See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290326831

Evaluation of impact of crude oil quality on refinery profit

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

6 1,035

4 authors, including:

Dicho Stratiev Rosen Dinkov

Lukoil Neftochim Bourgas, Bulgaria LUKOIL Neftohim Burgas JSC
157 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   276 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kiril Stanulov
University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy
29 PUBLICATIONS   222 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improving H-Oil vacuum residue hydrocracker performance View project

Assessment of shelf life View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dicho Stratiev on 22 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VERARBEITUNG

Evaluation of Impact of Crude Oil Quality on

Refinery Profit
Bewertung des Einflusses der Rohölqualität auf den Gewinn der Erdölverarbeitung
D. STRATIEV, R. DINKOV, N. NIKOLAEV and K. STANULOV*

urzfassung

K
Der Artikel untersucht den Einflusses
der Rohölqualität und des damit ver-
bundenen Preises des Rohöls auf den Ge-
winn bei der Erdölverarbeitung. Es wurde
festgestellt, dass während der Gewinn bei der
Verarbeitung von einzelnen Rohölen (getes-
tet wurden die vier weltweit gehandelten
Grundsorten Brent Blend, Russian Export
Blend, Kuwait Export, Maya, als Vertreter
für leichte niedrigschwefelige, leichte schwe-
felige, schwere hochschwefelige und extra-
schwere hochschwefelige Öle) in einer hypo-
thetischen Raffinerie, auf Basis von katalyti-
schem Cracking und Visbreaking, nahe Null
bis negativ ist, die Verarbeitung von Gemi-
schen aus leicht schwefeligem und extra-
schwerem hochschwefeligen Ölen dagegen
einen Gewinn bringen kann, mit einem Maxi-
and extra-heavy) in a tentative 150,000 b/d
refinery might be close to zero negative
value, the profit of refining crude blends of
light-sour with extra-heavy crudes might be
positive value which reaches maximum at
40 vol.% extra-heavy crude in the refinery
feedstock blend. The highest refining profit
(12.7 US $/b), may be achieved if refinery
processes 100% LOUISIANA LIGHT
SWEET crude which is high acidic (TAN =
0.56 mg KOH/g oil) low sulphur (S =
0.45%). This crude had the lowest price of all
investigated crudes. The investigation
showed that there is a significant potential
for increasing refining profit by including of
»opportunity crudes« (high acidic and extra
heavy crudes) in the refinery crude diet.
ntroduction
make problems during exploitation of refine-
ries is an object of increased interest in the
last couple of years [2, 4–8]. These crudes are
called "opportunity crudes" [6]. Ooms et all
reported that the increase in refinery margins
for a 150,000 b/d refinery could be between
about 2 and 10 millions US $ per annum, de-
pending on crude discount (between 0.25 and
1.0 US $/b), if 20% of crude intake is "op-
portunity crude" [2]. In general the opportu-
nity crudes are considered crudes which
yield significant quantities of low molecular
weight carboxylic acids primarily during the
atmospheric distillation process [6]. The op-
portunity crudes typically require more in-
tensive processing to yield high quality pro-
ducts due to high level of naphthenic acids,
sulphur and metals [6]. For refineries that
have freedom in crude choice, the selection

mum bei 1.95 US $/b, was einem 40 Vol.%-
Gehalt von extraschwerem hochschwefeligen
Öl in dem Rohölgemisch entspricht.
Der höchste Gewinn allerdings würde durch
die Verarbeitung des hochsaurem Öls LOUI-
SIANA LIGHT SWEET (12.7 US $/b) er-
reicht. Das ist durch eine hohe Säurezahl
(TAN = 0.56 mg KOH/g oil) und einen nied-
rigen Schwefelgehalt (0.45%) gekennzeich-
net und hat den niedrigsten Preis von allen
untersuchten Rohölsorten. Diese Untersu-
chung unterstreicht das Potenzial, das eine
geeignete Auswahl der Rohölsorten und der
Einsatz von »günstigen Öle« in der Rohöl-
basis einer Raffinerie auf den Gewinn der
Erdölverarbeitung hat.
I
Crude cost is the single most important
determinant for the profitability of an oil
company [1]. With crude costs accounting
for around 80% of the refinery expenditures,
processing cheaper crudes can have a very
positive impact on refinery margins [2, 3].
That is why investigation on the opportunity
of crude cost reduction by processing of cru-
des which are known of their inclination to
of an optimum crude package is of vital im-
portance. Unfortunately, besides informati-
on of high level of naphthenic acids (high to-
tal acid number), sulphur and metals and the
low cetane of the diesel produced from the
high acid crudes no other data are available
regarding quality of the "opportunity cru-
des". There is also lack of information regar-
ding the price difference between the con-
ventional and the "opportunity crudes". That

