Challenges and opportunities of 10

ppm sulphur gasoline: part 1

Prospect of a worldwide standard for ULSG and the challenges of increased heavy
crude supplies demand careful consideration and selection of refinery configuration

Delphine Largeteau, Jay Ross, Marc Laborde and Larry Wisdom Axens

T
he worldwide refining
industry has undergone a
major transformation in
the last decade due to changes
in regulatory and market forces,
such as fluctuating crude prices,
tighter regulation on product
quality and refinery emissions,
shifting crude quality and funda-
mental changes in fuel demands.
These forces can be seen clearly
in the North American market,
where crude quality has become
heavier due to increasing
amounts of lower-cost heavy,
sour Canadian bitumen and Countries may apply lower limits for different grades, regions/cities, or based on average content.
Different information on limits and regulations can be found at www.ifqc.org
where regulations have become
more severe by limiting the
sulphur level in fuels to 15 wppm Figure 1 Maximum gasoline sulphur limit around the world
in diesel and 30 wppm in gaso- Source: International Fuel Quality Center
line. In addition to these feed
and product quality changes, the overall demand Indeed, the overall gasoline sulphur content is
for transportation fuels is shifting from a tradi- likely to level off at 10 ppm across the globe. As a
tionally gasoline-oriented to an increasingly consequence, most refiners will face renewed
diesel-oriented market. challenges to be able to meet the new ultra-low-
Regulatory specifications for the gasoline and sulphur gasoline (ULSG) specifications. However,
diesel pool, which are constantly evolving, have in view of other market forces, there may also be
been in the forefront of refiners’ challenges in the new opportunities for refiners.
last 10 years. In particular, the gasoline sulphur This article will identify these new opportuni-
and benzene regulations have been the main driv- ties by reviewing the processing options and
ers for the recent remodelling of the refinery consequences of such regulation, focusing mainly
configuration. This transformation has been seen on North American refineries and drawing on
all around the world, but particularly in Europe, the European and Asian experience of meeting
Asia and North America. Other countries are the 10 ppm ULSG regulations. The issues, chal-
following the trend and a common worldwide lenges and opportunities of each option will be
gasoline sulphur specification is on the horizon. presented and discussed. In a second article, a

