Delayed coking and LC-Fining technology a winning combination

Gary M Sieli Lummus Technology, a CB&I Company Nash Gupta Chevron Lummus Global LLC

he high price of oil and increasing global demand for refined products have resulted in unprecedented refining margins, especially for those refiners processing heavy, high sulphur crudes. Many refiners are reinvesting their profits by upgrading existing refining facilities, focusing primarily on the ability to process heavier, higher sulphur and higher naphthenic acid crudes by adding delayed cokers or ebullated bed hydrocracking technologies. For those refiners currently processing light, sweet crudes, the switch to a heavier crude slate and the addition of a delayed coking unit or an ebullated bed hydrocracking unit will significantly increase their refining margin. This paper shows how the combination of delayed coking and ebullated bed hydrocracking can significantly increase the conversion capabilities of a refinery versus either technology alone. In particular, the paper shows how the addition of an ebullated bed hydrocracker to a refinery that already includes a delayed coker can improve the economics of the refinery versus the addition of incremental coking capacity. The paper also shows how the addition of a delayed coker to a refinery that already includes an ebullated bed hydrocracker can eliminate the production of heavy fuel oil and improve the refinery economics. Although the combination of delayed coking and ebullated bed hydrocracking requires more investment, the difference in the total project cost is relatively small when all of the required downstream processes are considered. This project cost difference is offset by the increase in revenue resulting from the incremental conversion.

Introduction
The demand for heavy oil upgrades continues to persist into 2008, with strong activity in the US,

Canada, India and Europe. The technology of choice for most of these projects has been delayed coking. There are a number of reasons for this. Total investment is a primary concern for most refinery upgrade projects. When the two processes are compared, the investment cost per barrel of installed capacity for a delayed coker is usually lower than an ebullated bed hydrocracker. Although this may not be true when all supporting processes and facilities are included in the evaluation (eg, hydroprocessing requirements, coke handling and storage requirements, sulphur recovery and hydrogen production), the perception is often sufficient to impede further evaluation of an ebullated bed hydrocracker. Furthermore, refiners are comfortable with the delayed coking process. Delayed coking has become a popular residue upgrading technology and the number of refineries utilising it far exceeds the number of refineries utilising ebullated bed hydrocracking. Some refiners will not even consider ebullated bed hydrocracking simply because they have very little knowledge of the process. Moreover, delayed coking often provides a higher return on investment than ebullated bed hydrocracking projects, but this is dependent on a number of factors including, but not limited to, the specific product slate desired, refinery location, refinery configuration, feed and product pricing, and type of crudes processed. Each refinery upgrade project needs to be evaluated on a case-specific basis. In some cases, the loss in total C5+ liquid product resulting from coke production can have a negative impact on project economics. For example, when syncrude is the desired product (such as for Canadian Athabasca upgrader projects),

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

April 2008 1

the increased revenue resulting from the additional quantity of syncrude produced with ebullated bed hydrocracking technology can be more than sufficient to offset the higher investment cost associated with this process, and therefore generate a more attractive return on investment. In many of these syncrude projects, the coke must be returned to the mine because the location of the upgrader makes it difficult to market the coke. Coke removal can be costly. In Europe, both processes continue to remain popular. A new ebullated bed hydrocracking unit utilising the LC-Fining process with integrated gas oil hydrocracking has recently come on stream in Finland, while another unit is in the design phase in Bulgaria. The LC-Fining process is a proprietary ebullated bed residue hydrocracking process offered by Chevron Lummus Global and will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper. Existing LC-Fining units in Italy, Poland and Slovakia continue to operate. New delayed coking units are in various stages of design and construction in Spain, Sweden and Russia, while coker expansions are being considered in other European countries. Existing cokers in Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Romania and Croatia continue to operate as well. Both processes add incremental revenue to a refiners bottom line by converting residue to lighter, higher valued products, and by enabling the refiner to process some quantity of heavy, high-sulphur, lower-priced crude. This paper presents the results of a study that evaluated and compared the addition of incremental coking capacity versus the addition of an LC-Fining unit to an existing delayed coking refinery looking to increase the quantity of heavy crude oil processed. It also presents the results of a study that evaluated the addition of a delayed coker to a refinery with an existing LCFining unit, with the objective of eliminating bunker fuel oil production and increasing middle distillate production.

