DOCSLIB.ORG

Military User's Guide for the Certification of Aviation Platforms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Military User's Guide for the Certification of Aviation Platforms NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION AC/323(AVT-225)TP/803 www.sto.nato.int STO TECHNICAL REPORT TR-AVT-225 Military User’s Guide for the Certification of Aviation Platforms on Synthetic Jet Fuels (Guide d’utilisation militaire pour la certification des plateformes d’aviation alimentées par des carburéacteurs de synthèse) Final Report of the AVT Task Group 225. This document should be announced and supplied only to NATO, Government Agencies of NATO Nations and their bona fide contractors, and to other recipients approved by the STO National Coordinators. Ce document ne doit être notifié et distribué qu’à l’OTAN, qu’aux instances gouvernementales des pays membres de l’OTAN, ainsi qu’à leurs contractants dûment habilités et qu’aux autres demandeurs agréés par les Coordonnateurs Nationaux de la STO. Published July 2018 Official NATO UNCLASSIFIED No Public Information RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL Release NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION AC/323(AVT-225)TP/803 www.sto.nato.int STO TECHNICAL REPORT TR-AVT-225 Military User’s Guide for the Certification of Aviation Platforms on Synthetic Jet Fuels (Guide d’utilisation militaire pour la certification des plateformes d’aviation alimentées par des carburéacteurs de synthèse) Final Report of the AVT Task Group 225. This document should be announced and supplied only to NATO, Government Agencies of NATO Nations and their bona fide contractors, and to other recipients approved by the STO National Coordinators. Ce document ne doit être notifié et distribué qu’à l’OTAN, qu’aux instances gouvernementales des pays membres de l’OTAN, ainsi qu’à leurs contractants dûment habilités et qu’aux autres demandeurs agréés par les Coordonnateurs Nationaux de la STO. Official NATO UNCLASSIFIED No Public Information RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL Release NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL The NATO Science and Technology Organization Science & Technology (S&T) in the NATO context is defined as the selective and rigorous generation and application of state-of-the-art, validated knowledge for defence and security purposes. S&T activities embrace scientific research, technology development, transition, application and field-testing, experimentation and a range of related scientific activities that include systems engineering, operational research and analysis, synthesis, integration and validation of knowledge derived through the scientific method. In NATO, S&T is addressed using different business models, namely a collaborative business model where NATO provides a forum where NATO Nations and partner Nations elect to use their national resources to define, conduct and promote cooperative research and information exchange, and secondly an in-house delivery business model where S&T activities are conducted in a NATO dedicated executive body, having its own personnel, capabilities and infrastructure. The mission of the NATO Science & Technology Organization (STO) is to help position the Nations’ and NATO’s S&T investments as a strategic enabler of the knowledge and technology advantage for the defence and security posture of NATO Nations and partner Nations, by conducting and promoting S&T activities that augment and leverage the capabilities and programmes of the Alliance, of the NATO Nations and the partner Nations, in support of NATO’s objectives, and contributing to NATO’s ability to enable and influence security and defence related capability development and threat mitigation in NATO Nations and partner Nations, in accordance with NATO policies. The total spectrum of this collaborative effort is addressed by six Technical Panels who manage a wide range of scientific research activities, a Group specialising in modelling and simulation, plus a Committee dedicated to supporting the information management needs of the organization. • AVT Applied Vehicle Technology Panel • HFM Human Factors and Medicine Panel • IST Information Systems Technology Panel • NMSG NATO Modelling and Simulation Group • SAS System Analysis and Studies Panel • SCI Systems Concepts and Integration Panel • SET Sensors and Electronics Technology Panel These Panels and Group are the power-house of the collaborative model and are made up of national representatives as well as recognised world-class scientists, engineers and information specialists. In addition to providing critical technical oversight, they also provide a communication link to