Challenges and opportunities of 10 ppm sulphur gasoline: part 2

Economic evaluation of processing options for ultra-low sulphur gasoline compares severe pretreatment with a combination of pre- and post-treat solutions
DELPHINE LARGETEAU, JAY ROSS, MARC LABORDE and LARRY WISDOM Axens

n emerging worldwide standard for ultra-lowsulphur gasoline (ULSG) as well as the challenges of increased heavy crude supplies and the gasoline/diesel imbalance demand careful consideration and selection of processing options. Part 1 of this article (see PTQ, Q3 2012) discussed commercially proven congurations that are available to meet these constraints and maintain protability. An economic study, presented here, was also conducted to determine the best scenario to meet ULSG requirements: severe FCC feed pretreatment alone or less severe pretreatment coupled with FCC gasoline post-treatment. The impact of catalytic feed hydrotreater (CFHT) cycle length requirements, with and without post-treatment, was also examined. An existing renery recongured to process heavy Canadian crudes while maintaining its FCC unit was assumed. The VGO feedstock consists of a 55 000 b/d blend of

100

99.5%

5 Cycle years CFHT HDS

96

94
92.9% 92.9%

92

90 0 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Figure 1 CFHT HDS and cycle length

straight-run VGO and heavy coker gas oil with 4.2 wt% sulphur. Due to the refractory nature of this feed, it has to be hydrotreated in a highpressure unit prior to feeding the FCC unit, and the resulting gasoline constitutes about one-third of the total gasoline pool and all of the pool sulphur. The following three cases were considered:

Case 1: A high HDS CFHT unit and FCC unit capable of producing 10 wppm gasoline pool sulphur without the need for a FCC posttreatment unit with a CFHT cycle length of four years to match the FCC unit Case 2: A moderate HDS CFHT designed for a four-year cycle length with a FCC post-treatment

C1- C4 Gasoline Distillate (400-650F) Gas oil (650F+)

230 wtppm S 3000 wtppm S

C1- C4

VGO

4.2wt% S

CFHT

FCC

Gasoline

Prime-G+
Cases 2&3 Case 1

ULSG pool

LCO Case 1 Cases 2&3 Slurry

Figure 2 Case studies block ow diagram

www.eptq.com

Cycle length, years

PTQ Q4 2012 1

98

CFHT DHS, %

Price considerations
Feedstock, $/bbl Natural gas, $/MMBtu Hydrogen, $/MSCF LPG, $/bbl Propylene, $/bbl Butenes, $/bbl Gasoline premium, $/bbl Diesel/LCO, $/bbl Fuel oil, $/bbl 96 4.0 3.300 69 140 112 127 131 104 Case New units

Study results product yields and hydrogen requirement

Case 1 CFHT 4 yr 61.9 27.2 7.8 8.8 4.71 Case 2 CFHT + post-treat 4 yr + 4 yr 56.3 27.6 7.5 8.3 3.73 Case 3 CFHT + post-treat 2 yr + 4 yr 55.0 28.0 7.3 8.1 3.66

Cycle length Gasoline yield, vol%/VGO feed Diesel + LCO yield, vol%/VGO feed Propylene yield, vol%/VGO feed Butenes yield, vol%/VGO feed Hydrogen cost, $/bbl feed

Table 1

Table 2

unit (Prime-G+), also designed for a four-year cycle length to meet ULSG pool specications Case 3: Similar to Case 2 but with a two-year cycle length target for the CFHT unit combined with a PrimeG+ unit designed for a four-year cycle length. During the CFHT catalyst change-out, the Prime-G+ unit will operate at a higher severity to meet pool sulphur requirements. For all cases, a relatively high pressure was selected for the CFHT to ensure good hydrogen addition during the whole run. Reactor residence time was adjusted to meet the CFHT HDS and cycle length requirement (see Figure 1). The very severe level of HDS and fouryear cycle length in Case 1 naturally lead to a much larger CFHT than the other cases. High-purity hydrogen is supplied from a steam methane reforming plant. A block ow diagram illustrating the three different cases with the various congurations along with the corresponding products considered for the economics is shown in Figure 2.