Improving refinery profitability by processing heavier crudes

Refinery operations are often characterised in one of two ways: refineries with residue upgrading technologies and those without. For those refiners without this capability, the quantity of heavy, high-sulphur crude that can be processed is limited. The addition of a residue upgrading

technology such as delayed coking or ebullated bed hydrocracking will allow these refineries to process larger quantities of heavy, high-sulphur, lower-priced crudes, resulting in increased profitability. Many refiners who already have some residue upgrading capability are looking to improve the profitability of their refinery further by processing larger quantities of heavy crudes. For these refiners, the downstream processing of the incremental residue must be addressed. For example, if a refinery already has a delayed coker and is interested in processing additional quantities of heavy, high-sulphur crude, the choices for processing the incremental residue are: Add a gasifier Revamp the existing coker; this could include the addition of a new pair(s) of coke drums or simply a reduction in cycle time; the heater and liquid/vapour recovery sections would also require revamping Add a new coker Debottleneck the coker by adding a residue conversion process such as ebullated bed hydrocracking upstream of the coker. The addition of a gasifier should only be considered if the syngas can be used to produce hydrogen, power and/or chemicals economically. In some cases, this could be an attractive option. The revamp of the existing coker is often a viable option; however, there is a limit to how much additional capacity can be achieved through revamp. In many cases, the quantity of incremental residue can only be handled through the addition of a new coker. In either case, the refiner must consider how to handle the incremental coke production. In most cases, this will require investment in additional conveying and storage and, in some cases, harbor improvements for ship loading. An alternative approach to the addition of incremental coking capacity is the addition of an ebullated bed hydrocracker, such as an LCFining unit, upstream of the existing coker. This approach minimises the impact of the upgrade on the existing coker, produces larger quantities of higher valued middle distillate products, and minimises the incremental quantity of coke produced.

LC-Fining process
The LC-Fining process is an ebullated bed resi-

2 April 2008

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

due hydrocracking process licensed Effluent by Chevron Lummus Global, a 50/50 Thermowell Nozzle Catalyst Addition Line joint venture between Chevron and Density Detector Lummus Technology, a CB&I Radiation Source Well company. The process features high distillate yields and high heteroatom Density Detectors and metals removal, and is an efficient way of handling petroleum Normal Bed Level bottoms and other heavy hydrocarbons. It is safe, reliable, and easy to operate. Commercial designs range from desulphurisation at moderate Skin TC's conversion for the production of low-sulphur fuel oil, to high converCatalyst sion, with the unconverted bottoms Withdrawal Line Feed routed to downstream processes Recycle Pump such as coking or gasification. Presently, there are six LC-Fining units in operation processing 260 Figure 1 LC-Fining reactor 000 BPSD of residue, and three more units in various phases of design and No pressure drop build-up construction with a processing capacity of 136 On-stream catalyst addition and withdrawal 000 BPSD. Capability to process heavy, high metals, high Characteristics of the LC-Fining process solids content feedstocks. include: Figure 1 is a schematic of the LC-Fining reactor. A simplified process flow scheme is shown An expanded bed reactor in Figure 2. Isothermal reactor operation

Figure 2 LC-Fining process flow scheme

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

April 2008 3

Figure 3 Flow scheme of the LC-Fining process with integrated hydrotreating

Recent advances in the LC-Fining process technology include the addition of a highpressure hydrogen purification system, lower treat gas rates, an inter-reactor separator/ stripper, integrated hydroprocessing, increased conversion capability and a third-generation recycle pan. While all of these improvements have been very successful, the concept of integrating the LC-Fining process with hydroprocessing is of particular interest. This concept, which was first applied to an LC-Fining unit in Canada in 1997, minimises the need for additional recycle gas compression, resulting in significant cost savings. In this design, the hydrotreating reactor is close coupled to the LC-Fining reactors and utilises
Crude slate
Base refinery Upgraded refinery Blended crude composition, vol% Urals 17.5 45 Maya 17.5 45 Bonny Light 32.5 5 Sarir 32.5 5 Total 100 100 Crude $/Bbl Note 64.48 60.39 70.57 66.74 1 2 3 4

excess hydrogen in the LC-Fining reactor effluent as treat gas. The LC-Fining distillates can be co-processed with external feeds in the hydrotreating reactor. Figure 3 is a simplified schematic of the LC-Fining process with integrated hydrotreating.

