The outlook for transport fuels: Part 1

As demand evolves, as specifications change, and as new fuel opportunities

arise, what are the implications for refiners up to mid-century?

Gautam Kalghatgi Saudi Aramco

Chris Gosling and Mary Jo Wier UOP

G
lobal transport will continue to be assumptions made. The results suggest that the
powered largely by petroleum-based availability of such new engine technology might
liquid fuels in the next few decades due to enable refiners to reduce capital investments and
their vast production and distribution infrastruc- increase profit margins through better asset
ture, high energy density and portability. The utilisation.
growth in transport fuel will not be constrained Transport accounts for around 20% of total
by the supply of oil over this period. The global energy consumption1 and is powered
increase in demand will be mostly in the essentially by liquid fuels derived from petro-
commercial transport sector and the world will leum.2,3 The demand for transport energy is
need much more diesel and jet fuel in the future growing, almost exclusively because of growth in
compared to gasoline. Moreover, gasoline octane non-OECD (Organisation for Economic
quality needs to increase to enable more efficient Co-operation and Development) countries, and
spark ignition engines. is expected to be around 40% larger than it is
This poses significant challenges to the refining today by 2040. 2, 3, 4
industry and is likely to increase the availability Currently, around 95% of all transport energy
of low octane components in the gasoline boiling comes from oil. This share is expected to be still
range. The main challenge for diesel engines is to around 90% by 2040,2,3 even allowing for the
control particulates and nitrogen oxides (NOx) at growth of natural gas (NG) in the transport
reasonable cost without compromising efficiency. market. This is primarily because global demand
This challenge is much easier to meet if diesel for transport fuels is very large and alternative
engines are run on fuels that do not ignite as energy solutions are not expected to grow fast
easily as diesel fuel, allowing more time for fuel enough to take a significant share.5 Table 1
and air to mix before combustion starts. There is shows the recent daily petroleum products
great potential to develop gasoline compression demand for early 2015from the International
ignition (GCI) engines that are at least as effi- Energy Agency (IEA).
cient, possibly cleaner and
cheaper compared to todays
2015 daily global demand for oil products4
diesel engines, but which run on
low octane gasoline rather than
OECD* Non-OECD** Total
diesel. Total 47.0 47.0 94.0
This article investigates petro- Gasoline 14.0 9.9 23.9
leum refining implications of Diesel/gasoil 13.9 13.9 27.8
two scenarios: one without and Jet/kerosene 4.1 3.0 7.1
Residual fuel oil 2.0 5.5 7.5
one with the possibility of using Other*** 15.3 14.9 30.2
a low octane New Fuel in new
engine combustion systems, * February 2015 **1st Quarter 2015 ***Includes naphtha, LPG and ethane
such as GCI engines. MBOE = Million barrels of oil equivalent Source: International Energy Agency
The numbers quoted are
projections based on the Table 1

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219 PTQ Q1 2016 1

 market forces are dominant.
160 7 The line in the middle of the
Diesel
140 Jet 6 figure shows the ratio of (diesel

/ Gasoline
Energy demand, EJ
120 Gasoline + jet fuel) to gasoline. This ratio
(D+J)/G 5
is currently 1.5 (see also Table 1)
100
4 and is expected to increase to
80 2.4 by 2040. Under the more

