Us Ethylene Construction Cost Data 2018-2020
Us Ethylene Construction Cost Data 2018-2020
Us Ethylene Construction Cost Data 2018-2020
BROUGHT TO YOU BY
CLICK HERE >>
Disclaimer
Disclaimer The information and opinions in this whitepaper were
prepared by Petrochemical Update (FCBI Energy Ltd.) and its partners.
Petrochemical Update (FCBI Energy Ltd.) has no obligation to tell you
when opinions or information in this report change. Petrochemical
Update (FCBI Energy Ltd.) makes every effort to use reliable,
comprehensive information, but we make no representation that it is
accurate or complete. In no event shall Petrochemical Update (FCBI
Energy Ltd.) and its partners be liable for any damages, losses, expenses,
loss of data, loss of opportunity or profit caused by the use of the
material or contents of this report. No part of this document may be
distributed, resold, copied or adapted without Petrochemical Update’s
(FCBI Energy Ltd.) prior written permission.
Introduction
Petrochemical Update has asked Pathfinder LLC to provide observations and recommendations
for estimating Ethylene Projects in the upcoming 5-year timeframe by evaluating collected
relevant data associated with recent Ethylene projects. The following is Pathfinder’s analysis:
Over the past five years, US Ethylene projects have ridden a wave of new construction spurred
on by US shale gas production and cheap ethane and propane which are ethylene production
feedstocks. Most of the additional capacity is produced for export to Asia (China and India) to
cover plastic (polyethylene) demand. In support of this demand, there has been and dramatic
increase in capital project execution over this same time period. The number of petrochemical
projects constructed simultaneously had significant impact in the marketplace. “Time to market”
was the primary driver for these projects as everyone wanted to capture the early market
opportunity. This resulted in a fast track planning and Construction driven project environment.
This strategy caused many plants to be built with higher cost and schedule delays. Specific
impacts resulted from:
Labor shortages
Raw material shortage (steel, alloys)
Immature design (Weak FEL) with implications in EPC scope and change orders
Poor planning during construction which impacted labor productivity
Competitive labor market to hire skilled workers
During the first two years of the wave, the US petrochemical industry maintained an advantage
with its shale gas price. Plants in Asia and Europe mostly use Naphtha as feedstock which is a
derivative of crude oil. With the decline of crude oil prices in 2014 - 2015, some projects were
delayed or canceled with the changing economics of Naphtha vs Shale Gas. Recent stability of
crude oil pricing coupled with a forecast increase in demand is motivating a new wave of ethylene
and propylene derivatives. Petrochemical producers are confident that the availability of cheap
gas is a long term event. Even though, potential return from new ethylene plants is not as high as
previous periods, there are still market opportunities that can be covered from new US projects.
Even with the above described improved outlook, producers must be aware that factors which
impacted previous project cost are still there and must be considered in planning new projects.
The Construction Industry consistently struggles with an upward trend in cost. The trend results
from multiple contributing factors including those listed above. The trend has driven many Owner
organizations to defer, suspend, or cancel capital projects. In other down periods, reduced activity
has stimulated a “buyers’ market” wherein Suppliers and Contractors react to reduced activity
with competitively priced proposals and willingness to share risk/reward. This does not appear
to be the case during the recent extended period when rather than reducing prices, contractors
have cutback staffing and capabilities to reduce losses until the long term effect of changing
economics becomes more predictable.
In any event, cost impacts can be confusing. Reduced activity in some areas, is being replaced
by new projects associated with the shift toward other more profitable energy sources and
emerging new opportunities related to the availability of reasonably priced sources of oil and
gas. New projects include multiple Business Sectors. It now appears that the Power and Energy
and Petrochemical Industries are poised to take advantage of currently attractive natural gas
prices with a flurry of new plant construction. While new projects would seemingly be good
news for the industry, the current increase is having the immediate impact of adding to the labor
shortage which in turn adds to project cost and schedule delay.
In 2017, the cost of labor and material escalated both due to short term events, and continuing
longer term impacts like declining or varied capital investment. These impacts have caused craft
labor to seek alternative industries, reducing the labor pool associated with the hydrocarbon
industries, necessitating Owners and Contractors to offer attraction and retention premiums
to secure the levels required to support large to mega-scale capital projects. In addition, while
wage rates have remained reasonably stable, there has been a notable decrease in productivity
leading to the need to spend more hours on both direct and indirect activities.
