Greenfield vs. Brownfield Projects

Well... My understanding of the terms are...

A "Brownfield" project is a project to convert a no longer used "industrial asset", such as a parcel of land or a building, into something new and useful, there bye rejuvenating the area.

A "Greenfield" project is any project on virgin land.

Rick

Thank you for that Rick,

Your understanding of the 2 terms makes sense, where does a retro refit of a particular plant stand?

Why not just an upgrade on existing equipment, isn't that what Electrical Engineers do apply new Automation & Control systems into place to improve productivity or adjust a process.

What does North of 60 mean?

Are you somewhere cold at the moment.

I suppose you could roll out the term to include such projects. I have only ever heard it used in conjunction with changing something closed down, not something still in operation.

"North of 60" is a generic term, and the name of a defunct TV show about a small northern town, and refers to the fact that I live... North of the 60th parallel.

As to cold... it is, of course, relative to what you consider cold. At the moment, it is -49 deg C outside. Balmy if you ask me. LOL...

Rick...

As North of 60 said: Greenfield is an industrial project starting from scratch (nothing there).

I've never heard of Brownfield before, so I will defer to his statement.

"Where does a retro refit of a particular plant stand?" In my opinion, somewhere below eating your own liver. New (greenfield) projects have their problems, but retrofits give me fits. The documentation at an existing plant is invariably wrong. And the worst are the ones that are close enough to right (say 90%) to fool you into trusting them.

"Why not just an upgrade on existing equipment." Depends upon the viability of the equipment, and just how much "upgrading" is going to have to be done. Ever had a car that was in such bad shape, that fixing it would cost more than replacing it? Same thing.

I think I'm getting the picture,

So a brand spanking new greenfield project is much more preferable and prestigous with all the latest technologies for an Engineer to put his stamp on the succesful project and therefore their career.

That makes sense to me, could you imagine a working life where you are not allowed to make any mistakes in or past the FEED stage of the process.

I am in Sydney at the moment enjoying 32C and India & Australia having a close game of Cricket,

Thanks again for your interpretations, they are very close I'm sure. It's just the colloquial Ausie interpretations can drift on occations.

I look forward to any future comments from both of you, enjoy your day? evening.

"So a brand spanking new greenfield project is much more preferable and prestigous with all the latest technologies for an Engineer to put his stamp on the succesful project and therefore their career."

Whoa there!

Preferable is an opinion, and I so noted it in my comment. Prestigious? Could be, but it might not be. I prefer (there's that darned opinion again!) to get my kicks/strokes from the accomplishment itself. As far as the latest technologies, they can be a thrill, they can also be a pain in the A@@! But all projects will teach you something, and that LEARNING is what advances your career.

So a brand spanking new greenfield project is much more preferable and prestigous with all the latest technologies for an Engineer to put his stamp on the succesful project and therefore their career.

This is a little scary . . . If demolishing an old plant with it's inherent problems is to be replaced with a new one, then the designers of the new one must be intimately familiar with all the problems of the old one, and it's a very good idea to have owners' engineers work closely with design engineers to avoid all old problems as well as to attempt to avert never-before-seen new problems.

No argument other then to say...

Is that not a required part of all engineering projects?

Intimate and complete knowledge of any manufacturing process is something that is, IMHO, a crucial input component to any engineering project if the project is to have a chance of meeting its design goals.

Again, IMHO, project execution without that knowledge input can often explain why so many things often turn into a cluster f***.

Rick

But it happens . . .

Sounds like you are familliar with Fort McMurray and surrounding area !!! LOL

Greenfield is a new project, as others pointed out. Brownfield is renovation or upgrading of an existing facility or project.

Brownfield engineers are specialists in decommissioning, demolition, removal, HAZMAT (asbestos ?), etc., plus, new construction inside the old facility or project to fit in with the old portion. There are brownfield engineering firms. Google brownfield engineering.

So think of brownfield as remodeling an old house.

A new construction house builder may struggle remodeling an existing house, but a re-modeler can likely feel comfortable building a new house.

You should think of a "Greenfied Project" as a project where; Historically a group of men would enter a green field and turn the first spade of dirt to begin a new construction,...hence the term "Greenfield Project" originated.

Take it from one who has been around a very long time !

I agree with most of what has been said here. However, there is a subtle distinction to "brownfield" that goes beyond the renovation of an existing facility. Even an extensive renovation is not usually considered a "brownfield" project. Usually the term means just what is says: you bulldoze everything that was there and start with a brown field: an inner city industrial area is changed to a residential area, for instance.