bstract

A This article presents a study on the in-

fluence of crude quality and related
with it crude price on refining profit. It was
found that as profit from refining of individ-
ual crudes (Brent Blend, Russian Export
Blend, Kuwait Export, Maya), which are rep-
resentatives of the four basic types of crude
available to refiners around the world
(light-sweet, light-sour, heavy-sour crude,
*Dr. Dicho Stratiev, Research and Development Depart-
ment, Lukoil Neftochim Bourgas, Bourgas/Bulgaria
(E-mail: stratiev.dicho@neftochim.bg); R. Dinkov, N. Niko-
laev, R. & D. Department, Lukoil Neftochim Bourgas, Bour-
gas/Bulgaria; Assoc. Prof. K. Stanulov, University of Chemi-
cal Technology and Metallurgy, Sofia, Sofia/Bulgaria.
0179-3187/10/01 Fig. 1 Technological scheme of the tentative refinery under study (figures on the scheme are related
© 2010 URBAN-VERLAG Hamburg/Wien GmbH to refining of REB crude)

ERDÖL ERDGAS KOHLE 126. Jg. 2010, Heft 1 1

 VERARBEITUNG
is why crude oils from the four basic types of
crude available to refiners around the world:
light-sweet, light-sour, heavy-sour and extra-
heavy, a high acidic low sulphur crude and
blends of light-sour and extra-heavy crudes
have been comprehensively characterized in
the Lukoil Neftochim Bulgaria Research La-
boratory. Estimation of finished products
which would be obtained during refining of
the investigated crudes in a tentative refinery
with a capacity of 150,000 b/d has been per-
formed. The units which have been included
in the refinery technological scheme were
following: Crude distillation, gas fractionati-
on, C5–C6 isomerization, middle distillate
hydrotreater, FCC feed hydrotreater, FCC,
alkylation, MTBE, and visbreaker (Fig. 1).
On the base of information for crude and re-
fining product price assuming that crude
costs present 84% of all refinery spend profit
for refining of all studied crudes has been
calculated. The aim of this article is to discus
the obtained results.
xperimental
E
Five samples of crude oils from diffe-
rent regions in the world (LOUISIANA
LIGHT SWEET – origin: USA; BRENT
BLEND – origin: North sea; Russian Export
Blend (REB) – origin: Russia; KUWAIT
EXPORT – origin: Kuwait; MAYA – origin:
Mexico) and five crude oil blends:
90 vol.% REB/10 vol.% MAYA;
80 vol.% REB/20 vol.% MAYA;
70 vol.% REB/30 vol.% MAYA;
60 vol.% REB/40 vol.% MAYA;
50 vol.% REB/50 vol.% MAYA
have been investigated in the LNB research
laboratory.
The crude oils have been fractionated into
eight fractions (IBP–70 °C; 70–100 °C;
100–190 °C; 190–235 °C; 235–280 °C;
280–343 °C; 343–565 °C; 565 °C+) in a Fi-
scher TBP column, having fifteen theoreti-
cal plates and operating in accordance with
ASTM-D 2892 for the atmospheric part and
ASTM-D 5236 for the vacuum part. The
TBP distillation has been performed in the
AUTODEST 800 Fisher apparatus at pressu-
re drop from 760 to 2 mmHg and in the AU-
TODEST 860 Fisher apparatus from 1 to
0.2 mmHg.
Density at 15 °C of crude oils and the frac-
tions derived from them has been determin-
ed in accordance with ASTM D1298.
Pour point of crude oils, the lowest tempera-
ture of handleability for their certain appli-
cations, is determined according to ASTM
D5853 method, specifically designed for
crude oils. Flow characteristics (like pour
point) of the petroleum fractions are obtai-
ned by following procedures, described in
ASTM D5950.
Viscosity of crude oils has been measured at
37.8 °C, for fractions with boiling point abo-
ve 190 °C and up to 343 °C – at 37.8 °C and
98.9 °C. Residues’ (vacuum and atmosphe-
ric) viscosity is registered at 98.9 °C. All
2 ERDÖL ERDGAS KOHLE 126. Jg. 2010, Heft 1
these viscosity related analyses are conduc-
ted according to ASTM D445.
Metal content (vanadium and nickel) of cru-
de oils, vacuum gasoils and both residue (va-
cuum and atmospheric) has been determined
according to ASTM D5863.
Conradson carbon for crudes and their he-
avy fractions has been determined according
to ASTM D189.
Total Acid Number (TAN) of crude oils is
obtained via ASTM-D 664 procedure.
Research octane number of the naphtha frac-
tions has been measured in accordance with
ASTM D 2699.
Paraffin, olefin, naphthene and aromatic
hydrocarbon types in light fractions, typical
for spark ignition engine fuels are measured
by ASTM D6293.
Another way of determining the aromatic
hydrocarbon content of mixtures is ASTM
D611. For the aims of this study aniline point