Adding an LC-Fining unit to a delayed coking refinery

A study was conducted to establish the differences in the cost and economics of adding an LC-Fining unit to an existing delayed coking refinery versus the addition of incremental coking capacity. For this study, a 200 000 BPSD refinery was assumed to represent a base case delayed coking refinery. The process configuration for this base refinery was established using linear programming (LP) techniques. A simplified block flow diagram of the base refinery is presented in Figure 4. A 65/35 blend of light and heavy crudes was assumed for the base refinery, with the light sweet crude represented by a 50/50 blend of Sarir (Libya) and Bonny Light (Nigeria) crudes, and the heavy crude represented by a 50/50 blend of Urals (Russia) and Maya (Mexico) crudes. While not necessarily representative of any one particular refinery, these crudes are processed in many European refineries. For the upgraded refinery cases, the quantity of heavy crude was increased to 90% of the total crude blend. Details of the crude slate, including

Notes 1. 2007 average spot price for Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) 2. 2007 US West Coast spot price plus $5.00 additional shipping 3. Assumed equivalent to average 2007 spot price for Brass River ARA 4. Assumed equivalent to average 2007 spot price for Es Sider ARA

Table 1

April 2008

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

Light Naphtha

CRUDE

Crude Unit + SAT GAS Plant

Heavy Naphtha Kerosene Light Gas Oil Heavy Gas Oil

NHT

HT Light Naphtha HT Heavy Naphtha

DHT
AR

HT Distillates

C5/C6 Isom Unit

Isomerate

Vacuum Unit

VGO Lt HC Naphtha Hvy HC Naphtha

CCR Reformer

Reformate

HC
Coker Naphtha

FCC Gasoline

HC Distillates HC Bottoms

VGO HT Delayed Coker

LCGO HCGO Coker C4's

LCO HT VGO

C4's

Alkylation

Diesel Coke FCC Slurry Oil

Figure 4 Block flow diagram of base delayed coking refinery

crude prices, for the base and upgraded refinery cases are presented in Table 1. Table 2 summarises the processes that are included in the base case refinery and their corresponding capacities. The product slate, imported feeds and corresponding prices defined for the base refinery are presented in Table 3. Natural gas was assumed to be available for hydrogen production and to supplement refinery energy requirements. MTBE was assumed to be available for gasoline blending. All product properties were specified in accordance with Euro IV specifications. Product prices are average 2007 Rotterdam cargo FOB prices available from Platts or estimated based on the assumptions indicated in Table 3. Details of the upgraded refinery cases are as follows: Case 1: in this case, an LC-Fining unit is added to the base case delayed coking refinery. The LCFining unit is a single train unit processing virgin vacuum residue blended with 5% FCC slurry oil. Conversion of the 566C+ vacuum residue was set at 72 vol%. At this conversion, the unconverted LC-Fining residue cannot be used as fuel

oil blendstock and must be processed in the existing delayed coker. All of the LC-Fining naphtha, distillate and vacuum gas oil are hydrotreated either in existing facilities or an integrated hydrotreating reactor. Unconverted
Base coking refinery process unit capacities
KTA Crude unit 9460 Vacuum unit 4600 Naphtha hydrotreating 1650 CCR reforming 2220 C5/C6 isomerisation 215 Alkylation (sulphuric acid) 315 Vacuum gas oil hydrotreater 1710 FCC 1580 Delayed coker 1610 C4 selective hydrotreating 215 Distillate hydrotreating 2540 Hydrocracker 2400 H2 plant (SMR) 51 H2 PSA 48 Amine regeneration (DEA) Sulphur recovery + tail gas treating 69 BPSD 200 000 88 000 38 800 53 000 5600 8000 34 500 33 200 28 000 6600 54 000 46 500 61 MMSCFD 57 MMSCFD 1212 GPM 196 MTPD

