Crude fingerprinting and predictive

analytics
Predictive modelling technology has been developed to predict the
behavioural characteristics of crude oils and their blends

CONRAD TERAN
GE Water & Process Technologies

I
t is well understood that
crude oil is a complex mix-
ture of a variety of hydro-
carbons and impurities with
varied polarity and polarisabil-
ity, and is prone to cause foul-
ing,1,2 emulsion breaking and
corrosion related issues during
refinery processing. The issues
arising from the processing of
tight oils and other opportu-
nity crudes will likely become
more challenging as new crude
oils are brought online due to
improved and/or more aggres-
sive production methods, trans-
port and blending strategies.
The safe and profitable pro-
cessing of crude oil is driven
by the combined effects of best
practices, optimal process condi-
tions, reliable equipment, crude
oil behavioural characteristics
and effective chemical treat-
ment programmes. Any uncon-
trolled variation resulting from
our inability to predict it, detect
it or adjust it will result in one or
more costly processing issues.
Of all these factors, predict-
ing, managing and controlling
the impact of crude oil variabil-
ity on behavioural characteris-
tics and associated processing
issues is perhaps the most dif-
Figure 1 Same-day deliveries of Eagle Ford crude to a refinery
ficult. This task becomes near
impossible if we are restricted
to the use of traditional crude
assays and other database
methods at a time when crude
oil names are becoming less
and less relevant in predicting
actual behaviour. For example,
Figure 1 shows samples from
seven different crude deliver-
ies to the same refinery on the
same day, all labelled “Eagle
Ford crude”.3, 4
In every case, incremental
variability and uncertainty will
come from the commingling
of incoming crudes with tank
heels, slop and other crudes in
the system. The actual charac-
teristics of the final charge com-
ing out of tankage are typically
not known for certain in a time
relevant fashion.
GE Water & Process
Technologies (W&PT) has
developed field methods and
robust analytics to predict and
respond to crude processing
issues, irrespective of the source
of the crude. These methods and
predictive analytics have been
integrated into a cohesive pre-
dictive modelling technology
system called CrudePLUS.
Key drivers of crude
processing issues
Crude oils can be characterised
by their structural fractions,
known as saturates (SAT), aro-
matics (ARO), resins (RES), and
asphaltenes (ASP), also com-
monly known as SARA, which
are determined based on their
polarisability and polarity.
Typical properties and nature

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416 PTQ Q3 2017 1


Saturates
(Alkanes or paraffins)
Non polar
Linear, branched, and cyclic
saturated hydrocarbons
Resins
(Maltenes)
Second heaviest polar
Natural peptising agents keep
asphaltenes in solution
Soluble in higher MW normal
alkanes (n-C7)
Insoluble in higher alkanes
Second heaviest fraction in crude oil
Asphaltenes
Very high MW, polar
Polycyclic, aromatic and
naphthenic ring compounds in
colloidal suspension
Soluble in aromatics
Insoluble in short paraffins (C3-C7)
Carry heteroatoms (S, N, O) and metals
Aromatics
Non polar
Hydrocarbons with one or more
aromatic rings
Figure 2 SARA classification of crude
oil
of these fractions are summa-
rised in Figure 2.
The complex interactions
between SARA fractions and
the presence of solids and
other contaminants drive a flu-
id’s behavioural characteristics,
which in turn drive crude pro-
cessing issues.5,6,7
In the context of CrudePLUS,
three crude oil behavioural
characteristics are the key driv-
ers of crude processing issues:
• Instability/incompatibility: the
stability of a fluid is defined
by its capacity to maintain
asphaltenes and colloidal parti-
cles soluble or dispersed in the
bulk fluid. Conversely, insta-
bility refers to the capacity of
a fluid to destabilise itself or
other fluids upon blending.
• Emulsification tendency:
defines the tendency of a fluid
to emulsify or to resist demulsi-
2 PTQ Q3 2017
Instability/incompatibility,
Crude oil solids and other contaminants
Instability / magnify emulsification and
Incompatibility fouling effects. Figure 3 illus-
Solids and other trates the negative impacts of
contaminants these key characteristics on a
Emulsification Fouling typical crude unit train.
tendency potential
Saturates, resins, aromatics, asphaltenes Characterisation of crude oils
and simulation of processing
issues
Oil storage
From a practical standpoint,
Sludging
while the quantification of
Poor mixing efficiency
Pump transfer limitations SARA fractions and con-
Higher pressure drop taminants does provide use-
ful insight on the directional
behavioural characteristics of
Heat exchangers a fluid, these parameters by
Cold fouling themselves in most cases, even
Loss of heat transfer efficiency
when used in conjunction with
Lower raw crude outlet temperature
Higher pressure drop other physical properties, typ-
ically do not provide a con-
sistent or expeditious way of
Desalters predicting the key drivers of
Lower desalter temperature crude oil processing issues.
Poor desalter efficiency The path for the determina-
(water, salt, solids) tion of fluid behavioural char-
Tighter emulsions
Oily brine
acteristics and the design of
Excess water in crude effective mitigation solutions
Atmospheric tower overhead corrosion starts with laboratory analyti-
cal testing and simulations that
characterise the crude sample
Heat exchangers
and realistically stress the fluid
Fouling to emulate and quantify its
Loss of heat transfer efficiency
Lower PH outlet temperature
potential processing issues.
High pressure drop The data generated from
these lab procedures and the
associated research and devel-
Furnaces opment, supported by field
Higher firing rate pilots and validation, are the
Fouling developmental foundation of
Tube skin temperature increase
CrudePLUS technology.
Lower throughput
Figure 4 illustrates analyti-
cal testing and application sim-
Figure 3 Key drivers of crude ulations and their relationship
processing issues to specific fluid behavioural
characteristics.
fication at typical conditions. Crude oil characterisation
• Fouling potential: defines the includes procedures such as
tendency of a fluid to foul pre- PIONA and SARA, API gravity,
heat exchangers and heaters at TAN, viscosity, sulphur, metals
typical conditions. and other industry standards
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416
 Model crudes by type
Oil sample Shale, cond
26%
Blends, refcuts
10%
W&PT proprietary methods and techniques

