LCO Processing Solutions. Antoine Fournier

Transcription

1 LCO Processing Solutions Antoine Fournier 1

2 Outline Market trends and driving factors The light cycle oil Feedstock characteristics Hydroprocessing challenges Main option for LCO upgrading Catalyst update Revamping and grassroots options Case Study Single stage versus 2-stage configuration 2

3 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Market Structure 2010 vs % 8.7% 7.3% 27.1% 5.3% 16.1% 12.5% 9.7% 13.2% 8.5% 8.1% 26.3% 5.8% 17.9% 11.8% 8.3% Mbdoe 99.8 Mbdoe Other* LPG Naphtha Motor Gasoline Jet Kerosene On-road diesel Off-road diesel Fuel Oil Oil Products Demand World AAGR 1.4% 1.1% 2.6% 1.1% 2.5% 2.5% 0.9% -0.1% AAGR 1.2% Main Products Incremental Demand Mbdoe Other* = Kerosene ( Jet Kerosene), Refinery Gas, Petroleum Coke, NGL, Lubricants, Bitumen, Paraffin Wax, Refinery Losses, Source: Axens & other sources 3

4 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Market Structure 2010 vs % 7.1% 8.1% 16.4% 6.6% 28.1% 13.9% 9.7% 10.1% 7.3% 8.8% 13.4% 7.7% 32.5% 11.9% 8.3% Mbdoe 14.6 Mbdoe Other* LPG Naphtha Motor Gasoline Jet Kerosene On-road diesel Off-road diesel Fuel Oil Oil Products Demand Europe AAGR -0.1% 0.1% 0.8% -2.1% 1.5% 1.4% -1.7% -1.6% AAGR -0.1% Main Products Incremental Demand Mbdoe Other* = Kerosene ( Jet Kerosene), Refinery Gas, Petroleum Coke, NGL, Lubricants, Bitumen, Paraffin Wax, Refinery Losses, Source: Axens & other sources 4

5 LCO vs SR Diesel SR Diesel LCO Euro V S, wt% wppm S as DBTs, wt% N, wppm Total Aro, wt% Di-Aro+, wt% wt% Density max API Min Cetane Number

6 Sulfur Speciation LCO & SR Diesel Intensity Polarity LCO SR Diesel 4,6-DiMeDBT Intensity Polarity DBT bands DBT bands DBT C 1 DBT BTs bands BTs bands C 2 DBT C3 DBT C4 DBT BT C 1 BT C 2 BT C 3 BT C 4 BT Bands of sulfides & thiophenes Bands of sulfides & thiophenes Increasing Boiling Point Increasing Boiling Point Very low amount of sulfides / thiophenes in LCOs High proportion of very refractory sulfur in LCO feedstocks 6

7 Average Cetane Numbers Cetane Number Euro V Spec Paraffins Iso-Paraffins Naphthenes Aromatics 20 LCO Feed Carbon Number 7

8 LCO Hydroprocessing Challenges High proportion of refractory species More severe operating conditions Lower catalyst cycle length if processed in existing units High aromatic and polyaromatic content Higher hydrogen consumption Higher exotherm in existing reactors Feed API to be adjusted In particular when vegetable oil is blended in the diesel pool Low feed cetane Need for cetane improvement (Euro V specification) 8

9 Main Impacts of LCO Co-processing C Rel. Cycle Length (%) WABT adjustment Rel. cycle LCO in Feed, LV% When 35% LCO is co-processed with SR SOR WABT typically increased by ~ 15 C Catalyst cycle length typically reduced by 55% 9

10 LCO Hydroprocessing Challenges High proportion of refractory species More severe operating conditions Lower catalyst cycle length if processed in existing units High aromatic and polyaromatic content Higher hydrogen consumption Higher exotherm in existing reactors Feed API to be adjusted In particular when vegetable oil is blended in the diesel pool Low feed cetane Need for cetane improvement (Euro V specification) 10

11 Impact of LCO on H 2 Consumption Rel. H 2 Consumption, % LCO in Feed, LV% The H 2 consumption can be doubled with 35% LCO co-processed with SR Diesel (as opposed to 100% SR) 11

12 LCO Hydroprocessing Challenges High proportion of refractory species More severe operating conditions Lower catalyst cycle length if processed in existing units High aromatic and polyaromatic content Higher hydrogen consumption Higher exotherm in existing reactors Feed API to be adjusted In particular when vegetable oil is blended in the diesel pool Low feed cetane Need for cetane improvement (Euro V specification) 12

13 HDAro (%) LHSV = 0.6 x Base Aromatic Hydrogenation Equilibrium Thermodynamic Limitations Thermo Limitation at 1.4 x Ref pph2 LHSV = Base HDA Target Thermo Limitation at Ref pph2 LHSV = 1.2 x Base LHSV = 0.6 x Base LHSV = 1.2 x Base C 13

14 Options for LCO Upgrading Stage 1 Stage 2 Application Med. to high pres. Med. to high aro sat. CoMo NiMo ULSD Med. to high cetane Medium pressure Max aromatic sat. NiMo Noble Metal ULSD Very High cetane Max. diesel yield High pressure High aromatic sat. Ring opening NiMo Cracking Catalyst ULSD Maximum cetane Low diesel incentive 14

