TOC/INDEX

1993
NPRA Question & Answer
Session on Refining and
Petrochemical Technology

Conducted by the National Petroleum Refiners Association

Suite 1000, 1899 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
TOC/INDEX

1993
NPRA Question & Answer
Session on Refining and
Petrochemical Technology
TOC/INDEX

Published by
Publishing Division
Gerald L. Farrar & Associates, Inc.
9717 E. 42nd St. STE 211
Tulsa, OK 74146

Gerald L. Farrar, Editor

Printed in U.S.A
TOC/INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Category Page Section Category Page

I. GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS IV. LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
A. Alkylation — Sulfuric Acid . . . . . . 116
A. Treating and Desalting . 8 Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
B. Lube Oil Manufacturing . . 14 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
C. Solvent Deasphalting . . . 16 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
D. Crude Distillation . . . . . . . . 18 B. Alkylation — Hydrofluoric Acid . . 121
Mechanical . . . . . . . . 18 Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Process . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
E. Instrumentation . . . . . . . 30 Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
F. Product Formulation . . . . 32 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
G. Computer/Process Control 35 C. Reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
H. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . 43 Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
II. HEAVY OIL PROCESSING D. lsomerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
E. Etherification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
A. Fluid Catalytic Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 47 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND
Catalysts , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 ENERGY CONSERVATION
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
74 A. Sulfur Plant Operations . . . . . . . . 141
B. Residual Oil Upgrading-Delayed Coking . 141
84 Amine Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Residual Oil Upgrading-Visbreaking . . . . 147
Sulfur Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tail Gas Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Ill. HYDROGEN PROCESSING B. Environmental Control . . . . . . . . . 152
Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
A. Hydrogen Production . . . . . . . 85 Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Hydrogen Manufacturing . 85 Solid and Chemical Wastes . . 163
Hydrogen Purification . . . . . 92 MiscelIaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
B. Hydrotreating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 C. Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . 169
Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Panel Biographies . . . . . . . . . 173
C. Hydrocracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Participation Index . . . . . . . . . 177
Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Index to NPRA Q&A Topics 179
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Registration List . . . . . . . . . . . 225

IMPORTANT NOTICE
The information and statements herein are believed to be reliable but are not to be construed as a warranty of representation for
which the participants assume legal responsibility. Users should undertake sufficient verification and testing to determine the
suitability for their own particular purpose of any information or products referred to herein. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE IS MADE.
Nothing herein is to be taken as permission, inducement or recommendation to practice any patented invention without a license.

4
TOC/INDEX
J. A. ROSS
INTRODUCTION
ROSS:
Good morning, ladies & gentlemen. I am Jim Ross, Vice
President of the Sweeny Complex for Phillips Petroleum
Company. As Chairman of the NPRA Manufacturing
Committee, I would like to welcome you to this 46th annual
NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical
Technology.
In a short while, you are going to get into the nuts and
bolts of refining and chemicals, everything from desalting
to cracking to desulfurization, alkylation, and reforming.
But before you turn your attention to issues like the intri-
cacies of cat crackers, I would like to take a quick look at the
big picture and talk a little about the current outlook for
our industry.
I had the pleasure and the honor to serve as a panelist at
the 1982 Q&A Session in Philadelphia. That was more
than 10 years ago, and I have witnessed in that time
5
countless changes in the refining industry. The next decade
promises even greater changes. Just do not ask me what
those changes might be.
Trying to tell the future of our industry is about as risky
as trying to outguess OPEC. With all the factors impacting
our operating environment, we could probably come up
with a better five-year forecast of the weather for the planet
Saturn than a one-year forecast for refinery margins.
But it does not hurt to take a look at where we are and
where we hope we are headed. As I thought about my
remarks today, I came to the conclusions that the future
profitability and viability of our industry relies heavily on
one thing - the performance of people. I believe that the
people in this room today, many of our brightest and best
technical professionals, are the key to our success.
You will act as proactive agents of change, the catalysts
that initiate the quantum leap our industry needs. You will
accomplish this by providing counsel to research and de-
velopment, to plant functions, and to management. You
will lead the way with new technology and innovative use of
the resources, and by fostering productive relationships
within our industry, with government agencies, and with
our community neighbors.
Perhaps more importantly, you will influence the deli-
cate balance between protecting our environment and our
checkbook, for this is where our most difficult challenge
lies.
The good news is that as a part of a global industry, the
prospects for U. S. petroleum are excellent. Environmental
activists not withstanding, the world will continue to rely
on fossil fuel for the foreseeable future.
Oil, coal, and natural gas account for nearly 90 percent of
the world’s current energy consumption, and petroleum
remains the most plentiful and easiest to use source of
energy available today. It is actually in relative oversupply
with respect to current demand.
Switching to nonfossil alternatives is just not the simple
solution some people perceive it to be. For example, using
present solar technology, the United States would have to
deploy solar collectors over a land area equal to Utah,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada combined. It would cost
trillions of dollars.
Unlike most alternative energy sources, the infra-
structure to support a petroleum-based economy is already
in place. The only factor likely to limit fossil fuel use in the
United States any time soon is government action.
Each day my desk is flooded with page after page of new
environmental regulations for the petroleum industry to
implement. The Clean Air Act, reformulated gasoline, low
sulfur diesel fuel, NESHAP, RCRA and the list goes on and
on. It certainly makes it tough to be profitable in our
business.
Excessive regulation is already having a significant im-
pact on U. S. refiners. To stay competitive, the majors have
collectively laid off some 51,000 workers in the last two
years alone, and many refiners are faced with abandoning
older plants, rather than spending a fortune to upgrade
them. In a 15 million bbl/day industry, there are currently
about 1 million bbb/day on the auction block.
I am certainly not against protecting and improving our
environment. We all want clean air and clean water. We
live on this planet too. But the need for environmental
TOC/INDEX
protection must be balanced with economic common sense.
The government itself estimates that the cost of environ-
mental regulation for the petroleum industry will rise from
about $8 billion per year to over $20 billion per year during
the 90’s. And these are only the direct costs.
This does not include indirect expenses such as manage-
ment time, cost of capital or the loss of productive oppor-
tunities. These economic pressures on refiners, along with
restrictions on drilling in the United States, are shrinking
our industry’s domestic presence.
According to some estimates, the costs of environmental
regulation to our overall economy will soon be roughly
equal to the defense budget, which should be no surprise.
The Clean Air Act was designed by the same people who
gave us the $600 toilet seat.
This single law is likely to reshape our business almost
beyond recognition in the years ahead. As we try to deter-
mine how to react to the Clean Air Act, we face a real
“Catch 22.”
If we are to comply in time to meet the law’s 1995
deadline, we need to act now. But if we act now, we run the
risk of investing scarce capital in the wrong technology,
because our friends in Washington have yet to spell out
exactly what they want.
Reformulated gasoline is one example of the law’s com-
plexity. The last I counted, due to seasons, vapor pressure,
location, nonattainment areas, there are some 36 possible
grades of gasoline across the United States. And we do not
know yet what surprises the Year 2000 Standards hold for
us.
This clearly illustrates one of the growing beefs those of
us in refining have with government. When federal, state,
and local jurisdictions butt heads, which government are
we supposed to obey?
Washington is demanding that we retrofit refineries.
The local authorities may hold up the permits we need for
construction. The bottom line is that poorly conceived regu-
lations could put our industry out of business, with no
ecological benefit whatsoever.
In addition to this regulatory onslaught, we are faced
with lawmakers who view our industry as a potential
source of revenue for decreasing the budget deficit. Earlier
this year, our industry banded together to defeat the BTU
tax, a tax that would certainly have cost jobs and would
have left the U. S. less competitive in the world market. But
I would be surprised if it is very long before we see a similar
deficit reduction scheme in a new disguise.
6
Do not get me wrong. Reducing the deficit is an absolute
must. But I think government needs to cut spending first,
and then develop more energy-friendly regulatory policies.
Without reasonably-priced energy, you cannot have sig-
nificant growth. And without growth, you cannot create
jobs.
Now, I will admit that the picture I have painted this
morning of our industry is not overly optimistic. Refining is
a tough business, and highly uncertain margins make it
difficult to plan for the future. But if anyone has the power
to accelerate the economic recovery process, it is the tech-
nical leaders on the refining side of the business who are
gathered here today.
Many of you are already involved in the wave of re-
engineering underway in our industry. Most companies
realize that a band-aid or a quick fix just will not cut it any
longer. We have to look and find the breakthroughs.
It is going to take radical change to lower our break even
levels, to improve our operating integrities, and to get more
from our existing assets. The survivors will be those facili-
ties that meet the Clean Air Act, reformulated gasoline,
and other requirements with the lowest capital investments.
Perhaps the most important tool we can use to reach
these goals is technical teamwork. The best answers are
found when people sit down and share information and
ideas. This NPRA Q&A session is a great chance for you to
do just that.
As technical professionals, you can be the catalysts that
force our industry’s quantum leap into the 21st century.
With innovative thinking, quality principles, and team-
work, there is no doubt in my mind that we have a great
future ahead of us.
Speaking of talented professionals, I want to take a
moment to thank the panelists who shortly will field some
very tough questions over the next three days. They have
spent a great deal of time preparing for this session, and we
appreciate their willingness to share their knowledge,
their experience, and their ideas.
Please join me in giving them a round of applause.
Finally, it is my pleasure to introduce the moderator of
these sessions, a moderator to whom we had better pay
attention, because I know Terry. He is just the type to call
on you when your brain has taken off for a short mental
vacation.
Please welcome the NPRA Technical Director and mod-
erator of the 46th annual NPRA Q&A session, Mr. Terry
Higgins.
TOC/INDEX

KEITH D. OSBORN
Farmland Industries
Coffeyville, Kansas

JEFFREY W. PAULES
Phibro Energy U.S.A.
Texas City, Texas

JORGEN PEDERSEN
Statoil
Mongstad, Norway

ANIL RAJGURU
Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Sugar Land, Texas

KAJAL ROY
Crown Central Petroleum
Pasadena, Texas

H. DAVID SLOAN
TERRENCE HIGGINS: M. W. Kellogg Company
Good Morning. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. We Houston, Texas
appreciate your taking the time out of your day to open up
this session this morning. We also appreciate the work that JAMES WILLIAMS
the NPRA Manufacturing Committee does to help guide us Akzo Chemicals Inc.
in orchestrating this meeting, and, as well, the NPRA Houston, Texas
Screening Committee who screen from some 600 to 700
questions, those which are most appropriate for this par- TERREL D. WILLIAMS
ticular session. Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation
I would like to briefly introduce each panelists. Please Houston, Texas
refer to your program books for background information
about them.