Conventional
33%
Analytical Turbiscan Static desalter Hot liquid process
simulator simulator

Slop
Oil Instability / Emulsification Fouling 5%
characterisation Incompatibility tendency potential Bit, dilbit, synth
26%

Fluid behavioural characteristics (FBCs) Model crudes by region

Figure 4 Laboratory simulations of crude processing issues
as well as W&PT’s proprietary
procedures. On the simulation
side, W&PT proprietary meth-
ods and techniques are imple-
mented utilising a combination
of proprietary devices such
as the W&PT Static Desalter
Simulator and commercially
available devices such as the
Turbiscan (Formulaction, Inc.)
and the Hot Liquid Process
Simulator (Alcor by PAC).
Over the years, these sim-
ulations have proven to be
reproducible and reliable in
emulating the processing issues
observed in the field, signif-
icantly contributing to the
understanding of the under-
lying mechanisms, the devel-
opment of best practices and
novel chemical mitigation
solutions.
From lab simulations to
predictive models
The time required to test crude
samples and effectively pre-
dict and respond to processing
issues makes laboratory simu-
lations in most cases impracti-
cal and very time consuming
for day-to-day proactive field
use. More than five years ago,
W&PT initiated a project to
develop a field deployable
predictive modelling solu-
tion to deal with the identified
limitations.
Defining the Xs and Ys for the
predictive modelling solution
Any predictive modelling
approach requires a clear defi-
nition and understanding of
each of the responses (the Ys) to
be predicted and of the param-
eters (the Xs) to be used as
predictors, where each Y is a
function of the significant Xs
and their transformations.
For every sample, the appli-
cable outputs from the lab
simulations (the Ys) are trans-
formed into indexes repre-
senting the level of severity of
the behavioural characteristics
(instability, emulsification and
fouling) of a given oil sample.
Other Ys targeted for prediction
include a selective number of
physical properties (SARA frac-
tions, API, TAN, viscosity and
others).
A field deployable infra-
red spectroscopy device was
selected as the generator of Xs
for every fluid sample. Specific
USA
44%
AFR
7%
EUR
6%
ME
8%
LATAM
21%
CAN
14%
Figure 5 Fingerprinted sources used
for CrudePLUS development
methods, techniques and algo-
rithms were developed to pro-
cess fingerprint spectrum,
extract the relevant data and
assure repeatability and repro-
ducibility error at or below
+/-5%. The thousands of pro-
cessed Xs become the unique
identifiers or “fingerprints” of
the tested oil.
Since solids also play an
important role in emulsion sta-
bility and fouling, solids con-
tent of the oil is another set of
Xs that must be considered.
A new field method to quan-
tify and classify solids in an oil
sample using a portable heated
centrifuge was developed. It is
important to understand that
this is not a BS&W test. This