Foreseeable marketplace and feedstock cost conditions have stimulated particular interest in
sponsorship, investment and construction of large to mega-scale Petrochemical facilities such as
Ethylene Plants. Given the level of interest, this attached cost estimate(s) were prepared by the
Compass Organization to provide a point of reference for participants in Ethylene projects. The
data was prepared by normalizing six recent estimates and should provide insight into how cost
has been impacted by 2017 events and how current trends may impact the future. This research
focuses on evaluating the anticipated cost of constructing a 1.5 M Ton per year Ethylene facility
in either the Gulf Coast or in the North East region of the United States. By definition, this type of
analysis is challenging in that available reference information is subject to variations in plant size,
process design, ultimately selected site conditions, technical standards and other considerations
such as tax abatement incentives, proximity to feedstock supply, customer base/consumers,
logistics, etc. With that said, the team collected relevant data associated with recent Ethylene
projects, to represent the best estimating experience and data of the organizations involved
in the reference projects. The data has been normalized to align construction timing and plant
size to establish a representative base case for a hypothetical 1.5 M Ton facility based on current
market conditions and cost trends.
The above mentioned variations in plant scope and conditions makes it impossible to produce
a highly accurate single point estimate without pinpointing a particular plant configuration.
However, using estimates for clear scope variances and “most common” design information,
the team was able to establish a minimum / maximum cost range for the 1.5 M Ton facility and
subsequently able to condition the cost to fit two distinct geographic locations in the United
States.
The following table presents a representative base case for constructing a mega-scale Ethylene
production facility on the Gulf Coast of the United States in 2017 dollars.
1.50 Million Ton per year USA Gulf Coast Ethylene Facility 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2017
Cost Categories Qty UoM Material M-H's M-H Rate Labor Cost Minimum Total Material M-H's M-H Rate Labor Cost Maximum Total
This cost model assumes that the plant is being built on the Gulf Coast of the United States using nonunion
labor. Industry experience demonstrates that building the same facility at other locations will impact the cost
and differences must be evaluated on a case by case basis. For example, building the plant in the North East
United States using union labor will result in higher wage rates, and additional work hours associated with
work rules, variations in craft productivity, etc. But with the poorer productivity mow being experienced in the
Gulf Coast these tend to even themselves out.
The selection of the US Gulf Coast for the base case is consistent with industry trends. Typically, the Gulf Coast
is used for this type of modeling with the intent of applying variations in craft productivity, wage rates and
other factors associated with large scale construction. This practice/trend is based on the assumption that
the Gulf Coast offers good weather conditions, ability to attract a qualified work force and an adequate level
of Construction support and logistical access. In simple terms, the Gulf Coast offers a standard case that can
be contrasted with other locations to identify the impact of less desirable conditions. Compass International
has produced the following tables that can be used to tailor an estimate to a particular location, work force
makeup and projected productivity based on a composite of industries, including heavy and light industrial,
pharmaceutical, commercial buildings.
Abbreviations
FB/H = Fringe Benefits - Holidays
WCI = Workers Compensation Insurance Average
F&S / FICA = Federal & State Unemployment / FICA
ST&C = Small Tools & Consumables
SS = Safety Supplies
ST = Sub Total
HO & S & P = Home Office Support & Profit
THR (W/O per Diem)* = Total Hourly Rate without per diem
per Diem)
Trade / Skill Base FB/HWP WCI F&S / FICA ST&C SS 2.5% ST HOS & P THR (W/O)*
Hourly Average Average Average $3.85 15% per diem)
Rate 3.25% 16.50% 15%
Carpenter
1 28.82 0.94 4.76 4.32 3.85 0.72 43.41 6.51 49.92
(Journeyman)
Mason / Bricklayer
