Revamping of vapor recovery unit22, Cairo oil refining companyMostrod refinery plant for

maximization of LPG production

Engineer: Mohamed

Contents
 Introduction

o LPG shortage in Egypt
o Description of Cairo oil refining company “CORC”
o Vapor recovery units in “CORC”

 Unit 22
o
o
o
o
o




Reformer and isomerization sectors
Original design of the unit
Existing revamped unit and current production scenario
Production rate of the unit
Specification of unit’s products

Aims and objectives
Simulation assumptions
Methodology
Conclusion

Introduction
LPG shortage in Egypt
 Liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) shortage is an important participant in energy
crisis in Egypt due to the wide gap between production rates and consumption
rates
production

consumption

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000

Thousands metric tons

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

year

Source: the Energy Statistics database of the

2005

2010

2015

Introduction LPG shortage in Egypt  Egypt is considered the eighth country from the top ten countries in LPG consumption according to the Energy Statistics database of the United Nations Top ten countries in LPG consumption Japan. 23% Russia. 7% India. 7% China. 21% Mexico. 6% Brazil. 2% Egypt. 5% Indonisia. 5% Thailand. 5% United states of Ameerica. 17% .

97% . 3% rest of world.Introduction LPG shortage in Egypt  Egypt shares with roughly 3% of world LPG imports and is considered the eleventh country in the world ranking for importing LPG LPG imports world share for Egypt Egypt.

Introduction Description of Cairo oil refining company “CORC”  Established in January 1982. splitting from Suez Oil Processing Company (SOPC)  CORC capacity represents 27% of Egypt’s refining capacity as shown in table Source: The Arab Oil and Gas Directory  .

Introduction Description of Cairo oil refining company “CORC” .

Introduction Description of Cairo oil refining company “CORC” .

.

Introduction Vapor recovery units in “CORC” .

Introduction Vapor recovery units in “CORC” Distillation recovery .

.

Introduction Vapor recovery units in “CORC” VRU.2 .

.

Introduction Vapor recovery units in “CORC” VRU.3 .

.

Introduction Vapor recovery units in “CORC” VRU.4 .

.

Contents  Introduction  LPG shortage in Egypt  Description of Cairo oil refining company “CORC”  Vapor recovery units in “CORC”  Unit 22 o o o o o     Reformer and isomerization sectors Original design of the unit Existing revamped unit and current production scenario Production rate of the unit Specification of unit’s products Aims and objectives Simulation assumptions Methodology Conclusion .

U.22 Reformer and isomerization sectors .

.

U.22
Original design of the unit

 The unit designed for operating in Suez oil processing company
(SOPC) by la COMPAGNI TECHNICA INDUSTRI PETROLI S.p.A DI
ROMA
 Due to the war between 1967 & 1973 the unit was installed and
operated at Cairo oil refining company, Mostorod plant.

U.22
Original design of the unit

U.22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenario .

.

.

Gasses from light naphtha isomerization unit (gas30) o. liquids from heavy naphtha hydro treating unit (liq20) 2. Gasses from heavy naphtha reforming unit (gas21) 2.U. Two liquid streams: 1.22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenario Inlet streams composition  Feed streams composition is in mole%  There are four feed streams o Two gas streams: 1. liquids from heavy naphtha reforming unit (liq21) .

U.22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenario Inlet streams composition  Lean oil composition is in mole%  This stream is from the bottom of the fractionator of heavy naphtha hydro treating unit 20C-2 .

22C-3 (de-propanizer) 40 trays .22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenariospecifications Equipment (columns)  There are four columns in the unit 1. 22C-2 (absorber de-ethanizer) 42 trays 3. 22C-1 (sponge absorber) 10 trays 2.U.

g .U.5 – 10 kg/cm2 .22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenariospecifications (reEquipment boilers)  There are three re boilers in the unit  Saturated steam is the heating medium with pressure = 9.

U.22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenario Equipment specifications (water condensers)  There are two sets of water condensers in the unit  Each set is two parallel condensers  Water from “El-Isma’elia canal” is the cooling medium .

22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenario .U.

.

22 Existing revamped unit and current production scenario .U.

U.22
Existing revamped unit and current production
scenario

U.22
Production rate of the unit from simulation
(special LPG)

1519.94
kg/hr
1.51993941
ton/hr
9
36.4785460
ton/day
6
1094.35638
ton/month
2
13132.2765
ton/year
8

00 643.00 1111.00 626.00 1169.22 Production rate of the unit in 2014 / 2015 (special LPG) Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 862.00 783.00 ton/year 11484.70 792.U.00 1248.00 1116.40 943.00 .90 1134.00 1055.