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547 PTQ Q3 2012 1


Current gasoline sulphur specification
Region Gasoline sulphur, wppm
Europe: EU 2005 specification 50
EU 2009 specification 10
USA: Tier 2 (2004-2006) 30
CARB 3 (California) 10
2010+ CARB 4 (California) 5
Japan: 2007 specification 10
Table 1
detailed economic assessment of each configura-
tion will be applied in a case study.
Gasoline sulphur regulation
There has been a steady downward trend in the
sulphur content of fuels to reduce emissions
from cars and trucks. Many countries mandated
the production of low-sulphur gasoline (LSG)
some time ago, but in recent years regulations in
Western Europe, some Asian countries and
California in the US have brought in even tighter
specifications to lower the gasoline sulphur to 10
ppm.
The different regional approaches to the gaso-
line sulphur specification set out in Table 1 show
a clear trend towards ULSG. Other countries are
following the same path to either meet their
domestic regulatory specifications or be able to
export and sell on the international ULSG
market (see Figure 1).
Although the majority of countries still have
gasoline sulphur specifications well above 10
ppm, the overall trend clearly shows that in the
near future ULSG production will become the
norm worldwide.
Current refinery configuration
Refinery configurations vary widely, depending on
crude availability, local demand, export markets
and regulatory constraints. In the same way, each
market has its own set of dynamics and means of
Pre-treat only
Post-treat only
Pre- and post-treatment
2001 2010
Figure 2 FCC pretreatment and gasoline post-treatment trend in US refineries ment is FCC flue gas emissions.
2 PTQ Q3 2012
complying with the new fuel regulations.
In Europe, regulations for ULSG were adopted
early and somewhat influenced by a market
demand, which is more heavily skewed toward
diesel than gasoline. The options for ULSG
compliance were influenced by:
• Processing of relatively light and low-sulphur
crude oil
• Relatively good-quality FCC feed (little cracked
gas oil such as heavy coker gas oil)
• Undercutting of FCC gasoline to maximise
diesel production.
The EU’s 10 ppm ULSG is produced mainly by
using moderate severity FCC post-treatment.
Many catalytic feed hydrotreater (CFHT) units
installed in Asian refineries were designed to
meet modern fuels and emission regulations. As
such, many are designed for high desulphurisa-
tion levels to meet refinery and SOx regulations
from the FCC flue gas, resulting in low-sulphur
FCC gasoline. Consequently, most refineries in
Japan have met the new ULSG limit of 10 ppm
by adding low-severity post-treatment units.
In the US, the refinery configuration was influ-
enced by a large demand for gasoline coupled
with limited fuel oil outlets, resulting in the
installation of bottom-of-the barrel conversion
units and high FCC feed sulphur. The US Tier 2
gasoline sulphur and California Air Resources
Board (CARB) regulations led to a sharp increase
in the number of FCC feed pretreatment and
FCC gasoline post-treatment units over a short
period of time (see Figure 2). Essentially, all of
the US refineries now have pre- and/or post-
treatment units to ensure compliance with
gasoline sulphur regulations.
FCC pretreatment vs post-treatment
When the Tier 2 regulations were proposed,
many were convinced that CFHT would be the
solution of choice due to the resulting large
improvement in FCC performance. However, the
high capital cost requirement for the FCC
pretreatment option coupled
with low refinery margins
resulted in the wide application
of FCC post-treatment to reduce
gasoline sulphur.
Another factor that can influ-
ence the decision between
pretreatment and post-treat-
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547
Limits on refinery emissions
and in particular those from the FCC feed quality from heavy feeds
FCC have led to refinery-specific
regulation via consent decrees Canadian bitumen Coker HCGO Syn. bitumen Mexican Blend Arabian Light
with the EPA, resulting in much VGO
API gravity 13 13 18 22 26
lower SOx and NOx emissions. Sulphur, wt% 3.3 4-5 1.7 2.2 2.2
The “preferred” refinery config- Nitrogen, ppm 2100 4000 1500 1000 700
Hydrogen, wt% 10.7 10.5 11.5 11.7 12.4
uration may well have been ATB
different had the limits on emis- API gravity 5.7 9 6 17
sions and product sulphur been Sulphur, wt% 4.9 3.6 3.6 3.1
Nitrogen, ppm 5000 3500 3000 1900
regulated in concert. Hydrogen, wt% 9.2 10.8 9.8 11.4
More recently, there has been Concarbon, wt% 15.3 11.2 11.6 8.1
Ni + V, ppm 325 200 258 49
an important trend towards the
processing of increasingly heav- Table 2
ier crudes, in particular heavy
Canadian crude or bitumen. By 2015, there is an have put increased emphasis on CFHT perform-
expected increase of about 2 million b/d of ance and reliability.
Canadian bitumen, which will be largely exported Concurrently, a lower demand for fuel oil
to the US as raw bitumen (DilBit) or synthetic coupled with the processing of heavier crudes
bitumen (SynBit) after partial upgrading at the has resulted in the installation of residue conver-
production site. These very heavy crudes are a sion units such as delayed cokers. These
challenge for processing in existing refinery conversion units produce significant amounts of
assets due to a high acid content (TAN), high hydrogen-deficient, heteroatom-rich (N and S)
aromaticity and low hydrogen content, along vacuum gas oils (VGO, HCGO), which need to be
with very high contaminant content: sulphur, deeply hydrotreated prior to conversion in the
nitrogen, Conradson carbon and metals. A FCC unit.
sampling of heavy crude components, which may As a result, modern CFHT units need to proc-
be considered potential FCC feed, are show in ess increasingly more refractory feedstocks while
Table 2 to highlight the challenges of processing achieving high desulphurisation levels to meet
bitumen-derived materials. gasoline sulphur specifications. The increased
As a result of these feedstock trends and a contaminants also make it more difficult for the
renewed focus on cleaner fuels, lower emissions CFHT to upgrade the quality of the FCC feed to
and even a shift in gasoline/diesel production, maintain the required yield of gasoline and LPG.
the topic of pretreatment versus post-treatment In addition to the objective of hydrodesulphuri-
is upon us again. More specifically, we will focus sation, hydrodenitrogenation and polynuclear
on the pretreat and post-treat issues around the aromatics (PNA) saturation, the processing of
FCC as it relates to FCC performance, emissions cracked stocks in a CFHT, often with high end-
and the level of product gasoline post-treatment point to maximise refinery economics, requires a
required. careful selection of the catalytic system to take
into account the potential for higher metals
FCC pretreatment options (nickel, vanadium, arsenic, silicon) and
The benefits of FCC feed pretreatment in a asphaltenes, along with the higher fouling
CFHT are well known and extend beyond propensity of these aromatic-rich feeds.
simply reducing the sulphur level in the FCC On the other hand, this problem can turn into
feed. The reduction in sulphur and other an opportunity to increase the severity of the
contaminants is helpful in terms of reducing CFHT, not only to meet sulphur targets but also
the FCC product sulphur level and lowering the to change the diesel-to-gasoline ratio by operat-
flue gas emissions from the FCC, but the inter- ing in mild hydrocracking (MHC) mode and
action with improved feed quality and increased taking advantage of low-cost natural gas to
FCC performance is also very important. further increase volume swell. These adjustments
Environmental regulations, and in particular will require some modifications to the operating
the need to produce very low-sulphur gasoline, conditions, selection of the optimum catalytic