Table 2

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

April 2008 5

Diesel

FCC + Gas Plant + SHT

Alkylate

VR

Jet

Gasoline

Petrochemical Naphtha

Base coking refinery product slate and imported feeds

Product slate Euro IV 92 RON gasoline Petrochemical naphtha Jet A1 & JP-8 Euro IV diesel Regular diesel1 Bunker fuel oil (180 cst, 1.5% S) Bunker fuel oil (380 cst, 1.5% S) Sulphur Coke Imported feeds Natural gas MTBE $/Bbl ($/MT) BPSD KTA 3960 446 1204 2349 478 0 0 69 452 150 10

Incremental product rates and imported feeds for Upgraded delayed coking refinery
Case 1 Case 2 Add LC-Fining Add Incremental coking BPSD KTA BPSD KTA Product slate Euro IV 92 RON gasoline -12 963 -461 -17 349 -644 Petrochemical naphtha 6432 248 11 491 442 Jet A1 & JP-8 0 2 0 1 Euro IV diesel 7012 325 2082 94 Regular diesel (Note) 1402 68 416 18 Bunker fuel oil (180 cst) 0 0 0 0 Bunker fuel oil (380 cst) 0 0 0 0 Sulphur 111 89 Coke 87 394 Net liquids 1882 380 -3361 394 56 19

$76.07 98 540 $72.78 11 440 $85.01 26 691 $82.26 50 200 $78.81 10 040 $48.00 0 $47.00 0 ($25) ($30) (331.8) $90.07 241

Notes 1. Regular diesel (home heating oil) production specified as 20% of Euro IV diesel production for all cases.

Imported feeds Incremental natural gas Incremental MTBE 366

122 15 447

Table 3

Table 4

LC-Fining bottoms is processed in the existing delayed coker, together with virgin vacuum residue, as required to maintain the base case coker capacity of 28 000 BPSD. Case 2: in this case, the capacity of the existing delayed coker is maintained at 100% of the base case coker (28 000 BPSD) and a new delayed coker was added to handle the incremental capacity. The investment costs for all new processes and utility systems were included in the model (cost at reference capacity with appropriate exponents for factoring). The cost of incremental capacity that could be achieved through unit revamp (eg,

incremental vacuum unit capacity) was assumed equivalent to the cost of new capacity. The investment cost for offsites such as incremental coke handling and storage and product tankage was also included in the model as a fixed percentage of the ISBL cost. All product rates obtained for the base case refinery were maintained as minimums in the upgraded refinery, except for the gasoline product. Preliminary results showed that relatively large quantities of purchased MTBE were required to supplement the reduced quantities of naphtha (and hence, reformate) resulting from the processing of the heavy crude. Since most European refiners are long on gasoline, the modest reduction in gasoline producIncremental process unit capacity for upgraded delayed tion (~15-20%) was deemed acceptable. coking refinery Table 4 presents the incremental product rates and imported feed Incremental process unit capacity requirements for the upgraded refinery Case 1 Case 2 Add LC-Fining Add incremental cases, while Table 5 summarises the coking required new process unit capacities. KTA BPSD KTA BPSD Table 6 presents a breakdown of the Crude unit 1273 0 1273 0 estimated ISBL and OSBL costs, increVacuum unit 1070 16 000 1070 16 000 Delayed coker - - 1252 21 000 mental revenue and calculated internal LC-Fining 1686 30 000 - rates of return for each case. The H2 plant (SMR) 50 60 MMSCFD 17 23 MMSCFD %IRRs were calculated assuming a Amine regeneration (DEA) - 1956 GPM - 1556 GPM 70/30 debt/equity ratio, 20% income Sulphur recovery + tail gas treating 166 473 MTPD 132 377 MTPD tax, and 15-year project life. Table 5 These results show that the

