Fluidised catalytic cracker
hydrotreater revamp
Primary revamp of reactors, exchangers and other FCC pretreater components
provided return on investment for a complex refining facility
Raj Patel Haldor Topsoe Inc
Howard Moore, Harrell Duff and Brian Hamari Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC
A
s part of the Marathon Ashland Petroleum
LLC (MAP) clean fuels programme at the
Catlettsburg, Kentucky, refinery, the exist-
ing fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) feed
hydrotreating unit was revamped to allow
increased capacity, processing of tougher feeds,
and production of lower sulphur product. The
design rate increased from 40000 to 60000
bpsd and the blended feed to the unit will
contain 15% deasphalted oil (DAO). The hydrot-
reated product sulphur specification is set at
750ppm to produce FCC gasoline that can be
blended directly into the gasoline pool and still
meet the future low sulphur gasoline
specifications.
The primary revamp included addition of four
new reactors, additional exchangers, a new
membrane unit for purifying hydrogen, and
upgrading of the wash water system. The unit
modifications described here are part of an over-
all restructuring of the Catlettsburg refinery and
will not only enable MAP to meets the require-
ments of the clean fuels project, but also provide
a return on the investment (ROI) with improved
FCC operation.
Gasoline sulphur specifications are tightening
throughout the world. In the USA, a company
pool average gasoline sulphur specification of
120ppm was begun in January this year. In
January 2005, this is to be reduced to 90ppm
and an additional refinery specification of 30ppm
will also begin. In January 2006, a per-gallon
limit of 80ppm will be required in the USA
generally, with an even more stringent standard
in California.
In 2005, the European Union will cut gasoline
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155
sulphur to less than 50ppm sulphur and in some
locations in the EU will actually start to require
zero sulphur gasoline with less than 10ppm
sulphur. By 2009, zero sulphur gasoline will be
required throughout the EU. Gasoline sulphur
specifications are also being reduced in the Far
East.
To meet these specifications, refiners with an
FCC will have two choices. One option is the
post-treat option that requires treating the FCC
gasoline. The second option is the pretreat
option, which requires reducing the sulphur in
the feed to the FCC. One problem with post-
treatment is the potential loss of octane. This
can be addressed through advanced technology.
The more fundamental problem of post-treat-
ment is that there is little chance for ROI. The
post-treat processes will meet the product
sulphur spec but will produce a product that is
at best equal to the feed value while incurring
capital and operating costs.
The fundamental problem with pretreatment is
the high capital cost. However, due to the
improvements in the feed, the yield structure
will be more favourable from the FCC and an
ROI is possible. This is especially true if costs
can be minimised in a revamp of an existing
unit. In general, enhancing FCC feed hydrotreat-
ing is economical when the combination of
improved FCC yields, heavier feedstocks, and
environmental credits are available.
MAP faced the challenges of meeting future
gasoline sulphur specifications and turned this
adversity to an advantage. MAP chose to revamp
their FCC feed pretreater as well as to restruc-
ture the refinery operations.
PTQ Q2 2004 1
 gasoline pool sulphur. Discussions
60 Mbd with technology vendors, internal
Sour heavy Gasoline
High
pool
pilot plant evaluations, and available
gas oil pressure 0.075 FCC
2.54% S HTU wt% S gasoline Gasoline 24 ppm S literature information were used to
FCCU
41 ppm S blending provide a cat feed (FCC feed) sulphur
97.1%
HDS target of 660ppm. This level of
0.05
sulphur would be provided by two
35 Mbd Other stocks
Sour heavy Low
wt% S 10 ppm S units producing 60000bpd of heavy
gas oil pressure feed at 750ppm sulphur and
1.34% S HTU 35000bpd of lighter feed at 500ppm
96.3% sulphur, as shown in Figure 1.
HDS
The revamp of the existing cat feed
hydrotreater to a high severity heavy
Figure 1 FCC pretreater system with a high-pressure hydrotreating cat feed hydrotreater, dubbed high-
unit (HTU) for processing up to 60000bpd heavy feed (2.5 wt%S) pressure virgin gasoil (HPVGO)
and a low-pressure HTU processing up to 35000bpd lighter feed hydrotreating unit, is described in
(1.34 wt%S) further detail.