RICHARD BONELLI Before we begin, I want to explain the procedure used for
Marathon Oil Company this meeting. The procedure ensures maximum discussions
Robinson, Illinois of the questions and the completeness of the final transcript
of the Session.
GARY BRIERLEY I will call on the panelists first to provide answers to the
Syncrude Canada questions. Then, after they have finished their comments, I
Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada will open the discussion to the floor for questions or further
comment.
EDWARD F. JUNO
Approximately two weeks after the meeting, a copy of the
Pennzoil Products Company
comments will be mailed to each participant for correc-
Houston, Texas tions, additions, or deletions as deemed necessary. After
the return of the participants’ comments, they will be
PATRICK M. LAABS
printed and published in a hardback book by NPRA. Each
Star Enterprises registrant at the 1993 NPRA Question and Answer Session
Delaware City, Delaware on Refining and Petrochemical Technology will receive the
bound transcript of the meeting. The bound transcription
CHRISTOPHER J. MURPHY includes a subject index which identifies pages where speci-
Nalco Chemical Company
fic topics are covered.
Sugar Land, Texas
The NPRA has received numerous positive comments as
SHARON O’BRIEN to the value of these sessions and transcripts. Any criti-
Phillips 66 Company cisms or suggestions for improvement are welcomed.
Sweeny, Texas With these remarks we are ready to begin the session.

7
TOC/INDEX
I. GENERAL PROCESSlNG AND SUPPORT OPERATlONS
A. Treating and Desalting
QUESTION 1:
What sources of desalter wash water other than
stripped sour water and atmospheric overhead are
being utilized effectively?
LAABS:
At the Star refineries, we also use vacuum tower con-
densate as desalter wash water on a regular basis. When
normal sources cannot provide enough water, we use clari-
fied water or other water sources. One of our sites suc-
cessfully uses unstripped sour water for desalter wash
water without any difficulties.
MURPHY:
One additional source that I can add to that list would be
recycled desalter brine, which is occasionally used to con-
serve water. When considering sources such as surface
water or well waters, play close attention to the calcium
hardness content of the stream. Under conditions possibly
present in the desalter, the material can fall from solution,
and accumulate at the oil/water interface, which can pro-
mote emulsion stabilization requiring extremely high
doses of demulsifier to resolve.
Carbonates have also been the primary component in
severe fouling of the effluent header, lines, and exchangers.
Another important contaminant in well or surface water
would be dissolved oxygen, which has caused significant
problems.
If you choose desalter brine, consider the fact that the
chlorides and solids can accumulate in this stream, leading
to problems of increased corrosion and fouling. You should
be judicious in the use of those sources.
When considering new sources of wash water, you should
take care to insure that the new source does not contain
surfactants or other impurities which could stabilize emul-
sions in the desalter. It is best to take these new sources of
wash water and perform bench scale emulsion resolution
testing, using all existing wash water sources and all
expected sources of crude or other feeds in the slate.
BONELLI:
In addition to what Mr. Murphy has noted, we have from
time to time supplemented our regular desalter water
stream with water that we produce from an underground
aquifer. Taking into account the potential for hardness in
the water and dissolved oxygen, we have monitored oper-
ation of the desalter; and, other than a slight decrease in
desalter water temperatures, no effects were noted that
8
were ofconcern to us. We did not see an adverse effect on the
operation of the desalter while using the produced water.
PAULES:
We also add vacuum ejector condensate to the desalter
water makeup. This water does tend to have higher con-
centrations of ammonia, H2S, and in some cases, process
treating chemicals. This can cause emulsion problems in
the desalter at times.
ROY:
At the Pasadena refinery we use vacuum tower steam jet
condensate, along with stripped sour water. Additionally
we are also recirculating 40 to 50% of our desalter effluent
water, and injecting only about 3% fresh desalter water
makeup. When using vacuum condensate as a wash water
source, monitoring and controlling the hydrocarbon level is
very important. If large amounts of hydrocarbons are pres-
ent in the condensate, a very tight stable emulsion could be
formed.
QUESTION 2:
Is the kerosene water reaction separation rating,
stream quality dependent? What could deteriorate
it? Is there a new laboratory test method other than
subjective testing (ASTM D 1094)?
ROY:
Because of their higher density and viscosity, jet fuels
tend to retain fine particulate matter and water droplets in
suspension for a much longer period than aviation gasoline.
Jet fuels can also vary considerably in their tendency to
pick up and retain water droplets or to hold fine water hazes
in suspension, depending on the presence of trace surface
active impurities, such as surfactants.
Some of these materials, such as sulfonic and naphthenic
acids and their sodium salts may originate from the crude
source or from certain refinery treating processes. Others
may be picked up by contact with other products during
transportation to the air field, particularly in multiproduct
pipelines. These latter materials may be natural con-
taminants from other less highly refined products, for
example, heating oils, or may consist of additives from
motor gasolines, such as glycol type anti-icing agents.
In addition, some of the additives specified for jet fuels
also have surface-active properties. Examples of these are
corrosion inhibitors and electrical conductivity improvers.
The presence of surfactants can also impair the per-
formance of the water-separating equipment such as fil-
ters, separators used in field handling systems to remove
traces of free water. Very small traces of free water can
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
adversely affect jet engine and aircraft operation in several
ways.
The water-retention and separating properties of jet
fuels have become a critical quality consideration in recent
years. Additionally, the water reaction test D-1094 is very
sensitive to the cleanliness of the glassware used in the
test. A failed test should be repeated with freshly cleaned
glassware.
Also of importance is the phosphate buffered water used
in the water reaction D-1094 test. If it is aged, it can also
lead to a test failure.
BONELLI:
I agree with Mr. Roy’s comments. I would also recom-
mend that you consult a manual on the significance of tests
for petroleum products, fifth edition, edited by George
Dyrah. It has some excellent references and some
suggestions.
It also includes stream quality dependence. The answer
to the question is that the separation index certainly is
stream quality dependent. These surfactant materials are
properties of some of the crude oils that are charged. An-
other caution that should be taken into consideration when
using the micro-separator test is that it is possible to have
some contamination of the micro-separator apparatus, if it
is transported in and around the field. The cleaning of this
equipment, which in our facility we do with chromic acid, is
a critical step.
JUNO:
This simple test is subjective to a degree, but it does give
some results that the WSIM test does not. The three major
parts of the test are as follows: 1) Measure the increase in
the volume of the water layer, which represents the amount
of water-soluble materials, such as alcohols or ethers. 2)The
appearance of the interface can be reported in one of five
different defined ratings. 3)There are three different
defined ratings for the appearance of each of the fuel and
water layers. The subjective aspects of this test relate to the
last two items, because judgment is called for in discerning
between two adjacent ratings. As far as we know, there is no
new lab test method to take the place of ASTM D-1094.
QUESTION 3:
In our kerosene Merox unit, we have problems
complying with the ASTM-D 1094 “Standard Test
Method for Water Reaction of Aviation Fuels”. There
are no problems with the WSIM test (ASTM 2550) for
water separation characteristics. What can produce
these results?
JUNO:
First, the ASTM discontinued the D-2550 test method in
1991. The D-3948 test method by portable separometer is
the suggested replacement method. The difference between
the two testing methods, D-1094 and D-3948, should be
analyzed to understand why one may show acceptable
results and the other show unacceptable results.
The water reaction test uses a sample of the fuel and a
quantity of phosphate buffer solution. These are shaken
together in a glass cylinder under specified conditions and
then allowed to separate for exactly five minutes. The
9
observations are recorded normally on three different as-
pects, which are fuel layer, the water layer, and the inter-
face between the fuel and the water.
The separometer method uses a high speed pump to
agitate and emulsify a water-fuel mix. It is then run
through a standardized fiberglass coalescer, and the efflu-
ent analyzed for uncoalesced water by means of a light
transmission measurement. The coalescer used with the
separometers can account for better separation and results
in “pass” and “fail” differences between the separometer
and the water reaction test.
BONELLI:
I agree with Mr. Juno and would like to add that when
you can pass the microseparometer test in the field or the
WSIM test in the old standard, you should in general pass
the D-1094 test. If not, it is beneficial to reclean the test
apparatus.
T. WILLIAMS:
We agree with the previous comments. Just because the
WSIM passes does not necessarily guarantee a good water
separation, as was mentioned in response to the previous
question. Again, a contamination problem can occur with
surfactants that come in with the crude, or corrosion in-
hibitor filmers in the overhead (depending on dosage and
rate) which cause you to pass one and fail the other. We have
in some instances found that operating our overhead tem-
peratures above 250 ºF has helped to alleviate the problem.
QUESTION 4:
In our fixed bed regenerative caustic treatment
process for gasoline sweetening, we use methanol to
impregnate the catalyst over the carbon bed. Does
anyone have experience carrying out this step with
other products instead of methanol? What are the
results?
PAULES:
The practice of using methanol to impregnate fixed bed
sweetening catalyst is no longer recommended. Current
practice uses a dilute ammonia solution as a carrier. We
have used a catalyst supplied already impregnated. This is
more costly, but it does place the burden of proper impreg-
nation on the supplier.
T. WILLIAMS:
We use a dilute ammonia solution to re-impregnate our
fixed bed Merox unit. This is in accordance with UOP
procedures.
DAVID HOLBROOK (UOP):
We have been designing our fixed-bed Merox units for
quite some time, using the dilute ammoniated solution as a
carrier for the catalyst, and would certainly recommend
that anyone with a fixed-bed Merox unit use that solution,
rather than methanol. UOP will be glad to supply the
updated procedures upon request.
A. K. ARORA (Indian Oil Corporation):
We have used dilute ammonia solution, and we have
realized 40% savings over methanol.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PATRICIA FORERO (Merichem Company):
Merichem licensees have successfully used our patented
process which employs amine solutions for impregnating
the oxidation catalyst over the carbon bed in both gasoline
and kerosene treating systems. These processes eliminate
the special problems of impregnation storage facilities and
concerns over disposal of impregnation solutions.
QUESTION 5:
Merox sweetening without alkali is now being
offered by UOP for gasoline treating. What are its
advantages, number of units installed and its
economics?
PAULES:
UOP is offering its “Caustic-free Merox” process for sweet-
ening FCC and light straight-run gasoline, and also ker-
osene. The system basically replaces caustic with a dilute
ammonia solution which is easily disposed of in refinery
sour water systems. This can be attractive to refiners with
high caustic disposal costs or those with a mandate to
reduce waste.
Also, these systems allow a larger percentage of phenols
to remain in the gasoline. So far there is one commercial
unit in operation on FCC gasoline. This unit is a converted
Minalk unit which has been in service since 1990 and has
only been shut down when the FCCU went down. One other
refiner has an FCC gasoline unit in the design stages. A
commercial trial for “Caustic-free Merox” in a kerosene
treating application has been successfully completed. This
unit is a modified kerosene Merox unit and has been on
stream for 7 months.
QUESTION 6:
In desalting heavy crudes, we usually encounter oil
undercarry problems. Does anyone have experience
with hydrocyclones to reduce oil content in the
brine?
ROY:
We recently concluded a test run using a Natco-Krebs
hydrocyclone pilot plant which was skid mounted and
brought to our Pasadena refinery on a flatbed truck. The
unit was designed to handle a desalter water slip stream of
10 gpm.
The pilot plant consisted of two stages. The first stage
was a liquid-solid cyclonic separator for the removal of sand
and other solid particles. The second stage separated the oil
and water. Once we adjusted the differential pressure
across the unit to optimum performance, we were able to
achieve an oil removal efficiency of 96 to 99 percent, with
inlet oil concentrations of 2,000 to 20,000 ppm. With lower
inlet oil concentrations, the removal efficiency was 70 to 90
percent, with a maximum outlet oil concentration of 10
ppm for inlets of under 300 ppm.
The unit provided ability to handle very large oil upsets
in desalter operation by easily handling gross oil contents.
In some cases it has been seen that the undercarry still
becomes oily as the hydrocyclone design specifications are
exceeded. Recent technology advances in adjunct emulsion-
breaker chemistry have addressed the oil undercarry prob-
10
lems. Emulsion polymers have been very successful in
maintaining oil-free undercarries.
PAULES:
We have recently installed hydrocyclones in two of our
locations on desalter effluent water. These hydrocyclones
were intended to remove any trace quantities of entrained
oil under relatively good desalter operation. They per-
formed this function extremely well. However, when mas-
sive desalter undercarry occurs, they do not entirely sep-
arate the oil and water. We have also experienced some
plugging of the hydrocyclone with material floating in the
rag layer when it hits the hydrocyclone. Strainers were
installed after start-up and have helped to minimize this
problem.
BONELLI:
In our test experience with the hydrocyclone separators,
we also installed hydrocyclone separators in a slipstream
from the desalter brine stream. We found that during the
test they worked well, when there were reasonably con-
stant effluent conditions to the hydrocyclones. The range of
operation that we explored in our testing did not include
massive desalter upsets. The problem that we encountered
during our testing was that when you charge crude oils
which have a substantial solids content, at some point those
solids will find their way to the waste treatment facility.
They can cause some problems in emulsion resolution in
the waste treatment plant.
MURPHY:
Nalco recently completed an evaluation of a hydro-
cyclone on a desalter brine stream containing approxi-
mately 5 vol % oil, and a significant level of oily solids.
Using the hydrocyclone we were able to take this oily brine
stream and remove a clean water stream containing less
than 30 ppm oil. This was achieved by removing only 5% of
the brine stream. This device provided excellent oil/water
separation eficiency in this evaluation.
A problem with oil. undercarry in the desalter should
first be addressed by re-evaluation of the demulsifier and
by verifying that the desalter is in good mechanical condi-
tion and is clean. We have found a review of the wash water
to be very constructive in these cases. Only in a very
difficult case such as high solids loading, or to allow for a
specific products upgrade, should routine oil undercarry be
tolerated.
BRADLY D. NELSON (Vortoil Separation Systems):
I agree with most of the panel’s comments, in that the
hydrocyclones can be very effective in removing oil from
water. I would suggest, however, that the removal of solids
should be performed downstream of the liquid-liquid hydro-
cyclone. The centrifugal force imparted on the fluids, speci-
fically the rag layer, allows the solids to be stripped of free
oil and exit with the clean brine. In this oil free condition,
solids separation can be more efficient due to the increase of
the solids relative density.
JO AGAR (Agar Corporation, Inc.):
I think some attention should be given to the elimination
of the undercarry. There was an interesting article in the
August issue of the Hydrocarbon Processing where they
TOC/INDEX

GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS

mention that one particular refinery has managed to cut

down the amount of air emission and hydrocarbon dump-
ing by 82%. Those numbers were verified by the EPA who
were going to shut down the refinery. Before one goes into a
lot of trouble in treating the water, one should see if it is not
possible to eliminate the dumping in the first place.
This goes back also to what Mr. Ross was saying about
the government pushing the industry into spending a lot of
money on cleaning the air. EPA studies showed that most of
the benzene emissions under NESHAP were coming from
the crude oil, and by cuttingdown at the source, the amount
of hydrocarbon dumping to the waste water from desalters,
slop tanks, storage tanks, etc., the air pollution and hydro-
carbon contamination could be cut by 82%. So, this is
government coming to the refiners and telling them “look,
do not waste money and you will get clean air”. I really
think paying more attention to where the contamination is
coming from and how to eliminate it, has a direct payback.
tillation profile and is believed to make less reactive prod-
MO VADEKAR (Chem Tech. Consulting): ucts. There are several disadvantages with these methods
Has the pH of the brine or the water any effect on the including caustic embrittlement of equipment, poisoning of
downstream catalysts and, for amines, insufficient reaction
separation efficiency of this oil from the brine or water?
time in most units.
PAULES: We have had dramatic success with the use of corrosion
I do not think so. The hydrocyclone separates emulsions inhibitors, which are applied to the specific area where the
corrosion is occurring. The most effective inhibitors appear
very well. We have only had problems with large solids that
plug the hydrocyclone orifices. to be phosphorus based. A thorough review of this class of
inhibitors can be found in a NACE paper, “Naphthenic Acid
Corrosion In A Refinery Setting,” paper No. 631, NACE
BRADLY D. NELSON (Vortoil Separation Systems):
Corrosion 33.
The only time large solids can plug hydrocyclones are
when these solids have a density lower than water. In the Other nonphosphorus-based additives do inhibit cor-
rosion, but have not been shown to be as effective as the
case of Mr. Paules’ application, the solids plugging the
phosphorus-based products. We recommend these products
hydrocyclone were polyethylene beads, approximately
only in cases where even low levels of phosphorus cannot be
8mm in diameter, that would concentrate in the rag layer.
tolerated. Traditional nitrogen-based inhibitors do not
As the rag layer exited with the desalter brine, these beads
work at the high temperatures where naphthenic acid
would understandably plug the oil reject orifice (4mm) of
the hydrocyclones. As Mr. Paules stated, this has been attack usually occurs.
resolved with the installation of dual basket strainers.
JUNO:
In one instance, a refinery utilized caustic to treat a
QUESTION 7: naphthenic vacuum unit charge. The caustic was injected
What solutions, other than metallurgical, have
in the feed to the furnace. This caustic injection caused a
been successfully used to control high temperature
severe furnace coking problem that was significantly im-
naphthenic acid corrosion?
proved with proper furnace design.

MURPHY:
I know of several options which are available to control
naphthenic acid corrosion. The most widely practiced
method is crude blending. The standard technique relies
heavily on the total acid number (TAN) of the processed
crude. Typically the crudes are blended to a specific total
acid number of 0.5 to 1, which is widely believed to be the
safe TAN range.
The major drawback to this approach is that the total
acid number is not always indicative of either the amount of
acid present in the crude, or the extent of corrosivity of the
crude. Often during the distillation process, the corrosive
acids concentrate in specific distillation zones, or in down-
stream units, causing corrosion in localized areas of a unit.
One additional method which is not so widely practiced is
neutralization where lime, caustic, or amines can be added
to react with the naphthenic acids. This changes the dis-
LAABS:
Our primary method of controlling napthenic acid cor-
rosion is to blend and choose a crude slate that keeps the
vacuum gas oil neutralization number under 1. We use the
ASTM D664 method to determine this number.
PEDERSEN:
We did a field trial 2 or 3 years ago with a corrosion
inhibitor system without any great success, so we stopped.
We are still recommending to change metallurgy to 316
stainless steel in services where we expect naphthenic acid
corrosion to appear.
STANLEY CARP (The UNO-VEN Company):
Has anybody experienced fouling problems in their vac-
uum overhead precondensor using a chemical injection
program for naphthenic acids?