(Diesel+jet)
3
60 regulated Tollway scenario of
40
2 the WEC,7 with very aggressive
1 and globally concerted de-car-
20
bonisation of the transport
0 0 sector, this ratio is projected to
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
increase to around 3.9 by 2050.
Figure 1 World Energy Council projections for gasoline, jet fuel and diesel The refining industry has been
demand6 aware of the looming demand
imbalance and has been prepar-
The growth in transport is not expected to be ing a strategy to meet it.10-13 The US Energy
constrained by the supply of oil, which has more Information Agency (EIA) concluded in 201013
than kept pace with growing demand over the that US refineries could increase distillate
past three decades. At 1980 production levels, production by 4 to 8 percentage points over the
there were 29 years worth of oil reserves, and at typical historical yields of 35% by operating
the end of 2013, there were 54 years worth of changes and modest capital investments in
reserves.5,6 improved fractionation and catalysts. However, a
However, the demand increase is expected to need for investment in hydrocracking for the
be heavily skewed towards commercial transport future was foreseen.12,13 Novel solutions such as
(heavy duty road, air, marine and rail) rather the oligomerisation of olefinic streams to
than the passenger car sector.2 This is because enhance distillate yield also have been
even though the number of passenger vehicles is proposed.11 The optimum solutions will clearly
projected to double to about 1.8 billion by 2040, be refinery specific12 and driven by legislation
the average future passenger car will be lighter and market forces.
and travel shorter distances than todays average Another approach to mitigate the imbalance in
car. demand growth between gasoline and middle
Compared to the commercial sector, there is distillates is to change the demand requirements
also much more scope for implementing tech- of future engines. There is little prospect of
nologies such as hybridisation to improve fuel moving aviation from using conventional jet fuel
economy in small passenger vehicles with driv- to any significant degree but some compression
ing patterns involving many stop/start events. ignition (CI) engines could move from conven-
Hence the total fuel used by this sector, which tional diesel to NG, particularly in markets such
primarily uses gasoline, might not increase much as the US where the shale gas revolution has
or even decrease compared to today. brought in an era of cheap and abundant gas.
Commercial transport essentially runs on However, the widespread use of gas is likely to
diesel, jet fuel and, for marine, bunker oil. Hence be limited by infrastructure issues and NG may
the demand for diesel and jet fuel is expected to have a larger penetration in the heavy duty fleet
increase significantly more than for gasoline in sector where such issues are more tractable.
the coming decades.2, 7-13 This imbalance in There also will be geographical factors, due to
demand growth will be made more acute by the variations in the price and availability of NG.
pressures to replace high sulphur bunker oil One projection14 suggests that by 2040, the
with diesel in marine transportation.9 global transport energy share of NG will increase
Figure 1 is a projection from the World Energy to 5% from the current level of less than 1%.
Council (WEC) showing the demand change for Projections allow for some penetration of other
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in the coming alternatives such as biofuels. For instance, the
decades under their Freeway scenario 7 where projection considered in Figure 1 assumes that