I think you've got it right . Ken. Renovation of an existing plant is not brownfield; Going into an area and bulldozing and rebuilding is Brownfield. Youngstown Ohio, much of southside chicago, and viryuall yall of detroit is brownfield or soon to be...

I would know, I've been in the steel business in the midwest and North AMerica for most of the last 30 years. Brown field is where jobs used to be;

We built a brand new steel bar mill plant on a new site in a new industrial park on land that used to be a farm outside of atlanta georgia, that was greenfield.

where our 100+ year old plant was in chicago that burned down and is now a lot for staging trailers is brownfield site.

milo

Hi ALL,

My understanding of the terms as explained in mining magazines and from the Tendering processes is as follows.

GreenField = "Total use of only new technology for the whole site from the ground up". New projects where the latest new technology is incoporated only from the foundations up. This may occur on defunct sites where the primary use of the site is totally rebuilt from the foundations up using only new technology and where the site has been cleaned up to 'Pristine Conditions' prior to commencement of any work.

Brownfield = "Use of new technology in an existing operation". Refurbishment or updating of the complete or part of the operations relating to the existing site specific use.

Very interesting. The US and Australian/GB interpretations of the terms are quite different. If only we spoke the same language! Reminds me of the hood/bonnet, convertible top/hood, trunk/boot, tire/tyre, wrench/spanner, ground/earth issues that show up in talking about cars. At least we all agree that Joseph Lucas was the inventor of darkness.

From a US patent application:

"Brownfields" generally includes real properties in a contaminated or stigmatized condition. Brownfields may include, for example, abandoned, idle or under-utilized sites, urban, rural, industrial or nonindustrial real property where development, expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived contamination. In contrast, "Greenfields" are undeveloped properties located mainly in suburban or rural areas. Fear of contamination is one factor that may steer real estate development to Greenfields, with unintended but nonetheless undesirable consequences such as urban sprawl, habitat destruction or loss of land suitable for agriculture.

This difference in meaning (US vs GB and Australia) is mentioned in the wikipedia article :

Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contaminations. ^[1]

In city planning, brownfield land, or simply a brownfield, is land previously used for industrial purposes, or certain commercial uses, and that may be contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution and has the potential to be reused once it is cleaned up. Land that is more severely contaminated and has high concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution, such as Superfund or hazardous waste sites, does not fall under the brownfield classification.

Note that in the United Kingdom and Australia, the term applies merely to previously used land.

Greenfield: project done on virgin land. Necessary work includes clearing the land and installation of amenities such as water, power, sewage lines, access roads etc in addition to plant construction.

Brownfield: abandoned industrial land being reclaimed for reuse. Necessary work includes environmental remediation of land, removal of tanks and other facilities that can no longer be use, refurbishment and modification of plant if being reused for industrial purposes, or demolition of plant if land being reused for non-industrial purposes etc.

Obviously the common thread through all of these "definitions" are the same. The interesting aspect, at least to me, is that it is pretty clear that the definition one has for a given term can be quite different based on the frame of reference of the person having the definition. This can only be described as the growth of the language.

Greenfield would be undeveloped areas. Brownfield would be sites identified as complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Local, state or federal agencies classify sites as brownfield.

Leed gives 1 point for remediating a brownfield site.

As far as costs associated with building on one versus the other, does anyone know of studies that have been conducted in this regard?

Bascially, is developing on a greenfield more/less expensive than the contaminated land site? But, more importantly, I am looking for the detail and the research that has been conducted in this area.

Thanks.

Hello Guest,

I do believe it's a given to decontaminate a site before construction would inherently be more expensive then starting fresh.

Of coarse how much is spent on acquiring suitable land from the municipality and possible added logistic costs with more distant locations & the power supply in this new area has many variables.

Indeed as is the case in many remote area sites in Australia it is more economical to produce your own power rather then pay the princely sum to the local power utility who has the monopoly in that particular state.

Location, location & location, it's not just for houses.

Enjoy your day.

$85 per square foot to build industrial building for a machine shop most anywhere in Midwest and eastern North America. (I have data from shop owners in Ohio, Michigan, Canada CT and NY) If you can rent industrial space for less than $7 a square foot per month you will be ahead to not build.

Brownfield does not mean contaminated, it means prior existing real property that MIGHT have environmental complications:

"With certain legal exclusions and additions, the term "brownfield site" means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant."-http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/glossary.htm

milo

A very useful information. Im working on rercruiting PTW candidates for an oil and gas project in UAE. Perhaps you may also refer some websites which can help me get more informations. email is zhe_marie@yahoo.com. Thanks!