11
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
MURPHY:
There could be possible problems, if you are not careful in
the selection of any additive. You have to evaluate all
possible problems which would result from the application.
STANLEY CARP (The UNO-VEN Company):
I asked this question because we started a program and
within a month, our precondensor was totally plugged. We
are not really sure if it was caused by the chemical or
something in the feed. We are still evaluating it. I just
wondered if anybody else has had that experience.
MURPHY:
An unexpected side effect of any chemical program
should be evaluated by the supplier and corrective action
initiated. In your case, if a component of the additive is
shown to be the problem, the supplier should replace the
additive immediately with more compatible chemistry.
MICHAEL ZETLMEISL (Petrolite Corporation):
As Mr. Murphy said, the whole acceptance of total acid
number is somewhat in question when it comes to naph-
thenic acid corrosion. People like Lee Craig of Mobil and
others have shown that the correlation does not necessarily
stand up. They have experienced severe corrosion at total
acid numbers considerably lower than 0.5.
The classic paper in this area of naphthenic acid cor-
rosion is by a man named DeRungs. If anybody is interested
to get a copy of that from me, I am sure Mr. Murphy has a
copy.
Petrolite also has an offering of an inhibitor in this area,
that has been successfully tested in the laboratories of
several major oil companies and successfully field tested at
a HVGO stream with a total acid number of 7. We would be
interested in discussing this with interested parties be-
cause we are now ready to go fully commercial with this
product.
QUESTION 8:
What are the most important factors in suc-
cessfully operating a fixed carbon bed for jet fuel
treating?
PEDERSEN:
According to our experience, good caustic prewash is very
critical. The reason is, that if you do not get the acids out,
the naphthenates will coat the carbon bed and make the
bed partly inactive. Also important are good temperature
control and adequate air supply. Too high temperature will
cause color degradation and, at low temperature, the reac-
tion stops. Regarding the air, we recommend an air rate
double the theoretical based on the content of mercaptans.
T. WILLIAMS:
Aside from feed quality, there are several main process
variables to consider: catalyst, oxygen, alkalinity, contact
and heat. This is based on our Merox unit. Guidelines are
available from UOP
PAULES:
Also, activated carbon beds used to meet WSIM and color
specifications require good water and caustic carryover
12
control, proper feed distribution, adequate residence time
and temperature control.
JUNO:
I would like to add that it is important to run an accept-
able space velocity close to one (LHSV).
DAVID HOLBROOK (UOP):
We agree with what the panel has said. I would like to
add that with minimal laboratory support, a couple of
simple titrations, you can watch the mercaptan sulfur on
the inlet of the unit and on the outlet and operate the unit to
just meet the mercaptan specification rather than going for
overkill, of injecting excessive air through the unit and
using excessive caustic. By operating to just meet speci-
fications, you can minimize the air and optimize the caustic
usage. This will minimize the oxidation byproducts that
might affect the catalyst life and reduce the production of
spent caustic which will have to be disposed.
PATRICIA FORERO (Merichem Company):
There are several factors for a good fix bed performance.
These are 1.) the type of carbon bed, 2.) the catalyst im-
pregnation procedure, 3.) maintaining bed alkaline condi-
tion required for efficient mercaptan oxidation, 4.) good
caustic treating ahead of the carbon bed, thus minimizing
sodium naphthenate carryover and emulsion formation on
the carbon bed, and 5.1 by minimizing operating tempera-
ture in air injection prevents formation of color bodies.
QUESTION 9:
What has been refiners’ experience in treating
crude tanks to improve subsequent operations in the
desalters and the rest of the unit’s equipment?
LAABS:
One of our refineries typically uses a demulsifier in
tankage on crudes that are difficult to desalt. To date, they
have not had any problems with this chemical injection.
Other sites have reported that using a demulsifier in crude
tankage has improved desalter operations, but are in the
process of quantifying that benefit.
Identification of crudes that cause desalting and de-
watering problems is an on-going process. Several crudes
from Egypt and Venezuela have caused difficulties in the
past.
Another of our affiliated refineries does not have a de-
salting system, and must rely on tank farm dehydration.
There has been some success with their program, but their
crude unit feed does have a higher chloride concentration
than that of our other refineries. We have found that cer-
tain combinations of crudes will limit the effectiveness of
the injected demulsifier at that location.
MURPHY:
Many refineries have had positive experiences in treat-
ing crude in tanks. The program is usually implemented by
refiners with limited desalter capacity or those who want to
remove unusually high salt levels of the crude before it is
sent to the crude unit. This program is also used by refiners
whose crude feed has high volumes of water and those who
observe significant fluctuations in the volume of water in
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
the raw crude. These programs can be effected at pre-
venting upsets in the desalter and crude tower due to water
slugs.
Tank dehydration should be considered when the raw
crude feed from barges, tankers or pipelines is inconsistent,
when the raw crude contains greater than 0.5 vol % brine,
when the desired target for salt content of the desalted
crude is unattainable with the current equipment, or when
the refiner is experiencing poor oil/water separation in the
tank farm.
To develop an effective program, the following items
should be completed: conduct a total survey of the tank
farm system; evaluate the various feedstocks to the tanks;
establish specifications for the program; write procedures
for the application; and thoroughly train the operators on
the program. We have seen successful treatments of nu-
merous domestic and international crudes from 18” to 40”
API using this method. Chemical rates vary from 3 to 12
ppm in these applications, and times in tankage vary from
24 to 48 hours. Heavier crudes may require heat to speed
the process. The technical representative can accurately
predict the conditions that will be required for the treat-
ment by performing a fairly simple bench scale test.
OSBORN:
During periods of processing high BS&W crude above 0.5
wt%, we begin chemical treatment in the crude storage and
piping system prior to the desalters. The process involves
adding the chemicals to water wet the solids, and remove
them with the water. Removing water in tankage will also
significantly reduce the salts in the raw crude. This has
been very successful in minimizing periods of desalter
upsets, thus preventing water carryover, solids carryover,
oily effluent, and chlorides in the overhead systems.
PAULES:
We have found that treating a crude oil tank to remove
entrained water is generally not very cost effective. We
have attempted this on occasion and have found that it cost
as much as 2% times as much to treat a tank chemically to
remove water as it does to process the material through the
desalter. Also, under the recent NESHAP regulations,
crude tank bottoms are potential benzene emission sources
and it is generally more cost effective to control the emis-
sions at the desalter.
Generally, the amount of water actually entering crude
tankage is relatively small, and if it can be handled on a
ratable basis to the desalter, little, if any, detrimental
effects will be seen.
KENNETH N. ABRAHAMS (Star Enterprise):
Mr. Paules said that you can handle the water ratably
through your desalter. Is it still with the crude? Usually,
you run into problems if you open a tank and have higher
concentrations at the bottom. You tend to get a slug of water
through your system. Do you have a specific way of han-
dling that?
PAULES:
At one refinery, we make a concerted effort to keep the
water mixed in with the crude oil with mechanical mixers
and in another refinery, we have actually installed a sys-
13
tem to pump out tank water bottoms, ratably back into the
crude.
SCOTT BIEBER (BPCI/ChemLink):
We have successfully treated crude oil in storage tanks in
two U.S. refineries processing heavy crudes. Our main goal
in these cases was to reduce the amount of desalter oil
carryunder due to entrainment of oily solids from the de-
salter interface. We were able to significantly reduce the
amount of oil carryunder in both of these refineries. One
plant saw their tailwater oil content fall to less than 0.5%
compared to 2 to 5% being experienced before the crude oil
pretreatment program was initiated. The second refinery
saw their oil carryunder problem disappear altogether.
Additional benefits measured at the second plant included
improved atmospheric tower overhead system pH control
and improved corrosion control throughout the crude unit.
MUHAMMAD T. UTHMAN (SAMAREC):
In one of our refineries (SAUDI ARAMCO), we let the
crude settle in the tanks after desalting. We experienced
good results, just settling the crudes for 24-hours.
QUESTION 10:
What is the impact of blending various crudes on
fouling and corrosion rates in crude units?
MURPHY:
Although crude blending has significant economic ad-
vantages, is an effective means of controlling naphthenic
acid corrosion, and can allow for improved desalting of very
heavy crudes, this practice is not without its problems.
Care needs to be taken in blending light, aliphatic crudes,
or light condensates with heavier asphaltic crude oils. The
aliphatic solvency effect can cause a loss in stability of the
asphaltenes, causing precipitation in the desalter and
crude preheat exchanger circuit.
Certain crudes can cause a reduction in desalter ef-
ficiency when they are included in the blend, even in low
concentrations. The additional solids and salts carried in
the desalted crude during these upset periods can acceler-
ate both fouling and corrosion.
When crude blending causes spikes of corrosion species,
corrosion control can become very difficult. Careful moni-
toring of unit pH and total acids is necessary to provide
satisfactory corrosion protection in these situations. Care
should also be taken with slop oils, especially chemical
plant waste, when they are included in the crude diet. We
have seen significant fouling and corrosion problems in
several of these instances.
OSBORN:
Blending highly paraffinic crudes with asphaltic crude
can also cause precipitation of asphaltenes. In fact, one of
the laboratory test methods for determining asphaltene
content involves precipitation of the asphaltenes using
normal heptane. These phenomena have been observed
primarily in the hotter preheat exchangers, but have oc-
curred in the cooler preheat exchangers, in the desalters,
and even in crude tankage.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
JUNO:
Most chemical-treating firms have bench scaled testing
units that can predict fouling and corrosion rates of a given
crude mix. The results will be more meaningful if time
permits several runs with the future crude mix and also
with the present crude mix. Mixing certain waxy crudes
such as Green River black and yellow wax crudes with
more conventional crudes can produce some surprises such
as speeding up or enhancing asphaltene precipitation. Ex-
perience indicates that waxy crudes can be blended as high
as 15% without detrimental fouling in heat exchange
equipment. Higher blends are subject to risk based on
asphaltene content of the base crude versus parafflnicity of
the blend crude. These crudes should be mixed in-line as
documented operational problems have occurred in trying
to mix crudes of different parafflnicity in a tank and ul-
timately finding a huge asphaltene ball set up in the tank.
LAABS:
Again, one way we limit corrosion in the crude units is
blending crudes by neutralization number, which we typi-
cally keep below 1. We found that corrosion rates in many
areas of the crude unit, including the pumps, heaters and
transfer lines, are significantly higher when the neutral-
ization number is greater than 1. Again, as the other
panelists have said, fouling is usually a function of the
quality of the individual crudes. We limit the amount of low
quality crude in the slate to avoid high fouling rates. In-
tense fouling due to asphaltene deposition has occurred
when mixing highly asphaltenic and highly naphthenic
crudes. We have had trouble blending parafflnic condensate
with Mexican crudes; this has caused asphaltenes to also
drop out.
JO AGAR (Agar Corporation):
Would controlling the pH of the wash water or injecting
emulsion breaking chemicals, which are water soluble,
help the asphaltene precipitation problem?
JUNO:
I think the problem is that the paraffins act as an extrac-
tion process and drop out the asphaltenes. So, the pH or the
desalter efficiency does not really have an effect on the
precipitation.
JACK HARRELL (Chemlink):
A couple or our customers have experienced severe cor-
rosion, trying to use blends of crudes that we are calling
“signature crudes”. They are new in some cases. These
include, at least, weathered Kuwait crude from the result of
the war in Kuwait, and also Main Pass crude. These re-
quire special attention regarding crude preheat fouling
problems. Also, fouling in the overheads and special atten-
tion to corrosion must be given because of very high H2S
release when these crudes are processed through the heat-
ers. The deposits appear to have a common signature in that
most of them contain large amounts of elemental sulfur.
Have any of the panelists experienced problems with these
kinds of crudes?
LAABS:
I think that one of our refineries runs Main Pass crude.