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547 PTQ Q3 2012 3

 and LCO diesel blend compo-
85 20 nents. Although the chemistry
80 a l 18 and catalyst systems can be
nti
p ote complex, generally speaking the
75 ne 16
p yle FCC unit is a hydrogen redistri-
70 Pro Conversion 14
Gasoline
bution system with some carbon
65 12 rejection as coke, which is
Fuel oil
wt%

wt%
60 10 consumed in the process. The
55 8 performance of the FCC unit and
50 6 the yield of valuable products is
therefore linked to the hydrogen
45 4
content of the feed. This trend is
40 2
shown in Figure 3, where the
35 0 conversion potential and gasoline
10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5
yield increase sharply with the
Feed hydrogen, wt%
hydrogen content of the feed.
The CFHT therefore plays a
Figure 3 FCC yield vs feed hydrogen content vital role in improving the FCC
feed quality to enhance the yield
system and distributor internals, increased and overall refinery profitability. As the feed
hydrogen consumption and likely upgrades contaminants of sulphur and nitrogen are
throughout the unit. One of the challenges of reduced to improve product quality and reduce
operating in the MHC mode is the ability to meet FCC emissions, multi-ring aromatics are satu-
ultra-low-sulphur diesel (ULSD) specifications rated and the crackability of the feed increases.
throughout the MHC cycle. Moderate-pressure Sharp gains in conversion and gasoline yield
MHC units generally do not meet the required result from the first incremental increase in
diesel specifications, therefore post-treatment is hydrogen and there is some degree of diminish-
required. One option to meet this challenge is ing returns (see Figure 3). When propylene yield
the HyC-10 technology developed by Axens to is of interest, the increased hydrogen input is
integrate diesel upgrading within the MHC high- always beneficial, and in many cases high hydro-
pressure loop while decoupling operating gen input can be justified, particularly when
conditions.1,2 Another important factor in MHC/ hydrogen is relatively inexpensive.3
CFHT design is the ability to maintain desul- As the severity of the CFHT increases, there
phurisation targets while meeting optimum VGO is also the opportunity for co-produced diesel in
quality throughout the cycle length. the CFHT via mild hydrocracking to shift the
In conclusion, a deep understanding of the overall refinery balance between gasoline and
feedstock type and the chemical reactions diesel. Defining the optimal balance between
involved in a CFHT (kinetics, thermodynamics, severity, hydrogen input, cracking and FCC
contamination/poisoning) coupled with their mode of operation within the existing
impact on the FCC operation is paramount to constraints of a refinery configuration is there-
selecting optimum CFHT operating conditions fore very complex.
and design of the optimum catalyst system. The Within the context of ULSG, the more tradi-
following section will examine the influence of tional role of the CFHT to consider is that of
the CFHT operation on the FCC unit’s desulphurisation and the impact on the FCC
performance. gasoline produced. As the sulphur content in the
FCC unit feed decreases and the extent of feed
Impact of CFHT on FCC performance hydrotreating increases, the types of sulphur left
The FCC unit has long been the workhorse in the in the FCC feed alter and the amount of sulphur
refinery to achieve relatively low-cost conversion found in the gasoline decreases. Figure 4 shows
of heavy crude components (VGO, HCGO and this general trend for feeds that are hydrotreated
some atmospheric residue) into gasoline, butenes and for non-hydrotreated feeds of varying
for high-octane alkylate production, propylene sulphur content.

