Greenfield Siting & Feasibility
The same platform, earlier in the life of an asset. It takes the process design and a set of candidate sites, derives the exclusion and separation zones each piece of equipment needs, then computes the spatial geometry for every site and layout: how far equipment sits from its neighbours in three dimensions, where a crane boom can swing, what a hazard radius covers. Each result is checked against the cited code that governs it (API 2510, NFPA 30, OSHA 1910) and written onto the same operational graph, so the conflicts surface, with their math, before ground is broken.
An operator is about to commit capital to a new processing unit. On paper the cheapest parcel looks like the obvious choice.
- FEMAOn that parcel the FEMA 100-year flood zone reaches both the control room and a feed storage tank.
- GISA rule-based nudge cannot lift them clear; only relocating to open ground keeps the layout feasible.
- standardsThe compact layout puts the naphtha splitter a metre from a pressure vessel, against a 15 metre rule.
- DatasheetMoving that vessel after detailed design costs far more than catching it now.
Every one of these is knowable on day one. Finding them after the land is bought is where greenfield budgets go.
Walk it in two phases
A guided, interactive demo on a synthetic greenfield project for the Gulf Coast Olefins Demonstrator, checked against public standards (API 2510, NFPA 30, OSHA 1910, FEMA, PHMSA). First define the project and derive its rules, then assess the candidate sites. Jump between the two phases anytime.