military users and other NATO bodies. The scientific and technological work is carried out by Technical Teams, created under one or more of these eight bodies, for specific research activities which have a defined duration. These research activities can take a variety of forms, including Task Groups, Workshops, Symposia, Specialists’ Meetings, Lecture Series and Technical Courses. The content of this publication has been reproduced directly from material supplied by STO or the authors. Published July 2018 Copyright © STO/NATO 2018 All Rights Reserved ISBN 978-92-837-2131-4 Single copies of this publication or of a part of it may be made for individual use only by those organisations or individuals in NATO Nations defined by the limitation notice printed on the front cover. The approval of the STO Information Management Systems Branch is required for more than one copy to be made or an extract included in another publication. Requests to do so should be sent to the address on the back cover. ii STO-TR-AVT-225 NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL Table of Contents Page List of Figures v List of Tables vi List of Acronyms vii AVT-225 Membership List ix Executive Summary and Synthèse ES-1 Chapter 1 − Introduction and Motivation 1-1 1.1 Research Task Group AVT-225 1-1 1.1.1 Background 1-1 1.1.2 Mandate and Progress 1-2 1.1.3 Present Focus and Objective 1-2 1.2 Motivation for Certification of Platforms for Synthetic Fuels 1-3 1.3 Current Market Readiness Levels for Synthetic Fuels 1-6 1.4 Impact of Military’s Lagging Adoption of Synthetic Fuels 1-10 1.5 Organization of Report 1-11 Chapter 2 − Jet Fuel 101 2-1 2.1 Composition and Properties of Fossil-Based Kerosene 2-1 2.1.1 Composition of Kerosene 2-1 2.1.2 Properties of Aviation Kerosene 2-3 2.1.3 How is it Refined? 2-5 2.2 Composition and Properties of Drop-In Synthetic Kerosene 2-5 2.3 Not All Biofuels are Suitable as Jet Fuels 2-6 2.4 What are Jet Fuel Specifications? 2-7 2.4.1 Civil Specifications for Aviation Fuels 2-7 2.4.2 Military Specifications for Aviation Fuels 2-8 Chapter 3 − Jet Fuel Approval Processes 3-1 3.1 Overview of the Civil Fuel Approval Process for Alternative Jet Fuels 3-1 3.1.1 Context 3-1 3.1.2 Terms of Use of Jet Fuels on Civil Aircraft 3-1 3.1.3 Approval of Fuel from Alternative Pathways 3-2 3.1.4 Description of Steps of the General Procedure for Certification 3-3 of Jet Fuel 3.1.5 Current Developments on Alternative Fuels 3-4 3.2 Overview of the Military Fuel Approval Process for Alternative Jet Fuels 3-6 STO-TR-AVT-225 iii NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL Chapter 4 − Linkages Between Civil and Military Specifications 4-1 4.1 References to Synthetic Components in Fuel Specifications 4-1 4.1.1 ASTM D1655-16c (2016) 4-1 4.1.2 MIL-DTL-83133J (2015) JP-8 (F-34) and F-35 4-2 4.1.3 MIL-DTL-5624W (2016) – JP-5 (F-44) 4-2 4.1.4 CGSB-3.24-2016 4-3 4.1.5 Def Stan 91-091-Iss 9 (2016) 4-3 4.1.6 Def Stan 91-87-Iss 6 (2009) 4-4 4.1.7 DCSEA 134 Ed D 2015 (F-34) / DCSEA 144 Ed D 2015 (F-44) 4-4 4.1.8 TL 9130-0012 Ed E 2012 (F-34) 4-4 4.1.9 STANAG 3747 – Ed11 / AFLP 3747 EdB-v1 2016 4-5 4.2 Concluding Remarks 4-5 Chapter 5 − Additional Considerations for Military Approval of Fuels 5-1 5.1 Background 5-1 5.2 Lack of Consensus on Need for Additional Testing 5-1 5.3 Reasons Why Additional Testing May / May Not Be Required 5-2 Chapter 6 – Recommendations 6-1 6.1 For Military Platform Technical Authority 6-1 6.2 For Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) 6-2 6.3 For Follow On AVT Research Task Groups (RTG) 6-3 6.3.1 Impact of Synthetic Jet Fuels on the Single Fuel Policy (SFP) and 6-4 Land Systems 6.3.2 Impact of the Use of Synthetic Fuels on the Navy 6-5 Chapter 7 – References 7-1 Annex A − List of Military Owned or Controlled MPPL A-1 Annex B − Making Conventional Jet Fuel B-1 B.1 Overview of EI/JIG Standard 1530 B-6 Annex C – Summary of Pre-Workshop Survey and Responses C-1 Annex D − Summary of AVT-225 Meeting at IASH 2015 D-1 Annex E − Decision Chart for Military Platform Certification E-1 Annex F − Petroleum Committee Vision on Future Fuels F-1 iv STO-TR-AVT-225 NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL NATO UNCLASSIFIED RELEASABLE TO PFP, MD, AUS, NZL List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1-1 Carbon Lifecycle for Sustainable Biofuel 1-4 Figure 1-2 Industry Carbon Reduction Goals 1-4 Figure 1-3 Contributions of Measures for Reducing International Aviation Net 1-5 Carbon Dioxide Emission Figure 1-4 Global Share of Aviation Biofuel Initiatives 1-8 Figure 1-5 Commercial Readiness of Synthetic Fuel Flights 1-8 Figure 1-6 Examples of Commercial-Scale Deals 1-9 Figure 2-1 Distribution of Freezing Point in °C in 2013 PQIS Report and in 2-4 Lufthansa Study Figure 2-2 Distribution of Viscosity at -20°C in cSt in 2013 PQIS Report
