CHAPTER 11

FLUID COKING / FLEXICOKING

Flexicoking is a proprietary process of Exxon and is an outgrowth

of their fluid coking technology. It produces a large volume of low
Btu heating value gas by gasification of a high percentage of the
coke produced by fluid coking. It is a relatively expensive process,
but can be advantageous from the ecological standpoint particu-
larly in a new grass-roots installation where heaters can be
designed for the low Btu fuel. It also considerably reduces the
problem of disposing the coke.

Flexicoking process description

There are three fluidized beds in the process—a reactor, a
heater, and a gasifier. Fresh resid is fed into the reactor where it
contacts hot, fluidized coke particles that supply heat of reaction
plus sensible and latent heat. Products of reaction are separated
from circulating coke by means of cyclones in the top of the reac-
tor. The vapors rise through a scrubber where the vapors are
quenched by a wash oil and any remaining coke is washed back
into the reactor along with the wash oil. The scrubbed vapors are
separated in a fractionator into gas, gasoline, distillate, and gas oil.
New coke formed in the reactor is deposited on the circulating
particles. These particles are circulated to a heater where
devolatilization of the coke occurs. The devolatilized coke passes to
a gasifier where much of it reacts at elevated temperature with air
(or oxygen) and steam to produce a product gas. This gas is sent to
the heater where it supplies the heat required in the process. It leaves

153
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

the heater and is cooled in a steam generator. Further treatment to remove

last traces of coke and recover sulfur leaves a clean, low Btu fuel. A net (or
purge) coke is withdrawn from the reactor to keep in bounds its metals con-
tent and particle size. The process description for fluid coking is essentially
the same except for the absence of the gasifier as shown on the simplified pro-
cess flow diagrams, Figures 11–1 and 11–2.

Fig. 11–1 Simplified Fluid Coking Flow Scheme

Fig. 11–2 Simplified Flexicoking Flow Scheme

154
 CHAPTER 11 • FLUID COKING / FLEXICOKING

Fluid coking/flexicoking data correlation

Though this technology is not practiced as extensively as the other resid
conversion processes previously discussed, a fair amount of data has been
published. Except for gasification of more coke with the attendant fuel gas
production in the case of flexicoking, the yields are the same for both fluid
coking and flexicoking and they have been combined in Table 11–1. Where
both distillate and gas oil were reported separately, they were combined and
designated as gas oil. Coke and gas are reported as weight percent of feed.
All normally liquid materials are reported as volume percent of feed.

Table 11–1a Fluid Coking/Flexicoking Yield Database

155
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Table 11–1b Fluid Coking/Flexicoking Yield Database cont’d

Coke, gas, gas oil, and C5 correlate well with CCR of feed. Dry gas
(propane and lighter) also correlates with coke yield—butanes, with gaso-
line. To obtain a satisfactory direct correlation for gasoline, it was necessary
to use two independent variables—CCR and gasoline end point. Figure
11–3 is a composite plot of regression lines for these products. Table 11–2
is a summary of some of the yield correlation results.

156
 CHAPTER 11 • FLUID COKING / FLEXICOKING

Fig. 11–3 Fluid Coker Yields (Vol% except Coke and Gas)

Table 11–2 Some Results of Fluid Coking/Flexicoking Yield Correlations

Figure 11–4 shows the relationship between dry gas (C3 and lighter),
C2 and lighter, and C4 hydrocarbons, all on a weight percent basis. The fol-
lowing average compositions may be used for these fractions:

157
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Fig. 11–4 Fluid Coker Light Ends

C2 and lighter C3’s C4’s

Hydrogen 2.4
Methane 44.7
Ethylene 20.0
Ethane 32.9
Propylene 56.0
Propane 44.0
Butenes 69.5
Isobutane 4.9
Normal Butane 25.6
Total, WT% 100.0 100.0 100.0

Figure 11–5 shows the volume percent yield of C4’s as a function of

gasoline yield.

158
 CHAPTER 11 • FLUID COKING / FLEXICOKING

Fig. 11–5 Fluid Coker C4 Yields

The distribution of sulfur in flexicoker products is displayed in Figure

11–6. Figure 11–7 gives a rough indication of the research octane to be
expected of flexicoker gasoline in terms of CCR in the feed and the API grav-
ity of the feed. It is based on very few data. It is followed by Figure 11–8 that
gives the motor octane corresponding to a given research number.
Figure 11–9 shows the relationship between API gravity of gas oil in
terms of feed API gravity and CCR in feed. Figure 11–10 is a plot of feed
specific gravity vs. CCR in feed. Attempts to find a satisfactory relation
for gasoline gravity were not successful. Figure 11–11 is a plot of volume
percent vs. weight percent for flexicoker liquid products.