6 April 2008

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

incremental coking capacity required for Case 2 This study suggests that there are numerous (21 000 BPSD) is too large to be achieved advantages associated with the combination of through revamp of the existing unit for this delayed coking and an LC-Fining unit. Refiners particular example. A new delayed coker will who are already operating delayed cokers should need to be added. Also, the additional quantity of consider this combination if they are interested coke produced in Case 2 (394 000 tons per year) in improving the upgrading capability of their may require additional coke handling infrastruc- refinery. ture (eg, harbour facilities), the cost of which has not been included here. Incremental coke Adding a delayed coker to an LC-Fining production for Case 1 (LC-Fining) is only 87 KTA. refinery This relatively small increase in coke production The demand for bunker fuel oil in Europe is will, more than likely, have minimal impact on expected to decrease as a result of the sulphur the existing coke handling system. restrictions being imposed on marine fuels. The net change in gasoline and naphtha in Refiners currently producing bunker fuel oil will both cases is essentially the same. If the gasoline either need to look for alternate markets or production were maintained in both cases invest in residue conversion processes. At the through the purchase of additional quantities of same time, the demand for low-sulphur diesel is MTBE, the cost associated with the MTBE expected to continue to increase. purchase results in lower %IRRs for both cases, A study was conducted to assess the economics but the relative results remain the same. of adding a delayed coking unit to a refinery In both cases, most of the economic benefit is operating an ebullated bed hydrocracking unit, realised through the savings associated with the such as an LC-Fining unit. In this study, a 200 purchase of the heavier crude slate. However, the 000 BPSD refinery processing 100% Urals crude net incremental revenue associated with the LC- was assumed to represent a base case refinery Fining case (ie, Case 1) is significantly larger than with an LC-Fining unit, producing a 180 centisthe incremental coker capacity case, due mostly toke, 1.5 wt% sulphur fuel oil. The study assumed to the larger diesel production. that this base LC-Fining refinery was interested Although the total investment cost associated in eliminating its bunker fuel oil production and with the addition of the 30 000 BPSD LC-Fining increasing its diesel production by adding a unit is more than 264 MMUS$ higher than the delayed coker to the refinery, with the coker addition of 21 000 BPSD of incremental coking processing the unconverted LC-Fining bottoms. capacity, the difference in the incremental net The process configuration for the base LCrevenue (~124 MMUS$/year) is sufficient to Fining refinery was established using linear justify the incremental cost. Furthermore, not programming techniques. Figure 5 is a simplified having to deal with an additional 394 KTA of block flow diagram of the base LC-Fining refinhigh-sulphur coke has numerous benefits as well. Estimatedsost and %IRRs for upgraded delayed coking refinery For refiners concerned about coke sulphur, the addition of the LC-Fining Case 1 Case 2 unit to the existing refinery produces a Add LC-Fining Add incremental coke with a sulphur content of 4.94% coking Investment costs, MMUS$ (Note: coker feed is a blend of LC-Fining ISBL 611.92 409.17 bottoms and virgin vacuum residue, Utilities + offsites 167.06 105.12 making the coke sulphur higher than it would be if the coker feed were 100% Total installed cost, MMUS$ 778.98 514.29 LC-Fining bottoms), while the addition Incremental gross revenue, MMUS$/year 67.39 (87.38) of incremental coking capacity produces Incremental raw materials, MMUS$/year (195.45) (215.72) a coke with a sulphur content of 5.34%. Incremental utilities, MMUS$/year 9.54 (0.90) When compared to the coke sulphur of Net incremental revenue, MMUS$/year 253.30 129.24 %IRR 26.14 18.13 the base refinery, at 4.02%, the addition of the LC-Fining unit has a clear advantage. Table 6

