17th World Petroleum Congress September 1st 5th, 2002 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ALTERNATIVES FOR BETTER FLUID

D CATALYTIC CRACKING UNIT (FCCU) FEED

Samir M. Halawani P. O. Box: 5250, Jeddah Jeddah Refinery - Saudi Aramco Jeddah 21444 Saudi Arabia ABSTRACT
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) is a major conversion unit in the modern refineries. It converts high boiling range hydrocarbon streams, to more valuable streams such as Gasoline and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). FCCU's make a major contribution to refineries economical benefits. As such, all refiners try to optimize the operation of this unit. One way to optimize the operation of FCCU is to select the best feed alternatives to the unit, to achieve maximum conversion to valuable streams and to better operate the unit at ultimate safe condition. This paper describes the Jeddah Refinery efforts in optimizing the FCCU which switched the feed from the normal "clean & costly" streams to more heavy "dirty" streams. The switch to the heavy dirty" feed can contribute positively to the refinery economics an amount of 3.5 million dollars annually.

A. INTRODUCTION
The Fluid Catalytic Cracking unit FCCU one of the most important units in Oil Refining Complexes as it produces valuable products from very low quality and value feedstocks. The feedstock quality is one of the most important factors affecting FCCU performance and economics. Therefore, it is essential that the FCCU feedstocks meet the criteria specified by product selectivity, product quality requirements, catalyst, FCCU constraints and above all the overall Refinery economics. Several sophisticated techniques are used to evaluate FCCU feeds such as pilot plants in research laboratories and simulation programs as well. Some of these techniques do not take into consideration the Refinery overall economical benefits, i.e. considering only the FCCU as one box and not optimizing the whole Refinery. This paper describes a technique which was used by Saudi Aramco Jeddah Refinery to come up with the Optimum overall Refinery feed selection for the FCCU.

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 1

7/3/2002

B. BACKGROUND
Saudi Aramco Jeddah Refinery is a refinery located in the city of Jeddah on the West coast of Saudi Arabia. The Refinery sustainable topping capacity is 100,000 barrels per day. The refinery also, has an FCCU with a 20,000 barrels a day capacity, a small reformer, treating units and own utilities production. The FCCU converts low value heavy hydrocarbons to valuable lighter components, such as Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Gasoline and Diesel components. This unit utilizes the fluidized catalyst and high temperature (~ 510 C) in this conversion process. The FCCU feed at the Jeddah Refinery sources are as shown in Table 3 with respected percentage from each stream as shown in the right hand side column of the table. In mid 90s, the idea of optimizing the FCCU feed was raised in the Refinery, as the refinery has several options as FCCU feed streams (Table 3). These streams include the own refinery vacuum Gas oils and the adjacent Lube Oil refinery waxes and Distillates. An empirical method was used as a first trial to rank these streams based on their production of high octane gasoline stream. This method known as the N-d-m which could not show the effects on the unit performance nor the overall refinery economics (Table 1). A second method was then used in the Saudi Aramco Research Center Laboratory to analyze these streams and try to predict the final refinery economics (Micro Activity Tests for Selected Feeds - Table 2). Yet this method could not show a road map to clearly test these streams as the Refinery operation had some bad experience utilizing some of these streams that are not normally in use as FCCU feed component i.e. Lubref 100 sec extracts. At the final stage, a comprehensive model was used through a consultant that combines both the refinery overall economics as well as predicting the FCCU operating parameters which shows the expected operating conditions when utilizing and injecting certain feed stream.

C. DISCUSSION 1. CASES OVERVEIW

Several case studies were tested to choose the optimum overall Refinery scenario using a comprehensive simulation & planning model. This model takes into consideration the FCCU hardware

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 2

7/3/2002

limitation as well as the Refinery blending system optimization. The following assumptions were considered when evaluating these cases: Maximize utilization of heavy components (that are routed to refinery Fuel Oil pool) in the FCCU feed to reduce diesel cutter in Fuel oil. Maximize utilization of light components to Diesel pool whenever practical and possible, such as Light Vacuum Gas Oil from both the Lube refinery and the refinery Vacuum unit no. 2 Maximize utilization of any extra capacity in the FCCU hardware and process design parameters to the maximum allowable safe & practical limits Optimize the unit operation to yield maximum profit rather than maximum gasoline. Two sets of Hydrocarbon products International prices were used. Each case considered all FCCU mechanical and process constraint, such as equipments design, pressure, temperature and capacity design limitations.