2 PTQ Q1 2016 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219

by 2040, the share of transport energy will be
~9% for alternative fuels such as compressed
natural gas (CNG) and biofuels. Such projections
also assume that there will be significant
improvements in the efficiency of internal
combustion (IC) engines in the coming decades.
Development trends in IC engines are likely to
have a significant impact on the properties
required of future fuels. Moreover, there are
opportunities to develop new engine/fuel
systems, which can be beneficial from the fuel
and engine side, and help to mitigate the demand
imbalance. For instance, CI engines running on
low octane (RON of ~70) gasoline and with more
relaxed volatility requirements compared to
current gasoline could be at least as efficient as
current diesel engines, but cheaper. This concept,
known as gasoline compression ignition (GCI),
has been summarised in prior publications.5
Here, we are looking at the implications of
changes in fuel demand, demand structure and
engine development for refinery investments and
operation. Several scenarios are explored to get
an idea of what it might mean for refineries
under current technology trajectories and under
some assumptions where engine combustion
systems using alternative fuels have been devel-
oped. The outcome of such a study cannot be a
prediction, since it is determined by certain
assumptions that may not be realised. However,
the discussion should generate an interest in
exploring avenues where fuels and internal
combustion engines can be developed as a
system to the benefit of both the refining and
automotive industries.
Engine development trends
Todays IC engines are either spark ignition (SI)
engines running on gasoline or CI engines
running on diesel fuel. In SI engines, gasoline is
mixed with air and the mixture is compressed;
heat release occurs in an expanding turbulent
flame initiated by a spark near the top of the
compression stroke, top dead centre (TDC). In a
diesel engine, only air is compressed and fuel is
injected near TDC and combustion is initiated
by autoignition as the fuel vaporises, mixes and
reacts with oxygen in the engine cylinder.
Currently, the passenger car sector is dominated
by SI engines, and the commercial sector (heavy
duty road, air and marine) is dominated by
diesel engines.
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219
Diesel engines are more efficient than SI
engines but suffer from high emissions of partic-
ulates and NOx (nitrogen oxides), which are
difficult to control by after-treatment of the
oxygen-rich exhaust with catalysts. In contrast,
SI engines are run at a stoichiometric fuel and
air mixture that enables a three-way catalyst to
treat the exhaust and reduce tail pipe emissions
of unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monox-
ide (CO) and NOx to extremely low levels. Diesel
engines are much more expensive than SI
engines primarily because of regulations on
particulates and NOx emissions while using
diesel fuel, as this requires very high pressure
injection systems and complex after treatment.
The primary forces behind the changes in
engines are increasingly stringent regulations on
fuel economy and CO2 emissions and those of
CO, HC, NOx, particulate mass and numbers
and customer expectations for performance and
affordability in a globally competitive
environment.
SI engines
The primary development trend in SI engines is
to improve their thermal efficiency. This will put
greater demands on the anti-knock quality of the
fuel because knock, an abnormal combustion
phenomenon, is the ultimate limiting factor on
the efficiency of the SI engine. Moreover, steps
taken to improve efficiency increase the pressure
at a given temperature inside the cylinder.
The result is that in current engines, and in
future engines, in the regimes where knock limits
performance, for a given RON, a fuel with lower
MON has more knock resistance.5,15 In many
parts of the world, fuel specifications are set on
the assumption that MON contributes to anti-
knock quality. The gap between such
specifications and the actual requirements of
engines will increase as measures such as down-
sizing and turbo-charging16 are implemented to
improve efficiency. At the very least, in places
where gasoline is specified only by RON, intro-
ducing a MON specification would be a
retrogressive step.
Engine development efforts are primarily
geared toward mitigating knock in order to
enable higher efficiency in SI engines.16,17
However, it is unlikely that even these advanced
SI engines will match the thermal efficiencies of
CI engines.
PTQ Q1 2016 3
 Nevertheless, higher fuel anti-knock quality
