Revisiting a LinkedIn Discussion

“Friendship increases in visiting friends, but in visiting them seldom.” -- Francis Bacon, Sr. (English Lawyer and Philosopher. 1561-1626)

Not all LinkedIn groups are created equal. Some are little more than infomercials. Others are a mix. The Oil Refining Global Technology Forum is a mix. I have highlighted the following discussion in previous posts. Since then, the discussion has grown. I find it fascinating, so I am reproducing the most recent contributions below.

If you find value in the discussion, consider joining LinkedIn, and then join the Oil Refining Global Technology Forum.

When you get really inspired, contribute a comment to the discussion … and you may make some useful connections.

///////
Latest contribution to a LinkedIn Group discussion
Oil Refining: Global Technology Forum
source: http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=25931171&gid=1951256&trk=EML_anet_qa_ttle-cThOon0JumNFomgJt7dBpSBA

Teymur A., Senior Specialist (Refining/Petrochemicals) SOCAR, Azerbaijan, began the discussion with …

“What would be good alternative for Delayed Coking Unit in a refinery scheme? Feedstock is vacuum residue or slurry from FCC.”

Here are the responses …

Bill Howe • A niche solution might be to produce emulsion fuel as demonstrated at Mazeikiai refinery in 2008. Very low capital cost (<$50 million) which distinguishes it from other conversion technologies which run to hundreds of millions of dollars. Works on uncut vacuum residue allowing the cutter to be recovered to the fuel pool providing value add approaching a coker without the capital risk (an all liquid product solution - no low value coke). The niche issue is about finding a sink for the emulsion fuel.
Bill Howe
Independent Consultant
Bill Howe is the Chief Executive Officer at Quadrise Fuels International, a manufacturer of oil in water emulsions from refinery vacuum residues (and heavier). Quadrise sells a low cost equivalent to conventional HFO by establishing production facilities on refiner's sites. Benefits to the refiner are the ability to sell uncut vacuum residue to Quadrise at a price in excess of its intrinsic value as a fuel oil component; where its value is diminished by the need to add high value cutter-stock for viscosity control. Mr. Howe has more than 32 years of experience in the natural resources industry. Prior he was an Executive Director of Oil, Gas, and Energy at Bateman Projects, an EPC contractor; where he was responsible globally for oil, gas, water, and energy contracting operations. Mr. Howe has also worked as Director of Sales and Marketing at Foster Wheeler Energy Limited, an EPC contractor. He is knowledgeable on all commercial facets of the EPC contracting business and has specific experience around power generation, oil refining, GTL, residue emulsion fuel and water and waste engineering operations. Mr. Howe has knowledge on the process industries in South Africa where he was Managing Director of Foster Wheeler's local affiliate.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=54186678&authType=name&authToken=cYIK&trk=anet_mfeed_profile
///////
Ron Wright
I think the answer would depend on what products you are trying to maximize and the quality of the vacuum resid you are working with. In general, you have carbon removal (delayed coking, resid FCC, visbreaking, solvent deashpalting) or hydrogen addition (Resid hydrotreating/hydrocracking ) options. They all have their place depending on the situation.
Ron

Rob Wong
One other to consider, in addition to Ron's excellent suggestions, is a fluid coker. However, you need to have a ready disposition for the byproduct low BTU gas.

Roger Haglund
Depends what product you are primarly interested in, and what Capext you can carry
For a diesel driven refinery and with a hydrocracker a coker is a good alternative but an alternative would be a gasifier with Hydrogen recovery (and Cogen) to run the hydrocracker. The latter solved the hydrogen issue and removes all residual products which the coker have to deal with. It also saves NG, LPG or naphtha from making hydrogen out of.

Stefan Romocki
All conversion processes have the same essential drivers; Revenue (a function of product quality and yield), Operating costs (energy consumed and other expenses such as catalyst), Capital (a function of capacity and complexity) while overall investment return is a product of net revenue over capex.
What we found is that liquid product yield is a major driver for the economics of conversion. Transportation fuels are subject to far less elastic pricing than gases, or heavy products. For example, while oil is $80 today, the price of natural gas (a proxy for refinery fuel gas) is only worth $27 on an energy equivalency basis. That implies within a conversion strategy it is best to minimize conversion to things which become gases and maximize conversion to liquids in the transport fuel boiling range.
If you would like to consider a contemporary conversion strategy, look at high conversion slurry hydrocracking. ENI's EST process is being built commercially at 23,000 bpd in Italy (2012) and offers up to 98% conversion. RIPI's HRH technology is unique in that it operates at mild hydrocracker pressure (70bar) but still offers 90-95% conversion relying on a very active hydrogenation catalyst. Both these processes recover and remanufacture catalyst within the process limits which reduces operating costs and increases run lengths. Most refinery licensing company now offer slurry processes, but our bias is towards the more active catalysts with lower gas and by-product yields.

Dr. Amarjit Bakshi, C.Eng
Stefan you are right as one wants from conversion process is product in gasoline/diesel or gas oil to get best ROI.
But the question is what the alternative to Delayed Coking is and I guess the premise is to lower in cost than Delayed Coker.
As we all know the most competitive refinery capacity is at least 300, 000 bbls/d refinery or higher. But all the refiners do not have financing capability to build refinery for that capacity and complexity also will drive the cost up. So Refiners have to build what they can afford not based only ROI.
But I think the question s what are alternative

Dr. Amarjit Bakshi, C.Eng • REINSERTED RESPONSE
Most of the alternatives have been provided above in the comments from the experts. The major requirements after that one has to do the linear programming to look at the economics of the options. Even after the economics one has to look at the constraints of the financing and debt what the corporation is comfortable with.
Based on experience if financing/debt and cost control is major criteria, it can be easily point to certain options.
The Option of SDA and RESID FCC (if existing FCC can be revamped to high coke option) is a good one based on the required product slate. Otherwise still the other options are SDA and gasified where one can produce syngas and generate power, other option is to use syn gas to convert to valuable fuel like diesel etc.
Another option is SDA and Coking operation with new technology of Rotary kiln technology which much simpler to operate.
As regards to Flexicoking it is site specific and normally not profitable and optimum technology except in exceptional case. This technology is offered by EXXONMOBIL and mostly used by them at about 6 or 7 refineries. One license was sold to Hellenic in 2008 and could be site specific or was not evaluated properly by the Hellenic as justification was not strong for low BTU gas. This also was very expensive option.

Attilio Donarelli
My personal opinion on the CONS of each alternative for the Bottom of the Barrel conversion. Still Coker seems to be the most cheap and cheerful solution
Slurry process - not tested commercially
Gasification and Power production - works mainly when the price of electricity is subsidised
SDA - not to couple with Hydrocraker only FCC
Ebullating bed vac residue hydroconversion - work better than in the past but sitll high capex and opex
Coker - what to do with the coke?
Flexicoker - Exxonmobil licensed 4 units to Exxon refineries, 1 in Venezuela and 1 in Greece. Total 6, does it mean anything?
RFCC - not for very high concarbon feeds

Mario Vanacore
at the present crude oil mkt situation (70-80 $/bbl and low margins) coker is certainly one of the most convenient conv technologies, at an higher crude oil price (let say around 100 $/bbl or even higher) other technologies become much interesting (Residue HDC, Ebullated bed, etc). Capex and Opex for all these type of unit are usually higher.

Dr. Amarjit Bakshi
Coming back to the question, if refiner does not have resources to put Delayed Coker which technologies he should consider if any. As I understand that is the question.
///////

Visit Jean Steinhardt’s LinkedIn Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/jeansteinhardtresearch ... then invite him to join your network.