4 PTQ Q3 2012 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547

 If one were to target the new
ULSG pool sulphur level of 10 10000
ppm, the CFHT must reduce the
feed sulphur to about 200-300

Gasoline S, wt ppm
ppm, considering a ratio of 1000
between 20:1 and 30:1 of the
hydrotreated feed sulphur to the
gasoline sulphur. This will be 100
true even if we consider that the
FCC gasoline is only about one-
10
third of the pool and the other
Straight run
blend stocks are nearly sulphur-
Hydrotreated
free, as refiners will leave some 1
margin below 10 ppm to ensure 0.01 0.1 1 10
compliance. Feed sulphur, wt%
When looking at the sulphur
in FCC gasoline, one needs to be Figure 4 FCC gasoline sulphur vs feed sulphur and treatment
very clear about the gasoline cut
point and the distillation tail on
the produced gasoline product. 100
In Figure 5, we can see a care-
Alkyl-Benzo-
fully analysed commercial FCC
Cumulative sulphur, %

80 Thiophene
gasoline and the cumulative full- Benzo-
range gasoline sulphur versus Thiophene
60 S
true boiling point (TBP).
Figure 5 clearly demonstrates
the importance of defining the 40 C2-Thiophene
gasoline boiling range when C1-Thiophene
discussing the sulphur level. In 20
S
Thiophene
the US market, gasoline has been Mercaptans
traditionally over-cut relative to
the standard 430°F (220°C) cut 0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
and often extended to 450-480°F
Temperature, ºC
(230-250°C), thereby including
not only benzothiophene but also
some methyl-benzothiophenes in Figure 5 FCC gasoline sulphur profile
the gasoline. These compounds
enter the gasoline cut just at the standard cut FCC post-treatment options to meet ULSG
point and complicate accurate measurement of In order to comply with low-sulphur gasoline
gasoline sulphur from non-ideal industrial regulations, a majority of refiners across the
samples. With the increased interest in distillate world have already invested in a FCC post-treat-
production, undercutting the gasoline to less than ment unit. However, processing schemes vary
430°F will significantly help control the sulphur greatly from one site to another, depending on
level when producing ULSG, as is done in sulphur specification, overall refinery configura-
Europe. tion and crude diet (see Table 3).
Considering the dependence of FCC gasoline Most refineries in California and Japan are
on both CFHT performance and precise fraction- equipped with FCC feed pretreaters, which
ation of the gasoline product, meeting ULSG explains the low sulphur level in FCC naphtha.
targets through CFHT alone is possible but chal- Conversely, FCC naphtha sulphur tends to be
lenging. There will be little room for error or high in the Americas, and high-severity post-
deterioration in CFHT performance over the treaters will be required to meet the 10 ppm
course of a production run or cycle. gasoline sulphur target.

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547 PTQ Q3 2012 5

 190 licensed units throughout
FCC gasoline post-treatment unit design
the world.4 The technology has
proven to be highly flexible, with
Typical Feed sulphur, wppm Product sulphur, wppm
several Prime-G+ processing
Western Europe 200-1000 10-20
North America 500-2000 30-50 schemes offered according to
California 100-300 10-20 the targeted severity of the unit
South America 500-2000 30-100 (see Figure 6).
Japan/Korea 50-200 10

Exploiting existing Prime-G+

Table 3
The Prime-G+ process selectively desulphurises
FCC full-range naphtha (FRCN) while ensuring
minimal octane loss. It is a widely used cracked
gasoline desulphurisation technology, with over
units
Depending on the existing Prime-
G+ configuration, meeting new ULSG regulations
at 10 ppm while using the existing assets could be
achieved in different ways. First, one potential
solution that does not require any additional

