Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity of Petroleum Products at U.S. Refineries Amgad Elgowainy, a Jeongwoo Han, a Hao Cai, a Michael Wang, a Grant S. Forman, b Vincent B. DiVita c a Systems Assessment Group, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 b Sasol Synfuels International, 900 Threadneedle, Suite 100, Houston, TX 77079 c Jacobs Consultancy Inc., 5995 Rogerdale Road, Houston, TX 77072 The purpose of this document is to provide supporting information to the article titled Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity of Petroleum Products at U.S. Refineries. It is not a standalone document, and needs to read in conjunction with the main document. Table of Contents Section 1 Overall Refinery Efficiency S2 Section 2 Process Unit-Level Analysis S2 Section 3 Sulfur and Ethanol Adjustment S5 Section 4 Refinery FG Properties S5 Contents of Figures Figure S1 Figure S2 Box Plot of Overall Refining Efficiencies Based on LP Modeling Results Compared with Efficiency Estimates for U.S. Refining Industry in 2012 Based on EIA Statistics Comparison of Product-Specific Efficiency with Energy and Market Value Allocation Methods S2 S5 Contents of Tables Table S1 Surrogates for Intermediate Product Groups S3 Table S2 Market Value for Various Inputs and Outputs of Refinery Process Units S4 Table S3 Composition and Properties of Refinery FG S5 S1
Section 1: Overall Refinery Efficiency Figure S1 presents the overall refining efficiencies by PADD region based on LP modeling and EIA data. Compared with the efficiency estimates from EIA statistics, the efficiencies calculated from LP modeling data are consistent in PADD regions III and V; LP modeling covered a high percentage of the total refined crude in these regions (77% and 84%, respectively). LP modeling for PADD regions I and II covered only 44% and 63%, respectively, of the total refined crude in these regions. The one percentage point difference in efficiency in PADD regions I and II may be attributed to the bias in selection of refineries for LP modeling. On average, the overall efficiencies differ among PADD regions those in PADD region I are the highest and those in PADD region III are the lowest mainly because of the differences in crude quality and refinery complexity among the PADD regions. Refineries in PADD region I process light and sweet crudes, which have low sulfur content and thus require the simplest refinery configuration of all the PADD regions (see Table 2 of the main manuscript). Figure S1 shows variations in the overall refining efficiency within each PADD region; these variations are attributable to differences among refineries within each PADD region in terms of crude oil properties, refinery configurations, and product slates. Figure S1. Box Plot of Overall Refining Efficiencies Based on LP Modeling Results Compared with Efficiency Estimates for U.S. Refining Industry in 2012 Based on EIA Statistics S2
Section 2: Process Unit-Level Analysis With market-value allocation, a major issue is the changing market values of various products. The market values of final products change over time and from region to region. Therefore, it is quite difficult to estimate stable energy burdens based on market values. Moreover, because intermediate products (such as FG) are not traded in open markets, their market values are not available. As an approximation, intermediate products are categorized into 20 groups that could be represented by a similar final product. Table S1 lists the final products used as surrogates for the intermediates. The market values of these products are listed in Table S2. Figure S2 compares the product-specific efficiencies of major refinery products with energy and market value allocation methods. Table S1. Surrogates for Intermediate Product Groups Surrogates Intermediates Hydrogen Hydrogen Natural gas Methane, ethane, ethylene, fuel gas Propane Propane Propylene Propylene Normal butane Normal butane, mixed butylene, 1,2-butylene Iso butane Iso-butane, iso-butylene Naphtha Naphtha range (65 F 300 F), coker naphtha Jet fuel Kerosene range (300 F 550 F), coker light distillate, jet Diesel Distillate range (550 F 650 F), coker heavy distillate, diesel RFO Atmospheric residual Vacuum gas oil Vacuum gas oil (690 F 1,000 F), heavy gas oil, coker gas oil, lube extract, deasphalted oils Slurry oil Vacuum bottom (1,000 F + ), heavy-cycle oil Gasoline Gasoline FCC gasoline FCC gasoline Reformate Reformate, isomerate, alkylate MTBE MTBE Light-cycle oil Light-cycle oil Lubes Lube Asphalt Solvent deasphalting tar Coke Delayed coke S3
Table S2. Market Value for Various Inputs and Outputs of Refinery Process Units Averaged between 2009 and 2013 a b c d e f g h I Market Value Fuel [$/mmbtu] Propane a 15.58 Propylene b 15.58 Normal butane b 15.58 Iso Butane b 15.58 Naphtha c 21.28 Reformate c 21.28 FCC Gasoline c 21.28 Vacuum gas oil d 13.58 Slurry oil d 13.58 Light-cycle oil d 13.58 Gasoline a 21.28 Jet a 19.81 Diesel a 19.75 RFO a 13.58 Lube a 27.19 Coke e 2.28 Asphalt f 14.74 LPG & other HC b 15.58 g H 2 37.17 Steam h 5.56 Electricity i 19.91 EIA s Refiner Petroleum Product Prices, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_refoth_dcu_nus_m.htm Assumed same as propane. Assumed same as gasoline. Assumed same as RFO. EIA s Average Cost of Fossil Fuels (per BTU) for Petroleum Coke, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_4_12_a. Monthly Averages for Fuel and Asphalt Prices, http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/construction/escalation/. NREL, H2A Production, http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production_cost_analysis.html EERE, How to calculate the true cost of steam, https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_assistance/pdfs/tech_brief_true_cost.pdf EIA s Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a. S4
Figure S2. Comparison of Product-Specific Efficiency with Energy and Market Value Allocation Methods Section 3: Sulfur and Ethanol Adjustment The sulfur product from the sulfur plant is considered a waste in our analysis. Therefore, we do not assign any energy to sulfur production. The sulfur plant s energy burdens are distributed among gasoline and diesel pools by their energy values because they are the main refinery products requiring sulfur removal. As a result of this approach, the overall refinery efficiency remains unchanged, while gasoline and diesel production efficiencies are slightly reduced. Ethanol is a blending stock and does not undergo any refining or processing. Also, ethanol is usually blended not in refineries, but in terminals. Thus, we do not account for the energy of ethanol in refinery inputs or outputs. Section 4: Refinery FG Properties Table S3. Composition and Properties of Refinery FG Composition (wt%) LHV (Btu/scf) Density (g/scf) C Ratio (wt%) H 2 Methane Ethane Ethylene Propane Propylene 4 40 33 10 6 7 982 20.3 75.8 S5