2 28.66 0.93 4.73 4.30 3.85 0.72 43.19 6.48 49.66
(Journeyman)
3 Concrete Finisher 21.90 0.71 3.61 3.29 3.85 0.55 33.91 5.09 38.99
Equipment
4 Operator (Heavy 29.19 0.95 4.82 4.38 3.85 0.73 43.91 6.59 50.50
Crawlers / Cranes)
Electrician
5 32.12 1.04 5.30 4.82 3.85 0.80 47.93 7.19 55.12
(Journeyman))
Instrumentation
6 Installer 32.12 1.04 5.30 4.82 0.80 44.08 6.61 50.70
(Journeyman)
Insulator
7 27.39 0.89 4.52 4.11 3.85 0.68 41.44 6.22 47.66
(Journeyman)
Ironworker
8 29.14 0.95 4.81 4.37 3.85 0.73 43.84 6.58 50.42
(Journeyman)
9 Laborer 19.57 0.64 3.23 2.94 3.85 0.49 30.71 4.61 35.32
Millwright
10 31.33 1.02 5.17 4.70 3.85 0.78 46.85 7.03 53.88
(Journeyman)
Oiler / Mechanic
11 29.40 0.96 4.85 4.41 3.85 0.74 44.20 6.63 50.83
(Journeyman)
Pipefitter
12 31.37 1.02 5.18 4.71 3.85 0.78 46.91 7.04 53.94
(Journeyman)
13 Painter 24.37 0.79 4.02 3.66 3.85 0.61 37.30 5.59 42.89
Refractory
14 28.90 0.94 4.77 4.34 3.85 0.72 43.52 6.53 50.04
(Journeyman)
15 Rebar Installer 28.53 0.93 4.71 4.28 3.85 0.71 43.01 6.45 49.46
16 Scaffolder 24.03 0.78 3.96 3.60 3.85 0.60 36.83 5.52 42.36
Truck Driver / JLG
17 21.83 0.71 3.60 3.27 3.85 0.55 33.81 5.07 38.88
Lift
Welder
18 31.42 1.02 5.18 4.71 3.85 0.79 46.97 7.05 54.02
(Journeyman)
Abbreviations
FB/H = Fringe Benefits - Holidays
WCI = Workers Compensation Insurance Average
EA = Each
LF = Lineal Feet
F&S / FICA = Federal & State Unemployment / FICA
M-H = Man Hours
ST&C = Small Tools & Consumables
SS = Safety Supplies
ST = Sub Total
HO & S & P = Home Office Support & Profit
**THR (W/O per Diem) = Total Hourly Rate without per diem
per Diem)
Trade / Skill Base FB/HWP WCI F&S / FICA ST&C SS 2.5% ST HOS & P THR
Hourly Average Average Average $4.35 15% (W/O)**
Rate 4.25% 16.50% 15% per diem)
Carpenter
1 35.30 1.50 5.83 5.30 4.35 0.88 53.16 7.97 61.13
(Journeyman)
Mason / Bricklayer
2 35.15 1.49 5.80 5.27 4.35 0.88 52.94 7.94 60.88
(Journeyman)
3 Concrete Finisher 26.83 1.14 4.43 4.02 4.35 0.67 41.44 6.22 47.65
Equipment
4 Operator (Heavy 35.76 1.52 5.90 5.36 4.35 0.89 53.79 8.07 61.85
Crawlers / Cranes)
Electrician
5 39.35 1.67 6.49 5.90 4.35 0.98 58.75 8.81 67.56
(Journeyman))
Instrumentation
6 Installer 39.35 1.67 6.49 5.90 4.35 0.98 58.75 8.81 67.56
(Journeyman)
Insulator
7 33.45 1.42 5.52 5.02 4.35 0.84 50.60 7.59 58.19
(Journeyman)
Ironworker
8 35.80 1.52 5.91 5.37 4.35 0.89 53.84 8.08 61.91
(Journeyman)
9 Laborer 23.99 1.02 3.96 3.60 4.35 0.60 37.52 5.63 43.15
Millwright
10 38.44 1.63 6.34 5.77 4.35 0.96 57.49 8.62 66.12
(Journeyman)
Oiler / Mechanic
11 36.06 1.53 5.95 5.41 4.35 0.90 54.20 8.13 62.33
(Journeyman)
Pipefitter
12 38.43 1.63 6.34 5.76 4.35 0.96 57.48 8.62 66.10
(Journeyman)
13 Painter 29.85 1.27 4.93 4.48 4.35 0.75 45.62 6.84 52.47
Refractory
14 35.40 1.50 5.84 5.31 4.35 0.89 53.29 7.99 61.29
(Journeyman)
15 Rebar Installer 34.95 1.49 5.77 5.24 4.35 0.87 52.67 7.90 60.57
16 Scaffolder 29.48 1.25 4.86 4.42 4.35 0.74 45.10 6.77 51.87
Truck Driver / JLG
17 26.94 1.15 4.45 4.04 4.35 0.67 41.60 6.24 47.84
Lift
Welder
18 38.47 1.63 6.35 5.77 4.35 0.96 57.53 8.63 66.16
(Journeyman)
1.50 Million Ton per year USA North East Ethylene Facility 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2017
Cost Categories Qty UoM Material M-H's M-H Rate Labor Cost Minimum Total Material M-H's M-H Rate Labor Cost Maximum Total
Application of the appropriate location specific factors, provides a reasonable assessment of how costs will
differ. In reviewing the resultant estimate, it is important to note that achieving a reasonable level of estimate
accuracy will require not only consideration of high level adjustments, such as wage rates and estimated
productivity, but also consideration of review of project specific conditions that can significantly impact
cost. Perhaps the most significant factor to be considered is the availability of a qualified work force. In 2017,
resource availability was a point of discussion for virtually any new project. Locating a new plant in an area
already identifying labor shortages creates a multifaceted risk of cost increase including per diem cost, bonus
wages, lost productivity, excess overtime, etc. This should all reflected in the Project Execution Plan (PEP) which
is also an integral aspects of the estimate. The scope of work and supporting data outlined above provides the
“what” will be built, but the PEP provides the “how” and in today’s marketplace it is equally as important as the
“what”.