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416 PTQ Q3 2017 3

 new method requires a fraction
of the typical three hours per
sample that it takes to run a fil-
terable solids test.
Figure 5 summarises the num-
bers, types and sources of oils
that were used in the develop-
ment of CrudePLUS.
Modelling approach
The under-determined nature
of the modelling problem, the
complexity of the Ys to be pre-
dicted and the generalised
predictive performance require-
ments presented unique and
difficult challenges to the model
development process.
A hybrid modelling approach
combining advanced chemo-
metrics, machine learning,
genetic algorithms and W&PT
proprietary methods was archi-
tected to deal with identified
and latent modelling challenges
(see Figure 6).
The methods and algo-
rithms included in the hybrid
approach include:
• Continuum regression and
dimension reduction methods
such as partial least squares
(PLS), principal component
regression (PCR) and correlated
component regression (CCR).
• Support vector regression
(SVR), a machine-learning algo-
Latent Ys
simulations
WPT hybrid modelling algorithms
Latent crude markers (λL)
Predictive models
Instability Emulsif. Fouling
Figure 7 Major steps in the modelling process
4 PTQ Q3 2017
out first having to predict phys-
ical properties.
W&PT hybrid
monitoring
Training, validation and
Advanced
chemometrics predictive error
Genetic Models were trained using
algorithms
70-80% of the available exper-
Machine learning
algorithms imental data for training pur-
W&PT proprietary poses and applying various
error-in-variable (EIV) cross validation methods on
algorithms
the remaining data to test and
tune model performance and to
Figure 6 W&PT advanced hybrid assure the robustness (long term
modelling predictive power) of the mod-
els. Prediction errors on valida-
rithm, to guarantee predictive tion sets range from +/-10% to
consistency and robustness. +/-15% for predictions of fluid
SVR was coupled to proprie- behavioural characteristics and
tary kernel functions to deal from +/-5% to 25% for basic
with non-linearities. physical properties (API, TAN,
• Genetic algorithms for non- viscosity, SARA).
linear solution searches and One key aspect of
complex classification. CrudePLUS technology is the
• Proprietary error-in-variable inclusion of algorithms and
(EIV) algorithms to deal with protocols for calibration and
noise in predictors (Xs) and standardisation capable of
responses (Ys). detecting instrument drift, mal-
Figure 7 depicts the major functions and/or fluids with
steps in the modelling process. anomalous markers to prevent
The fluid fingerprint is pro- false predictions. All anomalies
cessed by the hybrid model- are analysed and acted upon
ling algorithms, extracting from using rigorous protocols that
the spectrum the latent crude may ultimately result in model
markers associated with the retraining.
fluid behavioural characteristics Model robustness is assured
(instability, emulsification and by testing every available oil.
fouling) being predicted with- Models are retrained if pre-
dictions for new oils deviate
Models X’s from established error thresh-
oil fingerprints olds, if they are deemed to con-
and solids loading
tribute additional information
Lab Lab crude Basic Ys to improve overall prediction
oil charact. errors, or if new algorithms
or methods are developed to
improve overall model errors.
Basic crude markers (λB)
The CrudePLUS system
f(λL) f(λB) Predictive models
CrudePLUS implementation,
Minimise API, TAN, VIS, γSARA, others
predictive analysis, maintenance and
error
management is executed by
W&PT personnel with refinery
personnel.
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416
 The technology was commer-
cially launched in mid-2016
incorporating the instability/
incompatibility and the fouling
potential models, after success-
ful completion of multiple lab-
oratory and field validations.
Validation of the emulsification
tendency model was recently
completed and has now been
integrated into the CrudePLUS
system. This section includes a
detailed description of all appli-
cable elements and capabilities.
CrudePLUS utilises in-the-
field rapid response analytical
testing via an oil fingerprint-
ing and solids testing system
coupled to proprietary pre-
dictive modelling software, to
accurately and reliably predict
the instability/incompatibility,
emulsification tendency, foul-
ing potential and basic phys-
ical properties of crude oils,
slop oils, other refinery flu-
ids and their blends. Integral
to CrudePLUS are the site spe-
cific mitigation actions and
strategies, including blend-
ing order (when blending two
or more crudes) and, when
deemed necessary, recom-
mendations of crude stabi-
liser, emulsion breaker, and/
or antifoulant dosage ranges
necessary to minimise crude
processing issues that result in
poor desalter performance, slop
generation, poor brine quality
and fouling.
The fingerprint of a fluid is
generated in less than five min-
utes from a couple of drops of a
well-mixed representative sam-
ple of a single fluid or blend
to be tested. Unlike other test
methods, the oil fingerprinter
does not require solvent dilu-
tion, which changes the native
properties of the oil. The his-
torical characteristics based on
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416
Figure 8 RIX interpretation guide
crude names are not needed for
analysis.
Integral to CrudePLUS is a
W&PT proprietary, centrifuge
based solids loading and clas-
sification field test with a typi-
cal testing capacity of four fluid
samples (100 mL each) per hour
per centrifuge.
The system also incorporates
a powerful blend simulator and
a constrained optimiser, which
provide rapid blend assessment
and optimisation capabilities
using the actual fingerprints
and solids loading of the indi-
vidual fluids without the need
to physically create and then
test each of the blends being
assessed.
The major elements of
CrudePLUS are:
The instability/incompatibil-
ity model utilises a fluid’s fin-
gerprint latent markers to
determine its relative insta-
bility index (RIX), crude pre-
cipitant index (CPI), blending
order (when two or more flu-
ids are blended), crude stabi-
liser dosage range and injection
location.
Relative instability index (RIX) is
a key parameter that quantifies
the potential capacity of a fluid
to self-destabilise or to dest-
abilise other fluids in a blend
(incompatibility), relative to a
stable and proprietary bench-
mark. It classifies the tested
fluid into one of five severity
regions across a range from 0 to
10 (stable to severely unstable).
Severity regions provide a gen-
eral indication of the potential or
preponderant locations where
processing issues may manifest
themselves (see Figure 8).
Crude precipitant index (CPI)
provides a measure of the rel-
ative potential precipitant
amount upon destabilisa-
tion of asphaltenes and other
related colloids in the fluid.
CPI is a function of RIX and the
level of available precipitants
(asphaltenes and other col-
loids); as such it does not have
a defined upper limit. Two flu-
ids with the same RIX value
may have different CPI values –
in those cases, the one with the
higher CPI is deemed the most
unstable. CPI and RIX are used
in the model to drive crude sta-
biliser dosage range and injec-
tion location (cargo/tank or a
specific crude or component in
a blend).
Blending order: the order in
which two or more fluids are
blended has a direct impact on
PTQ Q3 2017 5