While they have talked quite a bit about having difficulties
14
running it, they have managed to stay on-line but they
limit their crude slate to about 4 or 5% Main Pass crude.
They are handling the situation by dilution more than
anything else.
HIGGINS:
Where would the elemental sulfur come from?
JACK HARRELL (ChemLink):
Our studies have shown that there apparently is elemen-
tal sulfur in both of these crudes. We think the sulfur in the
Kuwait Weathered crude comes from the oxidation on the
ground, and the Main Pass apparently is produced with
elemental sulfur already in it.
T. WILLIAMS:
We also run around 5 to 8 vol % Main Pass crude and that
is correct, there is elemental sulfur in Main Pass crude. I
think the field is in dual service production. They actually
produce elemental sulfur at the same site.
STEPHEN T. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.):
Has anybody had success treating the exchanger train to
prevent or reverse the effects of laydown, if you just cannot
avoid the mixing of the crudes or processing of large
amounts of slop oil containing solids that you generate
during a turnaround or an upset?
MURPHY:
We have had success treating asphaltene deposition
problems caused by mixing of crudes. The trick to having
success is the proper selection of the chemistry. You have to
do careful laboratory testing to make sure that the chemis-
try you select is appropriate for the particular fouling
situation you observe.
VICTOR TAILER (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
Questions 9 and 10 are basically related to corrosion
prevention and sediments removal in the existing crude
units. It appears (based on one refinery’s experience) that
treating crude in the storage tanks for emulsions and
sediment control was beneficial to the desalter operation.
However, in today’s environment double desalting with
tank mixer is a better long term solution.
If the blended crude properties were changed in com-
parison with the original design, then the refiners should
assess the impact in terms of corrosion. Sometimes oper-
ating conditions or the TBP cut point of naphtha may have
to be changed, to prevent water condensation at the top of
the tower. Alternatively, the metallurgy of the upper part of
the tower may have to be retrofitted and provision for
drawing condensed water from the tower added. Whenever
possible, condensation of water in the tower should be
avoided.
B. Lube Oil Manufacturing
QUESTION 11:
Has anybody had success with dewaxing aids on
MEK dewaxing units?
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
JUNO:
At one refinery on a bright stock dewaxing, deoiling
operation, we experienced improvement by increasing the
dewaxing aid from 70 to 125 ppm in the feed oil. The
following results were observed: 5% lower oil in the slack
wax, 3.6% increase in charge rate due to better filtration,
and a 5% increase in bright stock yield. Similar results
were experienced using another dewaxing aid at the same
dosage.
On another unit, we ran tests on a heavy distillate de-
waxing, deoiling operation and observed no measurable
effects at 0,75,150 and 300 ppm dosage rates. It is possible
that the optimum dosage rate for this material was in the
15 to 25 ppm range and by our test dosages, we may not
have observed any effects by substantially overdosing the
feed.
S. K. MUKHERJEE (Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.):
Has the dewaxing aid had an impact on the spread
between the cloud point and the pour point of the dewaxed
oil?
JUNO:
We did not see any noticeable spread increase between
the pour point and cloud point.
SUDHIR MENON (NALCO Chemicals India Ltd.):
We have had good experience with the dewaxing aids in
the MEK toluene plant with about 7 to 8% increase in
yields and about 10% increase in filtration rate for bright
stock using about 200 ppm; and, for 800 neutral, we have
found substantial increase in yields too. The trick is to find
the product chemistry that would work for a particular
crude, based on the wax crystal structure and its chain
lengths. Nalco does extensive laboratory dewaxing aid
studies to screen, identify and select the right chemical.
QUESTION 12:
What has been refiners’ experience with solvent
dehydration in MEK dewaxers, including “conven-
tional” dehydration using distillation, the Nofsinger
dehydration process or any other technique?
JUNO:
I assume this question is in reference to the effect of
solvent dehydration on the dewaxing section of the unit.
Without proper dehydration, wet solvent can be circulated
through the chillers on the way to the scraped surface
exchangers. Since chilling temperatures are below the
freezing point of the water in the solvent, ice crystals will
form in the chiller and cause heat transfer to be reduced
until the chiller required hot solvent washing. With wet
solvent, this can occur often and become a source of upset in
the unit. Ice crystals that are fed to the dewaxing filters,
can also cause filter cloth tears and loss of dewaxing
efficiency.
In one plant we use distillation to dry the solvent and
have had good success. We have experienced a reboiler leak
before, which has essentially shut down the unit because of
the high volumes of wet solvent. The exchanger leak was
detected by analyzers in the solvent for ppm of water,
noting it suddenly had risen from 300 ppm to over 2,000.
15
EBB MOORE (Moore’s Consulting):
I have experienced success in using dewaxing aids with
solvent neutral 130 and the bright stock. I have also tried it
with solvent neutral oil 330 and 850 with no success. Also, I
am in agreement with the panelist on the water effects of
the solvent. It is one of the greatest thefts of unit efficiency
in solvent dewaxing.
QUESTION 13:
What has been the experience with mechanical
seals in dewaxing filters? Does anyone have experi-
ence with mechanical seals in scraped-surface
exchangers/chillers in dewaxing units?
JUNO:
We have installed two demonstration mechanical seals in
scraped surface exchangers and have monitored them for
VOC emissions. The performance of the mechanical seals
were excellent, less than 100 ppm VOC emissions versus
anywhere from 500 to 8,000 ppm for various packings. We
have developed a project to convert the seals on our entire
bank of scraped-surface exchangers from packing to me-
chanical seals. There is a certain amount of retrofitting
that is required for the installation of the seals.
On our dewaxing filters, we have also researched the
conversion to a mechanical seal. Because of the design of
our filters, the mechanical seal would have to be very large,
thus making the cost prohibitive. New dewaxing filters are
designed with a center shaft and can be equipped with a
more conventional mechanical seal. I might add we are also
looking at Grafoil-backed packing, which may hold some
promise for better sealing. We are evaluating this option at
another refinery.
QUESTION 14:
We are considering several upgrades to our MEK
dewaxing unit instrumentation and controls and
would like to know what other refiners’ experiences
have been with:
wax slurry flow meters on individual filter feed
lines;
remotely operable filter speed controls;
hot wash/filtration cycle automation; and
multivariable control of chilling train and solvent
recovery.
LAABS:
One of our refineries has Foxboro Target flow meters
installed on individual filter feed lines. We have had some
success with them, but we do continue to have problems
with wax plugging the flow elements. Our hot wash/
filtration cycle is fully automated using programmable
control logic. It has worked extremely well and we are
pleased with its performance.
JUNO:
We currently use orifice plates with a solvent flush to
meter the wax slurry flow to the individual filters. These
flows are not always reliable. We control each filter’s rotat-
ing speed from the control room utilizing speed-indicating
controllers. Each filter can be hot washed automatically
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
from the control room. Usually the operator manually steps
through each step himself in the control room. We are
currently evaluating multivariable control for our MEK
solvent dewaxing plant.
EBB MOORE (Moore’s Consulting):
Adding to what Mr. Laabs has said, one of the biggest
benefits of the target meters is that they give better control
on your hot wash cycle, which filter to take off-line and hot
wash to maximize the filtration of your dewaxing unit.
JULIE VALENTINE (Micro Motion, Inc.):
Coriolis is an excellent flow metering technology for lube
oil manufacturing. The most common existing applications
of Micro Motion products in lube oil plants are on rafflnate
and slack wax streams. In lube oil processing, some of the
advantages of using Coriolis versus an orifice plate include
independence from changing viscosities, a simultaneous
density measurement, and high reliability as a result of the
nonintrusive sensor with no static impulse lines to plug. In
addition, the Micro Motion meters offer an order of mag-
nitude better accuracy than orifice plates in these
applications.
QUESTION 15:
In many solvent extraction units, the liquid-liquid
interface may be maintained at either the top or the
bottom of the treater tower. Has anyone compared
the performance of the treater tower (i.e., yield,
capacity, product quality) with the liquid-liquid
interface at the bottom versus the top of the tower?
SLOAN:
The answer is different for different objectives and differ-
ent feedstocks and solvents. With a natural high quality
vacuum gas oil as feedstock and only modest quality im-
provement needed, then an oil continuous phase (or inter-
face at the bottom) would probably be most attractive, since
relative volumes of solvent and extract and oil are in the
same magnitude. High selectivity can be accomplished by
modifying the temperature profile in the column with
intermediate heat removal like a pumparound circuit. On
the other hand, a low quality feedstock with high severity
extraction requirements would be a good candidate for
solvent/extract continuous phase (or interface at the top),
since they would likely be 60 to 80% or more of the total
liquid volume in the column.
Again, selectivity and extraction severity can be ad-
justed by solvent-to-oil ratio, extraction temperatures, and
temperature gradient maintained across the ends of the
column.
For a given feedstock, there will generally be one condi-
tion or the other that is clearly superior in raffinate quality
and yield with a given contacting column and interfacial
area generation system. Changing the column and inter-
facial area generation system may lead to a different pre-
ferred interface location.
JUNO:
The answer to this question depends a lot on the type of
extraction tower being employed in this service. In one of
16
our plants, utilizing a sloped tower tray design, we have run
the liquid-liquid interface at the top and the bottom of the
column and we have not been able to measure any differ-
ences in yields or product quality.
LAABS:
In our particular case we have moved the liquid-liquid
interface from the bottom to the top and it has helped
increase throughput through the unit. The solvent has a
lower viscosity than oil, so having a continuous solvent
phase will provide less resistance to flow. This will move the
tower away from the flooding point, and allow more
throughput. Yield or product quality improvements have
not been determined.
KEN GRAF (Norton Chemical Process Products Corp.):
The choice of the interface location, at the top or the
bottom of the extractor, is really a choice of which phase
should be continuous and which should be dispersed. Rules
governing the choice are (1) the dispersed phase should be
the phase of greater flow rate; (2) the dispersed phase
should not preferentially wet the packing or trays; (3) the
dispersed phase should be the phase with the critical prod-
uct specification; and (4) the dispersed phase should receive
the mass transfer. For a given extraction system, these four
rules will hopefully agree as to which phase should be
dispersed. For example, in an LPG amine contactor, three
of the four rules favor dispersion of the LPG in continuous
amine, as is the industry standard. Publications by Seibert,
Fair, and Reeves of Separations Research Program at the
University of Texas in Austin show the research data for
packed extractors including information about dispersion
choices. The publications are in the September 1990, and
March 1988 issues of Industrial and Engineering Chemis-
try Research.
S. K. MUKHERJEE (Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.):
What is the experience of NMP losses in those units
using NMP as extraction solvent?
JUNO:
We average NMP losses less than 0.1 pound NMP/bbl
feed.
C. Solvent Deasphalting
QUESTION 16:
Asphalt product pumps are difficult to specify due
to the presence of dissolved or entrained solvent
and/or seal flush oil. What type of pumps are best for
this application?
T. WILLIAMS:
In our ROSE unit we use Viking gear pumps, model
LQ225. We pipe these in parallel with common spares and
put as many pumps in service as needed to match the
production volume. These pumps are packed instead of
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
having flush seals. The packing usually has a six month to
one year life.
In other services we have also used Worthington pumps,
model 2GRJ.
SLOAN:
Rotary positive displacement or “screw type” pumps have
been used successfully in asphalt product service. This type
of pump can handle a wide range of high viscosity and dirty
fluids. However, this type of pump may experience capacity
limitations from reduction in viscosity if seal flush is not
accounted for in the specification. Double mechanical seals
may be used to eliminate this problem. If double mechan-
ical seals are not used, an estimate of the minimum fluid
viscosity accounting for seal flush should be made for the
specification. Small amounts of dissolved gases or solvent
should have little effect on the performance of the pump if
adequate NPSH is available.
Proper product stripper design will minimize the amount
