Refinery configurations: Designs for heavy oil

10.01.2011 | Garg, M. O., Indian Institute of Petroleum, Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research, Dehradun, India; Kumar, S., Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India; Nanoti,
S. M., Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India; Sharma, Y. K., Indian Institute of
Petroleum, Dehradun, India (reprinted from hydrocarbon processing)
Conceptualization and economic models looked at scenarios to process clean gasoline, diesel from
domestic feedstock
Keywords: [refining] [gasoline] [diesel] [heavy crude oil] [propylene] [hydrocracker] [deasphalting] [hydrogen]

A challenge for existing refineries is how to process heavy crudes and handle the technical constraints associated
with such feedstocks. A new heavy crude was discovered at the Mangala field in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India,
in January 2004. The crude resources went into production in late August 2008. The Indian Institute of Petroleum
(IIP) conducted a detailed analysis of this crude for product yields and characteristics. Lower distillate yield (23 wt%)
and difficulties associated with its transportation through pipeline due to a higher pore point (39
+
C) clearly indicate
that neat processing of the new crude by existing refineries may not be feasible.
One solution was to design a grassroots refinery designed specifically for this challenging heavy crude oil located
near the Mangala field. Eight grassroots refinery configurations capable of processing the Mangala crude were
conceptualized and evaluated economically with regard to finish products meeting Euro IV specifications. Results
from the study indicated that individual product and combined distillate yield (gasoline + kerosine + diesel) are
configuration dependent, and they are governed by the combination of secondary conversion processes as part of
the processing scheme included in the configuration.
Need for more oil.
Reduced availability of lighter conventional crudes and growing global demand for energy drive efforts to find and
produce new crude resources. India is actively seeking new offshore and onshore crude sources. Likewise, heavy
crude oil reserves are increasing in availability. For example, the heavy crude reserves at the Mangala field in the
Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India are estimated at 3.6 billion barrels (570 billion m
3
) oil of which 1 billion barrels (160
billion m
3
) are recoverable. Cairn India is the current operator of the field, a subsidiary of Cairn Energy. At present,
125,000 bpd (125 Mbpd) of crude oil is pumped out from wells in Rajasthan by Cairn India, and plans are in effect to
to produce 150 Mbpd in the near term.
1,2

Reliance Industries, Essar Oil and Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. (IOCL) and Mangalore Refinery have shown interest in
processing a blending stock to conventional crude. With an increasing production rate, lower distillate yield (23 wt%)
and difficulties associated pipeline transport issues associated with the Mangala crude, existing refineries are not
designed to handle this very heavy crude oil. A grassroots refinery located near the Mangala field is the best option.
Mangala crude characterization.
Detailed analysis of Mangala crude was carried out at IIP. Table 1 lists the major characteristics of the crude oil. With
a specific gravity value of 0.881 (API: 29.1), the Mangala crude is neither heavy nor light. However, its distillate (from
IBP370C) and naphtha (from IBP140C) fraction yield values of approximately 23 and 1.1 wt % of crude are
significantly lower in comparison to corresponding values of approximately 50 and 12 wt% for conventional crude.
This crude oil can be considered part of the heavier crude category. Watson characterization factor value of 12.47
clearly indicates that it is paraffinic in nature. Also, the higher pore-point value of 39
+
C poses the challenges in
transpiration via pipelines.

Refinery configurations.
Present day data indicate that there is a continuous shift to middle and light distillates at the expense of heavy ends
and to ever increasing higher quality standards.
In view of constraints associated with Mangala crude and its present exploration rate, eight refinery configurations for
a 5 million metric tpy (5 metric MMtpy or 100,000 bpd (100 Mbpd)) crude processing capacity were conceptualized
and analyzed. Table 2 summarizes possible processes and configurations. In each configuration, diesel and gasoline
pool streams from different processes units are blended to produce Euro IV diesel and gasoline.



These configurations were developed using technologies and processes that are already commercially proven and
well established in refineries. Figs. 18 are flow diagrams for the proposed processing configurations. Based on
technical and economic ranking criteria, eight configurations are shown. In configurations 1 and 6, the hydrogen
generation unit (HGU) is not included, as hydrogen (H2) demand can be met by recovering the H2from the gasoline
reformer unit.
Product yields and properties.
In all cases, product streams generated in each process unit were blended to obtain the final products with desired
quality specifications such as Euro IV for gasoline and diesel.
3
A commercially available software was used in the
optimization and planning of plant operations in the refineries; in-house developed correlations and a knowledge data
base available at IIP were used to calculate the yields and properties of different products obtained from each
process unit.
49
Product yields obtained for each refinery configuration are listed in Table 3, along with the distillate
yield, which is the summation of kerosine, gasoline and diesel yields.


