Refinery Configuration Studies on Indigenous and Imported Crude Oils

8/3/2019 Refinery Configuration Studies on Indigenous and Imported Crude Oils

1/8

Refinery Configuration Studies on Indigenous and Imported Crude

Oils

Document by:Bharadwaj

Visit my website

www.engineeringpapers.blogspot.com

More papers and Presentations available on above site

Abstract:Simulation of six refinery configurations for capacities ranging between 3 and 30 MMTPA hasbeen carried out on Bombay High and Arab Heavy crude oils. Linear programming was employed topredict yields, product properties and utility consumptions. An optimizer was used to vary selectedparameters to maximize the overall profit. Economic analysis like profit/barrel of crude, requirements ofcapital investment, simple payback period and internal rate of return has also been carried out. The resultsof the study shows that refinery profit ranges from about $10 to $18 per barrel of crude depending upon

throughput, crude properties and the configuration selected. It initially increases with capacity but getsstagnated at around 12 18 MMTPA capacity. Although, this suggests that the optimum capacity is 18MMTPA for a grassroots refinery, other factors like simple payback favor higher capacities. A typical 30MMTPA refinery requires a capital investment of around Rs. 25,000 40, 000 crores with a paybackperiod of 1.5 3 years. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is highly sensitive to crude oil and productprices. Higher capacity refineries (24-30 MMTPA) are more resistant to these variations. Generally, for a10 times increase in capacity (from 3 to 30 MMTPA), the investment requirement increases 4-5 times, thepayback period gets halved and the increase in profit/bbl is between 2 to 3 US$.

Keywords: Refinery Configuration, Bombay High, Arab Heavy, Linear Programming, Zero Residue,Economic Analysis

IntroductionBuoyed by the revival of the global economy, India today seeks to achieve the goals of HydrocarbonVision 2025 with renewed vigor and enthusiasm. Our key advantages like cheaper capital, power andlabor costs and strategic location provide a potential of becoming a refining hub of South Asia and South-East Asia. However, Indian refining industry needs to modify its crude processing schemes so as toprovide cleaner fuels as per the Auto Fuel Policy. The declining crude quality and the obvious advantages

Engineeringpapers.blogspot.com
http://www.engineeringpapers.blogspot.com/http://www.engineeringpapers.blogspot.com/


2/8

in processing opportunity crudes may require refiners to process a large share of heavy crudes. In such ascenario, selection of refinery configurations optimum for processing heavy crudes will be the key tosustainability. Also, we cannot overlook the refining of our indigenous crudes in general and BombayHigh in particular whose production has recently showed an upward trend after almost a decade ofstagnation [1-6].

A petroleum refinery has to operate under technical, economical, environmental, social and politicalconstraints. Therefore, the process of planning a grassroots refinery has achieved unparalleledsignificance in todays scenario. Earlier studies on refinery configurations for Indian conditions havetaken a mix of light and heavy crudes [7,8]. In the present study, optimization of the selected refineryconfigurations, particularly the residue processing schemes, were carried out so as to maximize therefinery profits. All the configurations have Zero Residue and Zero Fuel Oil refinery producing EuroIV specification fuels. The desired products are LPG, gasoline, kerosene and diesel.

Configuration StudiesLinear Programming technique, using a commercially available simulator PetroPlan, was employed topredict yields, product properties and utility consumptions. A built-in optimizer was used to vary selectedparameters to maximize the overall profit.

Bombay High (API - 40.78, Sulfur - 1.24) and Arab Heavy (API 28.22, Sulfur 2.8%) crude oils weresimulated for six refinery configurations as shown in Table l. These configurations were selected with theaim of catering to the need of selected petroleum products in the country, conforming to the stringentenvironmental regulations. They differ basically in their residue processing options. All employgasification, in combination with other residue processing units, so as to achieve the target of ZeroResidue and Zero Fuel Oil refinery [9-12]. Six levels of refining capacity 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30MMTPA, has been simulated for LPG, Gasoline, Kerosene and Diesel as the desired products. Otherdetails are given elsewhere [13]. The yields for various configurations are shown in Table 2.