Figure 9 FPX interpretation guide
the actual degree of incompati-
bility and precipitant amount.
When two or more fluids are
blended, CrudePLUS will pro-
vide a recommended order for
blending those fluids.
Crude stabiliser dosage range
and injection location: crude sta-
bilisers are designed to improve
the stability of asphaltenes in
the bulk hydrocarbon phase, as
well as helping in the de-oiling
of solids. W&PT’s crude stabi-
lisers can prevent agglomera-
tion of large, relatively polar
molecular units that can stabi-
lise desalter emulsions and foul
heat exchangers. CrudePLUS
automatically establishes the
recommended dosage range of
our top of the line crude stabi-
liser and the fluid in the blend
where it should be injected.
The emulsification tendency
model utilises the fluid’s RIX,
CPI, solids loading and other
fingerprint latent markers
to determine its emulsifica-
tion tendency index (ETX) and
emulsion breaker dosage range.
Emulsification tendency index
(ETX) quantifies the fluid’s ten-
dency to emulsify and classi-
fies it into one of five severity
regions, across a range from 0
to 10 (low to severe).
6 PTQ Q3 2017
Emulsion breaker dosage range:
CrudePLUS automatically
establishes the recommended
dosage range of a reference
emulsion breaker (EB) required
for mitigation. Major adjust-
ments and product change rec-
ommendations are consulted
with a product applications
specialist, taking into consid-
eration all relevant parameters
and unit operations.
The fouling potential model uti-
lises the fluid’s RIX, CPI, solids
loading and other fluid mark-
ers generated from the finger-
print to determine the fouling
potential index of the fluid and
the recommended antifoulant
dosage range required for mit-
igation. Poor desalter opera-
tions can result in poor solids
removal efficiency and will
directly impact fouling poten-
tial. The CrudePLUS fouling
potential model has been built
with desalted crude. Therefore
if the tested fluid is raw crude,
SRE is used to adjust sol-
ids loading levels to match
actual desalter solids removal
efficiency.
Fouling potential index (FPX)
quantifies fluid fouling poten-
tial and classifies it into one
of five severity regions across
a range from 0 to 10 (low to
severe). Each severity regime
provides an indication of the
potential or preponderant loca-
tions where fouling issues may
manifest themselves. An impor-
tant outcome of our research
has been the identification of
different fouling mechanisms
for fluids falling within two
specific FPX regions. As Figure
9 shows, fluids with FPX<3 fol-
low conventional fouling mech-
anisms, and fluids with FPX>3
follow unconventional and
more complex mechanisms.
It is important to note that at
RIX values greater or equal to
six, unconventional and severe
fouling will be preponderant
in the atmospheric heaters, par-
ticularly if tight oils are being
processed.
Antifoulant dosage range: the
antifoulant (AF) product rec-
ommended for mitigation must
be specific to the preponder-
ant fouling mechanism iden-
tified. For fluids following
conventional fouling mecha-
nisms (FPX<3), CrudePLUS
automatically establishes the
most appropriate AF dosage
range, based on the most effec-
tive AF product formulation.
For unconventional fouling
mechanism, a customised AF
programme must be designed
by a W&PT product applica-
tions specialist, based on all rel-
evant CrudePLUS parameters
and unit operations.
It is important to note that
severity regions and poten-
tial and preponderant locations
for all the models provide the
means for pinpointing the most
effective chemical programme
and dosage range required to
mitigate the issues identified
by the corresponding model.
The location drives the type
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416
 CrudePLUS software Refinery site