Objectives
The Catlettsburg refinery has operated since
1917, and was the origination of Ashland Oil and
Refining Company. Two additional refineries
have been integrated into the facility since that
time and petrochemical facilities were added that
make it a very complex refinery. This FCC project
originally began to increase the severity of an
existing catalytic feed hydrotreater and was
combined with other projects for refinery stream-
lining and simplification, as well as gasoline
desulphurisation.
The overall refinery objectives were to meet
existing and future gasoline sulphur require-
ments while improving refinery economics.
Specifically, the objectives were:
• Improve FCC economics by hydrotreating all
of the FCC feed, including all DAO production.
• Avoid post-treating cost/investment by reduc-
ing FCC gasoline sulphur to a level allowing
direct blending to the gasoline pool while meet-
ing 2006 requirements.
• Reduce fixed and operating costs, and improve
overall refinery reliability, by reducing refinery
complexity and multiplicity of equipment.
• Avoid major turnaround (TAR)/ revamp costs
on existing FCC unit.
• Expand distillate hydrotreater, and reduce
2006 ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) revamp
costs by reducing the quantity and sulphur
content of light cycle oil (LCO).
An FCC gasoline sulphur content of 45ppm,
when blended with the existing gasoline compo-
nents, was determined to produce the targeted
Pre-revamp
Based on an alliance between MAP and Haldor
Topsoe, the technology requirements for all of
the FCC feed pretreaters in the MAP refining
system are provided by Haldor Topsoe. To date,
designs have been completed for four units, in
addition to three revamps and one grassroots
unit. Two of the four units have successfully
started up, including the Catlettsburg refinery
HPVGO hydro-treater. In addition, reactor inter-
nals have been provided for other hydrotreating
units.
At the Catlettsburg refinery, two hydrotreating
units were revamped for FCC feed hydrotreating
service. The existing unit had a name-plate
capacity of 40000bpsd using two reactor trains
with two, single-bed reactors in each train. The
unit was typically operated at 1050psi, which
was significantly less than the 1500psi original
design due to hydraulic and equipment limita-
tions. The unit contained an amine scrubber to
remove the H2S from the recycle gas. Product
from the high-pressure loop was sent to the
stripper before being sent out to the FCC unit.
The feed was straight run gas oil with some
DAO. However, the quantity of DAO that was
added was limited due to high deactivation rates.
The feedstock typically averaged 1.7% sulphur
and product sulphur averaged 0.4 wt% for a little
less than 80% desulphurisation. At these rela-
tively low sulphur conversions, the nitrogen
conversion was also low at less than 30%. The
gravity improvement averaged on the order of
two API numbers with about 24 API in the feed

2 PTQ Q2 2004 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155

and 26 API in the product. Reactor temperature
rise averaged about 30°F in the lead reactor and
20°F in the lag reactor.
HPVGO revamp
The scope of the revamp included a name-plate
capacity increase from 40000bpsd to 60000bpsd
with a substantially lower product sulphur target
of 750ppm. The target operating cycle is 24
months. As part of the overall refinery reconfig-
uration, the feed to the HPVGO pretreater would
be substantially more difficult to process. The
design feed properties are provided in Table 1.
Significant modifications to the unit were
required. These modifications are identified as
part of six key areas, including reactors, hydrau-
lics, preheat limitations, hydrogen partial
pressure limitation, isolation of each train and
wash water system upgrade.
In order to increase throughput, increase
conversion, increase cycle length and process
tougher feeds, it was necessary to increase the
reactor catalyst volume. The following four
options were considered for each of the two reac-
tor trains:
• Replace existing reactors with two new
reactors
• Replace existing reactors with a single large
reactor
• Replace existing reactor with a single large
reactor and a guard reactor
• Reuse existing reactors in parallel and add
single reactor in series.
The first of the four options (two new reactors)
was selected. Considerations that went into the
decision making process not only included the
cost, but also the ease of catalyst loading and
unloading during operation. By replacement of
the existing two reactors with two larger diame-
ter reactors, the reactor volume was more than
doubled.
Unit hydraulic limitations had to be overcome
due to the 50% increase in the feed rate. The
first item was the feed pumps. The unit had
three feed pumps, one for each train and a
shared spare. New impellers were added to each
pump. The recycle and makeup gas compressors
were inadequate for the revamp conditions. The
existing compressors were replaced with two
new 70% capacity reciprocating machines.
It was envisaged that both compressors would
be operating but one would be only 50% loaded.