of solvent present in the asphaltene product.
LAABS:
We are currently using screw pumps for this application.
The pumps are run at slow speeds to avoid problems. You
can also use gear pumps, also run at slow speeds.
O’BRIEN:
Our asphalt product pumps are centrifugal pumps. On a
start-up, there is frequently foam in the asphalt, so the
pumps have difficulty taking suction. The pumps must then
be bled down, making a considerable mess. Replacing them
with gear pumps (positive displacement) was considered,
but could not be justified.
QUESTION 17:
What is your experience with the use of a cutter
stock in the feed to the asphaltene product stripper of
solvent deasphalting units to solve foaming prob-
lems? Can foaming in deasphalted oil (DAO), resin
and asphaltene strippers be reduced or eliminated by
controlling operating conditions such as tempera-
ture, pressure and/or stripping steam rate? What
antifoaming agents have been successfully employed
for foaming control in these strippers and what typi-
cal dosages are required?
JUNO:
At one of our refineries we have never experienced foam-
ing problems in the resin stripper. The resin recovery
consists of sending the resin-propane mix of the contactors
through a furnace to a pressure flash tower and then on to a
resin stripper. We have experienced foaming problems in
the flash tower. This is detectable by using the blotter test
at a vent valve at the inlet of the condenser for the resin
flash tower vapors. The flash tower contains a demister pad
and it is found that the demister pad loses its ability to
entrain liquid if the viscosity of the entrained liquid is too
high. Therefore we maintain a minimum furnace outlet
temperature.
17
MURPHY:
Foaming severity is related to temperature and pressure.
For a given pressure, a lower temperature will make the oil
more likely to foam. We have employed antifoaming agents
to control foaming very successfully at several locations. At
one refinery we injected an antifoaming agent into the
asphaltene stripper feed. We observed a dramatic drop in
foaming demonstrated by significantly reduced plugging of
the overhead fin fans due to decreased asphaltene carry-
over. This program was then repeated at the deasphalted oil
tower and similar results were observed. Unit upsets due to
foaming were eliminated after these programs were
started.
Silicon-based antifoams diluted with the gas oil carrier
normally will be effective at controlling foaming. The dos-
ages are dependent upon the severity of the foaming and
the method of application.
O’BRIEN:
We have had problems with the level indication in the
asphalt tower, probably caused by a foam layer in the tower.
We have found the best thing to do is to allow the tower to go
empty, thus yielding the foam to the asphalt stripper and
then to reestablish the level. The float column used for level
indication was also replaced with a differential pressure
level indicator which is calibrated by finding the actual
level with tricocks.
PAULES:
We have never added cutter stock in the feed to our
asphalt stripper. However, we have occasionally used a
silicone-based antifoam. The dosage rate was approxi-
mately 0.5 gallon per 1,000 bbls of asphalt product. We
have the capability of lowering the asphalt stripper pres-
sure to less than 5 psig, which helps reduce the surface
tension of the solvent, thereby reducing foaming.
SLOAN:
According to Kerr-McGee, no one is injecting cutter stock
into the feed to a ROSE® asphaltene stripper to reduce
foaming. One ROSE® unit fed heavy cycle oil to the top tray
of the asphaltene stripper in an attempt to reduce as-
phaltene carryover to the solvent condenser. They reported
that the HCO helped reduce carryover but the light ends of
the HCO were stripped and contaminated the solvent.
Low stripper operating temperatures can promote the
formation of foam. Product foaming within the stripper can
sometimes be reduced by increasing the stripper tempera-
ture. At the higher temperature, the viscosity of the prod-
uct is reduced, and lower viscosities mean that any foam
that forms will break much easier.
Increasing the stripper pressure or reducing the strip-
ping steam rate lowers the amount of solvent removed from
the product. Although solvent losses are higher, the ten-
dency for foaming is reduced because less solvent will flash
from the products. In addition, steam or hot oil coils could
be added below the bottom tray to help break foaming.
A two-product ROSE unit reported that they are suc-
cessfully using an antifoam agent in both their product
strippers. They use a low silicone antifoam agent such as
Nalco 5700 at the rate of 1 to 2 gallons of antifoam per
10,000 bbls of product.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
D. Crude Distillation
Mechanical
QUESTION 18:
What new tools are available to monitor corrosion
in a crude overhead system? Can underdeposit cor-
rosion be monitored?
MURPHY:
The trend in corrosion monitoring is toward continuous
real-time feedback. Corrosion rarely occurs in an even rate
and continuous monitoring is the only way to capture all
spikes as they occur, thereby assuring a diagnosis of the
root cause of the corrosion. The automation of conventional
monitoring techniques, as well as the improvement or
introduction of some more sophisticated equipment has
been observed.
For example, electrical resistance probes have been used
successfully for many years. However, the frequency of
probe readings is often limited due to the inconvenience of
manually collecting the data, especially for those probes
located in difficult locations such as the top of the crude
distillation tower. To combat this, recently-introduced re-
18
mote data loggers have become popular. These units are
designed to attach to ER probes in the field, can be pro-
grammed to take readings at various intervals, and can
download the information to a computer for analysis.
Combining this technology with a slipstream overhead
simulation exchanger provides very good insight into the
around-the-clock factors affecting corrosion at the dew
point of water. Additionally, flexible corrosion probes,
which are inserted directly into the tower and sit on the
tray surface, give excellent localized corrosion information.
Another trend is to select more predictive variables to
monitor including tracking such items as the total acid
content of the stream, the dew point pH, key upstream
operating parameters such as salt out of the desalter, and
any suspected corrosion co-factors such as the sulfur con-
tent. To the extent that these proactive measurements can
be captured continuously, the better the potential corrosion
control. A recently introduced on-line strong acid analyzer
can measure the actual amount of acids present and adjust
the neutralizer pump accordingly.
Considering the question of underdeposit corrosion, we
are aware of no direct means to precisely determine the
extent of corrosion taking place under all the various
deposits which may exist in an overhead system while in
operation. Most monitoring techniques only give general
information. The corrosion rate under a deposit can be as
much as 100 times the general corrosion rate.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
There are on-line tests or tools which can help to charac-
terize the problem. The slipstream corrosion simulators
allow one to visually examine any salts or deposits which
might form on any probe. Still the only true indication of
the extent of underdeposit corrosion taking place in a unit
is the information obtained during turnaround inspections.
OSBORN:
We have used several of the Nalco products that Mr.
Murphy was mentioning. We have used a flex probe in-
stalled on the second tray of a crude tower with good results
in monitoring for a potential corrosion problem. Routinely
the service representative uses the strong acid analyzer
and we also use in-line pH meters on our overhead system.
BRIERLEY:
Syncrude uses both standard and flush-mounted electri-
cal resistance(ER) probes with electronic data loggers to
collect corrosion rate data. There is also an inexpensive,
externally mounted, hydrogen patch type monitor that is
mounted using an epoxy adhesive. While it does not provide
a quantitative corrosion rate, it is sensitive to process
changes that affect the corrosion rate. The fact that it is
externally mounted without welding or extensive surface
preparation makes it very versatile. Neither of these tools
can differentiate the type of corrosion.
A costly method of monitoring electrochemical noise by
real time advanced LPR system, which is Linear Polari-
zation, has recently become available as a field tool, but we
have yet to have field experience with it. It will differentiate
the types of corrosion and would be able to detect under-
deposit corrosion.
PEDERSEN:
Regardless of the systems available on the market, we
still believe that a good pH control and followup on the iron
content in the sour water will continue to be essential. We
have tried on-line corrosion monitoring at our installations
with a varied degree of success. Of course, as has been
mentioned earlier, one of the problems with these systems
is to locate the probes where the corrosion rates are highest
or at least representative, e.g., in the condensing zone in
the overhead condensers.
Another problem is underdeposit corrosion, which we
monitor on stream by radiographic or ultrasonic testing.
We inspect tubes, for instance, in air tin condensers, by
fiber optics off stream.
RAJGURU:
Just to add to the panels comments, the flexible corrosion
probes are the ones that we are very familiar with and those
have been added recently.
ROY:
One other tool that we are familiar with is the Betz
Process Chemical Variable Temperature Corrosion Probe.
It employs a hollow coupon that can be cooled by an appro-
priate fluid. You install the coupon well above the suspected
condensation point that you are trying to monitor. The
coupon can then be cooled to a downstream temperature
region by a fluid of choice. Maintaining the temperature for
a period of time will allow for a deposit to be collected and
analyzed. This method tries to simulate the point of con-
densation to measure maximum corrosion rate.
19
QUESTION 19:
What vacuum column overflash withdrawal/
measurement systems are reliable?
BONELLI:
A simple system which we find works relatively well is to
install a deep draw pan in the chimney tray above the flash
zone in the vacuum column. Level control on the draw tray
provides the rate control of material returned to the tower
below the flash zone. In our application, we simply measure
the withdraw rate using an orifice meter on the discharge of
the return oil pump. We have found this system gives us
excellent reliability and generally no problems from turn-
around to turnaround.
JUNO:
The most reliable system is to draw the liquid to a pump
and meter the pump discharge back to the bottom of the
tower. The drawback to this approach is the cost of adding a
hot oil pump and the maintenance problems of metering a
hot liquid and operating a hot level control.
A less costly approach is to utilize the head from the slop
draw pan to the stripping section and install a meter in the
line. In this application, care must be given to the adequate
height to prevent vaporization prior to the meter. Level
control of the draw pan must still be used to assure head to
the meter.
In either instance, the level on the tray must be mini-
mized to reduce coking tendencies. If a wash recirculation
pump is used to raise the volume of the wash oil, the net
from this application can be measured similar to the first
application. The risks of maintenance problems with the
wash oil pump are reduced because of the assurance of a
more continuous flow rate.
PEDERSEN:
We also have had good experience with total drawoff and
all orifice meter installation downstream of the pump.
An alternative is to measure the wash stream and cal-
culate the overflash by simulation.
RAJGURU:
The vacuum overflash is usually measured by two
methods. One is the external type. Overflash is withdrawn
by gravity flow from a total drawoff tray just above the flash
zone and returned to the column below the feed inlet.
Alternatively, the drawoff could be pumped back to the
vacuum heater inlet. An orifice meter or a venturi meter
measures the flow. The accuracy of the measurement for
the gravity flow return system is very poor due to the low
delta pressure availability.
The second method is an internal type. The overall liquid
would pass through a deep vee notch in the seal pot and
monitoring the level of the liquid in the vee notch provides
the flow rate measurement.
Over-flash is basically a function of heater coil outlet
temperature, coil steam injection rate, feed quality, strip-
ping steam rate, and flash zone pressure. A small variation
in these parameters results in a very large swing in the
overflash rate which normally is a small quantity.
A computer simulation model with a predicted overflash
rate, based on heat and material balances, is also an ac-
ceptable alternative method. In an operating unit, the
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
actual overflash must also include liquid entrainment from
the flash zone.
DAVID R. MORRIS (Chevron Research & Technology
Co.):
Have the panelists had consistent success with any par-
ticular type of primary level detection device, looking speci-
fically for designs that resist coking and plugging.
HIGGINS:
No response.
VICTOR TAILER (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
Mr. Bonelli and Mr. Rajguru provided a proper descrip-
tion of the overflash. We would like to stress the importance
of having properly monitored the overflash and not over-
load the tower and heater by excessive overflashing or
drying the wash zone by insufficient overflash.
In our opinion, it is very important to discuss together
with the client the options to use either internal or external
overflash. The liquid entrainment in the wash zone will be
measured as overflash. It is possible to measure the over-
flash and actually have a dry wash zone that will coke