Study results indicate that the individual product and combined distillate yield (gasoline + kerosine + diesel) are
configuration dependent and governed by the combination of secondary conversion processes included in the
configuration. Accordingly, the configurations can be categorized in these classes based on configuration selectivity
toward specific types of product manufacturing potential.
Gasoline and diesel-oriented configurations (1, 5, 6 and 8). Euro IV gasoline and diesel can be manufactured.
Diesel-oriented configurations (4 and 7). Only Euro IV diesel can be produced. However, these processing
configurations do not have gasoline production potential.
Propylene-oriented configurations (2 and 3). These processing configurations have propylene manufacturing
potential that the other options do not have due to FCC*/propylene recovery unit inclusion in these configurations.
From Table 3, it is clear that in Configurations 1 and 6, there is surplus light naphtha whereas in Configuration 7,
about 52,000 metric tpy of light naphtha procurement is needed to meet H2 demand in this configuration. Distillate
yield value (gasoline + kerosine + diesel) follows configuration numbers in the order of 4>5>7>1>8>3>6>2. However,
including LPG yield in the distillate yield changes the former trend to 4>5>1>7>3>8>2>6. These trends suggest that
including a hydrocracker will yield more distillates. The configurations (6, 7 and 8) with the solvent deasphalting
(SDA) unit give a lesser combined distillate yield value corresponding to the configurations (1, 4, and 5) with the
delayed coking unit (DCU) in place of the SDA.
From the crude vacuum resid (VR) fraction physico-chemical characterization, it is clear that the VR has a low sulfur
and vanadium content but has a high nickle (Ni) content. Thus, only fuel-grade coke can be produced from the DCU
using VR as a feedstock due to Ni content. However, if the VRs Ni metal content can be reduced by pretreatment,
then premium-grade anode coke can be produced due to the very low sulfur and vanadium content in the VR.
Lowering the sulfur content (<1%) of the fuel oil provides opportunities to sell it at a higher price than the refinery-fuel
grade.

Fig. 1. Configuration 1CDU + DCU + FCC + Reformer +
HDT.


Fig. 2. Configuration 2ADU + FCC* + SHDS + PRU + HDT +
HGU.


Fig. 3. Configuration 3CDU + DCU + FCC* (50% LR) +
SHDS + PRU + HDT + HGU.


Fig. 4. Configuration 4CDU + DCU + HDK + HDT + HGU.


Fig. 5. Configuration 5CDU + DCU + HDK (60%) + FCC +
Reformer + HDT + HGU.


Fig. 6. Configuration 6CDU + SDA + FCC + Reformer +
HDT.


Fig. 7. Configuration 7CDU + SDA + HDK + HDT + HGU.


Fig. 8. Configuration 8CDU + SDA + HDK (60%) + FCC +
HDT + HGU.

Economic evaluation.
The economic analysis for these configurations was carried out for 5 metric MMtpy (100,000 bpd) crude processing
capacity. The study was done during second quarter (2Q) of 2010. Crude and product prices were taken from the
database available on Internet, in public sector oil refineries and IIP database.
1, 9, 10
Capital costs of processing units
were also taken from data available in technical journals, Internet and information provided from oil refineries; units
capital cost were corrected for the base price corresponding to 2Q 2010, using the Marshall & Swift equipment cost
index.
1012

To calculate payback for each configuration, a straight-line depreciation method was used assuming a plant life of 15
years. Corporate tax was considered at the rate of 30% of gross profit. Manpower charges of $22.2 million, and
insurance, maintenance and miscellaneous costs at the rate of 0.5%, 4.5% and 0.15% of plant cost, respectively,
were considered under the working capital head along with the crudes cost. These configurations were compared
with respect to product sales value realization, the investment required to set up the grassroots refinery, utility cost,
gross profit and the payback period. Table 4 lists the details of the economic evaluation.
The results from Table 4 indicate that gross profit follows the configuration number trend: 2>4>7>3>1>6>5>8.
Although, products sale values for Configuration 2 and 4 are comparable but payback period values are significantly
different due to higher capital investment and utilities cost requirements for Configuration 4. Furthermore,
Configuration 7 (CDU + SDA + HDK + HDT + HGU) has comparable gross profit and payback period value with
Configuration 2, but a significant amount of pitch is generated that can pose a serious demand and disposal
problems, and pushes this configuration as less attractive than 2 and 4.