Constrained Blending Fingerprint Oil WPT oil fingerprint

optimiser simulator library fingerprint A couple of drops,
<5 min per sample

WPT oil
Latent crude Processing Basic crude Workstation fingerprinter
markers algorithms markers

WPT
WPT solids test
Instability Emulsification Fouling Physical personnel 100 ml fluid,
model tendency model potential model properties model 4 samples/cent/hr
(RIX) (ETX) (FPX) (PPROPS)
Index severity Index severity Index severity API
Problem location Problem location Problem location TAN
WPT
Blending order EB dosage range AF dosage range VIS solids sample
CS dosage range YSARA 100 ml fluid,
4 samples/cent/hr
Injection location YCII
Others
Predictive analytics

Solids loading

Value calculator, process monitoring and modelling tools

Figure 10 CrudePLUS system

of chemistry and the severity
drives the dosage range.
CrudePLUS system integration:
As Figure 10 shows, the predic-
tive modelling analytics have
been bundled into a software
package at the centre of a port-
able and robust system, which
includes the oil fingerprinter,
the heated centrifuge and other
support tools, with W&PT
personnel executing imple-
mentation, analysis, system
maintenance, day-to-day service
and management, process mod-
elling and expert support.
CrudePLUS system
implementation
includes a series of orchestrated
activities designed to effectively
deploy the technology and ulti-
mately maximise value gener-
ation opportunities that result
from the continuous detection,
quantification and cost effective
mitigation of crude oil process-
ing issues.
The implementation can typ-
ically be completed in two to
three months and includes the
following activities:
• Tank farm mapping and
understanding of blending
operations and practices
• Crude unit survey and best
practices analysis
• Best practices gap reduc-
tion and mitigation actions
recommendations
• Establish sampling plan (loca-
tion, frequency, and so on)
• Commissioning test equip-
ment (fingerprinter, heated cen-
trifuge, PC, and so on) and data
management/communication
tools
• Standard reports setup
• Initial analysis and value map
to estimate the baseline cost of
processing issues (BCOP)
• Empirical process modelling
(preheat, furnaces, for instance)
to confirm BCOP and support/
validate the effect of mitigation
actions.
Value generation
While the paths, phases and
strategies to ultimately mitigate
and capture maximum value
from all identified opportuni-
ties will vary from refinery to
refinery, there are three possi-
ble, not mutually exclusive sce-
narios under which a refiner
may decide to use CrudePLUS
to maximise value generation.
Working towards and attain-
ing the point of maximum
value requires the engagement
and support of other refinery
groups beyond operations and
process engineering, such as
economics planning and sched-
uling and crude purchasing.
Scenario 1: reactive mode
Under this scenario, CrudePLUS
is used as a monitoring (pro-