As the team analyzed the 2017 data, it was clear that a notable impact, (particularly on the Gulf Coast), is recent
extreme weather resulting in both a shortage of qualified labor and an increased level of construction activity
associated with repair work. While this impact can be viewed as temporary, a recent Compass International
report estimates that the impact over the next six months will range from 5% to 10% for construction support
equipment and other indirect costs, and 3.5% to 6.5% increase for craft labor. While the North East United
States is not expected to see this level of increased labor cost, it is clear that there will be impact relative to bulk
materials resulting from increased repair activity on a national basis. This impact is expected to range from 2.5
% to 5% for all projects, including those in the North East.
The team calculated equipment and material escalation rates for the project over 2017. For 2017 the escalation
rates for major equipment were 3.5% for materials and 4.5% for labor, giving an average of rate of 4%. The
escalation rates for bulk materials for 2017 were 3.5%, with a 0.7% increase in Q1, 0.7% for Q2, 0.7% for Q3 and
1.4% for Q4. Freight and vendor assistance both experienced escalation rates of 3% increase for all of 2017, with
a 0.5% Q1 increase, 0.5% Q2 increase, 0.5% Q3 increase and 1.5% for Q4. The team established a look ahead
escalation table that can be used to model potential escalation for calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
Q Q Q Q for Q Q Q Q for Q Q Q Q for
2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020
US Gulf Coast
Materials 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.00 5.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 3.50
Labor 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.25 5.50 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.25 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 3.50
US North East
Materials 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 3.20
Labor 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 3.20
While the level for the Gulf Coast is slightly higher than that in the North East, reflecting the more direct
impact of recent weather events, both geographic locations reflect a level of increase that represents further
challenges for the industry. It is clear that that the seemingly endless escalation of Construction costs is not
limited to a single event or short term impacts but also includes potentially more significant circumstances
such as a diminishing pool of experienced/qualified work force, the industry’s failure to anticipate and
accommodate cyclical marketplace conditions and a failure to apply innovation and technology in an effective
manner. These topics have a negative influence on industry participants that manifests itself as a continual
deterioration in construction productivity, performance and associated cost effects.
While the overall prognosis is somewhat disconcerting, given decades of deteriorating, or, at best unchanged
performance, it is becoming clear to industry leadership that focus on improvement and innovative solutions
is appropriate. Owners, Contractors and Industry Associations are all actively involved in initiatives that are
starting to show results. Unfortunately, long term solutions such as technology advancement and revised
Construction processes, will take time and are unlikely to have any material impact on the current generation
of Ethylene projects. A look at current conditions leads to the conclusion that the rate of escalation will slow
or at least stabilize as the impact of recent weather events is fully absorbed and the three year outlook is
expected to be as presented in exhibit 7.
In any event, while the analysis presented in this article may be utilized as a basis/input to development
of Ethylene Project Cost Estimates, there is no substitute for thorough marketplace and labor availability
assessments, realistic consideration of project specific risk factors and effective application of Risk Analyses,
such as Monte Carlo Simulation based techniques to arrive at a reasonable level of Cost Estimate accuracy and
predictability upon which alternatives can be analyzed and informed business decisions can be made.