The economic evaluation was based on a discounted cash ow (DCF) analysis assuming a depreciation period and a project duration of 10 years. In addition, a protability index comparison in terms of net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) was conducted. The prices for investment, catalysts, utilities, feedstock and nished products were based on 2011 averaged values, assuming the plant to be located in the US serving a domestic market. Prices are presented in Table 1. For all three cases considered, projections on CFHT and FCC operations were conducted, leading to expected product yields and hydrogen requirements. As one could have expected, the implementation of a high-severity CHFT (Case 1) leads to better product yields in the FCC unit, but has a major drawback of driving up hydrogen consumption. Results in terms of main product yields and hydrogen cost for each case are presented in Table 2. The evaluation was based on a natural gas

100

Base

90

80

70

60

50 0 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Figure 3 TCI impact

price of $4 MMBTU, resulting in a hydrogen cost of $3.300 MSCF. The hydrogen cost for Case 1 is almost 25% higher than for Case 2 or Case 3; however, the yield improvement is quite signicant over the lower severity CFHT cases. Between the lower severity CFHT cases, the yields and hydrogen consumption are rather similar, with the more severe and longer cycle Case 2 providing a slight improvement in terms of yields over Case 3 commensurate with the small increase in hydrogen consumption. With regards to the operating cost (opex) of the different cases, the study took into consideration the hydrogen, octane and utility costs. Compared to the other factors, the hydrogen cost was by far the major contributor to the opex. In addition to the operating cost, a detailed total capital investment (TCI) was developed to estimate the capex for each case. The TCI trend illustrated in Figure 3 clearly shows that Case 1 has a much higher capital requirement than the other two cases due to the signicantly higher desulphurisation and cycle length requirements for the CFHT. Both net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) comparisons are shown in Figures 4 and 5. High-severity CFHT without post-treatment, Case 1, was considered as the basis, and the IRR and NPV of the other cases were compared to Case 1. The NPV results favour Case 1 with a high HDS/long cycle length CFHT and no post-treatment over more moderate HDS CFHT cases coupled with a post-treatment unit. On the other hand, the IRR is most favourable for Case 3 with the

2 PTQ Q4 2012

TCI, % (case 1)

www.eptq.com

lowest cost CFHT option (moderate and two-year cycle) coupled with a four-year cycle post-treatment Prime-G+ unit. A sensitivity case was examined to determine the impact of natural gas cost on the NPV results. The ndings are highlighted in Table 3, where pricing is contrasted to the 2011 basis above. Assuming a higher natural gas price ($6 MMBTU vs $4 MMBTU), the cost of hydrogen increases and the difference in NPV between the three cases diminishes somewhat. From an IRR perspective, the advantage of Case 3 increases when hydrogen cost increases and the gap in NPV between Case 1 and 3 decreases. Surprisingly, Case 2 with a fouryear CFHT cycle in sync with the FCC cycle does not show an NPV or IRR advantage over the shorter cycle Case 3 for either natural gas pricing scenario. One could have assumed that designing a CFHT in sync with the downstream units, compared to limiting the CFHT cycle length to only two years, would be an advantage. However, the four-year cycle post-treatment unit brings the additional exibility to continuously operate during a CFHT catalyst change-out. Despite higher feed sulphur (that could be partially limited with a change in crude diet during the CFHT catalyst change-out), the design of the posttreatment unit with the Prime-G+ technology is robust enough to handle this higher severity requirement during the catalyst change-out. This exibility is clearly illustrated in Figure 6, which shows operating data on a Prime-G+ unit in a renery processing heavy crudes and equipped with a FCC CFHT pretreater. When the CFHT is in operation, the normal feed sulphur to the Prime-G+ unit is typically below 200 wppm. Despite turnarounds or operation upsets on the CFHT unit, which can lead to feed sulphur as high as 900 wppm, the product sulphur from the Prime-G+ unit can be maintained at the target value of 20 wppm at all times. When processing full-range cut naphtha (FRCN), the sulphur

105
Base

NPV at 10% (case 1)

100

95

90

85

80 0 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Figure 4 NPV results

IRR, additional IRR points (case 1)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0
0
Base

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Figure 5 IRR results Study results hydrogen cost sensitivity study

Case study NPV @10%: nat. gas = $4 MMBTU (case 2011) NPV @10%: nat. gas = $6 MMBTU Case 1 Base Base Case 2 Base x 0.93 Base x 0.94 Case 3 Base x 0.93 Base x 0.94

Table 3

content in the product is maintained at the target value (20 ppm, see Figure 6) despite variations in FRCN quality thanks to the FCC pretreatment option. The exibility brought by adding a post-treatment to the compulsory FCC pretreater when processing heavy crudes should be underlined and is a major advantage over the pretreatment alone solution. In order to produce a gasoline pool with less than 10 wppm, the renery becomes a chemical plant with no margin for error; relying on the CFHT alone leaves little exibility. In summary, coupling a CFHT with a FCC naphtha post-treatment

unit brings the following advantages: The CFHT severity is lowered, which offers the possibility to revamp an existing CFHT It is possible to design the CFHT unit for a cycle length of two years instead of four The Prime-G+ post-treatment design is simplied to typically a single-stage unit The renerys reliability and exibility are improved: CFHT upset may be compensated by the Prime-G+ post-treatment unit CFHT severity may be decreased if needed/permitted