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416 PTQ Q3 2017 7

 cessing issue detection) tool
and advisor. The value gen-
erated from this mode can
only be realised if specific
actions are taken to mitigate
the processing issues identi-
fied by CrudePLUS and control
chemical injection (if any) based
on the model’s feed-forward
recommendations and process
feedback.
Scenario 2: proactive mode
In this scenario, the refinery uses
CrudePLUS as a monitoring,
simulation, optimisation, advice
and control tool. The blending
plan is simulated in advance by
testing actual tank or crude sam-
ples in the plan prior to actual
scheduling. The blending plan
is then simulated using the
blend simulator to assess mul-
tiple blend scenarios using the
saved test results of the individ-
ual crudes in the blend in con-
junction with the constrained
optimiser to find the blending
combination that in combina-
tion with chemical mitigation
(if needed) minimises process-
ing issues, subject to a set of con-
straints provided and adjusted
by the crude planner.
The objective here is not to
provide a trivial solution by rec-
ommending exclusion of the
most problematic crudes from
the blend, nor is it to automat-
ically attempt to solve all pro-
cessing issues by chemical
mitigation. The objectives are: to
inform the refiner ahead of time
of potential processing issues
associated with a blend in the
plan; to recommend viable miti-
gation alternatives that will ulti-
mately minimise the overall cost
of processing; and to monitor
advice and control.
Any viable mitigation will
include adjustments, changes
8 PTQ Q3 2017
and other recommendations
– such as blending, segrega-
tion, rerouting of streams, best
practices, and so on – that will
incrementally minimise the
overall cost of crude processing
issues as a first step, followed
by cost effective chemical miti-
gation when needed.
Scenario 3: strategic mode
Under this scenario, CrudePLUS
is used as a crude purchas-
ing decision enhancement tool.
While this scenario may not be
easily attainable by many refin-
ers, it is the one with the highest
value generation opportunity,
as it tackles the potential pro-
cessing issues associated with
specific opportunity crudes or
blends prior to actual crude pur-
chase. Many dumb-bell crudes
are created and sold matching
the API, TAN and sulphur spec-
ifications of an actual crude oil
and will eventually end up in
the refinery crude system under
that name, but in many cases
with significantly different yield
and fluid behaviour characteris-
tics, among other issues, making
the names of the crudes in these
cases totally useless for predic-
tive purposes.
Having the capability to rate
and discriminate crude oils
using CrudePLUS provides the
opportunity to enhance crude
purchasing decisions that can
positively affect the bottom
line (for example, driving dis-
counts). Of course, deciding to
purchase, process and mitigate
a crude deemed problematic
by CrudePLUS will continue to
be a viable option, but one that
if taken will now have defined
ahead of time the potential
incremental processing issues
and costs associated with that
decision.
Case studies
The case studies presented here
present experiences and find-
ings gathered from the various
pilots that ran over periods of
time ranging from six months
to one year and other ongo-
ing applications. In every case,
a BCOP was quantified using
CrudePLUS tools, actual W&PT
process service experience, and
direct interaction and feedback
from operations, process and
crude planning at each of the
sites.
Specific mitigation strate-
gies and projected reductions
in BCOP were made based on
the learnings from CrudePLUS
implementation, expert analy-
sis and site specific refinery eco-
nomics. In sites where specific
mitigation recommendations
were executed, empirical pro-
cess models were built and val-
idated using historical process
data to normalise for process