method is applied for kerosene, diesel and
vacuum gasoil fractions.
Test method for smoke point of kerosene is
ASTM D1322.
Kerosene fractions are characterized with
another typical for them method describing
their cold flow properties – ASTM D2386,
method for freezing point determination.
Cetane index of the middle distillate frac-
tions was determined in accordance with
ASTM D976.
Different types of asphaltenes are determin-
ed by ASTM D4055 (n-C5 insolubles) and
IP 143 (heptane insolubles) in the atmosphe-
ric and vacuum residues.
esults and Discussion
R
A comprehensive laboratory assay of
the ten investigated crude oil samples is
presented in Table 1. It is evident that these
data include crude oils from the four basic ty-
pes of crude available to refiners around the
world. Brent and Louisiana Light Sweet are
light-sweet crudes (30–40 °API, <0,5 wt%
S), REB is light-sour crude (30–40 °API,
0.5–1.5 wt% S ), Kuwait Export is he-
avy-sour crude (15–30 °API, 1.5–3.1 wt%
S) and Maya is extra-heavy crude(<15 °API
and >3 wt% S). The Maya crude oil may be
considered as "opportunity crude" because
of its high level of sulphur, metals and high
viscosity. The Louisiana Light Sweet crude
may also be considered as "opportunity cru-
de" because of its high TAN (0.58 mg
KOH/mg oil and low sulphur level (0.45%).
It has been established that crudes that pos-
sesses high TAN and low sulphur content ex-
hibit a high corrosion activity [9–14].
Figure 1shows the process flow diagramme
of a typical refinery of 150,000 b/d capacity.
Furthermore, as an example all unit product
yields at processing of REB crude oil are
shown. It is assumed for all petroleum feeds
that CDU product yields are equal to the feed
fraction contents determined by TBP crude
distillation analysis. The isomerisate yield
was assumed to be 97% for all studied petro-
leum feeds according to data published in
[15, 16]. The isomerizate octane number
was accepted to be by 16 points higher than
that of the feed (fraction IBP – 70 °C) as per
data reported in [17]. The reformate octane
number was accepted to be 100 RON (89
MON). This reformate octane number is
achieved at arenes content of 71% in accor-
dance with data reported in [18]. It is estab-
lished, on the published in [18] data, that
100% of feed naphthenes (fraction
100–190 °C) are converted to arenes, feed
arenes do not change and 32% of feed parra-
fins are converted to arenes as a result of de-
hydrocyclization reactions at catalytic refor-
ming process. Refomate yield has been cal-
culated on the base of assumed feed naph-
thenes and paraffin’s conversion providing
71% arenes content in reformate. Hydrotre-
atment unit product yields have been
accepted to be equal for all studied
petroleum feeds in accordance with data
reported in [18].
Cracking product yields have been calcula-
ted on the base of hydrogen content in the
feed – hydrotreated vacuum gas oil. It is
known that in the hydrotreating process hyd-
rogen content in hydrotreated vacuum gas
oil increases by 0.2% against hydrogen con-
tent in initial straight run vacuum gas oil
[19]. The correlations used are shown below
[19]:
Conversion = 10.04 · H2 – 48.776 (1)
Yield:
Naphtha = 0.84 · conversion + 13,3 (2)
Gas = 0.32 · conversion –7,6 (3)
Coke = 15.2 – 0,11 · conversion (4)
LCO = 59.7 – 0,55 · conversion (5)
HCO = 100 – LCGO · conversion
(as per definition) (6)
Distribution of products dry gas, propa-
ne-propylene fraction (PPF) and butane-bu-
tylene fraction (BBF) in gas product calcula-
ted via equation (3) has been accepted as fol-
lows: dry gas = 13.5%; PPF = 25.8%; BBF=
60.7% of total gas product on the base of data
reported in [20]. FCC naphtha octane number
for all studied cases has been assumed to be
93.5 proceeding from the results obtained at
high octane catalyst application [21].
Visbreaker product yields have been accep-
ted to be equal for all studied petroleum
feeds and the same as reported in [22]. Vis-
breaker residue viscosity has been calcula-
ted on the base of the established relations-
hip between feed (vacuum residue) viscosity
and Visbreaker residue viscosity [22]. This
relationship has following expression:
VISVBR (Rel) = 0.2012 · VISVR (Rel) – 0.7745 (7)
where,
VISVBR (Rel) = Visbreaker residue relative viscosity at
80 °C, °E
VISVR (Rel) = Vacuum residue relative viscosity, Vis-
breaker feed at 100 °C, °E.
 VERARBEITUNG