will enable higher efficiencies in SI engines and
might mitigate other abnormal combustion
phenomena such as preignition and super-
knock.5,15 Demands for increasing RON are likely
in the future and high octane alternatives such as
ethanol, MTBE, iso-octane and diisobutylene
will have to play a role in meeting such demands.
For example, there are suggestions that by 2040,
80% of US gasoline should have a RON of at
least 98,18 which could put significant pressures
on refining.
Gasoline compression ignition engines
The primary development trend for diesel
engines is to meet increasingly stringent regula-
tions on particulates and NOx at affordable cost
and without compromising fuel efficiency.
Particulates are formed in diesel engines because
diesel fuel with a cetane number (CN) >40 auto-
ignites too easily, before it has had a chance to
mix adequately with oxygen. Exhaust gas recircu-
lation (EGR) can be used to control NOx but it
reduces in-cylinder particulate oxidation and
leads to increased engine-out particulate emis-
sions. Hence, it is difficult to control particulates
and NOx simultaneously in diesel engines.
Engine manufacturers are currently tackling this
problem by using expensive technology such as
high injection pressures and complex after-treat-
ment systems to control NOx and particulates.
Some of these technologies compromise fuel
efficiency.
Particulates and NOx can be far more easily
controlled by using fuels with high ignition
delay.5,15 In this GCI concept, a low octane New
Fuel with a RON of ~70 and CN <25 is injected
earlier in the engine cycle compared to a normal
diesel fuel. The final boiling point of this New
Fuel could be higher than that of conventional
gasoline. There is more time for the fuel to mix
with oxygen before combustion starts so that
particulate formation can be minimised, making
control of NOx using EGR easier. The injection
pressure need not be very high and the
after-treatment focus shifts to oxidation of HC
and CO rather than control of NOx and particu-
lates. The efficiency is at least as high as with
conventional diesel combustion.
Thus, GCI engines could be at least as efficient
as diesel and more efficient than the most
advanced SI engines while using unlike SI
4 PTQ Q1 2016
engines a low octane New Fuel. They could
also be less expensive than advanced diesel
engines. Even though the GCI concept has been
demonstrated in engines,5 development work is
needed for it to be used in practical vehicles. If
such vehicles were developed, it would open up
an important path to mitigate the expected
imbalance in gasoline and diesel fuel demand
growth.
Compression ignition engines using existing
non-diesel fuels
In the first instance, any technology using gaso-
line-like fuels in CI engines has to work with
fuels available in the market. Significant progress
has been made to develop a practical, multi-cyl-
inder GCI engine using US regular gasoline of 91
RON.18 However, fuels of such high RON make
worse some of the problems for GCI such as low
load operation. One alternative might be to use
mixtures of available gasoline and diesel, for
example 10% diesel and 90% gasoline.
In reactivity controlled CI (RCCI), a fuel with
high resistance to autoignition such as commer-
cially available gasoline or a mixture of gasoline
and ethanol or NG20 is injected into the port
and ignition is triggered by the direct injection
of a fuel of high reactivity, such as commercially
available diesel fuel near TDC. The ratio of the
two fuels used is changed, depending on the
engine operating condition.
However, over a normal operating range, the
amount of diesel is around 10% of the total fuel
used. RCCI combustion is capable of operating
over a wide range of engine loads with near-zero
levels of NOx and particulates, acceptable pres-
sure rise rate and noise, and very high indicated
efficiency20. The requirement of two fuel injec-
tion systems will increase cost and complexity,
making RCCI more viable in relatively expensive
heavy duty engines.
Such bridging technology can mitigate the
demand imbalance in favour of middle distil-
lates. But if CI engines can be developed to run
better on much lower octane gasolines, there will
not be a need to upgrade both gasoline and
diesel in the refinery and then downgrade
them by mixing on the vehicle.
Refinery implications
The refinery impact of possible future fuel speci-
fications was investigated in two scenarios. In
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219
Scenario 1 we assumed that the
relative demand for different Diesel
fuels changes with time based 250 Jet 7
95 RONC
on the WEC Freeway scenario 100 RONC 6
shown in Figure 1. In this