conditions variability and to
categorically quantify, prove or
disprove the effects of executed
mitigation actions.
Case study 1
A North American refinery
processing a complex blend of
crude oils and purchased inter-
mediate oils was experiencing
significant processing issues
due to crude hot preheat and
coker heater fouling. The diet
to the crude train included for-
eign and domestic heavy sour
crudes and slop. The diet to the
coker train included foreign
heavy sour crudes, purchased
resids, decant oil, heavy cycle
oils, and pipeline transmix.
Following CrudePLUS imple-
mentation protocols, the opera-
tion was baselined to quantify
crude processing issues, fol-
lowed by fingerprinting of all
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416
Figure 11 Summary of instability/incompatibility model results
streams and tanks over a period
of several months. BCOP
revealed significant annual pro-
cessing costs totalling around
$25 million. Of this total, 77%
was attributable to crude pre-
heat and coker heater fouling.
The balance was attributed to
slop generation reprocessing,
90% of which was coming from
coker operations.
Although crude preheat foul-
ing was very significant and
over time a throughput lim-
iting issue, the biggest chal-
lenge had been trying to
identify suspected incompat-
ibility issues that were caus-
ing the coker heater skin
temperatures to episodically
and uncontrollably increase,
causing on the average three
shutdowns per year to decoke
the heater. Increasing coker run
lengths was the main priority.
Predictive analytics clearly
indicated that the purchased
pipeline transmix was the most
unstable stream. Figure 11 sum-
marises the instability/incom-
patibility potential of refinery
streams and exploratory blends
of transmix with various
streams.
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416
Working with crude plan-
ning and operations, and sup-
ported by CrudePLUS tests and
simulations, the recommenda-
tion was to move the transmix
to the crude train and the move
was made immediately after. In
addition, several other mitiga-
tion strategies were proposed,
targeting net savings in pro-
cessing costs of $10 million/y.
To capture the impact of this
and other recommendations,
crude preheat and coker heater
empirical process models were
built using actual process previ-
ous and current runs data.
The change increased coker
heater run length by 40 days, a
statistically significant increase,
without a statistically signifi-
cant impact on crude preheat
fouling rate. The increase in
coker run length resulted in a
net reduction in the cost of pro-
cessing of nearly $1.4 million/y
and without additional chemis-
try. Incremental improvements
in run length would require
implementation of additional
and more complex strategies
focused on operational prac-
tices and process realignments,
as well as chemical mitigation.
Case study 2
A North American refin-
ery operating two large crude
units was experiencing signif-
icant economic penalties due
to critical heat transfer equip-
ment fouling in one of the
units. Preheat train and atmos-
pheric heater fouling in Unit A
was costing approximately $30
million/y.
The refinery processes a
variable mix of West Texas
Intermediate, West Texas Sour,
tight oils, Canadian crudes,
four different offshore crudes,
and slop oil. At the tank farm,
crudes are blended and segre-
gated by sulphur content into
three different groups of tanks
designated as light, medium
and high sulphur.
Unit A processes predomi-
nantly light sulphur oils, with
the remainder of its diet from
the medium sulphur tank.
These two feeds are blended
to meet specified sulphur and
gravity targets for the unit feed.
Tight oils represent 27-35% of
the total charge to Unit A.
In contrast, Unit B processes
mostly medium sulphur crude
oil, supplemented with a nota-
PTQ Q3 2017 9
 Figure 12 Unit B relative instability and fouling potential indexes