Table 1 Comprehensive assay of crudes under study

Crude LLS BR REB KUW MAYA REB 90%/ REB 80%/ REB 70%/ REB 60%/ REB 50%/
MAYA10% MAYA 20% MAYA 30% MAYA 40% MAYA 50%

Density, °API 36.1 38.3 31.8 31.4 22.2

3
Density at 15 °C, g/cm 0.844 0.833 0.867 0.869 0.921 0.8724 0.8778 0.8832 0.8886 0.894
Sulfur, % mass 0.45 0.4 1.53 2.52 3.3 1.707 1.884 2.061 2.238 2.415
V, ppm 1.2 6 46.7 30 314 73.43 100.16 126.89 153.62 180.35
Ni, ppm 7.1 1 14.7 8 52 18.43 22.16 25.89 29.62 33.35
Conradson carbon, % mass 1.1 2.1 3.9 5.3 12 4.71 5.52 6.33 7.14 7.95
Acid number, mg KOH(g 0.58 0.10 0.56 0.15 0.28 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.42
IBP –70 °C % mass of crude oil 3.2 6 4 3.8 2.4 3.83 3.67 3.51 3.35 3.18
Density, g/cm3 0.657 0.66 0.656 0.652 0.682 0.6586 0.6612 0.6638 0.6664 0.669
Sulfur, % mass 0.018 0 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.0055 0.006 0.0065 0.007 0.0075
RON 73.3 71.8 70.9 69.1 69.5 70.76 70.62 70.48 70.34 70.2
70–100 °C % mass of crude oil 3.5 5.4 3.3 3.4 2.5 3.22 3.14 3.06 2.98 2.90
Density, g/cm3 0.715 0.719 0.703 0.696 0.715 0.7042 0.7054 0.7066 0.7078 0.709
Sulfur, % mass 0.022 0.001 0.013 0.024 0.024 0.0141 0.0152 0.0163 0.0174 0.0185
Naphthenes,% v/v 23 28.6 25.2 14.6 21.7 24.85 24.5 24.15 23.8 23.45
Arenes, % v/v 7.5 9.6 3.7 4.4 28.1 6.14 8.58 11.02 13.46 15.XX
RON 66.6 62.5 50.9 53.3 57.2 51.53 52.16 52.79 53.42 54.05
100–190 °C % mass of crude oil 16.9 17.3 13 12.3 9.3 12.63 12.26 11.90 11.53 11.16
Density, g/cm3 0.772 0.774 0.764 0.753 0.759 0.7635 0.763 0.7625 0.762 0.7615
Sulfur, % mass 0.031 0.002 0.053 0.08 0.198 0.0675 0.082 0.0965 0.111 0.1255
Naphthenes,% v/v 36 35 37.1 22.9 27.9 36.18 35.26 34.34 33.42 32.5
Arenes,% v/v 13.4 17.5 11.7 13.9 29.2 13.45 15.2 16.95 18.7 20.45
RON 49.8 43.2 39.2 35.7 34.9 38.77 38.34 37.91 37.48 37.05
190–235 °C % mass of crude oil 16.9 17.3 13 12.3 9.3 12.63 12.26 11.90 11.53 11.16
Density, g/cm3 0.809 0.812 0.812 0.797 0.81 0.8118 0.8116 0.8114 0.8112 0.811
Sulfur, % mass 0.074 0.012 0.211 0.436 0.327 0.2226 0.2342 0.2458 0.2574 0.269
Arenes,% v/v 15.8 22 21.8 19.5 19 21.52 21.24 20.96 20.68 20.4
Cetane index 46 44 45 51 46 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5
Viscosity at 37.8 °C mm 2/s 1.48 1.44 1.52 1.41 1.47 1.51 1.51 1.5 1.5 1.49
235–280 °C % mass of crude oil 16.9 17.3 13 12.3 9.3 12.63 12.26 11.90 11.53 11.16
Density, g/cm3 0.835 0.832 0.837 0.826 0.841 0.8374 0.8378 0.8382 0.8386 0.839