Low/moderate HDS
FCC
FRN ULSG
SHU HDT

Prime-G+ 1-stage HDS

Moderate/high HDS

FCC FCC
FRN ULSG FRN HDT ULSG
SHU SHU
1&2

Prime-G+ 2-stage HDS

HDT

Prime-G+ 1st step (SHU & splitter) / 1-stage HDS

Very high HDS

FCC
FRN ULSG
SHU

HDT
1&2

Prime-G+ 1st step (SHU & splitter) / 2-stage HDS

Figure 6 Prime-G+ processing schemes

6 PTQ Q3 2012 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547

investment would be to simply increase severity
(essentially reactor temperature) to lower the
existing Prime-G+ product sulphur. The increased
HDS level would lead to a higher octane loss and
hydrogen consumption, coupled with a potential
cycle length reduction. Switching to higher selec-
tivity and activity Prime-G+ catalysts may help
mitigate these drawbacks, but could prove insuffi-
cient in many cases.
Another solution would involve the co-process-
ing of other sulphur-rich streams in the Prime-G+
unit that previously did not require any treat-
ment to meet the earlier sulphur specifications.
The streams could be light such as light coker
naphtha or visbroken naphtha that can be
handled in the first step (selective hydrogenation
unit — SHU and splitter section). Light, straight-
run naphtha, natural gasoline could also be
co-processed either in the SHU upstream of the
splitter or directly in the HDS section. One of the
drawbacks of co-processing is possible hydraulics
limitations in the unit. In addition, adding
sulphur-rich streams could lead to a higher HDS
level coupled with a higher octane loss and,
again, the potential for a reduced cycle length.
An alternative option would be to decrease the
Prime-G+ feed sulphur to maintain a similar
HDS level across the unit to ensure constant
octane loss and cycle length. Lowering the feed
sulphur could be achieved in different ways. The
short-term solutions would be to use sulphur
reduction additives in the FCC unit or to process
low-sulphur crudes. Both of these options have
limitations and are generally not practical for a
significant sulphur reduction without a heavy
penalty on refinery flexibility. More realistically,
a reduction in the FCC naphtha end-point or
changes in the CFHT could be envisioned to
reduce the sulphur in the FCC naphtha. In
Western Europe, it is common to reduce the FCC
naphtha end-point, as it also maximises diesel
production to meet market demand.
Revamping FCC post-treatment units
As most refineries are equipped with a FCC post-
treatment unit to control gasoline sulphur, it is
instructive to take a closer look at the revamping
options around the selective FCC naphtha desul-
phurisation unit to meet the new ULSG
requirements. There are a number of ways to
revamp an existing selective FCC naphtha desul-
phurisation unit to meet tighter sulphur
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547
specifications, which display different levels of
complexity and associated cost:
• Option 1: Install a Prime-G+ first step if not
existing
• Option 2: Add a SHU (selective hydrogenation
unit) or HDS reactor if the cycle length is a limi-
tation for the new product sulphur target
• Option 3: Route the medium catalytic naphtha
(MCN) cut to the NHT/reformer
• Option 4: Process the medium catalytic naph-
tha (MCN) and the heavy catalytic naphtha
(HCN) streams separately
• Option 5: Install a second-stage HDS section.
In option 1, the installation of a FCC naphtha
splitter downstream of the existing (or new) SHU
is the Prime-G+ first step. The SHU operating
conditions and catalyst design allow for the
selective hydrogenation of diolefins, which may
foul the desulphurisation section, and also the
conversion of light sulphur species such as
mercaptans to heavy boiling sulphur compounds.
As a result of the chemical reactions taking place
in the SHU, the downstream splitter produces a
sweet, low-sulphur, light catalytic naphtha (LCN)
stream rich in olefins and a heavy FCC naphtha
(HCN), which is routed to the HDS section. Such
a HCN stream with its lower olefins content can
