line: Additional profits of $3 MM/year

Fractionation and tray or packing performance deteriorates, and may go unnoticed for some time.

Simulation of the unit to match the plant data confirmed suspected tray damage and replacement yielded results.

Recent Capital Success Stories

FIX VACUUM SYSTEM

Capital Modification: Decreased Vacuum tower pressure

Result: Quickly identified the pinch point causing the vacuum tower to run approximately 50 mm Hg instead of the 20 mm Hg designed by others.

Bottom Line: Additional profits of $5-10 MM/year

Capital Investment: < $5 MM

FIX TIER 3 SOLUTION

Capital Modification: The client was pursuing the wrong Tier 3 solution

Result: If Ascent has not identified and corrected the suboptimal path the client would have made an inadequate $150 MM Tier 3 solution that would not provide required crude slate flexibility.

Bottom Line: The right project development path resulted in the right Tier 3 solution saving a $150 MM mistake.

FIX HYDROCRACKER REVAMP

Capital Modifcation: Changed Hydrocracker process

Result: Ascent’s cold eyes review challenged the licensor’s design path, and the client agreed preventing spending $250MM of regretted capital.

Bottom Line: Despite the client’s gated process, the crucial up front process definition phase was shortchanged, and critical concepts were not investigated resulting in the wrong project being pursued.  The revamp design would have cost more on a $/bbl basis than a new unit.