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155
The existing high- pressure piping was also
determined to be inadequate for future operation
and much of it had to be replaced with larger
diameter piping. The pressure drop in the heat-
ers was estimated to be excessive, but
replacement of the heater tubes was avoided by
adding a treat gas bypass around the heater.
Excessive pressure drop in the reactors was
avoided by selecting the proper diameter that
minimised pressure drop but still provided
proper flow distribution, even at turndown
conditions.
The most cost effective option for meeting the
heat requirement of this unit was to add new
feed effluent exchangers, two shells per train
while maintaining the fired heater duty. The only
change to the fired heaters was to replace the
existing burners with low NOx burners. Due to
the expected higher preheat temperatures in the
exchangers, facilities were provided to add
hydrogen “soker gas” to the feed upstream of the
exchangers. The purpose of the soker gas is to
provide some source of hydrogen to minimise
fouling of the exchangers. With the addition of
the four new exchanger shells, the total heat
recovery increased by almost 80 million Btu/hr.
In order to treat much tougher feed, including
15% DAO in the feed, it was necessary to increase
the hydrogen partial pressure in the unit. The
primary method was simply to replace the bottle-
necks that prevented the operation of the unit at
Revamp design feed properties
Revamp design feed properties for 60000bpd HPVGO
pretreater with 750ppm sulphur in product specification
Composition Units Design
Deasphalted oil %vol. 15
Lube aromatic extract %vol. 10
Heavy VGO %vol.
66
Light VGO %vol 10
Properties
Gravity °API 20
Sulphur %wt. 2.4
Nitrogen Wppm 1070
Metals, Ni + V Wppm 3.3
Ramsbottom carbon res %wt. 1.4
Distillation, % °F
IBP/30/50 539/759/849
70/90/FBP 943/1131/1308
Table 1
PTQ Q2 2004 3

Figure 2 New reactor in fabrication shop prior to delivery
the design pressure of 1500psi. The second
requirement was to increase the makeup gas
purity and increase the gas bleed rate from the
high-pressure loop. Since hydrogen was in short
supply, adding a membrane hydrogen recovery
unit and increasing the capacity of the make-up
compressor to handle the higher make-up rates
met both of these requirements. Additionally,
the high-pressure piping was rerouted to allow
addition of higher purity makeup gas selectively
at the lead reactor inlet while the quench gas
requirement was preferentially supplied by the
lower purity recycle gas. This improved the
reactor average hydrogen partial pressure. In
Figure 3 Final reactor configuration incorporates two-
reactor design (lead and lag reactor) for each train
4 PTQ Q2 2004
addition, with the replacement of the recycle gas
compressors, higher treat gas rates were main-
tained, which minimised the impact of the higher
hydrogen consumption on the hydrogen partial
pressure at the lag reactor outlet. The presence
of the recycle gas scrubber also helped maintain
higher hydrogen partial pressures in the reactor
system.
One of the requirements of the revamp was to
maintain operation of one train while catalyst
change-out activity takes place in the other train.
This involved re-piping and addition of isolation
valves. Due to the addition of the isolation
valves, relief valves also needed to be added at
appropriate locations.
Due to the higher rates and higher conversion
of the sulphur and nitrogen in the feed to hydro-
gen sulphide and ammonia, much higher content
of ammonium bisulphide is produced and higher
quantities of wash water are required. The
targeted sour water ammonium bisulphide
concentration was set at 4%, requiring replace-
ment of the wash water pumps. Additional
instrumentation was also added at the injection
points to ensure proper flow distribution to each
bay.
Project time line
Conceptual studies began in early 1998 with the
observation that Catlettsburg could improve FCC
economics by processing a higher percentage of
FCC feed at a higher severity than the existing
80% desulphurisation target. A parallel project
to streamline Catlettsburg was underway and
when gasoline sulphur regulation projects were
added, it became clear that there was synergy
between the projects. Formulation of the concept
of the combined project began in 2000, and
approval to proceed with engineering was
obtained in February 2001. The kickoff meeting
was held with Haldor Topsoe in March 2001,
and MAP rapidly moved into front end engineer-
ing design (FEED) with Fluor.
Because compressors and reactors are known
to be long lead-time issues, the official ordering
date for the reactors was December 2001. The
compressors were ordered from MAP’s alliance
partner, Dresser-Rand, in November 2001. The
reactors (Figure 2) were shipped in August 2002,
from the Far East and were erected in October
and loaded with catalyst in March 2003.