2. CASES DETIALS
Table 4 describes in brief the 12 cases that were examined for the purpose of optimizing the FCCU feed alternatives: Base Case: This is the original FCCU base case with normal traditional feed components at 20 MBD. These components are shown in table 3. Cases 1 & 2: These cases took out the two light vacuum gas oils out of the FCCU feed pool to Diesel, while injecting both 100 & 300 sec extracts that are normally routed to Fuel Oil pool. The feed rate was reduced to 18.7 MBD and refinery Diesel production increased by 6.0 MBD and losses in gasoline & Fuel Oil quantities. Anticipated revenue of $ 5.0 MM/year is expected from this case. Air to Regenerator is expected to be limiting in processing complete scheme as suggested by the model. Cases 3 & 4: These cases have increased the Feed rate to its original 20 MBD by re-injecting the light vacuum gas oil from Lube Refinery to the FCCU feed pool. This change was to increase gasoline on the expense of Diesel, but caused little flooding to the Main Column top trays. Therefore, the expected revenue from these cases is lower to $ 4.6 MM/year. Case 5: In this case Lube wax streams were routed to Fuel Oil pool, hence the feed was brought down to 19.2 MBD. This has caused more Diesel and LPG on the expense of Gasoline. Air is the only limiting agent that may restrict full application of the case and may require some capital to debottleneck the unit. The expected revenue of this case is $ 4.9 MM/year over the base case.

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 3

7/3/2002

Case 6: This case is the same as case 5 above, with the exception of adding 40% waxes to bring the feed to 20 MBD. Nothing major is different except revenue is increased to $ 7.2 MM/year due to more feed to the unit. Case 7: Similar case as cases 5 & 6, except feed is increased above normal base case to 20.8 MBD with 70% waxes injected back to FCCU feed pool. Here we have two limitations, they are the Air and the Main Column top trays flooding, which both will require capital investment. Expected revenue is $ 7.8 MM/year which may offset the expected capital in this case. Cases 8 - 11: These cases consider routing all waxes to FCCU feed pool, and hence increases the feed rate to 21.3 - 22 MBD. In these cases another constraint came into picture, which is the Regenerator temperature. Cases 10 - 12: These cases are the most attractive in case of capital to be invested, as only air and Main Column flooding are to be expanded, with the expected revenue of $ 9.3 MM/year.

3. CASES DISCUSSION & SUMMARY

The above cases show some interesting results, such as: 1. Considering FCCU operation as part of an overall refinery economics may shift traditional paradigm to FCCUs, i.e. for these case Diesel was favored to be maximized on the expense of Gasoline, as the overall refinery gasoline pool is short in Octane.(The Refinery Platformer is only 3 MBD versus 20 MBD FCCU) 2. These cases will save impractical test runs to test different feed streams and will avoid disturbance to the FCCU operation. 3. Light hydrocarbons (especially straight run streams) should be avoided to be fed to an FCCU, even if the maximum throughput could not be reached. 4. High efficiency trays utilization in the FCCU main column may relax the unit operation and allow for higher feed / severity. 5. Proper feed mixing, heating and ratios of different streams will allow smooth and accurate test of these streams.

C. CONCLUSION
1. The mentioned cases are in the process of testing in Saudi Aramco Jeddah refinery FCCU. By the time of the WPC, results could be available and can be shown as separate attachment. 2. Use of latest sophisticated technology in evaluating well-known processes may shift traditional paradigm and yield more economical benefits to Oil refiners.

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 4

7/3/2002

3. These cases show a potential revenue from selling wax as can be spared from FCCU feed. Wax streams from Lube oil refineries considered to be one of the most attractive streams that are in an increased demand in the near future.

D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to express his appreciation to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Petroleum & Minerals as well as Saudi Aramco management for giving me this opportunity to publish this paper in the WPC 17 and would like also to appreciate Dr. Ryzard Wolny from Lab R&D in Saudi Aramco for the experimental efforts in this paper.

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 5

7/3/2002

E. BIBLIOGRAPHY

TABLE 1
FCCU Feed Streams Evaluation Using the N-d-m Method STREAM
HVGO VGO LVGO 100 N Distillate 300 N Distillate 100 N Slack Wax (a) 300 N Slack Wax (a) 700 N Slack Wax (a) 100 N Extract API 26.9 27.4 30.7 11.6 19.8 40.7 35.4 30.1 12.8 KUOP 11.77 11.77 11.40 11.50 11.70 12.99 12.91 12.75 10.95 Cn/Cp 0.65 0.13 0.50 0.38 0.52 NA NA NA 0.5 H2,wt % 12.7 12.7 12.3 12.5 12.2 15.4 14.7 13.9 10.4 Gaso,vol. % 61 61 57 59 56 98 90 83 48 RONC 93.00 88.00 91.70 90.50 91.90 81.90 81.95 83.10 91.70 OCT- BBL 567000 537000 522690 533950 514640 802620 737550 689730 423000 Rank 4 5 7 6 8 1 2 3 9