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

April 2008 7

CRUDE

Crude Unit + SAT GAS Plant

Heavy Naphtha Kerosene Light Gas Oil Heavy Gas Oil HT Distillates

NHT

HT Light Naphtha HT Heavy Naphtha

AR

Isomerate VGO Lt HC Naphtha Hvy HC Naphtha

Vacuum Unit

CCR Reformer

Reformate FCC Gasoline

LC-FINING Naphtha

HC

HC Distillates HC Bottoms

VR

Diesel

LCO

LCFINING

LC-FINING Distillates LC-FINING VGO

C4's

Alkylation

FCC Slurry Oil LC-FINING Bottoms

Figure 5 Block flow diagram of base LC-Fining refinery

ery. Crude and product pricing are as previously defined. Table 7 presents the process units defined for the base LC-Fining refinery and their correBase LC-Fining refinery process unit capacities
KTA Crude unit 9631 Vacuum unit 4935 Naphtha hydrotreating 853 CCR reforming 1506 C5/C6 isomerisation 214 Alkylation (sulphuric acid) 302 Vacuum gas oil hydrotreater 1438 FCC 1361 LC-Fining 2258 C4 selective hydrotreating 162 Distillate hydrotreating 2376 Hydrocracker 2886 H2 plant (SMR) 117 H2 PSA 37 Amine regeneration (DEA) Sulphur recovery + tail gas treating 130 BPSD 200 000 92 400 20 700 36 200 5600 7700 27 100 27 000 39 900 5000 50 900 57 700 140 MMSCFD 45 MMSCFD 2301 GPM 372 MTPD

Table 7

sponding capacities. In the base refinery, the LC-Fining unit is a single train unit processing 540C+ vacuum residue blended with 5% FCC slurry oil. Conversion of the 540C+ vacuum residue was set at 65 vol% for the production of stable LC-Fining bottoms that can be blended with cutter stock for fuel oil production. With the addition of the delayed coker in the upgraded refinery case, the LC-Fining unit conversion was increased to 75%, with all of the unconverted LC-Fining bottoms processed in the new delayed coker. Naphtha from the coker is processed in the existing naphtha hydrotreater. Light coker gas oil is processed in the existing distillate hydrotreater. Heavy coker gas oil is processed in the existing hydrocracker. The product slate and imported feeds defined for the base LC-Fining refinery are shown in Table 8. Prices are as previously reported. As in the previous study, natural gas was assumed to be available for hydrogen production and to supplement refinery energy requirements, and MTBE was assumed to be available for gasoline

8 April 2008

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

Fuel Oil

Diesel

VGO HT

HT VGO

FCC + Gas Plant + SHT

Alkylate

Jet

Gasoline

DHT

C5/C6 Isom Unit

Petrochemical Naphtha

Light Naphtha

Base LC-Fining refinery product slate and imported feeds

BPSD Product slate Euro IV 92 RON gasoline 67 202 Petrochemical naphtha 36 638 Jet A1 & JP-8 30 533 Euro IV diesel 42 631 Regular diesel1 8526 Bunker fuel oil (180 cst, 1.5% S) 21 228 Bunker fuel oil (380 cst, 1.5% S) 0 Sulphur Coke Imported feeds Natural gas MTBE 0 FCC Slurry oil2 553 KTA 2763 1435 1381 1992 404 1111 0 130 0 329 0 33

Incremental product rates and imported feeds for base LC-Fining refinery + delayed coker
Incremental production BPSD KTA Product slate Euro IV 92 RON gasoline 0 -32 Petrochemical naphtha 3069 48 Jet A1 & JP-8 0 2 Euro IV diesel 13 761 645 Regular diesel (Note) 2752 132 Bunker fuel oil (180 cst, 1.5% S) -21 228 -1111 Bunker fuel oil (380 cst, 1.5% S) 0 0 Sulphur 4 Coke Net liquids Imported feeds Incremental natural gas Incremental MTBE Incremental FCC slurry oil -1646 -18 0 0 178 -215

Notes: 1. Regular diesel (home heating oil) production specified as 20% of Euro IV diesel production for all cases. 2. FCC slurry oil imported to supplement LC-FINING feed requirements.