be selectively desulphurised through the use of
tailored catalysts to meet the ULSG target while
controlling olefins saturation and thus octane
loss. Addition of the splitter reduces the through-
put to the HDS section and hydrogen
consumption. This solution also allows the co-
processing of other streams containing sulphur,
such as coker naphtha, visbroken naphtha,
straight-run naphtha or natural gasoline.
For option 2, the addition of a SHU upstream
of an existing splitter will produce a sweet low-
sulphur LCN stream and provide benefits similar
to those described in option 1. In case cycle
length becomes limited, implementation of an
additional HDS reactor in series with the exist-
ing one can be envisioned. Options 1 and 2 are
easy to implement and lead to moderate capital
expenditure. The typical block flow diagram of
Option 3 is shown in Figure 7.
This option involves revamping the existing
splitter into a three-cut column in order to with-
draw a heart cut (MCN) rich in olefins that
contains some sulphur and exhibits a moderate
octane number (especially MON). The MCN is
then mixed with the normal feed to the NHT
PTQ Q3 2012 7
 than just making modifications
to the existing FCC post-treat-
Isom ment section.
Decoupling of the MCN and
HCN can also be utilised to treat
Splitter Benfree these streams in two separate
SRN
HCN selective HDS sections. This is
NHT Reformer
Coker N option 4 and is illustrated in
Figure 8.
This innovative and patented
LCN
scheme by Axens has the addi-
MoGas tional advantage of offering
Splitter MCN
pool greater flexibility to route the
FRCN
HCN
Prime-G+ desulphurised HCN either to the
MoGas or diesel pool, according
to the economics of the refin-
ery.6 Both MCN and HCN
selective HDS sections are
Figure 7 FCC naphtha heart cut (MCN) to reformer designed to minimise octane
loss while achieving 10 ppm
product sulphur. Compared to
Ultra-low S LCN to Pool,
TAME or Alky Unit the previous option, option 4
Prime-G+ incurs more revamping costs, as
selective a new MCN HDS section needs
hydrogenation
ULS MCN: to be installed. But the addi-
MCN 150-300ºF to MoGas
HDS
tional cost could be easily offset
by the improved octane reten-
SHU Process tion compared to treating the
integration combined MCN and HCN in a
Splitter ULS HCN: single one-stage selective HDS
FRCN 300ºF-FBP to
HCN MoGas or diesel section at ULSG levels and by
HDS the additional flexibility that
this option offers.
The last option explored here,
Figure 8 Decoupling MCN and HCN processing option 5, is the inclusion of a
second-stage HDS section to
unit and reformer unit. Sending the MCN to the minimise octane loss and maintain or even
reformer will lead to a gasoline octane gain. increase the catalyst cycle length. The typical
However, there may be limitations in terms of block flow diagram is shown in Figure 9. Although
capacity for both NHT and reformer sections the splitter is shown here upstream of the HDS
that need to be carefully assessed and taken into section, Axens also has experience of designing a
account for the evaluation of the overall revamp two-stage HDS section on full-range FCC naphtha
cost. In addition, potential increased benzene with no upstream splitter.
production in the reformer could lead to issues In a typical one-stage HDS configuration,
in meeting the MSAT II gasoline benzene speci- olefins saturation, and thus octane loss, increases
fications. The addition of an integrated reformate rapidly above 98% HDS. At a high HDS level,
splitter/benzene hydrogenation (Benfree) the addition of a second-stage HDS section helps
resolves this issue.5 improve octane retention and minimise hydro-
While this solution offers some advantages in gen consumption.
terms of octane, the decreased gasoline yield Several Prime-G+ units have been designed for
should also be considered. Overall, this option two-stage operation and many are in operation.
may be attractive, but has more implications Although this option requires additional capital