Sulfur, % mass 0.2 0.07 0.61 1.16 1.06 0.655 0.7 0.745 0.79 0.835
Arenes,% v/v 17.9 22.9 27.8 22.1 21.6 27.18 26.56 25.94 25.32 24.7
Cetane index 46.2 44.3 44.9 50.9 45.8 44.99 45.08 45.17 45.26 45.35
Viscosity at 37.8 °C mm 2/s 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
280–343 °C % mass of crude oil 16.9 17.3 13 12.3 9.3 12.63 12.26 11.90 11.53 11.16
Density, g/cm3 0.857 0.858 0.864 0.858 0.876 0.8652 0.8664 0.8676 0.8688 0.87
Sulfur, % mass 0.361 0.327 1.086 1.93 2.018 1.1792 1.2724 1.3656 1.4588 1.552
Cetane index 52 51.5 49.7 51.5 46.4 49.37 49.04 48.71 48.38 48.05
Viscosity at 37.8 °C mm 2/s 5.7 5 5.5 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
343–565 °C % mass of crude oil 16.9 17.3 13 12.3 9.3 12.63 12.26 11.90 11.53 11.16
Density, g/cm3 0.908 0.902 0.923 0.922 0.932 0.9239 0.9248 0.9257 0.9266 0.9275
Sulfur, % mass 0.792 0.603 1.809 3.268 3.023 1.9304 2.0518 2.1732 2.2946 2.416
κ-factor 11.91 12.05 11.8 11.82 11.66 11.84 11.83 11.82 11.81 11.79
Aniline point, °C 192 193 168 180 163 167.5 167 166.5 166 165.5
Ni, ppm 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4
V, ppm 0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15
Conradson carbon, % mass 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
H2 content, wt.% 12.6 12.85 12.2 12.24 11.95 12.175 12.15 12.125 12.1 12.075
Atmospheric residue, % of crude oil 38.1 42.1 52.2 54.5 66 53.58 54.96 56.34 57.72 59.1
Viscosity at 98.9 °C, mm2/s 11.2 15.7 30.9 49.2 617 38.7 49.2 63.5 83.1 110.6
Ni, ppm 16.4 2.4 29.6 14.8 77 34.34 39.08 43.82 48.56 53.3
V, ppm 3 14.2 92.9 55.2 462.7 129.88 166.86 203.84 240.82 277.8
Conradson carbon, % mass 3 4.9 7.5 10.6 15.8 8.33 9.16 9.99 10.82 11.65
Asphaltenes, % mass 0.6 0.9 1.7 2.5 8.5 2.38 3.06 3.74 4.42 5.1
Insoluble in n-Pentane, % mass 1.7 0.4 4.4 6.6 22.1 6.17 7.94 9.71 11.48 13.25
Vacuum residue, % mass of crude oil 7 12.9 21 22.5 41.5 23.05 25.1 27.15 29.2 31.25
Viscosity at 98.9 °C, mm2/s 768 400 1290 5059 306862 1960.3 3052.3 4876.8 8007.8 13534.8
Ni, ppm 89.2 7.8 73.4 35.7 122 78.26 83.12 87.98 92.84 97.7
V, ppm 16.6 46.6 230.6 133 735 281.04 331.48 381.92 432.36 482.8
Conradson carbon, % mass 16.2 15.8 18.5 24.4 25.2 19.17 19.84 20.51 21.18 21.85
Asphaltenes, % mass 4.1 2.1 5 5.6 15.8 6.08 7.16 8.24 9.32 10.4
Insoluble in n-Pentane, % mass 9.1 1.4 11.1 16.1 34.7 13.46 15.82 18.18 20.54 22.9