25 1 0.55 .25 28 35.U.57 0.22 Specifications of unit’s products LPG specifications products specifications   Normal LPG C2 Vol%   C23Vol%   IC4 vol%   NC4 vol %   IC5 vol%   NC5 Vol%   Vapor pressure @ 70˚F   PSIG special LPG 0.g less than 10   specific gravity @ 60/60 ˚F 0.25 45-50 Vapor pressure @ 122˚F kg/cm2.25 35.

U.22 Specifications of unit’s products Stabilized naphtha specification Butanes volume percent at stabilized light naphtha product should not be more than 3 liquid volume percent as this stream is a feed stream to a subsequent light naphtha hydro-treating unit. .

Contents  Introduction  LPG shortage in Egypt  Description of Cairo oil refining company “CORC”  Vapor recovery units in “CORC”  Unit 22          Reformer and isomerization sectors Original design of the unit Existing revamped unit and current production scenario Production rate of the unit Specification of unit’s products Aims and objectives Simulation assumptions Methodology Conclusion .

Aims and objectives  It was noticed at the existing revamp that: 1.28 tray of 22C-2 has no liquid-gas content by another mean these trays are not in operation .Major equipment were removed 2.Operating scenario was changed from the as-built scenario 3.

.

Aims and objectives  So making the best use of the existing equipment is a must and operate the unit more efficiently to increase recovery and subsequently the production rate per year for both LPG types (special and normal) within specification can be introduced  Utilizing scientific and academic Research and link it directly with practical field and industry to discover more effective alternatives for improving the above defects .

plat forming and isomerization units.  Peng Robinson Fluid Package from PRO II Environment was chosen for calculating the vapor – liquid equilibrium on the condensers and re boilers.  Pressure drop across tray section is considered in dynamic simulation for recovery section (“22C-1” and “22C-2”) by aid of the .Simulation assumptions  Peng Robinson Fluid Package from Hysys Environment was chosen for calculating the vapor – liquid equilibrium on the towers trays.  H2S and water content of feed streams was neglected as feeds are introduced from hydro treating.

Methodology Recovery section Separation section .

Methodology .

3 22C-2 is operated as distillation column with two feed inlets (liquid on tray 16 and gases on tray 15) and partial condenser . liquid feed on tray 15 and gas feed on tray1) o Trail .2 22C-2 is operated as absorber (lean oil from bottom “22C-1” on tray 42 of “22C-3”.1 22C-2 is operated as absorber (lean oil from bottom “22C-1” on tray 42 of “22C-3”.Methodology  Determination of optimum operating mode for Recovery section “22C-1” and “22C-2” o Trail . liquid feed on tray 42 and gas feed on tray1) o Trail .

3 C.3 B. Steady state simulation for third case by using Aspen Hysys 8. Choose the optimum mode for “22C-2” .Methodology  Determination of optimum operating mode for Recovery section “22C-1” and “22C-2” A. I. Dynamic simulation for first two cases by using Aspen Hysys 8. Butane and normal butane recoveries at bottom 22C-2 and losses at top 22C-1 E. Tray efficiency calculations @ “22C-1” and “22C-2” by O’connell correlation D. Calculation of Propane.

Methodology Optimum operating mode for recovery section Trail no.1 .

.

.

2 .Methodology Optimum operating mode for recovery section Trail no.

.

.

Methodology Optimum operating mode for recovery section Trail no.3 .

.

.

Methodology Optimum operating mode for recovery section .

g pressure with total condenser.4 kg/cm2 . Steady state simulation for each case by using Aspen Hysys 8.3 B.g pressure with partial condenser and “22C-4” is operated at 8.g pressure with total condenser. A.g pressure as re boiled stripper and “22C-4” is operated at 8. Tray efficiency calculations for “22C-3” and”22C-4” by O’connell correlation .4 kg/cm2 . o “22C-3”is operated at 17 kg/cm2 .Methodology  Determination of optimum operating mode for “22C-3” separation section o “22C-3”is operated at 17 kg/cm2 .

2 kg/cm2.7 kg/cm2.g with a partial condenser at the top of the column  22C-4 is operated at pressure = 8.1  22C-3 is operated at pressure = 17 / 17.Methodology Optimum operating mode for 22C-3 Trail no.4 / 8.g with a total condenser at the top of the column .

.

.