0 0

Table 8

Table 9

blending. All product properties were specified in accordance with Euro IV specifications. As in the previous study, the investment costs for all new processes were included in the LP model, and the cost of incremental capacity that could be achieved through unit revamp was assumed equivalent to the cost of new capacity. The investment cost for offsites such as the coke conveyor, coke storage and incremental product tankage was defined as a percentage of the ISBL cost. The gasoline, naphtha and distillate volumetric production rates established in the base refinery were defined as minimum rates in the upgraded refinery operations. Table 9 summarises the incremental product rates and imported feed requirements and Table 10 summarises the required new process unit capacities associated with the addition of the delayed coker to the base LC-Fining refinery. Table 11 presents a breakdown of the estimated ISBL and OSBL costs, incremental revenue and calculated internal rates of return for the upgraded refinery. The %IRR was calculated assuming a 70/30 debt/equity ratio, 20% income tax and 15-year project life, as in the previous study. These results show that, for this example refinery and the product pricing defined, the

Incremental process unit capacity for base LC-Fining refinery + delayed coker
Incremental process unit capacity Case 1 KTA BPSD Crude unit Vacuum unit Naphtha hydrotreating CCR reforming C5/C6 isomerisation Alkylation (sulphuric acid) Vacuum gas oil hydrotreater FCC Kerosene sweetening 138 3000 Delayed coker 525 9000 LC-Fining C4 selective hydrotreating Distillate hydrotreating 123 #REF! Hydrocracker 55 #REF! H2 plant (SMR) 8 9 MMSCFD H2 PSA Amine regeneration (DEA) - 70 GPM Sulphur recovery + tail gas treating 4 17 MTPD

Table 10

elimination and conversion of the low-sulphur fuel oil to distillates produces an excellent return on investment. The elimination of the lower value, low-sulphur fuel oil and the production of higher value distillates, together with the nearly

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166

April 2008 9

Estimated total installed cost and %IRR for base LC-Fining refinery + delayed coker
Investment costs, MMUS$ ISBL Utilities + offsites Total installed cost, MMUS$ Incremental gross revenue, MMUS$/year Incremental raw materials, MMUS$/year Incremental utilities, MMUS$/year Net incremental revenue, MMUS$/year %IRR

Conclusions
Although these studies did not focus on any one particular refinery, the results suggest that the combination of an LC-Fining ebullated bed hydrocracker and a delayed coking can increase the profitability of a refinery, particularly for those refiners looking to increase diesel production. For an existing delayed coking refinery interested in processing larger quantities of heavier crude, the addition of an LC-Fining unit can provide a higher rate of return then the addition of incremental coking capacity. For a refinery that currently operates an LC-Fining unit producing low-sulphur fuel oil, the addition of a delayed coker and conversion of the fuel oil to higher valued products can yield an excellent return on investment.
References 1 Platts OPR Extra; Jan 2007 through Dec 2007. 2 Pappos N, Skjlsvik K O, The European Marine Fuel Market - Present and Future, Paper at ENSUS 2002, International Conference on Marine Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability, Newcastle, Nov 2002. 3 Reynolds B, Gupta N, Baldassari M, Leung P, Clean Fuels From Vacuum Residue Using the LC-FINING Process.

149.87 78.13 228.00 208.00 (5.91) 0.59 213.32 70.30

Table 11

$30/Bbl price differential between distillates and low-sulphur fuel oil, is clearly the driving force behind the high %IRR obtained. In this particular example, the impact on the existing refinery operations was limited. The addition of a kerosene sweetening unit eliminated the need to invest in the revamp of the existing hydrotreater to process the light coker gas oil from the delayed coker. The heavy coker gas oil product backed out heavy virgin gas oil feed from the hydrocracker feed, which, in turn, was processed in the distillate hydrotreater, eliminating the need to revamp the hydrocracker as well. Although the coker in this example is small in comparison to most delayed cokers, there are more than two dozen cokers operating at this and lower capacities worldwide. Of course, a larger delayed coker would be required if the example refinery was to change to a heavier crude slate or increase the overall refinery capacity.

Links
More articles from: CB&I More articles from the following category: Delayed coking

10 April 2008

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000166