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Report Are Commission-Free
    Table of Contents 1 Letter to Our Shareholders 4 Financial Highlights 6 Our Businesses Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties 7 Our Value Chain 8 Our Strategy Operating Excellence Growth Returns Distributions High-Performing Organization 28 Board of Directors 30 Executive Leadership Team 31 Non-GAAP Reconciliations 32 Form 10-K | ON THE COVER AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake Charles Refinery WESTLAKE, LA In 2019, Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex achieved a sustained safety record of more than 55 months, equivalent to 7.5 million safe work hours. 2019 PHILLIPS 66 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To Our Shareholders We have the right strategy in place to create shareholder value, and our employees are executing it well. Phillips 66 achieved 34% total shareholder return during 2019, which exceeded our peer group average and the S&P 100. In 2019, we delivered earnings of $3.1 billion and earnings per share of $6.77. Adjusted earnings were $3.7 billion or $8.05 per share. During the year, we generated $4.8 billion of operating cash flow. We reinvested $3.9 billionback into the business and returned $3.2 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We increased our quarterly dividend 12.5% and announced a $3 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Since our formation, we have returned $26 billion to shareholders through dividends, share repurchases and exchanges, reducing our initial shares outstanding by 33%. Operating excellence is our No. 1 priority and core to everything we do. Our goal is zero incidents, zero accidents and zero injuries. We believe this is attainable, and we strive for it daily.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Jet Fuel for Aviation
    Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Ras- mus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl TemaNord 2016:538 Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Rasmus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl ISBN 978-92-893-4661-0 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-4662-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-4663-4 (EPUB) http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2016-538 TemaNord 2016:538 ISSN 0908-6692 © Nordic Council of Ministers 2016 Layout: Hanne Lebech Cover photo: Scanpix Print: Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk Copies: 100 Printed in Denmark This publication has been published with financial support by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or recom- mendations of the Nordic Council of Ministers. www.norden.org/nordpub Nordic co-operation Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involv- ing Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Update February 2018
    Investor Update February 2018 NYSE: PSX www.phillips66.com Lake Charles Refinery Cautionary Statement This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements. Words and phrases such as “is anticipated,” “is estimated,” “is expected,” “is planned,” “is scheduled,” “is targeted,” “believes,” “intends,” “objectives,” “projects,” “strategies” and similar expressions are used to identify such forward-looking statements. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements relating to the operations of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP (including their respective joint venture operations) are based on management’s expectations, estimates and projections about these entities, their interests and the energy industry in general on the date this presentation was prepared. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in filings that Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP make with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP are under no obligation (and expressly disclaim any such obligation) to update or alter these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. This presentation includes non-GAAP financial measures. You can find the reconciliations to comparable GAAP financial measures at the end of the presentation materials or in the “Investors” section of the websites of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Jp-5, Jp-8, and Jet a Fuels