4 / 8.2  22C-3 is operated at pressure = 17 / 17.g with a reboiler at the bottom and feed is introduced at the top tray (re boiled absorber)  22C-4 is operated at pressure = 8.Methodology Optimum operating mode for 22C-3 Trail no.7 kg/cm2.g with a total condenser at the top of the column .2 kg/cm2.

.

.

Methodology Optimum operating mode for 22C-3 .

.4 kg/cm2 .Methodology  Determination of optimum operating pressure profile for “22C-3” separation section o “22C-3”is operated at 17 kg/cm2 .g with total condenser. o “22C-3”is operated at 15 kg/cm2 .g with total condenser.4 kg/cm2 .g pressure with the optimum operating mode and “22C-4” is operated at 8.g pressure with the optimum operating mode and “22C-4” is operated at 8.

Propane. Butane and normal butane recoveries at bottom “22C-3”. Calculation of Ethane. Check on operability of existing re-boiler and condenser at bottom and top of “22C-4” by using PRO II 8-1. B.3. I. losses at top “22C-3”and recoveries at top “22C-4”as final product within specification of “special LPG”. D. C. Steady state simulation for each case by using Aspen Hysys 8. E.Methodology A. . Check on operability of existing re-boiler and condenser at bottom and top of “22C-3” by using PRO II 8-1. Tray efficiency calculations @ “22C-3” and”22C-4” by O’connell correlation.

Methodology Optimum operating pressure profile for 22C-3 Pressure profile 17/17.2 kg/cm2.g .

2 kg/cm2.Methodology Optimum operating pressure profile for 22C-3 Pressure profile 17/17.g .

2 kg/cm2.g .Methodology Optimum operating pressure profile for 22C-3 Pressure profile 15/15.

g .Methodology Optimum operating pressure profile for 22C-3 Pressure profile 15/15.2 kg/cm2.

 Increasing saturated steam pressure on unit recovery. .Methodology  Summary of the chosen operating modes and conditions for production of special LPG.  Flooding check for four columns.  Decreasing lean oil flowrate to 5000 kg/hr on re-boilers duties and final product recovery.  Unit ability to produce normal LPG.

Methodology Summary of optimum operating conditions .

Methodology Summary of optimum operating conditions .

49 Psig propane  Standard mass density = 561 kg/m3 I.Methodology Summary of operating conditions    Final product composition as shown in table Ethane  Vapor pressure @ 70˚F =48. Pentane pentane Volume fraction 0.00 0.38 0.00 .02 0. Butane butane I.18 0.42 0.

7 % than official production rate  Increase of production with 55.Methodology Summary of operating conditions  Average production per year = 20402 ton/year with increase of “20402 ton/year-11484ton/year” 8918ton/year  Increase of production with 77.3 % than simulation production rate .

Methodology Flooding check for the four columns By using fair correlation .

Methodology Decreasing the lean oil flow rate Recovery section .

Methodology Decreasing the lean oil flow rate Stripping section .

Methodology Decreasing the lean oil flow rate Stripping section .

37 butane 0.17  Standard mass density = 563.00 .Methodology Decreasing the lean oil flow rate  Final product composition as shown in table   Volume fraction Ethane 0. Butane 0.00 pentane 0.01  Vapor pressure @ 70˚F =45 Psig propane 0. Pentane 0.44 I.1 kg/m3 I.

3 % than simulation production rate .00 % than official production rate  Increase of production with 58.Methodology Decreasing the lean oil flow rate  Average production per year = 20787 ton/year with increase of”20787 ton/year-11484ton/year “ = 9303 ton/year  Increase of production with 81.

Methodology Increasing saturated steam pressure on unit recovery .

Methodology Increasing saturated steam pressure on unit recovery .

44 I.00 pentane 0.01  Vapor pressure @ 70˚F =45.Methodology Increasing saturated steam pressure on unit recovery  Final product composition as shown in table   Volume fraction Ethane 0.00 .37 butane 0.17  Standard mass density = 562.6 kg/m3 I. Pentane 0.28 Psig propane 0. Butane 0.

5 % than official production rate  Increase of production with 59.6 % than simulation production rate .Methodology Increasing saturated steam pressure on unit recovery  Average production per year = 20953 ton/year with increase “20953 ton/year – 11484 ton/year” of 9469 ton/year  Increase of production with 82.

Methodology Unit ability to produce normal LPG .

Methodology Unit ability to produce normal LPG .