Note: LLS = LOUISIANA LIGHT SWEET (origin: USA); BR = BRENT BLEND (origin: North sea); REB = Russian Export Blend (origin: Russia);
MAYA = MAYA (origin: Mexico)

ERDÖL ERDGAS KOHLE 126. Jg. 2010, Heft 1 3

 VERARBEITUNG

Table 2 Yields of finished products (wt.% of crude) obtained by refining of the different crudes

Crude LLS BR REB KUW MAYA REB 90%/ REB 80%/ REB 70% REB 60%/ REB 50%/
MAYA10% MAYA 20% /MAYA 30% MAYA 40% MAYA 50%

Fuel gas 2.05 2.06 2.02 2.03 2.03 1.63 1.96 2.04 2.47 2.12

LPG 3.21 3.07 2.80 2.66 2.50 3.51 3.77 3.38 4.58 1.48

Naphtha 9.99 9.85 9.79 9.59 9.47 14.15 14.98 10.63 9.13 9.59

Gasoline 26.56 25.84 24.98 24.22 23.37 27.42 31.46 26.92 27.39 18.70

Diesel pool 31.06 29.44 27.85 26.16 22.23 43.44 33.09 31.66 26.26 0.87

Coke 1.83 1.79 1.76 1.73 1.69 1.74 1.57 1.86 1.90 1.51

Fuel oil (IFO380) 25.30 27.95 30.79 33.60 38.70 8.12 13.17 23.50 28.26 65.73

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 3 Prices of crudes and finished products

Visbreaker residue kinematic viscosity has
been calculated as per the following relation
[23]:
VISVBR (Kin) = VISVBR (Rel) · 7.41
Conversion of viscosity determined at 80 °C
calculated according to equation (8) to Vis-
breaker residue viscosity at 50 °C has been
performed by application of relation [24]:
s
(Log (µ) +C)/ ((Log (µ0) +C) = (T0/T)
where:
µ = absolute viscosity, Pa·s
T = absolute temperature, °K
C = 3.0020, when the log base is 10
S = 0.0066940 · log (µ0) + 3.5565, when T0 is
303.15 °K (30 °C).
Conversion of kinematic viscosity to dyna-
mic one has been performed on the base of
assumption that Visbreaker residue density
at 20 °C is 982 kg/m3 [22].
It has been accepted that studied refinery
produces fuel gas, propane-butane, low oc-
tane naphtha (fraction 70–100 °C), automo-
bile gasoline corresponding to EN 288 re-
quirements, automobile diesel fuel corre-
sponding to EN 590 requirements (in this
case it is foreseen gasoline with octane num-
ber equal to 95 determined by research me-
thod and 85 determined by motor method)
and residual marine fuel IFO 380. It has been
assumed residual marine fuel to be produced
by blending of Visbreaker residue, FCC
HCO and FCC LCO. The blend viscosity has
been calculated according to the following
relation [25]:
VBI = 41.10743–49.08258 ·
log log (CST + 0.8)
CST = 10^(10^(41.10743 – VBI) /
49.08258) – 0.8
where:
VBI = viscosity blending index
CST = oil kinematic viscosity at 50 °C, cSt.
The FCC HCO and LCO viscosity values
have been assumed to be equal to these re-
ported in [26] (VISLCO @ 50 °C = 4.46 Product Price US $/1t
mm2/s; VISHCO @ 50 °C = 46.3 mm2/s). In
case that FCC LCO and HCO have not been Fuel Gas 390.8
(8) enough for Visbreaker residue dilution in or- LPG 406.25
der to achieve blend viscosity of 380 cSt at Naphtha 659.25
50 °C specified in IFO –380 of product re- Gasoline 666.88
quirements as cutter stock has been used he-
avy straight run diesel fraction (fraction Diesel 696
280–343 °C). Fuel Oil 455
Product yields obtained at processing of 1 t Crude Price US $/b
(9) petroleum feed for all studied cases are re- BRENT BLEND 68.5