ble amount of high sulphur
crude oil from western Canada.
CrudePLUS was used to
measure the impact dissimilar
crude slates impart on each unit
and determine potential issues
of various blends. Having two
units with dissimilar process-
ing issues also allowed us to
determine, over a period of sev-
eral months, if the technology
was capable of correctly pre-
dicting the processing issues
and their magnitude in
each of the units. Following
CrudePLUS protocols, each
tank and total charge to each
unit was fingerprinted over
several months.
Predictive analytics for Unit
B crude charge samples (see
Figure 12) indicated low lev-
els of instability and fouling,
matching the actual trouble free
performance of Unit B. The rec-
ommendation for this unit was
to make no changes and con-
tinue monitoring.
Figure 13 shows the analytics
for Unit A crude charge sam-
ples, indicating high levels of
instability and fouling poten-
tial, consistent with actual unit
performance (high to severe
fouling in preheat and heaters).
Recommended mitigation
strategies included changes to
blend order, blend ratio adjust-
ments and chemical treatment,
and projected a net reduc-
tion in processing costs of $12
million/y.

Figure 13 Unit A relative instability and fouling potential indexes

10 PTQ Q3 2017 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416

Case study 3
A US refinery processing a
variable crude diet was expe-
riencing hot preheat heat trans-
fer losses, which resulted in
crude throughput limitations
and crude throughput loss
while cleaning exchangers. The
crude diet was primarily com-
posed of Alaska North Slope
and Bakken, in addition to vari-
ous concentrations of Canadian
crudes (Cold Lake, Alberta
Western Blend, Lloyd Kerrobert
and Bow South).
The refinery expressed a need
to better manage the crude
fouling impact with both the
existing and future planned
crude purchasing regime. The
goal would be to minimise the
risk of not capturing the gain in
profitability.
Following CrudePLUS pro-
tocols, testing was performed
on the component crudes and
crude blends at the refinery.
The ultimate mitigation strat-
egy implemented was the addi-
tion of an antifoulant to the
crude unit preheat train and
treatment of problematic crude
blends with crude stabiliser at
the tank farm. Figure 14
summarises the aver-
age crude slates and result-
Figure 15 Heat transfer U coefficient model
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416
Figure 14 Average crude slates and CrudePLUS analytics during a run
ant CrudePLUS analytics for
three consecutive periods dur-
ing a run.
To determine the effective-
ness of the treatment pro-
grammes, a heat transfer
coefficient model was built
around a critical desalted
crude/vacuum bottoms set
of bundles, to track the per-
formance over time, incor-
porating all critical predictor
variables affecting heat transfer
performance.
The cumulative throughput
reduction due to heat transfer
losses was estimated at $11.6
million/y. Figure 15 shows a
statistical control chart depict-
ing the behaviour of the U
under a normalised set of oper-
ating conditions. The three lines
sloping down represent the
mean, upper and lower statis-
tical process control limits for
the untreated system. As can
be seen, the corrected U (rep-
resented by the purple trend)
starts to move out of control (a
good thing in this case) shortly
after the antifoulant was intro-
duced into the system and con-
tinues almost unchanged after
stabiliser treatment was initi-
ated, clearly and statistically
demonstrating the efficacy
of the programs, even under
increasing instability and foul-
ing conditions.
The simplest measure of suc-
cess was the reduction in the
frequency of bundle cleanings,
which went from six cleanings
to zero between turnarounds.
The actual net reduction in
refinery processing costs was
PTQ Q3 2017 10
 estimated at $5.7 million/y.
Conclusions
W&PTs’ predictive modelling
technology, CrudePLUS, has
been developed to reliably pre-
dict the behavioural charac-
teristics of crude oils and their
blends, their potential impact
on the process and recommend
the viable alternatives availa-
ble for mitigation. The technol-
ogy is totally agnostic to crude
name, type or source, utilis-
ing actual fluid analytics to
drive model predictions, with-
out using any type of histori-
cal, experiential or crude assay
database.
CrudePLUS is at the centre
of a service providing a porta-
ble solution that utilises in the
field rapid response analytical
testing via an oil fingerprinting
and solids testing system cou-
pled to proprietary predictive
modelling software, to predict
the instability/incompatibility,
emulsification tendency, foul-
ing potential and basic physi-
cal properties of crude oils, slop
oils, other refinery fluids and
12 PTQ Q3 2017
their blends. Blending order of
components in a blend, as well
as crude stabiliser dosage range
and injection location, emulsion
breaker and antifoulant dos-
age ranges are automatically
generated based on predictive
analytics.
CrudePLUS is a mark of General Electric
Company.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the team working in
the development, validation and support
of the predictive modelling technology
presented in this article and those who
have contributed to the completion of
the article: Nimeshkumar Patel, Naveen
Agrawal, Vijaysai P, Manish Joshi,
Sudhanshu Kashyap, Greg Yu, Karl
Kuklenz, Kurt Ginsel, Gabriel Castillo,
Mike Dion, Jeff Zurlo, Steve Bakas.
References
1 Watkinson A P, Wilson D I, Chemical
reaction fouling: a review, Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science, 1997, 14,
361–374.
2 Watkinson A P, Deposition from crude
oils in heat exchangers, Heat Transfer
Engineering, 2007, 28, 177-184, doi:
10.1080/01457630601064413.
3 Benoit B, Zurlo J, Overcoming the
challenges of tight/shale oil refining,
Processing Shale Feedstocks, 2014,
4 Dion M, Challenges and Solutions for
Processing Opportunity Crudes, AM-14-
13, AFPM Annual Meeting, 2014.
5 Park S J, Mansoori G A, Energy Sources,
1988, 10, 109.
6 Speight J, Ch 1: Composition of
Petroleum in Petroleum Chemistry and
Refining, Taylor & Francis,1998.
7 Carbognani L, Izquierdo A, Asphaltenes
and Asphalts in Dev. Petrol. Sci., 4 (Part
B), 2000, 335–362, 2.
Conrad K Teran is a Senior Technical
Manager of Refining Technology with
GE Water & Process Technologies, The
Woodlands, Texas. He holds a BS degree
in chemical engineering from Brigham
Young University, a master of engineering
in chemical engineering from Lamar
University and is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Texas.
LINKS
More articles from the following
categories:
Corrosion and Fouling Control
Heavy and Sour Feedstocks
Instrumentation, Automation and
Process Control
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001416