rapidly. Most refiners prefer an external overtlash which
can be monitored.
ANDREW SLOLEY (Glitsch, Inc.):
I believe that there are two issues here that you need to
consider. The first is the method of measuring the overflash
and the second is the determination of what the stream you
are measuring is. It is not just overflash off of the bottom of
the bed. The liquid includes a considerable part of en-
trainment in most operating units today. Entrainment of
material from the flash zone is the major component of the
stream.
For measuring this, total withdrawal to a pump suction
and then traditional downstream measuring with an ori-
fice meter or a vortex meter is by far the superior method of
measurement. There are problems in this application with
level control on the tray in that you get cracking and the
excess enthalpy from the entrained over-flash causes vapor-
ization of the overflash liquid.
Our solution, which has been applied with considerable
success, is to put in a pressure controller on the pump
suction to control the liquid level in the line to the pump.
Gravity withdrawal methods and internal methods in the
tower that depend upon a level are considerably inferior in
measurement of this liquid rate. They both suffer from the
fact that you cannot draw samples to see how much is
entrainment and how much is overflash. Without some
method of determining your entrainment concentration it
is very risky to use this overflash rate you measure to
determine your column operating conditions. Several vac-
uum columns have coked as a result of “drying out” the
middle of the bed.
QUESTION 20:
Naphthenic acid attack and high temperature sul-
fur attack are often difficult to differentiate. What
techniques and criteria are used to diagnose high
temperature corrosion and distinguish between the
two types?
20
BRIERLEY:
It has been our experience that naphthenic acid attack
and high temperature sulfidation are distinguishable
using one of two methods. The most reliable method is to
metallographically examine the corrosion products on the
surface of the attacked area, usually a pit. Naphthenic acid
attack leaves no corrosion product or at most a thin amor-
phous scale. Sulfide attack results in a structured scale.
Using energy dispersive x-ray analysis, the scales due to
sulfur corrosion are found to be rich in sulfur while the
scales, if any, found at naphthenic acid pit sites are deficient
in sulfur.
The second, less reliable method is to observe the pitting
after process steam out operations. Systems that contain
both naphthenic acids and reactive sulfur may both develop
pitting, but the pits that form due to naphthenic acids will
rapidly rust when exposed to saturated steam. Bright rusty
pits are easily observed amongst black, oil-wetted, sulfide-
coated surfaces.
MURPHY:
Naphthenic acid corrosion can be prevented if the metal-
lurgy of the unit contains high amounts of molybdenum,
such as 316 stainless steel, or 317 stainless steel. Pre-
vention of sulfide attack, on the other hand, does not re-
quire the presence of alloys containing molybdenum. A
chromium alloy is sufficient to mitigate sulfide corrosion.
The most direct method ofdifferentiating these two types
of corrosion would be to place three corrosion coupons in the
areas of interest with various metallurgies. A carbon steel
coupon will give information on the general corrosion rate.
If the corrosion is due to sulfur, then neither 410 stainless
steel or 317 stainless steel will show corrosion. However, if
the corrosion is due to naphthenic acid, then 410 stainless
steel will show corrosion.
PEDERSEN:
Naphthenic acid corrosion takes place at temperatures
from approximately 230 °C to 400 ºC (450-750 ºF), and high
temperature sulfur corrosion in the temperature range
260-540 °C (500-1000 ºF).
As mentioned in my comment to Question 7, we will
specify 316 stainless steel for services where naphthenic
acids can be a problem, whereas a Cr-Mo alloy is specified
when high temperature sulfur corrosion is the problem.
We apply traditional inspection techniques such as
ultrasonic testing and radiography to detect these types of
corrosion. In many cases, it is possible to differentiate
between the two by visual inspection. Naphthenic acid
corrosion is characterized as pit corrosion with sharp edges,
whereas sulfur corrosion tends to be more uniform.
RAJGURU:
Generally one of the ways to distinguish between the two
types of corrosion is by visual inspection. The appearance is
very different. “Naphthenic acid corrosion typically has a
scalloped, washed, plateau effect”. (Ref: R. L. Piehl, Naph-
thenic Acid Corrosion in Crude Distillation Units, Mate-
rials Performance, January 1988.1
Naphthenic acid attack and high temperature sulfur
corrosion can be determined directly or indirectly by:
a) The damage pattern. High temperature sulfur cor-
rosion will cause a uniform thinning of process
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
equipment, while absence of scale and severe pitting
of the steel are often the evidence of possible naph-
thenic acid corrosion. However, these are not con-
clusive evidences since high velocity droplet
impingement in the absence of naphthenic acids can
produce the same type of “erosion” damage.
b) The metallurgical evidence. Type 300 and 400 series
stainless steels offer adequate protection against high
temperature sulfur corrosion, but not against naph-
thenic acid attack.
c) Analytical measure of acid strength of the feed. Naph-
thenic acid attack will become significant only when
the neutralization number is above 0.5 mg KOH/
gram.
ROY:
The only thing I want to add is that iron naphthenate is
soluble where as iron sulfide is not, so that information can
be used.
MICHAEL ZETLMEISL (Petrolite Corporation):
First, the morphology of naphthenic acid attack is that of
a very sharp grooving or pitting, at least in the high veloc-
ity zones. Naphthenic acids dissolve sulfide scales. Sulfidic
attack is characterized by formation of sulfide scales which
are friable and not always protective.
Second, in general the temperature regime for naph-
thenic acid corrosion, 400 to 750 ºF, is much lower than
sulfidic attack, which becomes significant only above
500 °F and goes to much higher temperatures than naph-
thenic acid attack. A lower temperature of 600 ºF is quoted
by some authors. So, in general sulfidic attack is just
getting started around the temperatures that naphthenic
acid attack is running out of steam.
Third, Cr is the critical alloying element for protection
against sulfidic attack. For naphthenic acid attack, the
critical ingredient is MO, above about 2.5%.
QUESTION 21:
As vacuum towers operate at severe conditions
(flash zone temperature up to 760 ºF and pressure of
18 mm Hg abs), coke formation may be a significant
problem. What would be the recommended contact
device for the wash section (i.e., random packing,
structured packing, grid, etc.)! What special care
should be taken in the design of this section?
PAULES:
We have recently revamped two vacuum towers in our
system to a deep cut operation. They operate around 25 mm
and 750 ºF in the flash zone and 6 mm vacuum at the tower
overhead. The wash sections are made up of random pack-
ing; although many refiners are using structure packing in
this service. The biggest concern in designing the wash
zone is basically insuring even distribution of wash oil over
the packing to prevent dead zones. Careful spray nozzle
design and safeguards against plugging are critical. Also
the ability to heat up the wash oil in times of turndown is
important.
RAJGURU:
An optimum contact for a vacuum tower wash section
21
will meet the HVGO metals and concarbon specifications
concurrent with:
minimum wash oil rates (liquid loading - gpm/ft2);
very low pressure drop;
sturdy construction; and
low liquid holdup.
Recent Fluor Daniel vacuum tower designs have mostly
used a structured grid in the wash section with good success.
Structured grid has lower efficiency than the structured
packing, and therefore, for a revamp design a combination
of a structured grid and packing may be considered to
provide the required number of theoretical stages if the
available height is limited. In designing this section special
care should be focused on:
Uniform distribution and total coverage of wash oil
over the entire grid area. The recommended minimum
amount of liquid required for bed wetting about is 0.3 -
0.5 gpm/ft2 leaving the bed, and a general rule of thumb
is to have one spray nozzle for each five square feet of
bed area.
Providing dual strainers (filters) in the wash oil to
remove coke particles ahead of spray nozzles. We feel
this is very important. Carbon steel should not be used
downstream of the filter.
Selection of 300 series stainless steel for the wash oil
piping and spray system is also recommended.
Limiting the spray nozzle pressure drop to less than 40
psi to prevent a mist spray.
Providing adequate height from the top of the grid to
the spray nozzles.
BONELLI:
In 1986 we modified a vacuum column from tray to
structured packing. Prior to the modification when the unit
came down for turnaround, it was typical to find several
inches of coke deposited on the trays. During the inspection
following the installation of the structured packing, we
found the wash zone section of the column to be clean.
Critical to the correct design of the wash zone packing,
consistent with Mr. Rajguru’s advice, the selection of pack-
ing and distribution of the wash oil and spray nozzles goes
to the heart of the matter.
Again, if you have problems with coke retention on the
trays, it is important to specify the packing so that there is
enough void volume to allow for coke transport down the
tower if it is entrained. The vacuum tower, which we modi-
fied typically operates with about 13 mm mercury top
vacuum column, and about 30 to 33 mm mercury at the
flash zone, at a temperature of around 750 ºF
JUNO:
The wash zone of a deep cut vacuum tower needs to have
substantial open area to prevent coke formation. To my
knowledge, the best device is a wash grid where brief
intervals of loss of wash will not result in severe coke
formation. Recirculating wash pumps, although sometimes
difficult to maintain, allow for greater wash volume which
will insure that the grid is kept wet with liquid. If this
would be a deep cut vacuum tower after a lube hydro-
treater, for example, where the metals and concarbon have
been eliminated, then random packing or structured pack-
ing could be employed with good success.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
OSBORN:
At Coffeyville we have two vacuum columns operating
with flash zones in the 740 to 760 °F range. We have
random packing in one of them. We have had very little
problems with coking. I think the important considerations
that have already been mentioned are the quality of the
wash, the spray nozzle distribution, and maintaining an
estimated 0.3 to 0.5 gpm/ft2 out of the bottom of the packed
bed.
BRAD FLEMING (Glitsch, Inc.):
Assuming the issues of distribution are taken into con-
sideration, we believe the primary issue on a deep cut
vacuum column wash zone device is the type of crude or
crudes being processed. On low metals feedstocks like West
Texas Intermediate(WTI), many North Sea, Norwegian, or
many West African crudes, it is not possible to put enough
enthalpy into the feed to vaporize any significant amount of
metals. On low metals crude wash zones made of grid,
rings, or structured packing work just fine. The key is to
make the bed short to avoid the problems of dryout and
subsequent coking.
The exception to this rule is what we will call super deep
cut columns where temperatures of 770 ºF and 10 mm
mercury flash zones are achieved. This type of design can
require additional wash zone efficiency to reduce endpoints
on the HVGOs even with crudes like WTI and Brent.
On the high metals feedstock such as Maya, many of the
Venezuelan, and some Columbian crudes, the quantity of
volatile metals is high. These types of crude operating at
deep cut, say in the region of 1050 - 1100 °F, require high
wash zone efficiency. On these types of units, structure
packing is certainly justified.
VICTOR TAILER (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
When considering using structured packing in a vacuum
tower wash zone, we think that careful consideration
should be given to proper tower simulations, using proper
thermodynamic data, and packing characteristics.
It is important first to model the existing unit using the
existing configuration and match the existing conditions
with the simulator. Once an operating model has been
established, revamp conditions can be properly simulated.
Stone & Webster has develop a high lift design technique
for vacuum towers in order to increase HVGO yields with
an acceptable quality for further processing in the FCC
units.
In terms of flash zone temperature and pressure, we
think 740 to 760 ºF and 20 to 30mm Hg are in the range of
what is achievable. However, the feedstock characteristics
and sensitivity to thermal cracking should be carefully
analyzed to avoid excessive coking or to decrease sub-
stantially the run length of the heater.
Now in terms of the structured packings available in the
market, there are at least four qualified vendors. Never-
theless, these structured packings are different in terms of
performance characteristics such as capacity, efficiency,
and pressure drop. It is the designer’s responsibility to
choose the proper structured packing required to achieve
the revamp’s objective.
In addition, the disengagement height in the flash zone,
the vapor/liquid superficial velocity, and the correct dis-
22
tribution of the liquid to packing are very important design
considerations to be established.
KEN GRAF (Norton Chemical Process Products Corp.):
The standard wash section contacting device is grid-type
packing. An increasingly popular alternative is sheet-type
structured packing on top of several layers of grid packing.
The greater efficiency of the structured packing allows