/ Gasoline
200 (D+J)/G
scenario, we assumed that 100 5

Output, MBPD
RON gasoline demand will start 150 4
increasing in 2020 with growing

(Diesel+jet)
penetration of high efficiency SI 100
3
engines. The production of 100 2
RON gasoline increases from 50
25% of gasoline demand in 2025 1

to 100% of gasoline demand in 0 0

2050. In the second scenario, it 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
is assumed that GCI engines
that can run on a New Fuel with Figure 2 Base case refinery fuel production by year
an octane rating of 70 RON will
exist. In 2030, New Fuel displaces 10% of diesel units being revamped to 3 increase capacity as
fuel demand, increasing to 20% in 2040, and required. The refinery capacity and fuel produc-
30% in 2050. tion assumed for Scenario 1 are shown in
The base case refinery is an FCC based refinery Figure 2.
with a crude distillation unit capacity of 150 000
b/d in 2010. Crude and unit expansion scenarios Scenario 1: base refinery configuration and
were assumed in the scenario analysis to meet capacity assumptions
future demands, with sufficient crude being The refinery configuration for Scenario 1 is
supplied to meet demands for fuels, and with shown in Figure 3. The refinery flowscheme

LPG
LPG

ISOM
Naphtha
NHT HFA
MTBE
CNR Gasoline

Kerosene/diesel

HGO
Naphtha DHT
CDU Full
HC Diesel
Jet/diesel

C3/C4

HCO

Naphtha
GHT
Partial
HC FCC
LCO
VGO
VDU
Slurry oil
Fuel oil
HGO
CU

Figure 3 Base case refinery configuration

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219 PTQ Q1 2016 5

 2015 daily global demand for oil
products4
Crude, lv% Arab Heavy Brent
API 28.2 38.9
LPG 1.8 2.8
Naphtha 15.5 25.2
Kerosene 10.5 12.4
Diesel 28.2 32.2
Atmospheric residue 44.0 27.4
Table 2
Base refinery future fuels
Year Base refinery no New Fuel
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CDU, MBPD 150 180 180 250 250
Diesel, MBPD 65 78 90 133 139
Jet, MBPD 15 18 18 24 26
Gasoline, MBPD 65 78 66 66 58
95 RONC, MBPD 65 59 33 16 0
100 RONC, MBPD 0 20 33 50 58
New Fuel, MBPD 0 0 0 0 0
D/G 1.0 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.4
(D+J)/G 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.8

consists of a crude distillation

unit (CDU), vacuum distillation Table 3
unit (VDU), coking unit (CU),
hydrocracking unit (HC), distillate hydrotreating
unit (DHT), fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCC),
HF alkylation unit (HFA), FCC gasoline hydro-
treating unit (GHT), naphtha hydrotreating unit
(NHT), isomerisation unit (ISOM), continuous
naphtha reforming unit (CNR), and an optional
methyl tertiary butyl ether unit (MTBE).
Purchasing merchant MTBE was included as an
option.
Crude selection: percentage of Arab Heavy
increases for higher distillate production
The crudes used for the evaluation were Brent
and Arab Heavy. The Brent crude is lighter,
comprising a higher percentage of LPG, naphtha
with less kerosene, diesel and atmospheric resi-
due than Arab Heavy. As the target diesel/
gasoline product ratio increases, the percentage of
Arab Heavy in the crude run was increased to
meet the new targets. The percentage of Arab
Heavy was increased from 25 vol% in 2010 to 95
vol% by 2050. A comparison of typical assays for
Arab Heavy and Brent crudes is shown in Table 2.
Refinery configuration changes in Scenario 1
The changes in Scenario 1 refinery unit capaci-
ties are summarised in Table 3. The changes in
configuration from 2010 through 2050 were
assumed as follows:
2010: refinery configuration is a 150 000 b/d
CDU, FCC-based refinery producing a diesel to
gasoline product ratio of 1.0. The maximum
gasoline product octane assumed was 95 RON.
This configuration represents the lowest diesel
requirement and requires only a low pressure
partial conversion hydrocracking unit to meet
diesel and jet production requirements. The FCC
unit capacity is 37 000 b/d, representing the
highest required FCC throughput for this
evaluation.
2020: the CDU is revamped to 180 000 b/d
capacity, still producing a 1.0 diesel to gasoline
product ratio. The maximum gasoline product
octane was increased to 100 RON to meet the
expanding demand for high efficiency SI engines.
The increased high octane gasoline demand
required the NHT, CNR and ISOM unit capacities
to be increased by 10 000 b/d in order to produce
more high octane blending components. The
configuration of the ISOM unit was changed to
increase the product RON from 81 to 89 using
revamp strategies described in previous publica-
tions.21 The increased diesel production required
the addition of a 13 000 b/d full conversion HC
unit.
2030: no increase in CDU capacity, but the refin-
ery now produces a 1.4 diesel to gasoline product
ratio and the market share for 100 RON gasoline
has increased to 50%. The higher diesel to gaso-
line ratio can partially be achieved by changing
the crude slate to a 50/50 mix of Brent and Arab
Heavy to increase distillate production. The HC
unit capacity has to be increased to 31 000 b/d
with a corresponding decrease in the FCC unit
from 37 000 b/d to 20 000 b/d. The increased
RON demand required the product octane from
the CNR unit to be increased from 99 to 101
RON.
2040: increase in CDU capacity to a 250 000
b/d CDU and the refinery product demand
changing to a 2.0 diesel to gasoline ratio and
100 RON gasoline, representing 75% of produc-
tion. The increase in diesel production was
achieved by increasing the amount of Arab