Table 1. Refinery configurations

Process UnitsConfigurations

1 2 3 4 5 6

CDU-VDU X X X X X X

Naphtha Hydrotreater X X X X X X

Kerosene Hydrotreater X X X X X X

Diesel Hydrotreater X X X X X X

Mild Pressure Hydrocracker X X X X X X

Gas Oil Hydrotreater X X X X X X

FCC X X X X X X

Catalytic Reformer X X X X X X

Alkylation X X X X X X

LPG Recovery X X X X X X

Solvent Deasphalting X X X X

Visbreaker X

Delayed Coker X X

Resid Hydrocracker X X


3/8

Gasifier X X X X X X

The LPG yield of Arab Heavy is minimum for configuration 1 (1.26%) and is maximum for configuration6 (1.63%). Configurations 1, 2 and 3 indicate that the Resid Hydrocracker configuration gives highestLPG yield and the same is substantiated by configurations 4, 5 and 6. Configuration 5, having a delayedcoker, gives the highest gasoline yield (59.76%). But when delayed coker is used without solventdeasphalting the gasoline yield is reduced to 55.66%, as evident from configuration 2. The minimumgasoline yield is obtained in configuration 4 (53.41 %). Since gasoline is the highest value productconsidered in the present study, its yield is very important in the final economic analysis.

Table 2. Yields for different configurations

Products Configurations

1 2 3 4 5 6

Yields with Arab Heavy

LPG, % vol. 2.057 2.224 2.514 1.795 1.795 2.688Gasoline % vol. 67.969 67.696 68.283 65.507 65.507 66.733

Kerosene, % vol. 11.144 14.252 13.706 13.73 13.73 20.493

Diesel, % vol. 24.523 24.865 23.620 23.366 23.366 19.236

Fuel Gas, %wt 3.575 4.100 2.825 4.271 4.271 5.145

H2S, % wt 2.734 2.836 2.329 2.335 2.335 2.685

Yields with Bombay High

LPG, % vol. 1.67 1.399 2.129 1.625 1.476 1.811

Gasoline % vol. 55.044 59.619 62.869 54.750 64.709 52.877

Kerosene, % vol. 20.985 20.032 20.236 25.040 19.974 25.156

Diesel, % vol. 24.638 21.454 17.137 18.165 15.787 22.127

Fuel Gas, %wt 2.526 2.843 4.408 5.612 4.004 3.661

H2S, % wt 1.507 1.519 1.509 1.513 1.497 1.512

Arab Heavy gives maximum kerosene yield in configuration 6 (17.65%) followed by configuration 4(17.45%). These configurations use solvent deasphalter along with delayed coker and resid hydrocracker,respectively. But when solvent deasphalter is employed alone in configuration 1, it gives minimum(9.83%) yield of kerosene. Yields of diesel exhibit the trend just reverse of the gasoline. Diesel yield forconfiguration 2 is 23.1% whereas for configuration 5, it is 15.9 %. This implies that adding a solventdeasphalter to configuration 2 is giving additional gasoline in place of diesel for Arab Heavy crude oil.

For Bombay High crude oil, configuration 2 gives minimum LPG yield (0.97%) whereas configuration 3gives the maximum (1.43%). Configurations having Resid hydrocracker is favorable for LPG yield. Forgasoline maximization configuration 5, having a delayed coker and a solvent deasphalter, is most suitedas it yields more than 10% more gasoline than the least (59.03% against 48.23%). Configuration 6 thatyields minimum gasoline, gives maximum kerosene yield (23.75%). Diesel yield is maximum in


4/8

configuration 1 (25%) but is minimum when solvent deasphalter is used with delayed coker (15.7%), asin configuration 5.

Economic AnalysisThe performance of all configurations has been studied and evaluated with respect to profitability,investment and simple payback. Figure 1 and 2 show profits for different capacities for Arab Heavy and

Bombay High, respectively. The profit ranges from about $10 to $18 per barrel of crude. It initiallyincreases with capacity but gets stagnated at around 18 MMTPA capacity. Increasing the capacity beyond18 MMTPA does not increase the profit per barrel of crude oil. Although, this suggests that the optimumcapacity is 18 MMTPA for a grassroots refinery, other factors like simple payback favors highercapacities.

Fig. 1. Variation of profits with capacity for Arab Heavy

Fig.2. Variation of profits with capacity for Bombay High

The investments required for all configurations and the simple payback for them are shown in figures 3and 5 for Arab Heavy and figures 4 and 6 for Bombay High, respectively.