presented in Table 2. It is evident from these
REB 68.6
data that as heavier is processed crude oil so
lower are gasoline yields (low octane napht- KUWAIT EXPORT 67.8
ha and automobile gasoline) and higher is MAYA 62.8
residue fuel IFO 380 yield. The crude and re- LOUISIANA LIGHT SWEET 60.1
fined product prices refer to June 2009 and
REB 90%/MAYA 10% 68.02
they have been obtained from the EIA (Ener-
gy Information Association, www. REB 80%/MAYA 20% 67.44
EIA.com) site and are presented in Table 3. REB 70%/MAYA 30% 66.86
Typically the product fuel gas is not sold but REB 60%/MAYA 40% 66.28
used as fuel in the refinery for satisfying its
REB 50%/MAYA 50% 65.7
energy requirement. However, for the pur-
pose of calculation in our study we assumed
its price to be equal to that of high sulphur re- 1.95 US $/b. This investigation also shows
sidual fuel oil. On base of the data presented that there is optimum ratio of blending at
in Tables 2 and 3 and assuming that costs for processing of different type crude oil blends.
petroleum feed purchase are 84 % from all As refer to the particular example of
refinery costs [3] refining profit for proces- processing of REB and MAYA blend the
sing of all investigated crudes has been esti- optimum from the profit view point
mated. In Figure 2 a graph of profit of refi- blending ratio is 60% REB/40% MAYA
ning different crudes is presented. As can be (Fig. 2).
seen from these data the profit of refinining It should be noted, that we have investigated
of the crude oil type representatives of the a refinery at which no limitation on the capa-
four basic types of crude (BRENT, REB, city of every one unit included in the refine-
KUWAIT, MAYA) in the studied refinery is ry flow diagram has been put on i. e. units
close to zero negative value. This is in line process the whole fractions quantity produ-
with earlier findings indicating that refinery ced at processing of studied at present work
profit is about zero in middle 2009 [3, 27]. petroleum feeds. In real life this not the case
However, processing of high acid and low so the particular processing flow diagram
sulphur crude oil (LIGHT LOUSIANA (configuration) of a given refinery may not
(10) SWEET) may give opportunity for signifi- allow realizing the potential positive impact
cant profit increase if risk of unplanned refi- on processing of definite petroleum feed due
nery shut down due to possible equipment to exceeding the process capacity of one unit
(11) corrosion increase is minimized [8]. It is in- and not use the complete process capacity of
teresting to note here the impact of proces- other units. Notwithstanding of this, results
sing blends REB/MAYA on the studied refi- of carried out investigation show presence of
nery profit. If at separate processing of both significant potential to upgrade the petro-
crude oils the refinery profit is about leum processing economics via suitable
0 US $/b (0.04 and –0.88 correspondingly) selection of different crude oil types that
at processing of their blend the profit rises to could be processed at one refinery.