6 PTQ Q1 2016 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219

Heavy to 95 vol% of crude run
and HC capacity to 53 000 b/d.
FCC capacity remains unchanged
from 2030 at 20 000 b/d.
2050: no increase in CDU
capacity and refinery product
demand changes to a 2.4 diesel
to gasoline ratio, with 100 RON
gasoline representing 100% of
production. The higher distillate
demand was achieved by
increasing the feed rate to the
HC unit to 60 000 b/d while
decreasing the feed rate to the
FCC unit to 16 000 b/d.
Product specifications
assumed
European future fuels specifica-
tions are typically the most
stringent and were used for this Table 4
evaluation. The key distillate
and gasoline specifications are
summarised in Table 4. As noted
previously, a gasoline specifica-
tion of 100 RON was used for
the future higher octane gaso-
line. Typically, the aromatics
concentration is the limiting
specification, especially with the
higher RON gasoline blends.
The Euro V specifications limit
the maximum gasoline aromat-
ics to 35 vol% of the gasoline
product. Low sulphur diesel
specifications were targeted with
a maximum sulphur concentra-
tion of 10 ppm, 51 cetane
number, and a maximum cloud
point of -10C.
European product fuel specifications
Fuel specifications EU-V Gasoline Diesel
RONC, min 95/100*
MONC, min 85/95
Sulphur, max, wt. ppm 10 10
Aromatics, max, lv% 35
Polyaromatics, max, lv% 8
Olefins, lv% 18
Benzene, max, lv% 1.0
Oxygenates, max, wt% 3.7
E70C (158F), min/max, lv% 22-50
E360C (680F), max, lv% 95
Specific gravity, min/max, g/cc 0.72-0.775 0.82-0.845
Cetane, min 51
Resid vapour pressure, psig 9**
Flash point, min, C (F) 55 (131)
Cloud point, max, C (F) -10 (14)
*Future higher RONC
**Seasonal ranging from 6.5-10.2 psig
Price basis
Price set High price set Low price set
Relative to Brent Crude $/BBL $/MT $/BBL $/MT
Brent Base 102 772 Base 53 402
Arab Heavy 65 78 93% 49 349
Major products, % of Brent (lv%)
H2 (wt% - $/MT) 290% 2,228 285% - 1136
Ultra low sulphur diesel 120% 124 955 131% 69 534
Jet/kerosene 119% 121 965 128% 68 539
95 RONC gasoline 112% 116 982 117% 62 526
100 RONC gasoline 117% 119 1012 120% 64 542
New Fuel 117% 119 1041 120% 64 558
Naphtha 96% 98 886 83% 44 397
Butane 76% 78 840 79% 42 451
Propane 66% 67 720 65% 35 372
Fuel oil 3.5 wt% 64% 65 458 72% 38 267
Fuel oil 1.0 wt% 89% 90 632 79% 42 295
MTBE 119% 121 1028 133% 71 598
Fuel grade coke ($/MT wt%) 6% 50 6% 25
Table 5

Product and feed pricing assumed
Table 5 shows the pricing used in this evaluation
for the products and the alternative Heavy Arab
crude feedstock. Two prices were used to show
the impact of crude pricing. The hydrogen and
coke pricing are on a $/t basis, while the liquid
products are on a $/bbl basis.
LP evaluation summary for Scenario 1
A refinery linear program (LP) simulation was
developed to evaluate the impact of future fuel
demands for each configuration. Figure 4 shows
the product slate for the initial refinery configu-
ration and the revamp configuration changes
assumed to meet the future demands. There is
an increase in naphtha production in years
subsequent to 2030, where all the lower octane
naphtha produced cannot be blended into gaso-
line. As a result, this lower octane paraffinic
naphtha is sold as low value petrochemical
feedstock.
The refinery unit capacities as a function of time

