RFCCU Capacity in a Heavy Oil Processing Refinery may render a CCR Reforming Unit Redundant.

When planning a new conversion refinery project, RFCCU and a CCR Naphtha Reforming units are the likely choices if the main products are planned to be gasoline and diesel range products. However, with the popularity of the battery-operated electrical vehicles (BEV) and an increased expectation on potential future ban by many countries on gasoline engine automobiles, the new refinery planning requires a fresh look on the refinery crude slate, heavy instead of light, and conversion units’ make-up and capacity basis an expected drop in motor gasoline demand in the coming decades.

This article is only for educational sharing of my opinion and can have inaccuracies and omissions. This is not professional advice for any real situation of any kind. Readers assume all risks for any deduction or extrapolation. The Disclaimer at the end of this Article should be reviewed. It applies to the entire content and any comments or response

In a new refinery project, the main objectives normally include:

1)     Ability to run economical and opportunity crude oils, which often means heavy crude oils, which are often sold at a discount to lighter grades (e.g., Arabian Light versus Arabian Heavy). In terms of economic analysis for return on investment, this is likely to be the most critical factor.

2)     Minimum number of process units to correspond to a smaller footprint, so that project and O&M costs for technology, infrastructure and utilities can be minimized.

3)     Having simpler operating flexibility to meet products specifications and environmental, safety and other regulatory requirements. 

4)     To minimize the carbon footprint as much as possible to reduce CO2 emission to the extent possible to contribute towards the Paris Accord targets

The CCR Reforming Unit feed is usually straight run heavy naphtha which gets converted into gasoline range products and some LPG and coke. In a CCR type unit, coke is burned onstream in a regenerator utilizing a cyclic approach. When a refinery is designed to feed a CCR Reformer, a light crude (N+2A) is the normal choice that can yield around 20-25% HSR Naphtha. However, in a heavy oil processing refinery the crude is often optimized for the larger RFCCU. Though yields vary from crude to crude, the HSR yield in such crude oils (higher S.G) can drop to around 10%.

Thus, considering the above, it makes sense to evaluate an economic case during configuration selection where the RFCCU capacity is increased by an amount equal to the HSR yield and maximize the gasoline yield using a specialty catalyst (there are many available). The additional hardware in such an evaluation may be a SR Naphtha Splitter to separate LSR from HSR, a Hydrogen unit and a LSR isomerization unit, if refinery is octane short.

The cost savings to the project in this scenario can be very significant. The CCR Reforming is a complex high temperature and pressure unit with an expensive Platinum based catalyst with significant fuel consumption, due to repeated heating to around 1000 deg F for each Reactor (up to four), and CO2 emissions, both from the heaters and the regenerator sections. Besides, that, it is normally not stand-alone, but have associated NHTU, Isomerization Unit, H2 Compression, Tankage and may have a feed or product fractionation to meet requirements on aromatics and/or octane in the product gasoline. In addition, not having all these units can offer significant savings in the operating cost, including licensing fees, as well by having less hardware, less utilities, and consequently less O&M resources.

Obviously, on a volume-by-volume basis, the enlarged RFCCU cannot provide the same yields of light and medium gasoline range cracked, isomerized, and aromatized naphtha. But, in my opinion, can come close to future product demand, especially, if the gasoline demand is expected to drop globally in the coming decades. It may also compensate for the loss of C5+ yield through more diesel, a product that can normally fetch a price like motor gasoline.

Besides, the cost and simplicity advantages, it offers significant reduction in the CO2 emissions intensity of a refinery. Though, not exactly sure, but, in my view, the CO2 emissions from a CCR Reforming and associated units can be as much as half of what a RFCCU may discharge. This can translate further benefits, especially, if the refinery plans to purchase carbon credits or invest in carbon offsetting type projects or have a certain reduction goal towards a carbon neutral facility.

Similar points can be made about improved wastewater management, since elimination of CCR eliminates Chloride injection to keep the catalyst dispersed for longer cycle lengths and elimination of potential HCL in the refinery vent or water system.

The above approach represents just another review case among hundreds of cases normally developed on a major new refinery project. Depending on the refinery location, in-country demand profile crude type availability or management objectives, it may not meet expectations. But, at least, it gives an opportunity to decision makers to look at various possible scenarios and make an informed and defined decision for a major project of Billions of $s’ of magnitude. 

Disclaimer: This is not professional advice, directly or indirectly, and can be edited or deleted at any time. Anyone accessing this Blog unconditionally agrees that the expressed views are only the personal opinions of the Author for educational sharing only, basis author’s knowledge only, and may contain omissions and inaccuracies. It must not be used for any actual new project or on an existing facility. Readers accept all risks and responsibility for any interpretation or extrapolation and any consequences stemming from such reliance