Almost all of the new equipment was
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155
fabricated and installed (even the
catalyst was loaded early) with the old 700
equipment operating. The old cat
690
feed unit was shut down in May 2003, TC 1
and tie-ins to the new equipment 680 TC 2

Temperature, °F
TC 3
were accomplished in the time 670 TC 4
normally required for a catalyst TC 5
660 TC 6
change. Sulphiding and startup took TC 7
Bed 3
place in June 2003. Startup and 650 TC 8
normal operation were attained with Bed 2 TC 9
640 Bed 1 TC 10
few problems other than plugged TC 11
strainers. A test run at the design 630 Reactor 1 Reactor 2
TC 12
TC 13
conditions was performed in 620
September 2003. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Catalyst, %

Reactor and internals design

As previously indicated, the final reac-
tor configuration selected was a Figure 4 Test run temperature profiles
two-reactor design for each train.
The lead reactor is a two-bed reactor and the lag MAP performed a test run at the design rate of
reactor is a single-bed reactor. Since there are 60000bpsd in September 2003. During the test
two trains, the total number of reactors added is run, the unit was operating at design rate with
four. A picture of the new reactors is shown in close to design feed and at the design conver-
Figure 3. sion. The temperature profiles in the reactor are
The reactors were fabricated by Kobelco and presented in Figure 4 for the first train. Similar
the reactor specifications were provided by observations were made in the second train. The
Haldor Topsoe, who also provided the reactor x-axis shows percent catalyst volume from zero
internals design, including design of the inlet to 100% representing the top of the lead reactor
diffuser, distribution tray, catalyst support gird, to the outlet of the lag reactor. The drop-in
quench section (including quench ring), mixing temperature at 27% represents the quench
chamber and redistribution tray, and the outlet section in the lead reactor and at 58% represents
collector design. Haldor Topsoe also specified the quench in the line between the reactors.
the thermocouple arrangement. The plot shows that the performance of the
The indicator of reactor internals technology is distribution trays is good based on the +5°F
in the performance of the unit. Primary perform- temperature difference at the outlet of the top
ance indicators are the temperature distributions bed and +2°F at the outlet of each reactor. There
in the reactor. Temperature mal-distribution at are 13 temperature measurement points at the
the bottom of the bed will indicate performance outlet of the reactors. The performance of the
of the distribution tray. There are a multitude of quench section is also excellent based on the
reasons that can cause temperature maldistribu- radial temperature difference of +1°F at the inlet
tion at the outlet of a reactor bed, including poor of the second bed.
reactor internals.
However, good temperature profiles observed Benefits
at the outlet of reactor beds indicate good Expectations for the FCC pretreatment projects
performance of the distribution trays. The more were to significantly improve FCC gasoline yield
temperature measurements at the outlet of each and produce low gasoline sulphur content.
bed, the more confidence there is in the perform- During the design, pilot plant tests were
ance of the distribution tray. performed to confirm these expectations.
The performance of the quench section is Hydrotreating pilot plant tests were performed
obtained by observing the temperature distribu- at Haldor Topsoe’s facility in Denmark as well as
tion at the inlet of the bed downstream of the testing at the Catlettsburg refinery. Both facili-
quench section. ties carried out the testing on similar feed

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155 PTQ Q2 2004 5


Comparison of pilot plant results and design basis
Design
Feeds basis Topsoe MAP Test Run
°API 20.5 20.5 20.6 21.6
Sulphur, % 2.43 2.69 2.71 1.54
Nitrogen, ppm 1071 1043 1174 1058
Ni + V, ppm 3.3 2.7 2.6 3.5
RBC, % 1.4 1.3 – 1.1
Distillation:
5 602 515 517
10 651 590 590
50 849 837 825
90 1131 >1151 1114
Operating conditions
Catalyst TK 557 TK 557 TK 557 TK 557
LHSV, hr-1 Base* Base Base Base*
Temperature, °F 695 690 701 671
Inlet pressure, psig 1533 1276 970 1560
Hydrogen purity, % 82 100 100 –
H2/HC, SCFB (100% H2) 2438 2089 2265 2458
Chemical H2
consumption, SCFB 610 617 614
Total liquid product Stripper
properties bottoms benefits of the conversion. Additional pilot tests
Yield, wt% 98.0 97.8 97.7 96.6
°API 26.5 27.3 27.5 27.3
Sulphur, ppm 713 721 753 640
Nitrogen, ppm 247 194 288 276
*Equivalent TK 557 activity basis.