Comparison with other correlations

Though few correlations of fluid coking or flexicoking yields were
found in the literature, some comparisons are possible. Martin and Wills1
presented equations for yield of coke and of coke plus gas and a plot of
these equations. Johnson and Wood2 published a graph relating coke yield

159
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Fig. 11–6 Sulfur in Fluid Coker Products

Fig. 11–7 Fluid Coker Research Octane (API of Feed is Parameter)

160
 CHAPTER 11 • FLUID COKING / FLEXICOKING

Fig. 11–8 Fluid Coker Motor Octane

Fig. 11–9 API Gravity of Fluid Coker Gas Oil (CCR of Feed is Parameter)

161
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Fig. 11–10 CCR in Fluid Coker Feed

Fig. 11–11 Lv% vs. Wt%

162
 CHAPTER 11 • FLUID COKING / FLEXICOKING

to CCR of feed. Nelson3 tabulated coke yield vs. CCR. These are compared
with the author's results below:

Coke Yields Coke + Gas

CCR M&W J&W Nelson Author M&W Author
5 5.8 3 6.5 11.5 12.7
10 11.5 11+ 11.5 12.1 18 19.1
15 17.3 17 17.2 24.5 25.1
20 23 22.5 23 22.4 31 31.1
25 28.8 29 27.6 37.5 37.1
30 34.5 34 34.5 32.8 44 43

Allegedly the agreement is good. As additional data have been pub-

lished since the earlier reports, the present work is based on a larger popu-
lation of data. Supposedly the author's correlations can be relied on in the
performance of the preliminary kinds of studies envisioned.

Flexicoking operating requirements

The following data have been listed for the operation of a flexicoker:

Electric power, kWh/b 13

Cooling water, gal/b 30
Low pressure steam, #/b 100
High pressure steam, #/b < 200 >

It is assumed that the air blower drive is electric.

Flexicoker capital cost

Based on data in the literature and adjusting for size and time as before,
an average cost of $46 million was calculated for a 20,000 BPD flexicoker
starting operation in January, 1991.

163
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Notes
1. Martin, S.W. and Wills, L.E., Advances in Petroleum Chemistry
and Refining, vol. 2, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1959,
pp. 390–421

2. Johnson, F.B., and Wood, R.C., Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 29,
1954, pp. 60–62

3. Nelson, W.L., Petroleum Refinery Engineering, McGraw–Hill

Book Co., New York, 4th ed., 1958, pp. 641–642

References
Aalund, L., Oil & Gas Journal, September 11, 1972

Allan, D.E., Metrailer, W.J., and King, R.C., Chemical Engineering

Progress, December 1981, pp. 40–47

Allan, D.E., Blaser, D.E., and Lambert, M.M., Oil & Gas Journal,
May 17, 1982, pp. 93–102

Anon., Oil & Gas Journal, May 22, 1978, pp. 76–77

Anon., Hydrocarbon Processing, September 1986, p. 96

Barr, F.T., and Jahrig, C.E., Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 51,
No. 4, 1955, pp. 167–173

Blaser, D.E., “Flexicoking for Improved Utilization of

Hydrocarbons,” 43rd Midyear Meeting of the API Ref'g. Div.,
Toronto, May 1978

Busch, R.A., Kociscin, J.J., Schroeder, H.F., and Shah, G.N.,

Hydrocarbon Processing, Sept. 1979, pp. 136–142

Carlsmith, L.E., Haig, R.R., and Holt, P.H., The Oil Forum, March
1957, pp. 90–93

164
 CHAPTER 11 • FLUID COKING / FLEXICOKING

Jahnig. C.E., Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd. ed., vol. 17,

pp. 210–218

Johnson, F.B., and Wood, R.G., Oil & Gas Journal, November 29,
1954, pp. 60–62

Kett, T.K., Lahn, G.C., and Schuette, W.L., Chemical Engineering,

December 23, 1974, pp. 40–41

Martin, S.W., and Wills, L.E., Advances in Petroleum Chemistry and

Refining, vol. 2, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1959, pp.
390–421

Matula, J.P., Weinberg, H.N., and Weisman, W., Oil & Gas Journal,
September 18,1972, pp. 67–71

McDonald, J., and Rhys, C.O., Jr., Refining Engineer, September

1959, pp. C–15 to C–17

Molstedt, B.V., and Moser, J.F., Jr., Industrial and Engineering

Chemistry, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1958, pp. 21–26

Nelson, W.L., Petroleum Refinery Engineering, McGraw–Hill Book

Co., New York, 4th Ed., l958, pp. 641–642

Voorhies, A., Jr., and Martin, H.Z., Petroleum Engineer, Ref. Ann.
1954, pp. C–3 to C–18

Wuithier, P., Revue de L'Institut Francais du Petrole, vol. 14, no. 2.,
pp. 1,164–1,165, 1,181–1,185

165