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry March 2017 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS ii DISCLAIMER Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Public Health Service, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A Fuels, Draft for Public Comment was released in February 2016. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences Environmental Toxicology Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-57 Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iv This page is intentionally blank. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS v FOREWORD This toxicological profile is prepared in accordance with guidelines* developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1987. Each profile will be revised and republished as necessary. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance's toxicologic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Aviation Fuels Road-Map
    SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS ROAD-MAP Fueling the future of UK aviation sustainableaviation.co.uk Sustainable Aviation wishes to thank the following organisations for leading the work in producing this Road-Map: Sustainable Aviation (SA) believes the data forecasts and analysis of this report to be correct as at the date of publication. The opinions contained in this report, except where specifically attributed to, are those of SA, and based upon the information that was available to us at the time of publication. We are always pleased to receive updated information and opinions about any of the contents. All statements in this report (other than statements of historical facts) that address future market developments, government actions and events, may be deemed ‘forward-looking statements’. Although SA believes that the outcomes expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance: actual results or developments may differ materially, e.g. due to the emergence of new technologies and applications, changes to regulations, and unforeseen general economic, market or business conditions. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1.1 Addressing the sustainability challenge in aviation 1.2 The role of sustainable aviation fuels 1.3 The Sustainable Aviation Fuels Road-Map SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS 2.1 Sustainability of sustainable aviation fuels 2.2 Sustainable aviation fuels types 2.3 Production and usage of sustainable aviation fuels to date THE FUTURE FOR SUSTAINABLE
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign ICAO 3LD Additions, Deletions, and Modifications (Excluding U.S.)
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N JO 7340.589 NOTICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: July 14, 2020 Cancellation Date: July 14, 2021 SUBJ: Foreign ICAO 3LD Additions, Deletions, and Modifications (excluding U.S.) 1. Purpose of This Notice. This notice modifies FAA Order J 7340.2, Contractions, Chapter 3, Sections 1, 2, and 3, ICAO Aircraft Company Three-Letter Identifier and/or Telephony Designator. This notice reflects recent changes initiated by countries other than the United States (U.S.) including new ICAO three letter designators (3LDs), deletions of defunct ICAO 3LDs, and modifications to ICAO 3LDs, associated telephonies, and companies/agencies. This Notice supplements FAA Order JO 7340.2 until the additions and modifications are incorporated into the Order. This Notice does not replace or substitute for GENOTs issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Organization (ATO) for ICAO 3LDs assigned and authorized for U.S. aircraft operators. 2. Audience. This notice applies to the following Air Traffic Organization (ATO) service units: Air Traffic Services, and System Operations Services; ATO Safety and Technical Training; and all associated air traffic control facilities. This notice is informational in nature and does not require documentation as supplemental training in FAA Form 3120-1, Training and Proficiency Record. 3. Where Can I Find This Notice? This notice is available on the MyFAA employee website at https://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices/ and on the air traffic publications website at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. 4. Source Document. The source document for the ICAO 3LD additions and modifications contained in this notice is ICAO Document 8585, Designators for Aircraft Operating Agencies, Aeronautical Authorities, and Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosion at the Conoco Humber Refinery – 16Th April 2001
    SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 151 # 2006 Crown Copyright EXPLOSION AT THE CONOCO HUMBER REFINERY – 16TH APRIL 2001 Jonathan Carter, Peter Dawson and Robert Nixon Health and Safety Executive, Hazardous Installations Directorate # Crown Copyright 2006. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland An explosion and fire occurred at the Conoco Humber Refinery on 16th April 2001, following the catastrophic failure of a 600 overhead pipe from a de-ethaniser column on the Saturate Gas Plant. Investigation revealed that the failure of the pipe was due to internal corrosion that had not been identified by the refinery pipework inspection regime. The paper describes the event and the emergency response. It also examines the immediate cause of the event, and how failures of the management of pipework inspection and management of change failed to prevent the accident occurring. The paper concludes with the lessons that can be learned from this event. THE REFINERY The Humber Refinery is located on the south bank of the estuary of the River Humber on the east coast of England, approximately 1.5 km north-west of the town of Immingham and 0.5 km east of the village of Killingholme. In 2001 Conoco Ltd owned the refinery. In August 2002 Conoco merged to form ConocoPhillips Ltd., the current owners of the refinery. The refinery was constructed between 1966 and 1969 and commissioned in 1970. The current capacity of the refinery is about 225,00 US barrels per day of crude oil, or about 11.4 million tonne per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel for Thought — Statoilhydro/Conocophillips (Jet) MERGER CONTROL
    Competition Policy Newsletter Fuel for thought — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips (Jet) CONTROL MERGER Jérôme Cloarec, Dag Johansson, Philippe Redondo, Daniel Donath, Elzbieta Glowicka and Cyril Hariton (1) Introduction(1 viduals, as it is virtually impossible to access such customers with standard questionnaires, although When faced with a proposed merger, antitrust au- each individual may have a private (and sometimes thorities have to assess the likelihood and the mag- informed and documented) view of the likely ef- nitude of anticompetitive effects that may occur fects of a merger. following the removal of one of the merging par- ties as an independent force in the various markets This was the case for the Norwegian oil company affected by the transaction. These possible anticom- StatoilHydro’s acquisition of Jet petrol stations in petitive effects must then be weighed against poten- Scandinavia (67 in Denmark, 40 in Norway and 163 tial efficiency gains. To enable it to complete this in Sweden), owned by ConocoPhillips of the US task in the limited amount of time provided by the (case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhil- legislators, the Commission collects and contrasts lips), which was subject to an in-depth investigation information from different sources. The notifying by the Commission. (3) Therefore, in addition to party’s compulsory notification (Form CO) is the the standard market investigation that also included initial source of such information and contains a gathering evidence from internal documents, the Com- description
    [Show full text]
  • Humber Refinery Fire and Explosion United Kingdom, 2001
    Case History Humber Refinery Fire and Explosion United Kingdom, 2001 Edna Mendez PhD Student Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering Texas A&M University Steering Committee Meeting, April 25th 2017 Outline • Background • Incident description • Consequences • Chemical and process description • Analysis • Lessons learned 2 Humber Refinery • Located 0.5 km east of the village South Killingholme • Constructed in 1969 and commissioned in 1969/1970 • Employees: 1,200 including contractors • Crude Capacity: 221,000 bbl/day http://latitude.to • Products: - Petroleum coke, propane/butane (LPG), gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel - Low sulfur oil and vacuum gas oil - Specialty graphite cokes 3 Sequence of Events • April 16th, 2001: Holiday – 185 staff onsite instead of usual 800 • Shift handover scheduled at 3:00 pm 2:20 pm: Pipe failure and release 20-30 sec later: Cloud found ignition source Massive explosion and fireball 2:35 pm: Release from adjacent pipework Additional explosion and fireball 2:50 pm: Further pipework failure Explosion and fireball Photo courtesy of Andy Trott (HSE, 2005) 3:30 pm: Fire under control 9:01 pm: Fire completely extinguished 4 Consequences • 180 tonnes of flammable liquids and gases released • Hydrogen sulfide (1/2 tonne) • 71 claims for injuries • Short-term environmental impact • Significant damage to refinery – shutdown for weeks • Damage within a 1 km radius offsite including adjacent refinery Damage to the SGP after the explosion (HSE, 2005) • Fined with £895,000
    [Show full text]
  • Faces of the Future: Conocophillips and Phillips 66 Emerge Spirit Magazine First Quarter 2012 “Energy Production Creates Jobs.”