Table 2
utilising Topsoe’s TK-557 tri-metallic high activ-
ity NiCoMo desulphurisation/denitrogenation
catalyst. The Catlettsburg tests were designed to
produce a quantity of feedstock for FCC pilot
plant testing. Hydrotreating results were remark-
ably similar between the pilot plants and in good
Gasoline yield, vol%
70
68
66
64 Design
62
60
74 76 78 80 82
Conversion, wt%
Figure 5 Pilot FCC gasoline yields at the “knee”
exceeding 67 vol% and gasoline selectivities well above
80%
6 PTQ Q2 2004
agreement with the design basis when corrected
for feed properties. The design basis, and pilot
plant results obtained from facilities are
presented in Table 2.
Differences in feedstock properties are prima-
rily due to the lack of availability of the
post-revamp refinery component streams.
Several of these materials were simulated by
blending. Pilot plant operating conditions were
adjusted based on the experience of the individ-
ual laboratory in simulating commercial
operations. The differences in results between
laboratories are primarily due to the differences
in operating pressure. The differences in hydro-
gen partial pressure also accounts for a majority
of the observed differences in the catalyst desul-
phurisation and denitrogenation activity.
Confirmation of hydrogen consumption and
total liquid yield was excellent.
The pilot FCC tests were the first opportunity
to validate predicted relationships between FCC
feed and product sulphur, and to verify the yield
were performed on the LPVGO unit and prod-
ucts from both units were blended in anticipated
mass balance proportions to provide FCC pilot
feedstocks. These blends averaged 700ppm
sulphur, with a range of 670-730, compared to a
design-basis FCC feed sulphur level of 660ppm.
Pilot FCC gasoline yields were excellent, with
yields at the “knee” exceeding 67 vol% and gaso-
line selectivities well above 80%.
The difference between the design point and
the curve is primarily due to light material in the
feeds (gasoline components produced in the
hydrotreating step were not removed from the
feed). The pilot data also confirm the design
value for location of the gasoline knee. The knee
Gasoline sulphur, ppm
45
Design
40
35
30
25
20
84 79 79.5 80 80.5 81 81.5 82
Conversion, wt%
Figure 6 High severity hydrotreating produces gasoline
well below 40ppm sulphur, even at high conversion
levels
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155
 20
15
Sulphur, ppm
10
Benzo
thiophene
5
Thiophene
0 10
RSH Sulphide Methyl
thiophene
Figure 7 Sulphur speciation values for the pilot plant
test at the gasoline knee
is relatively flat, as shown in Figure 5, which
should provide good operability for the FCC in
this region with limited sensitivity to minor
changes in operating variables.
FCC gasoline sulphur design for the project
was slightly over 40 ppm. All of the pilot gaso-
line data were below 40 ppm, even though the
feedstock had more sulphur than design (700 vs
660ppm). As shown in Figure 6, this is a strong
confirmation that FCC gasoline sulphur can
confidently be prepared at these levels with high
severity hydrotreating.
To further confirm the sulphur values, sulphur
speciation was performed by GC–AED in the
Catlettsburg laboratories. Figure 7 shows the
sulphur speciation values for the pilot plant test
at the gasoline knee. Few mercaptans, sulphides,
and/or thiophenes were present. These materi-
als may, at least in part, be recombinant products
that are a function of H2S partial pressure, resi-
dence time and reactor effluent cooling curves.
The data demonstrate that for a unit with low
residence time and H2S partial pressures, these
values should be low.
Benzothiophenes are also remarkably low and
significant levels of sulphur compounds only
begin to occur with methyl benzothiophenes and
heavier compounds. This provides the refiner
with yet another control point in case of hydrot-
reater upsets. Even with high severity
hydrotreating, EP control can be used for prod-
uct sulphur adjustment if needed.
Test run at 60000bpd
An acceptance test run was performed on 30
September 2003. A post-refinery revamp feed-
stock was not available since all of the overall
project changes had not been accomplished, so a
simulated feed was used. The primary objectives
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155
70
Feed
60
Product
Composition, wt%
50
40
30
20
Mt Bz
thiophene 0
Saturates 1 Ring 2 Ring 3 Ring 4 Ring Polars
Figure 8 Aromatics conversion data
of the test run were to validate hydraulic capa-
bility of the unit at the 60000bpd revamp rate
and to verify that 750ppm sulphur product
would be produced at design conditions.