Options.
These preliminary refinery configurations conceptualization and their economic evaluation analysis results indicate
that Configuration- 2 (ADU + FCC* + SHDS + PRU + HDT + HGU) tops the gross profit and payout period ranking
list. Maximum gasoline yield is obtained in Configuration-1 (CDU + DCU + FCC + Reformer + HDT), but it occupied
5th place in gross profit payback period ranking. However, Configuration 4 (CDU + DCU + HDK + HDT + HGU),
which ranked just below Configuration-2 from profit and payback points of view, but provides the maximum distillate
(4,305 metric tpy diesel) manufacturing potential against the distillate yield (2,856 metric tpy gasoline and diesel) for
Configuration 2.Therefore, in view of current diesel driven economy, Configuration 4 may be proved the best over the
long term. HP
* The INDMAX technology maximizes the conversion of heavy oils to highly olefinic LPG through a fluidized catalytic
cracking (FCC) process.
Nomenclature
ADU Atmospheric distillation unit
VDU Vacuum distillation unit
CDU Crude distillation unit (ADU + VDU)
DCU Delayed cocker unit
FCC Fluidized catalytic cracking unit
SHDS Selective hydrodesulfurization unit
PRU Propylene recovery unit
HDK Hydrocracker unit
SDA Solvent deasphalting unit
HDT Hydrotreating unit
DHDT Diesel hydrotreating unit
NHT Naphtha hydrotreating unit
NSPL Naphtha splitter
HGU Hydrogen generation unit
INDMAX FCC/propylene recovery unit
LN Light naphtha
HN Heavy naphtha
LCGO Light coker gasoil
HCGO Heavy coker gasoil
LCO Light cycle oil
VGO Vacuum gasoil
LITERATURE CITED
1
http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/7808/-cairn-india-1q-net- profit- surges-on-mangala-crude-
output.
2
The Economic Times, Sept. 15, 2010.
3
Society of Indian automobile manufacturing website, www.siamindia.com/scripts/ fuelspecifications.aspx.
4
HPI Consultants Inc, Petroleum Refining Process correlations.
5
Prakash, S., Refining Process Handbook, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2003.
6
Mapple, R. E., Petroleum Refining Process Economics, 2nd Ed.
7
Garry, J. H. and E. Handwerk, Petroleum Refining: Technology & Economics, 3rd Ed.
8
Ingenious Inc, ProPlan, Version 3.6.
9
ICIS prices, 9th July 2010, www.icispricing.com.
10
Data from public sector oil refineries.
11
Refining Processes 2000, Hydrocarbon Processing, September 2008, pp. 6080.
12
Economic indicators, Chemical Engineering, September 2010.
The authors



Sunil Kumar received an MS degree in chemical engineering from the Indian Institute of Kanpur,
India in 2009. He has been awarded with Certificate of Merit for Academic Excellence in the Master
of Technology Programme in chemical engineering at IIT Kanpur and also honored with Ambujas
Youngh Researchers Award. He started his career in modeling and simulation group, as a scientist, at
Indian Institute of Petroleum (CSIR), Dehradun, India, in 2009. He has completed several projects in
the area of petroleum refinery separation and conversion processes using the advanced state-of art
tools.



Shrikant Nanoti is head of separation processes division at Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun,
India. He received a chemical engineering degree from Laxminaryan Institute of Technology, Nagpur
and a PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology. Dr. Nanoti has over 26 years of experience in the
development and scale-up of separation-based technologies, process design, process integration and
pinch analysis for the petroleum refining and petrochemicalindustries. He has published more than 35
research papers in national and international journals and holds eight patents.



Yogendra Kumar Sharma has 30 years of experience in analytical, research and development work
and presently heads the crude oil evaluation laboratory at Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun.
Dr. Sharma was awarded the INSA/DFG fellowship to work on mechanism of degradation of middle
distillate fuels at Engler Bunte Institut der universitat Karlsruhe, Germany and has submitted the
D.Sc theses at B.R Ambedakar University of Agra. He is a NABL technical assessor and has
significantly contributed to the evaluation of various indigenous and imported crude oils, natural gas
liquids, condensate and petroleum products. Dr. Sharma has published 12 research papers in
international journals and has filed seven patents.




Dr. M. O. Garg is the director of Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, a constituent laboratory of
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Dr. Garg has 33 years of experience in the refining
industry. He started his career after graduating from IIT-Kanpur in the Research and Development
Division of Engineers India Ltd. in 1976. He earned a PhD at University of Melbourne. In 1994, he
joined the process system services division of KTI-Technip India Ltd. and joined Indian Institute of
Petroleum in 1998. Dr. Garg has developed and commercialized several technologies and has
received two CSIR Technology Award . Dr. Garg has published over 207 papers and holds 26 patents
. He has been elected Fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering. Dr. Garg specializes in the
area of liquid-liquid extraction, simulation and modelling, process integration, advance control, and
process conceptualization. He is acknowledged as an expert in
petroleum refining and petrochemicals.