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219 PTQ Q1 2016 7

 capacities will exceed the CDU
since additional units are
PCNaphtha 95 RONC
250 required for products to meet
Diesel 100 RONC
final product specifications. For
Jet
200 example, in 2040 the SRN is
~60 000 b/d. The naphtha is
Output, MBPD

hydrotreated in the NHT

150
(~60 000 b/d), then processed
through the CNU (~35 000 b/d)
100 and isomerisation (~26 000
b/d), totalling 121 000 b/d.
50 The CU capacity, which
converts the vacuum residue to
lighter products, increases by
0 150% from 25 000 b/d to 60
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
000 b/d with the increase in
(150) (180) (180) (250) (250)
CDU capacity from 150 to
D/G : 1.0 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.4
250 000 b/d. The FCC and HC
Base CDU: 32 MBPD CDU exp.: 70 MBPD
unit capacities shift significantly
HC: 31 MPD HC exp.: 40 MPD
Naphtha comp.: 10 MBPD Coker exp.: 35 MBPD with the increasing diesel to
Isom RONC increased to 89 DHT: 30 MBPD gasoline product ratio. The
higher diesel requirement
Figure 4 Refinery product slate summary for Scenario 1 results in a higher feed rate to
the HC unit while decreasing
the feed rate to the FCC unit. In
400 DHT CNR 2050, the FCC capacity
HF alkylation NHT decreases to less than 50% of
350
Isomerisation FCC design, which may make it diffi-
300 Coker Hydrocracker cult to maintain the FCC unit
Output, MBPD

250 operations.
The 100 RON gasoline blend-
200 stocks as a function of time are
150 shown in Figure 6. The blend-
stocks are primarily reformate,
100
isomerate and MTBE. The
50 increased demand for 100 RON
0 gasoline in 2050 required the
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 CNR RON to be increased to
CDU: 150 MBPD 180 MBPD 180 MBPD 251 MBPD 247 MBPD 104, isomerate to 89 and
(D+J)/G: 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.8 increased conversion in the FCC
unit. Higher FCC conversion
Figure 5 Unit capacities for Scenario 1 increases the FCC gasoline
aromatic content and RON to
in the Scenario 1 analysis are summarised in 94. The C3/C4 olefin yield also is increased, which
Figure 5. The DHT is the largest unit (excluding then increases high octane alkylate production.
the CDU) in the refinery with the primary feed It is interesting to note that although the feed
being from the CDU. The DHT capacity increases rate to the FCC was <50% of design in 2050, the
from 50 000 b/d to 110 000 b/d from 2010 to alkylate production was similar to the base case
2050. The reason for this is the change from a due to the higher conversion. High FCC conver-
light to heavy crude slate that significantly sion is required to maximise paraffinic alkylation
increases the diesel blending components that production that can be used to blend down the
need to be hydrotreated. Note that the total unit aromatics content in the gasoline.

8 PTQ Q1 2016 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219

 The refinery gross margin as a
function of time is shown in 60
MTBE unit
Figure 7 for Scenario 1. The
50 MTBE Pur
gross margin in this analysis is
nC4
defined as the total product

Output, MBPD
40 Reformate
revenue less the cost of the FCC naphtha
crude feedstock and utilities. Isomerate
30
Depreciation is not considered Alkylate
in this evaluation. Running a 20
crude slate higher in the lower
cost Heavy Arab crude increased 10
profitability by $4/bbl.
Operating with lighter crudes 0
directionally increases the 2020 2030 2040 2050
amount of naphtha being sold
into the low value petrochemical Figure 6 Blend components for 100 RON gasoline
feedstock market and may
require an additional CDU
expansion to reach the target 18
fuels demand, reducing Product value
16
Crude savings
profitability.
14
In the next issue of PTQ: Part
Profit, $/BBL