Overall results are shown in the right-hand
column of Table 2, under Test Run, compared to
the earlier design and pilot plant information.
Feed sulphur was lower than desired due to a
larger proportion of sweet crude in the crude
slate, but high rates of DAO were processed. A
full 60000bpd feed rate was attained, resulting
in product sulphur of 640ppm at a relatively low
671°F weighted average bed temperature
(WABT). The test run showed the normalised
desulphurisation and denitrogenation activity of
the catalyst was higher than the design.
The maximum capacity of the unit was tested
and the bottleneck was found to be the feed
pump motors at a rate of 61000bpsd. This issue
is under evaluation. It is believed that kinetically
the revamped unit will be able to process signifi-
cantly more than the 60000 bpd design rate.
Aromatics conversion data are good indica-
tions of FCC performance improvement. As
shown in Figure 8, multi-ring aromatics are
converted roughly at a 50% conversion rate, with
the saturation products resulting in increases in
one-ring aromatics and saturates. A total
aromatics saturation rate (increase in paraffins)
of 9% is excellent, as most one-ring species are
difficult to saturate with a base metal catalyst.
Not all of the refinery projects have been
completed in time to provide commercial results
on the new units at the design conditions.
However, interim operations on the HPVGO
when providing about 90 percent of the feed to
the old FCC resulted in:
• Dramatic shift in yields with a 2.5 vol%
increase in gasoline, 4.2 vol% increase in
PTQ Q2 2004 7
 saturate C4s, and a 0.9 vol% increase in saturate
C3s
• An overall increase in conversion of over 5
vol% and a 1.5 vol% increase in volume gain
• Overall 0.5 vol% increase in propylene with
the same butylene yield
• Cracked gasoline octane was down 1.5 research
octane number clear (RONC) for the same reac-
tor temperature. Gasoline RONC has been
between 91.5 and 92.0 RONC
• Slurry make is down 1.6 vol%
• Light cycle oil (LCO) yield is down 4 vol% with
LCO gravity declining from 19.5 to 17.5 with a 2
cetane index decrease
• Higher activity FCC catalyst was utilised to
allow the regenerator temperature to stay above
minimum.
Finally, the most recent operations on the
HPVGO and the existing FCC have been at high
severity due to plant requirements/constraints
incurred during the RCC conversion. FCC gaso-
line sulphur levels have been as low as 15ppm,
although gasoline EP during this period is only
on the order of 360°F.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC
and Haldor Topsoe AS for permission to release these data. The
contributions of Harrell Duff, Glen Puzey and Mike Skurka are
gratefully acknowledged for their contributions of data, evaluation
and critique. Pilot plant data was provided by Don O’Donnell
and Ron Cordle of MAP, and Per Zeuthen and Angelica Vivas of
Topsoe. Fluor was the design and construction contractor for the
project, and their contributions to the successful project also are
appreciated.
7 PTQ Q2 2004
Raj Patel is a principal hydroprocessing specialist for Haldor
Topsoe Inc at Orange, California, USA, where he is responsible
for project management and process design for licensed
hydroprocessing projects. He has been working in the
hydroprocessing field for 22 years. He has an MS degree in
chemical engineering from Stanford University and MBA from
California State University in Fullerton.
Email: rhp@topsoe.com
Howard F Moore is a principal engineer with Marathon Ashland
Petroleum LLC in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, USA. He is the
hydroprocessing technologist for MAP, responsible for oversight,
expert services, and best practices for all hydroprocessing units
in MAP’s refineries. Before formation of the joint venture, he was
manager, process R&D, for Ashland Petroleum Company. He has
MS and BS degrees in chemical engineering from the University
of Kentucky.
Harrell L Duff is a principal engineer with Marathon Ashland
Petroleum in Catlettsburg. He works in the asset development
group and is responsible for development of large capital
projects, primarily for the Catlettsburg refinery. Before formation
of the joint venture, he was the process technologist for Ashland
Petroleum Company. He has a BS degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Missouri at Rolla.
Brian Hamari is a refining engineer with Marathon Ashland
Petroleum. He is responsible for monitoring and optimisation of
various process units at the Catlettsburg refinery. He holds a BS
degree in both chemical engineering and business administration
from Michigan Technological University.
Links
More articles from the following categories:
Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Revamps, Shutdowns and Turnarounds
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000155