15 The Right Catalyst Choice CoMo HR 626 NiMo HR

16 HR 648 Main Features HR 648 is a NiMo catalyst for cetane improvement based on further improvement of the well-mastered ACE technology HR 500 Series Industrial Feedback: New technology First for Case carrier Study (1) Improved surface area with an optimized pore distribution Higher active phase concentration and dispersion Improved active phase impregnation technology Higher activity without booster or organic coating Optimum interaction between the metals and the catalyst support Conventional regeneration / in-situ sulfiding 95% activity recovery after single step ex-situ regeneration Significant regeneration cost savings (similar to HR 626) 16

17 New NiMo HR 648 Activity Gain Product Sulfur content, ppm HR 648 Sample 1 HR 648 Sample 2 HR 648 Sample 3 HR C HR 548 HR Temperature, C Delta API HR 648 HR 548 >10 C HR 648 Sample 1 HR 648 Sample 2 HR 648 Sample 3 HR Temperature, C HR 648 is at 6 C more active than HR 548 on HDS Improved Hydrogenation activity for higher cetane boost higher volume swell HR 648 is at 10 C more active than HR 548 on HDA HR

18 Revamp Options for LCO Processing Co-processing in existing HDS Reactor volume increase required to maintain the unit cycle length unchanged Bed distribution to be confirmed for optimum exotherm control Low pressure unit thermodynamically limited for cetane improvement / density reduction Addition of a second stage with noble metal Well suited for max cetane improvement / density reduction Adjustment of the first stage section could be needed to maintain the unit cycle length unchanged Integration of a diesel HDS section into a CFHT The HyC-10 +TM technology 18

19 HyC-10 + TM Configuration Fuel gas, Naphtha VGO Diesel S<400 wppm H 2 Prime-D Section Low S FCC feed LCO 10 ppm Sulfur Diesel Produces low sulfur FCC feed + Max ULSD simultaneously 19

20 HyC-10 + Benefits Minimum operating cost Reduced system pressure Optimized hydrogen level in the FCC feed (no giveaway) Low Sulfur Gasoil for ULSG production Minimum capital cost Minimum operating pressure Equipment count savings 2 compressors 1 HP amine scrubber 1 HP air cooler Maximum flexibility ULSD processing decoupled from CFHT operation Minimum risk of off spec diesel production Maximum diesel production No undercutting of the CFHT diesel product needed Possibility to co-process additional diesel streams (LCO) 20

21 HyC-10 + Commercial Reference Unit: Europe Start-up: Nov 2005 Feedstocks: MHC: SRVGO+ aro extract Polishing: Diesel ex MHC + LCO + AGO + VB Naph Products: FCC Feed: S < 350 wtppm Diesel: S < 10 wtppm CI > 51 Overall conversion to FCC feed: wt% 21

22 Scheme Selection Mapping Cetane Number (CN) Single Stage HDT 2-Stages HDT / HDA Diesel yields, %vol Max CN with HCK catalyst Max CN with HDT catalyst (100%HDA) ULSD Spec HDK area Max Diesel yield 100% HDA 100% Lower Diesel yields with HDK H 2 cons., %wt 22

23 Case Study 1/4: Unit Objectives & Preliminary Scheme Selection LCO SR Diesel Prime-D 40,000 BPSD ULSD & Cetane Improvement & Max Diesel Production 1- Deep hydrogenation : 70% HDA from SOR to EOR + 2 H H 2 2- Optimum scheme selection? One-Stage HDT with Deep HDA Two-Stage Unit - HDT + HDA Economic Evaluation 23

24 Case Study 2/4 Scheme Comparison Unit Performances Single Stage Two-Stage Unit pressure Base 0.7 x Base Noble metal catalyst for an operation at low temp / low pressure without thermodynamic limitations Chemical H 2 consumption, wt% Base Base Same HDA : identical chemical H 2 consumption Hydrogen solution losses, wt% Base 0.5 x Base Dissolved H 2 could be recovered downstream Diesel yields, vol% Naphtha yields, vol% Electric cons. Base Base Base Base + 0.2% Base - 0.2% 1.1 x Base Slightly better yields in favor of the two-stage configuration (lower operating temp) Single stage requires a larger makeup compressor & feed pump but a smaller recycle gas compressor 24

25 Case Study 3/4 Economics Cost Basis Reference: 2010 USGC Prices WTI : 79.9 US$ / bbl Diesel: 87.6 US$ / bbl Naphtha: 84.7 US$ / bbl Natural Gas: 4.4 US$ / MMBtu Operating Years: 20 Years Discount Rate: 10% TCI includes ISBL investment Off sites Engineering fees Contractor fees Interest on construction loan Start-up costs Initial catalyst cost Working capital needs (Noble metal) 25

26 Case Study 4/4 Scheme Comparison Economics Single Stage Two-Stage Total Capital Investment Base Base x 1.09 Internal Rate of Return, % Base Base - 1% Net Present 10% Base Base x 1.01 Economics are very similar for this case study A customer specific study is needed for an optimum scheme selection 26

27 Summary A complete portfolio of process configurations tuned for LCO hydroprocessing & a new generation of NiMo catalysts Covering every type of applications & process objectives For Revamp & Grassroot Units Enabling Energy Optimization and Scheme Tuning for maximum benefits 27

28 LCO Processing Solutions 28