    CONOCOPHILLIPS ConocoPhillips First Quarter 2012 Faces of the Future: ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 emerge spirit Magazine First Quarter 2012 “Energy production creates jobs.” “We need to protect the environment.” Each wants the best for our country. So how can we satisfy both — right now? At ConocoPhillips, we’re helping to power America’s economy with cleaner, affordable natural gas. And the jobs, revenue and safer energy it provides. Which helps answer both their concerns. In real time. To find out why natural gas is the right answer, visit PowerInCooperation.com © ConocoPhillips Company. 2011. All rights reserved. Sharing Insights Five years ago, I wrote the first Sharing Insights letter for the new spirit Magazine. Since then, the magazine has documented a pivotal time in our company’s history, consistently delivering news and information to a wide-ranging audience. More than 7,000 employees have appeared in its pages. Remarkably, as the magazine grew, so did the number of employees who volunteered to contribute content. When your audience is engaged enough to do that, you know you are making a difference. Now, as we approach the completion of our repositioning effort, I am writing in what will be the final issue of spirit Magazine for Jim Mulva Chairman and CEO the integrated company. I have little doubt that both ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 will continue to offer robust and engaging internal communications. But it seems fitting that this final issue includes a variety of feature articles, news stories and people profiles that reflect the broad scope of our work across upstream and downstream and the rich heritage of our history.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for JP-5, JP-8, and Jet a Fuels
    JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS 157 5. PRODUCTION, IMPORT/EXPORT, USE, AND DISPOSAL 5.1 PRODUCTION No information is available in the TRI database on facilities that manufacture or process JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A fuels because these chemicals are not required to be reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986) (EPA 2005). As discussed in Chapter 4, most jet fuels are derived from petroleum. During the 1970s and 1980s, shale oil had been used to manufacture jet fuels, but this is no longer economically feasible (Chevron 2006). Figure 4-1 provides a general schematic for the straight-run production of jet fuels from crude oil. Heated crude oil is introduced into an atmospheric pressure distillation unit and the liquefied petroleum gasses (propane and butane) are boiled off from the top of the distillation column and eventually recondensed by a condenser unit. Middle distillates such as kerosene and diesel are drawn off the distillation column and treated by various processes that remove or reduce undesirable components before becoming jet fuels (API 2010b; Chevron 2006). The sweetening process removes corrosive mercaptans from the kerosene fraction by the mercapton oxidation (Merox) process in which mercaptans are converted to disulfides using a catalyst and an alkaline solution. The disulfides are noncorrosive and may be left in the final product or removed by additional treatment to lower the sulfur content of the resultant jet fuel. Hydroprocessing employs hydrogen and an appropriate catalyst to remove olefins, sulfur, and nitrogen- containing compounds from the distilled kerosene.
    [Show full text]
  • Fleet Tracker Europe
    BUSINESS AVIATION FLEET TRACKER EUROPE December 2018 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA FLEET IN EUROPE December 2018 940 945 2% 26% 655 576 12% 458 26% BASED FLEET 18% 3665 91 16% Single Engine Twin Engine Light Jets Midsize Jets Heavy Jets Bizliners TOTAL Turboprop Turboprop 2 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA 01 European Fleet Aircraft Base BASED FLEET December 2018 December Single Engine Twin Engine GRAND Light Jet Midsize Jet Heavy Jet Bizliners 2018 Turboprop Turboprop TOTAL Germany 146 116 270 81 121 16 750 United Kingdom 62 102 99 81 146 14 504 France 95 104 120 52 81 8 460 Switzerland 56 27 53 7 100 13 256 Austria 24 15 45 28 78 2 192 Italy 10 61 37 23 36 3 170 Spain 8 33 51 15 38 4 149 Malta 1 5 16 6 100 5 133 Portugal 1 2 25 51 40 2 121 Belgium 31 14 19 12 27 1 104 Czech Republic 24 11 36 9 18 3 101 Luxembourg 25 12 15 6 20 7 85 Sweden 6 35 18 8 17 84 Netherlands 24 17 16 6 14 2 79 Denmark 13 6 20 10 27 1 77 Poland 14 11 16 7 13 61 4 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA BASED FLEET December 2018 December Single Engine Twin Engine GRAND Light Jet Midsize Jet Heavy Jet Bizliners 2018 Turboprop Turboprop TOTAL Norway 5 26 3 6 7 47 Greece 16 5 3 10 34 Finland 11 3 9 6 29 Ireland 4 4 2 7 11 28 Bulgaria 4 5 8 2 5 1 25 Hungary 2 6 7 4 2 21 Slovakia 1 1 9 3 1 5 20 Estonia 1 6 4 5 2 18 Romania 1 4 3 2 6 1 17 Cyprus 2 1 1 3 8 15 Slovenia 1 2 6 1 5 15 Croatia 1 4 6 1 12 Lithuania 1 6 1 3 11 Latvia 1 2 4 2 9 Albania 1 1 Others* 2 6 17 10 2 37 TOTAL 576 655 940 458 945 91 3665 5 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA * (Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
    [Show full text]