8 PTQ Q3 2012 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547

investment, there is a real incen-
tive to pursue this solution when Ultra-low S LCN to Pool,
TAME or Alky Unit
the refinery is octane tight or Prime-G+
hydrogen constrained. selective
hydrogenation H2S
These options provide
commercially proven solutions Ultra-low-sulphur
for refiners to meet new ULSG gasoline to MoGas
specifications with existing or SHU 1st stage 2nd stage
modified post-treatment units. HDS HDS
In view of the low refinery Splitter
margins and octane-long posi- FRCN HCN
150ºF+
tion resulting from the ethanol
mandate, the debottlenecking of H2 make-up
a selective FCC naphtha desul-
phurisation unit will likely be
the preferred solution for many Figure 9 Revamp of Prime-G+ HDS into two-stage configuration
refiners, assuming no significant
changes in their crude diet. economic evaluation to allow comparison of the
A number of refiners are, however, envisioning costs and returns between the FCC feed pretreat-
the processing of heavy crudes such as those ment alone and post-treatment options, as well
derived from Canadian oil sands due to their as the optimum desulphurisation and cycle
lower cost coupled with geopolitical reasons. length for the CFHT when considered in combi-
Processing of these heavy crudes requires a nation with a post-treatment. These
complete refinery reconfiguration with bottom- configurations will be applied in the context of a
of-the-barrel conversion units such as coking or refinery being revamped to process heavy
ebullated-bed hydrocracking. As was discussed Canadian crudes and maintaining its FCC unit.
earlier, the resulting VGO and HCGO streams The VGO feedstock considered for this economic
are very refractory with high levels of sulphur evaluation will be a 55 000 b/d blend of straight-
and nitrogen and a very low hydrogen content. run VGO and heavy coker gas oil with 4.2 wt%
Such feeds require deep pretreatment prior to sulphur.
feeding the FCC unit to maintain acceptable
yields. Since FCC pretreatment (CFHT) is Acknowledgement
mandatory in those cases, one may wonder The paper was first presented at the 2011 AFPM (or NPRA) Annual
whether a post-treatment unit is required or not. Meeting.
In a second article, an economic evaluation will
References
illustrate the pros and cons of FCC pretreatment
1 Bonnardot J, et al, Direct Production of Euro-IV Diesel at 10 pm
only or in combination with post-treatment.
Sulphur via the HyC-10 Process, ERTC 9th Annual Meeting, Nov
2004.
Conclusion 2 Sarrazin P, et al, New mild hydrocracking route produces 10-
North American refineries need to adapt to tight- ppm-sulphur diesel, Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb 2005.
ening sulphur specifications and the prospect of 3 Roux R, et al, Resid to Petrochemicals Technology, ERTC 13th
ULSG at 10 ppm. This challenge will be exacer- Annual Meeting, Nov 2008.
bated by the increased proportion of heavy 4 Debuisschert Q, Prime-G+ Commercial Performance of FCC
crudes and the gasoline/diesel imbalance. This Naphtha Desulphurization Technology, AM-03-26, NPRA Annual
article has presented commercially proven Meeting, Mar 2006.
5 Largeteau D, et al, Benzene Management in a MSAT 2
configurations that are available to meet these
Environment, AM-08-11, NPRA Annual Meeting, Mar 2008.
constraints and maintain profitability. combina-
6 Debuisschert Q, et al, Technology Solutions addressing
tion of pre- and post-treatment may be
gasoline and diesel imbalances, Platts European Refining Market
necessary, depending on the initial refinery 4th Annual Meeting, Sept 2010.
configuration, local market demands, emissions
regulations and the crudes processed. Delphine Largeteau is Technology Manager for Olefins & Light Oil
A second article will present a detailed Hydroprocessing, Axens. She joined Axens in 1998 as Process

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547 PTQ Q3 2012 9

 Engineer and moved to the North American office in November Marc Laborde is Strategic Marketing Engineer in Axens Marketing
2001, where she served as Proposal & Technology Engineer, Department. After a first experience with ExxonMobil, he joined
focusing on light ends and Prime-G+ technologies, before Axens in 2010 at his current position. He holds a degree in
attaining her current position. She holds a degree in chemical chemical engineering from Ecole Nationale Supérieure de
engineering from Université Technologique de Compiègne (UTC) Chimie in Caen and a master’s in refining, engineering and gas
in France and a master’s in refining, engineering and gas from the from the IFP School.
IFP School.
Jay Ross is a Technology and Marketing Manager covering the
field of transportation fuels, including FCC, catalytic reforming,
isomerisation and biodiesel production. He has over 30 years of
experience in the refining and petrochemical industry, including
Links
process engineering design, R&D, licensing and technical More articles from: Axens
assistance. He holds a degree in chemical engineering from
Princeton University. He has served on the NPRA and ERTC expert More articles from the following category:
panels, and has authored several patents and numerous technical Desulphurisation & Sulphur Handling
papers and articles. He is currently stationed in Singapore.

10 PTQ Q3 2012 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000547