Methodology Unit ability to produce normal LPG  Temperature of 95% evaporated = 16˚F (max64˚F)  Vapor pressure @ 122˚F =7 kg/cm2.g)  Standard mass density = 564 kg/m3  Average production per year = 20428 ton/year .g (max 10 kg/cm2.

the change is within a reasonable deviation of the existing conditions .Conclusion  As a rule of scientific research it should provide more than an alternative solution and improvement  Many alternatives are presented to increase the recovery which is represented in this thesis as production rate per year  Most of the improvements are adaptable to utilities conditions and existing equipment without any change in it to decrease initial fixed cost  Some improvements requires changing of utilities condition.

Conclusion .

Conclusion  First suggested revamp was on recovery section to improve absorption and increase propane and butanes recovery generally and butanes specially with maintaining low Ethane content within the recovered stream  This revamp resulted in recoveries of propane equals 95% and butanes equals 100% .

Propane recovery = 95% butanes recovery = 100% .

3 on 22C-2 Re boiled stripper kg/cm2 at top 15 15.Conclusion Unit 22 Recovery section Trail .2 kg/cm2 at bottom Trail .2 kg/cm2 at bottom Decreasing lean oil flow rate Increasing saturated steam pressure Unit ability to produce normal LPG within specification .2 on 22C-2 Partial condenser kg/cm2 at top 17 17.1 on 22C-2 Improvements on selected scenario Separation section Operating mode of 22C-3 Pressure profile of 22C-3 Trail .

Conclusion  Second suggested revamp was on separation section to fulfil separation of recovered products by increasing propane and butanes recovery and decrease losses to fuel gas and to stabilized naphtha  This accomplished by using partial condenser in the first separation column rather than total condenser or re-boiled stripper  This revamp resulted in recoveries after the first separation of propane equals 89% and butanes equals 98% .

Propane recovery = 89% butanes recovery = 98% .

Conclusion .

Conclusion  Pressure profile of the first separation column was another challenging factor so as to make the existing re-boilers and condensers operable  So the pressure profile is set to be 15 – 15. .g in the first column to enable the existing re-boilers in both columns to handle streams enter it and raise its temperature to the target temperature calculated by simulation  Recoveries after the bottom of 22C-3 for propane equal 89 % and butanes equal 98%  Final recoveries at top 22C-4 for special LPG equal for propane 89%.2 kg/cm 2.

Propane recovery = 89% I. Butanes recovery = 97% Butane recovery = 91% .

3 on 22C-2 Re boiled stripper kg/cm2 at top 15 15.Conclusion Unit 22 Recovery section Trail .1 on 22C-2 Improvements on selected scenario Separation section Operating mode of 22C-3 Pressure profile of 22C-3 Trail .2 kg/cm2 at bottom Decreasing lean oil flow rate Increasing saturated steam pressure Unit ability to produce normal LPG within specification .2 on 22C-2 Partial condenser kg/cm2 at top 17 17.2 kg/cm2 at bottom Trail .

Conclusion  Lean oil flow rate is an effective variable in controlling undesirable Ethane recovery and has a direct effect on the operation of re- boilers  So decreasing lean oil flow rate was investigated to monitor recoveries after recovery section. operability of existing re-boilers and final recoveries for LPG  Recovery after recovery section for propane decreased from 95% to 91% .

Propane recovery = 91% butanes recovery = 100% .

Butane 97% instead of 98% and no change in Butane recovery from 98%  But the change in lean oil flow rate resulted in greater final recoveries at LPG stream for Butane than in higher lean oil flow rate to raise form 91% to 97% and for propane 85% and for I. for I. Butane 97%  Final average production per year will be greater by 81% of current .Conclusion  This change in lean oil flow rate resulted in recoveries after the first separation column of propane equals 85% instead of 89% .

Butane recovery = 97% Butane recovery = 98% Propane recovery = 85% I. Butanes recovery = 97% Butane recovery = 97% .Propane recovery = 85% I.

Conclusion .

g to 11 kg/cm2.8 kg/cm2.g enables better separation and more recoveries  propane recovery in this case = 88% and butanes = 97%  Final average production rate increased by 82.Conclusion  Increasing saturated steam “heating medium in re-boilers ” pressure from 9.5% .

Propane recovery = 88% I. Butanes recovery = 97% Butane recovery = 97% .

Conclusion .

Conclusion  Then the ability of production of final LPG within specification of normal LPG for households consumption was investigated and resulted in product within vapor pressure and specific gravity specification by changing only operating variables of the separation section and no change in recovery section  Final recovery of normal LPG product for propane in this case equals 88% and 96% for butanes  Final average production rate per year = 20480 ton/year .

Butanes recovery = 96% Butane recovery = 96% .Propane recovery = 88% I.

Questions and Notes .

Thank you for attending the seminar Mohamed Hamed .