4 ERDÖL ERDGAS KOHLE 126. Jg. 2010, Heft 1


Fig. 2 Profit from refining of the investigated crudes
onclusions
C strategy for crude selection. Proceedings ERTC
Profit from processing crude oil types
pertained to refinery four basic crude
oil groups: light-sweet (30 40 °API, <0,5 S
%mass), light-sour (30–40 °API, 0.5–1.5 S
%mass ), heavy-sour ( 15–30 °API, 1.5–3.1
S %mass) and extra-heavy (<15 °API and >3
S % mass) is approximately 0 US $/b in mid
2009. The profit may grow up to be positive
and to reach up to 12 US $/b if a refinery pro-
cesses 100% opportunity crude oils as
LIGHT LOUSIANA SWEET. One way to
increase profit from 0.004 to 1.9 US $/b is
the opportunity to process crude oil blends of
REB (representative of light-sour crude oils)
and Maya (representative of extra-heavy
crude oils). Furthermore, the profit runs
through maximum that corresponds to ratio
blend of 60% REB/40% MAYA.
The investigation carried out reveals availa-
bility of significant profit rise potential at
crude oil processing by expedient selection
of crude oil types that a refinery may process
(11).
Reference
[1] J. C. M. Hartmann: Crude valuation for crude se-
lection. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Winter
2003, 123.
[2] A. C. Ooms, F. van den Berg, S. D. Kapusta, L. W.
Nouwens: Processing opportunity crudes: A new
ERDÖL ERDGAS KOHLE 126. Jg. 2010, Heft 1
View publication stats
2001, Madrid, Spain.
[3] V. Sangiorgio: Refinery Value Generation
through the Improvement of Chemical Treatment
Programs. General Electric Presentation at
Lukoil Neftochim Bourgas, October 10, 2009,
Lukoil Neftochim Bourgas.
[4] T. W. Yeung: Evaluating opportunity crude pro-
cessing. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Q4
2006, 93.
[5] B. D. Chambers, R. D. Kane: Refining light acid
crudes. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Q4
2008, 137.
[6] K. Green: Improve processing of ‘opportunity
crudes. Hydrocarbon Processing, June 2004,
53–55.
[7] A. M. Blume, T. Y. Yeung: Analyzing economic via-
bility of opportunity crudes. Petroleum Technol-
ogy Quarterly, Q3 2008, 67.
[8] M. L. Gonzalez-Barba, M. J. Clark, G. M. Jones:
Opportunity crudes: a guide to best practices.
Hydrocarbon Engineering August 2006, 31–33.
[9] G. C. Laredo, C. R. Lopez, R. E. Alvarez, J. L.
Cano: Naphthenic acids, total acid number and
sulfur content profile characterization in Isthmus
and Maya crude oils. Fuel 83 (2004),
1689–1695.
[10] O. Yepez: Influence of different sulfur compounds
on corrosion due to naphthenic acid. Fuel 84
(2005), 97–104.
[11] W. Meredith, S. J. Kelland, D. M. Jones: Influence
of biodegradation on crude oil acidity and
carboxylic acid composition. Organic Geochem-
istry 31 (2000), 1059–1073.
[12] J. S. Clemente, P. M. Fedorak: A review of the oc-
VERARBEITUNG
currence, analyses, toxicity,and biodegradation
of naphthenic acids. Chemosphere 60 (2005),
585–600.
[13] X. Q. Wu, H. M. Jing, Y. G. Zheng, Z. M. Yao, W. Ke:
Resistance of Mo-bearing stainless steels and
Mo-bearing stainless-steel coating to naphthen-
ic acid corrosion and erosion–corrosion. Corro-
sion Science 46 (2004), 1013–1032.
[14] X. Q. Wu, H. M. Jing, Y. G. Zheng, Z. M. Yao, W. Ke:
Erosion–corrosion of various oil-refining materi-
als in naphthenic acid. Wear 256 (2004)
133–144.
[15] C. Stevenson: Conversion of an old Catalitic re-
former to an isomerisation unit. Hydrocarbon en-
gineering, 1997, July/August.
[16] XX Please transcript this source: 4, 22–30.
[17] B. Domergue, L. Watripont: Paraffins
isomerization options. Petroleum Technology
Quarterly, Q2 2005.
[18] G. Argirov, D. Stratiev, I. Shishkova, T. Tsingov:
Improve refinery reformate yields. Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct.2008.
[19] D. Stratiev, V. Galkin, I. Shishkova, D. Minkov, K.
Stanulov: Yield of the Vacuum Gasoil Catalytic
cracking Products. Chemistry and Technology of
Fuels and Oils Nr 4, 2007, 31–34.
[20] D. Stratiev, I. Shishkova, T. Tzingov, P. Zeuthen:
Industrial investigation on the origin of sulfur in
the fluid catalytic cracking gasoline.
Ind.Eng.Chem.Res. on 28. 10. 2009.
[21] I. Shishkova, D. Stratiev, D. Minkov: Impact of cat-
alyst properties and operating conditions on
gasoline yield and quality in the fluid catalytic
cracking. ERDÖL ERDGAS KOHLE 125. Jg.
2009, Heft 5.
[22] D. Stratiev, D. Minkov, G. Stratiev: Exploiting the
synergy between fluid catalytic cracking and
visbreaking to increase the high-value product
yields. OIL GAS European Magazine, Vol. 29,
September, 3/2003, 141–144.
[23] I. N. Diarov, I. U. Batueva, A. N. Sadikov, N. L.
Colodova: Chemistry of Crude Oil. Chimia Pub-
lishers, St. Peterburg, p. 51, 1990 (in Russian).
[24] B. Singh, A. Miadonye, V. R. Putagunta: Heavy oil
viscosity range from one test. Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, August 1993, p. 157.
[25] RPMS 2000. Refinery and Petrochemical Model-
ling System, User’s Manual, 1999.
[26] D. Stratiev, R. Dinkov, K. Petkov, K. Kirilov: Study
predicts viscosity of gas oils, heavy blends.
Oil&Gas Journal, Sept.8, 2008, 48–52.
[27] T. L. Wright: »The future is big; the future is east«.
Hydrocarbon Processing, June 2009, 13.
5