12
2 Refinery scenario 2 with
New Fuel introduced. 10
8
References 6
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, 4
Frequently asked questions, www.eia.gov/
2
tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=447&t=1 (Accessed
11 May 2015) 0
2 World Energy Outlook 2011, 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
International Energy Agency, OECD/IEA, CDU: 150 MBPD 180 MBPD 182 MBPD 251 MBPD 247 MBPD
Paris. (D+J)/G: 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.8
3 U.S. Energy Information Administration.
International energy outlook 2013, DOE/
EIA-0484(2013), www.eia.gov/forecasts/ Figure 7 Refinery profit margin, Scenario 1
ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf (Accessed 11 May
2015) dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/Energy-Outlook/Energy_
4 International Energy Agency, Oil market report 15 April Outlook_2035_booklet.pdf (Accessed 11 May 2015)
2015, www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/currentreport/# 10 Arora A, Mukherjee U, Refinery configurations for maximizing
Demand (Accessed 11 May 2015) middle distillates, www.cbi.com/images/uploads/technical_
5 Kalghatgi G T, The outlook for fuels for internal combustion articles/clg_PTQ_article.pdf (Accessed 11 May 2015)
engines, International Journal of Engine Research, 2014, vol 15, 11 Cagniere M, Pucci A, Rosseau E, Tackling the gasoline/
383-393. middle distillate imbalance, www.digitalrefining.com/
6 BP Statistical review of world energy 2014 www.bp.com/ article/1000726,Tackling_the_gasoline_middle_distillate_
en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical- imbalance_.html (Accessed 11 May 2015)
review-of-world-energy.html (Accessed 11 May 2015) 12 More diesel to reflect a changing market, www.uop.com/
7 World Energy Council. 2011, Global Transport Scenarios more-diesel-reflect-changing-market/ (Accessed 11 May 2015)
2050, WEC, London. 13 Increasing Distillate Production at U.S. Refineries Past
8 Increasing Distillate Production at U.S. Refineries Past Changes and Future Potential, www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/
Changes and Future Potential, EIA, www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/ petroleum/feature_articles/2010/distillateprod/distillateprod.
petroleum/feature_articles/2010/distillateprod/distillateprod. pdf?src=email (Accessed 11 May 2015)
pdf?src=email 14 ExxonMobil, 2014, The outlook for energy: A view to 2040,
9 BP Energy Outlook 2035, Jan 2014, www.bp.com/content/ corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook (Accessed
14 Apr 14)

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219 PTQ Q1 2016 9

 15 Kalghatgi G T, Fuel/Engine Interactions, SAE International,
Warrendale PA, 2014.
16 Ricardo plc, DI boost high performance gasoline direct
injection, www.ricardo.com/Documents/Downloads/DI-
BOOST_16pp_lr.pdf (Accessed 11 May 2015)
17 Developments in high efficiency engine technologies, SWR,
www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2012/
tuesday/presentations/deer12_alger.pdf (Accessed 11 May
2015)
18 Chow E, Heywood J, Speth R, Benefits of a Higher Octane
Standard Gasoline for the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet, SAE Paper
2014-01-1961, 2014.
19 Sellnau M, Foster M, Hoyer K, Moore W et al, Development of
a Gasoline Direct Injection Compression Ignition (GDCI) Engine,
SAE Paper 2014-01-1300, 2014.
20 Kokjohn S L, Hanson R M, Splitter D A, Reitz R D, Fuel reactivity
controlled compression ignition (RCCI): a pathway to controlled
high-efficiency clean combustion, International Journal of Engine
Research, 2011, 12: 209-226.
21 UOPs De-Isopentanizer (DIP)/Penex/Super De-Isohexanizer
(DIH) configuration.
Gautam Kalghatgi is Principal Professional at Saudi Aramco.
He is also a Visiting Professor at Oxford University and at
10 PTQ Q1 2016
Imperial College, London. He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of
Engineering, Society of Automotive Engineering and Institution
of Mechanical Engineering. He has published over 120 papers
and a book on combustion, fuels and engine research. He holds
a BTech from I.I.T. Bombay and a PhD from Bristol University in
aeronautical engineering.
Chris Gosling is Director of UOP Honeywells Refining Technology
Development group. He holds BS and MS degrees in chemical
engineering from Michigan Technological University. He is a
registered Professional Engineer in Michigan, holds 45 patents,
and has published many technical papers.
Mary Jo Wier is a Senior Technology Specialist at Honeywell
UOP in Des Plaines, IL. She is a refinery analyst, evaluating new
technologies integrated within a refinery. She holds a BS in
chemical engineering from Colorado School of Mines.
LINKS
More articles from: UOP, A Honeywell Company
More articles from the following category:
Alternative Fuels
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001219