สำนักราชบัณฑิตยสภา

«“√ “√ √“™∫— ≥±‘µ¬ ∂“π ªï ∑’Ë Ú˜ ©∫— ∫∑’Ë Û °.§.-°.¬. ÚıÙı Pramote Chaiyavech ˆ˜Ò the propylene import. The ineffi- ciency of the initial operation was therefore absorbed by the offtaker who was not at all happy with the deal. When the market price of propylene came down, the cost- plus formula was no longer accept- able and NPC had to agree to a sell- ing price relating to the market prices. As a result, propylene sell- ing price has been coming down. In addition, the duty protection on propylene was lifted. NPC has no leverage and has to compete openly with other producers. As shown in Figure 6, propy- lene selling price trends downward while propane feedstock price re- mains relatively stable, thanks to the co-operation of our feed sup- plier, PTT, which is also a major share holder. As may be noted the propylene-propane price differen- tial averages at $277 /ton with the minimumbeing $100 /ton. At this level, the total cost can be covered adequately with the exception of the minimumprice differential pe- riod. Figure 7 shows the relative breakdown of the various costs. Conclussion Development of the Oleflex process required a great deal of ef- forts and only through the com- mitment and perser verance of UOP could successful operation be achieved. Technology transfer is also very important in commer- cializing the process and UOP have great success in this aspect, gaining trust from clients. Im- Fig. 6 NPC propylene and propane price 1990-2001 Table 2 UOP oleflex catalyst development Deh-8 DeH-10 DeH-12 DeH-14 Pt wt% 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.45 Modifier wt% Base 0.3*Base 0.3*Base - Attenuator wt% Base Base 0.7*Base lower than DeH-12 (*UOP do not specify level) Fig. 7 Economic performance (cost of production) 2001