5/8

Fig. 3. Variation of capital investment for all configurations on Arab Heavy

Fig. 4. Variation of capital investment for all configurations on Bombay High


6/8

Fig. 5. Variation of simple payback period with capacity for Arab Heavy

Configuration 2 has been randomly selected, without any prejudice, for more detailed economic analysis.The variation of Internal Rate of Return (IRR) with capacity is shown in Figure 4. The IRR more thandoubles when the capacity is increased from 3 to 30 MMTPA. It is 15.41% at 3 MMTPA and 32.73% at30 MMTPA for Arab Heavy. For Bombay High these values are 18.13% at 3 MMTPA and 35.17% at 30MMTPA.


7/8

Fig. 6. Variation of simple payback period with capacity for Bombay High

Fig. 7. Variation of internal rate of return with the refining capacity for both Arab

Heavy and Bombay High crude oils


8/8

ConclusionsOptimization of the refinery configurations for profit maximization does not give the yield pattern asrequired by the demand-supply scenario in the country. This is due to the fact that the petroleum productprices are not regulated by the demand-supply scenario. This is a policy matter and needs considerationsat appropriate level. The refinery profit ranges from about $10 to $18 per barrel of crude depending uponthroughput, crude properties and the configuration selected. It initially increases with capacity but gets

stagnated at around 12 18 MMTPA capacity. Although, this suggests that the optimum capacity is 18MMTPA for a grassroots refinery, other factors like simple payback favor higher capacities.

For Arab Heavy crude oil, a typical 30 MMTPA refinery requires a capital investment of around Rs.30,000 40, 000 crores with a payback period of 2 3 years. For Bombay High, the investment requiredfor 30 MMTPA refinery ranges between Rs. 25, 000 to 30, 000 crores with a payback period of 1.5 - 2.5years. Generally, for a 10 times increase in capacity (from 3 to 30 MMTPA), the investment requirementincreases 4-5 times, the payback period gets halved and the increase in profit/bbl is between 2 to 3 US$.

References

1. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, India Hydrocarbon Vision 2025,

http://www.petroleum.nic.in/vision.doc2. Ghosh, S., Future Demand of Petroleum Products in India, Energy Policy, 34(15) , pp. 2032-2037

(2006).3. Brierley, G.R., Gembicki, V.A., and Cowan, T.M., Changing Refinery Configuration for Heavy4. and Synthetic Crude Processing, http://www.uop.com/objects/ChangingRefineryConfiguration.pdf5. Goyal, O.P., The Growth of Indian Petroleum Refinery Industry Hydrocarbon Processing, (Sept.

2006).6. Thukral, K., Indias Oil Policy: To Import Crudes or Products?, Energy Policy, 18(4), pp. 368-380,

(1990).

7. Singh, J., Singh, B.B., Nanoti, S.M., Saxena, A.K. Garg, M.O., Techno-Economic Evaluation ofRefinery Configurations in view of Changing Refining Scenario Proceedings of 4 th InternationalConference and Exhibition PETROTECH 2001, New Delhi, (2001).

8. Maiti, S.N., Eberhardt, J., Kund, S., Cadenhouse-Beaty, P.J. and Adams, D.J., How to EfficientlyPlan a Grassroot Refinery, Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 43-49 (June 2001).

9. Reyes, E. and Forrest, J., Companies Find New Value with Refinery-Wide Rigorous SimulationSolutions, Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 910 (2003).

10. Lucas, A.G. (ed.), Modern Petroleum Technology, Vol. 2, Downstream, 6/e, Institute of Petroleum,U.K., (2000).

11. Gary, J.H. and Handiwerk, G.E., Petroleum Refining-Technology and Economics, Marcel Dekker,Inc., New York (2001).

12. Meyers, R.A. (ed.), Handbook of Petroleum Refining Processes, 2/e, McGraw-Hill ProfessionalPublishing Co., New York (1996).

13. Kafeel, M., Optimization Studies on Refinery Configurations for Different Crudes, M.Tech.Dissertation, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India (2008).
http://www.petroleum.nic.in/http://www.uop.com/objects/ChangingRefineryConfiguration.pdfhttp://www.petroleum.nic.in/http://www.uop.com/objects/ChangingRefineryConfiguration.pdf

Documents

Refinery Configuration Studies on Indigenous and Imported Crude Oils