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q4 2012 3

1200 1000 Sulphur Prod. S

60 50 5 40 4 30 3 2 20 10 1 0

Sulphur, ppm

800 600 400 200 0

Prod. S, ppm

or improve the performance of the FCC unit. Although every situation is site specic, the combination of pre- and post-treat solutions around the FCC unit will often provide the best combination in terms of exibility and economic benets to most North American reneries.

6 5

6 60 Octane loss Prod. S 50 5 4 40 3 30 2 20 10 1 0

4 3 2 1 0

/2 00 5

/2 00 7

7/

6/

/6

/5

5/

1/

1/

16

17

1/

Figure 6 Prime-G+ operation exibility

16

/4

/2 00 9

20 06

20 08

20

References 1 Bonnardot J, et al, Direct production of EuroIV diesel at 10 pm sulphur via the HyC-10 process, ERTC 9th Annual Meeting, Nov 2004. 2 Sarrazin P, et al, New mild hydrocracking route produces 10-ppm-sulphur diesel, Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb 2005. 3 Roux R, et al, Resid to petrochemicals technology, ERTC 13th Annual Meeting, Nov 2008. 4 Debuisschert Q, Prime-G+ commercial performance of FCC naphtha desulphurization technology, AM-03-26, NPRA Annual Meeting, Mar 2006. 5 Largeteau D, et al, Benzene management in a MSAT 2 environment, AM-08-11, NPRA Annual Meeting, Mar 2008. 6 Debuisschert Q, et al, Technology solutions addressing gasoline and diesel imbalances, Platts European Rening Market 4th Annual Meeting, Sept 2010.

04

1/ 6/ 20 06

16 /6 /2 00 5

17 /5 /2 00 7

1/ 5/ 20 08

16 /4 /2 00 9

1/

7/

20

04

Prod. S, ppm

Octane loss

FCC unit operation is more exible in terms of fractionation quality FCC gasoline end-point may be increased when margins favour gasoline production while still controlling FCC naphtha sulphur through post-treatment. The issue of SOx and NOx control in FCC ue gas is not addressed in the above analysis. The highseverity CFHT (Case 1) may allow the typical 50 and 40 ppmv targets for SOx and NOx to be achieved directly, while a ue gas scrubber would be necessary to meet such constraints with Cases 2 and 3. The addition of the scrubber for Cases 2 and 3 decreases the IRR differential to Case 1 by one point, while conversely the NPV advantage over Case 1 is increased by approximately 1%. It is important to note that in spite of a trend in favour of Case 3, the conclusion drawn from this

particular study is case specic and cannot be generalised to other cases that may have different congurations and project premise.

Conclusion
Most countries are moving towards limiting the sulphur level in transportation fuels to 10 wppm. Meeting new ULSG regulations at 10 wppm while using existing FCC post-treatment assets can be achieved using commercially proven solutions in numerous ways depending on the constraints and requirements of each renery. Low renery margins coupled with capital constraints will likely make the revamping of existing FCC posttreatment units the preferred option for most reners. As light crudes production declines, reners will increasingly process heavier crudes, resulting in hydrogen-decient gas oil streams requiring hydrotreating to maintain

Delphine Largeteau is Technology Manager for Olens & Light Oil Hydroprocessing, Axens. She joined Axens in 1998 as Process Engineer. She holds a degree in chemical engineering from Universit Technologique de Compigne (UTC) in France and a masters in rening, engineering and gas from the IFP School. Jay Ross is a Technology and Marketing Manager covering the eld of transportation fuels. He has over 30 years of experience in the rening and petrochemical industry. He holds a degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University. He has served on the NPRA and ERTC expert panels, and authored several patents and numerous technical papers. Marc Laborde is Strategic Marketing Engineer in Axens Marketing Department. He holds a degree in chemical engineering from Ecole Nationale Suprieure de Chimie in Caen and a masters in rening, engineering and gas from the IFP School. Larry Wisdom is a Senior Executive at Axens in charge of marketing the companys heavy ends technologies in North America. During his 30-year career, he has co-authored more than 30 papers on heavy oil upgrading and has been awarded two patents. He holds a BS in chemical engineering and a MBA in marketing and nance from the University of Kansas.

4 PTQ Q4 2012

www.eptq.com