Notes: (a) : KUOP was used for comparison. NA : denotes not available

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 6

7/3/2002

TABLE 2: Micro Activity Tests for Selected Feeds

Feed Type WHSV [g/gh] Cat/Oil Ratio [g/g] Contact Time [sec] Std. Conversion [wt%] Kinetic Conversion [wt%] Material Balance [%] Hydrogen C1 C2 C2= C3 C3= i-C4 n-C4 C4= Total C2 Total C3 Total C4 C1 + C2 + C2= Total C3 + C4 C3= + C4= LPG olefinicity C5 + Gasoline LCO 640+ Bottoms Coke n-Paraffins i-Paraffins Aromatics Naphthens Olefins GC-RON GC-MON [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] [wt%] Base Case 26.70 4.50 30.00 63.90 1.77 96.00 0.06 0.50 0.43 0.60 0.69 4.06 2.90 0.62 5.43 1.03 4.75 8.95 1.53 13.70 9.49 69.27 46.80 19.10 17.00 1.82 4.30 34.20 28.00 9.50 24.00 79.50 89.60 Base Case + 50% 100 N Extract 26.80 4.50 30.00 51.90 1.08 92.80 0.06 0.58 0.48 0.70 0.64 3.39 2.08 0.52 4.17 1.18 4.03 6.77 1.76 10.80 7.56 70.00 37.20 21.30 26.80 2.10 4.10 30.80 33.50 9.00 22.60 80.90 91.50 Base Case + 50% 300 N Extract(*) 26.90 4.50 30.00 49.40 0.98 93.70 0.07 0.65 0.57 0.70 0.69 3.06 1.75 0.52 3.84 1.27 3.75 6.11 1.92 9.86 6.90 69.98 35.20 19.60 31.00 2.37 4.40 29.00 31.70 9.70 25.10 80.40 91.30 Base Case + 50% 700 N Extract(*) 26.10 4.50 30.00 52.10 1.09 93.40 0.08 0.64 0.61 0.65 0.74 3.24 1.86 0.56 4.11 1.26 3.98 6.53 1.90 10.51 7.35 69.93 37.00 19.90 28.10 2.63 4.80 29.80 32.20 9.30 24.00 80.30 90.90

(*): 300 & 700 sec extracts were stopped and a 500 sec extract was produced instead

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 7

7/3/2002

TABLE 3
No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Stream Light Vacuum Gas Oil Light Vacuum Gas Oil Lubes Waxes Heavy Vacuum Gas Oil Vacuum Gas Oil 100 sec Extracts 500 sec Extracts Heavy Diesel Oil Vacuum Gas Oil 100 sec DIST Source Jeddah Refinery Lube oil Refinery Lube oil Refinery Jeddah Refinery Jeddah Refinery Lube oil Refinery Lube oil Refinery S. Aramco Refinery 2 S. Aramco Refinery 3 Lube Oil refinery % in existing FCCU Feed 9 11 7 28 38 1 0 3 0 3

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 8

7/3/2002

TABLE 4
CASES SUMMARY

Case

Feed Rate, MBD

Feed Comp.(1)

LPG, MBBLs

Gasoline, MBBLs

Diesel, MBBLs

Fuel Oil, MBBLs

Constraint

Capital

Rev, $MM/yr

BASE

20

1 TO 5

3.7

15

25

35

1&2

18.7

3 TO 7

3.7

13.8

31

33

AIR

NO

5.0

3&4

(2)

2 TO 7

3.7

14.4

29.5

33

AIR/FLOD

NO

4.6

19.2

4 TO 7

3.9

12.2

28.7

33

AIR

YES

4.9

(2)

4 TO 7 + (40%) 3

4.0

12.6

28.8

32.2

AIR

YES

7.2

20.8

4 TO 7 + (70%) 3

4.0

13.0

31.4

31.7

AIR/FLOD

YES

7.8

8&9 10 11

21.3 21.3 22

3 TO 7 3 TO 7 3 TO 7 + (42%) 2

3.7 4.0 4.0

13.4 12.0 12.2

33.3 30.8 28.2

31.3 31.9 32.0

A/F/REG AIR/FLOD A/F/REG

YES YES YES

8.4 9.3 9.3

12

22.5

2 TO 7

3.6

13.0

28.0

32.0

AIR/FLOD

YES

9.5

Note: (1): Refer to Table 1 (2): Same as base case

03PO_SH_2_1

Page 9

7/3/2002