higher wash oil rates, larger spray nozzles, and better
fractionation at the same net overflash rate.
JAMES SAPPINGTON (Koch Industries):
We agree with the comments on good liquid coverage and
the value of structured packing to increase the efficiency
for deeper cut points. At deeper cuts though, we recommend
that the grid or a combination of grid/structured packing be
utilized in these severe service beds. Although random
packing as been successfully used at less severe cut points
or with intermediate type crudes, it is unsuitable for pro-
viding good fractionation and resistance to coking and
vapor break-through in deep cut operation. The very low
liquid rates of the vacuum tower wash zones, generally less
than 1 gpm/ft2, promote liquid and vapor channeling in the
random packing.
I would also add that on the deep cuts the various type
crudes need to be studied individually, and special care
should be taken in the design of the section to ensure
adequate wetting throughout the bed. Since deeper and
more efficient beds are required to ensure HVGO quality in
deepcut operation, the wash zone design becomes critical.
The theoretical overflash liquid leaving the bed should be
a minimum of 0.2 gpm/ft2. However, unless excellent assay
data is available, the simulated required wash rate to the
bed may be underpredicted. In cases where assay data is
general or where there is no good previous operating expe-
rience, the design wash rate should be increased by 50 or
even 100% over the predicted rate to avoid coking. This may
also hold for higher vapor rates, to reduce excessive en-
trainment and drying of the bed. Recycle of the slop wax to
the feed can be implemented to recover gas oil in these
cases.
JEROME J. LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA
Corporation):
I agree with most of the comments made regarding the
importance of adequate wash oil distribution and filtering,
and also wetting on the bed. Foster Wheeler, for certain
crudes and applications in severe service, would prefer
structured packing. We have gone as high as 775 ºF in the
flash zone. Monitoring pressure drop across the bed will
help detect if coking is occurring. The wash flow criteria we
use is about 0.25 (minimum) gpm/ft2 wetting from the bed.
That would be increased, if you wanted to increase sep-
aration, between heavy vacuum gas oil and the bottom cut.
BRAD FLEMING (Glitsch, Inc.):
Of the 15 to 20 units in the industry that actually operate
in deep cut mode, a large percentage of these columns have
coked up since they have been revamped. We have found
that it is nothing specific to rings, grid, or structured
packing. Similar to Mr. Sappington’s comment on pre-
dicting the wash oil rates, the prime problem has been with
the beds drying out in the middle.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
For one of these types of revamp projects to be successful,
a very good understanding of the type of crude being proc-
essed, a wash zone design appropriate for the crude type
and cut point, and knowing what the true dryout ratio is
across this bed is important. This leads to the previous
question’s answer that was addressed by Mr. Sloley on
measuring entrainment using the measured slop wax rate.
Using the measured flow to control the wash oil to the wash
zone of these deep cut towers could result in coked packing,
because the majority of measured liquid is entrainment
and not overflash on most columns. The measured slop wax
rate can give you a false impression that you have enough
liquid coming out of the bottom bed. This results in a coked
wash zone.
QUESTION 22:
What limits the cut point for deep cut vacuum
distillation? What cut points are practically
achievable?
RAJGURU:
Heavy vacuum gas oil cut point for deep cut vacuum
distillation is limited by its use or its routing to the down-
stream process units. It is also limited by cracking tem-
perature of the feed at the heater coil outlet temperature. It
is also limited by allowable metals and Conradson carbon
content in the heavy vacuum gas oil. If it is to be processed
downstream in a hydrocracker, it will have significantly
less tolerance for the metals content.
It is also limited by viscosity limitations and by the
bottoms product, the penetration number and the proper-
ties of the vacuum residue. Practically achievable cut
points depend upon the type of crude and the uses of the
vacuum gas oils. Up to 1070 ºF, cut points have been
achieved in some of our units.
JUNO:
The economic limit to the cut point for a deep cut vacuum
distillation occurs when significant volumes of volatile
metals begin to be present in the heavy gas oil cut. This
characteristic is dependent on the crude source. Mechan-
ically, the cut point is limited by higher and higher furnace
outlet temperatures which promote coke formation in the
furnace tubes. This effect can somewhat be mitigated by
careful furnace design, minimizing residence time at high
temperatures.
Lower and lower vacuums are required to cut deeper
which means the use of minimum pressure drop packing.
Even deeper cut points can be achieved as stripping steam
is used to lower the hydrocarbon partial pressure in the
tower. Practically speaking on most crudes, a 1050 ºF cut
point is achievable without extreme measures. Cut points
of 1100 ºF can be achieved; but a word of caution, the entire
system needs to be evaluated. This means from the vacuum
ejectors, to the tower packing, to the furnace transfer line,
to the furnace inlet. As cut points are pushed even higher,
expect a substantial price to be paid in both capital costs
and utility costs with a resulting poorer and poorer quality
HVGO.
Great care must be given to accurate characterization of
the heavy ends of the crude, if cut points of this nature are
23
to be achieved. Design errors are often made in this first
step; do not overlook its importance. I will also add that I
have heard that Ultra Lift Technology can get to 1200 ºF
cut points, but I have no confirmed data on this process.
LAABS:
The Star Enterprise crude units that have implemented
deep cut technology in their vacuum towers are seeing cut
points between 1030 and 1050 ºF on a routine basis. One
unit has the capability of running to a cut point of 1100 ºF,
but is currently limited by market conditions to 1060 °F.
There are several mechanical and process limits for
achieving deeper cut. The design of the vacuum tower
heater can be a constraint if the desired outlet temperature
can not be achieved.
One of our affiliated refineries has a problem due to a
limit on the amount of combustion air flow that can be
introduced to the heater. A higher heater outlet tempera-
ture can also reduce crude unit run length due to acceler-
ated furnace coking.
Product quality is very important. The deep cut tech-
nology used is strongly dependent upon the ability of the
downstream units to be able to economically process the
heavier feed.
PAULES:
The two vacuum towers discussed in Question 21 achieve
a heavy vacuum gas oil cut point in the 1050 °F range, at
0.5 Conradson Carbon, and less than 2.5 ppm nickel and
vanadium. A deeper vacuum can be pulled, but flooding
occurs causing heavy entrainment. This could be overcome
with a larger diameter tower, but practical size limitations
limit you to about this operating range.
KRIK V. KRIKORIAN (KBC Advanced Technologies,
Inc.):
We have revamped over 30 units for deep cuts and typi-
cally what we aim for is about 1170 ºF for North Sea 38”
API type crudes. With the heavier 20” API region, we have
achieved up to 1100 ºF while still meeting acceptable qual-
ities for downstream units. Typically, we go for a furnace
coil outlet temperature as high as 815 °F The key on how
you can judge a good design is by the amount ofcracked gas
production. With North Sea type crudes, we achieve about
0.15 wt% on feed.
I think the topic has been pretty well covered right across
the range in terms of the quality that needs to be applied to
tower internal designs. I think Mr. Juno also mentioned
that the furnace is critical. That is absolutely correct be-
cause if you do not get the furnace right, you are not going
to achieve the three year run lengths.
A point was mentioned about residence times. You have
to be careful where the steam is injected. Many refiners
tend to inject it right towards the back end, but generally
there is an optimum which is further back than the three or
four tubes from the end. The danger of injecting it too early
is that you can get premature coking as a result of unde-
sired flow regions which are particularly bad when you are
dealing with vertical furnaces.
BRAD FLEMING (Glitsch, Inc.):
The deepest cut column that we are aware of operates at a
770 ºF flash zone, and a 9 mm absolute pressure. This is on
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
West Texas Intermediate crude. The assessment of the cut
point is difficult however. The tail of the HVGO and the
front end of the residue are typically not accurate with the
DIl60 type analysis methods. We recommend the ASTM
D2887 test to properly characterize the feed and the re-
sulting cut point calculation. The end point on these analy-
ses usually goes up to 1360 or 1380 °F.
We believe the deepest cut commercially achievable is in
the region of 1150 °F However, the columns must operate at
very low overflash, high temperature, and unfortunately,
unit reliability can be a problem.
The issue of minimum overflash, deep cut, and proper
operation monitoring can not be overstated. We believe
good reliable operation is possible, but the day-to-day unit
monitoring must be upgraded while operating a truly deep
cut column. Otherwise, the wash bed will coke. The ten-
dency to dry out the wash zone increases with increasing
wash zone efficiency.
HIMMAT SINGH (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
I believe this question was discussed in the last year’s
NPRA Q&A also. The panel has very nicely covered the
achievable end points of the deep cut HVGO as also the
related operational details. We are interested in knowing,
and it is a question to the panel, if there are some units
processing these high vacuum gas oils either as FCC feed-
stock or as hydrocracker feedstocks.
LAABS:
We are taking the vacuum gas oils with the higher end
points into the FCC units. You do not achieve the con-
version you would get with lower cut points, but we find
that it is economical to process it there rather than other
places. You make more money in deep cut technology by
taking that VGO to the FCC units.
BONELLI:
I concur with what Mr. Laabs has said. An economic
analysis of moving to deep cut from your traditional vac-
uum column usually includes that feed stream destination.
In our case as well, it is favored at the fluid catalytic
cracking unit.
JUNO:
We run a light sweet crude, but we do take a 1050 ºF cut
point material to a lube hydrotreater.
Process
QUESTION 23:
What is your experience in achieving acceptable
corrosion protection in a crude overhead system
controlled at levels less than 5.5 pH?
MURPHY:
It is very critical that it is the dewpoint pH that is in
question here. Dewpoint is the temperature or location
where water first condenses. Chloride concentrations in
this water will typically be ten times the level seen in the
overhead receiver. The dewpoint region is typically the
24
most corrosive in the crude unit. If the dewpoint pH is such
that all the strong acids, chloride and SO,, are neutralized,
this will allow the filmers to handle the weak acids, CO2
and H2S. If you neutralize the strong acids, corrosion can be
controlled. The overhead receiver drum pH is then left to
float, within reason, wherever it will.
Typically crude units with high levels of C02 in the offgas
can be treated, with acceptable corrosion, with the bulk
overhead water pH in the 5.0 to 5.5 range. But again, the
dewpoint pH of this system was at 4.5.
We have found that the majority of crude unit overhead
systems will have unacceptable corrosion protection if the
bulk overhead water pH is below 5.5. In these situations,
with free strong acids now available to attack the metal-
lurgy directly, corrosion rates can be very high. A slip-
stream corrosion monitor is useful in diagnosing dewpoint
corrosion problems and measuring the dewpoint pH.
OSBORN:
Probes and coupons measure general corrosion rates, but
do not represent corrosion going on beneath deposits. Mea-
surement of underdeposit corrosion is difficult as
previously discussed in Question 18 of this session. A tech-
nique for minimizing deposits was discussed and a paper
presented at the March 1993 NPRA Annual Meeting. Basi-
cally it says that if the overhead system has a history of iron
sulfide deposits, then reducing the pH to control deposits is
the best corrosion protection you can have, even if it means
higher general corrosion rates as measured in mils per
year. So the challenge alluded to by Mr. Murphy becomes
providing adequate corrosion protection in this low pH
range. I understand that the company which published that
paper has a new family ofcorrosion inhibitors that can keep
mils-per-year corrosion rates down to traditional levels
even at a pH below 5.
BRIERLEY:
We found that we have been able to double the life of our
70:30 copper nickel bundles by dropping the pH control
range to the 5 to 6 range and still maintain the carbon steel
corrosion rate less than 5 mils per year. We do add a filming
corrosion inhibitor at 4 volume ppm.
SCOTT BIEBER (ChemLink):
We have been successful in controlling corrosion in an
atmospheric column overhead system where high overhead
vapor CO2 levels made pH control above 5.5 very costly. Our
approach is to use a specially formulated water soluble
inhibitor with a water wash to control corrosion in the
overhead condensing system while controlling the accumu-
lator pH in the 5.2 to 5.5 range. This approach is related in
paper No. 633 from NACE’s 1993 annual conference. How-
ever, in overhead condensing systems that do not have a
water wash or do not have an adequate water wash, we
would be very concerned about running the accumulator
pH that low. This is because the water dewpoint pH could
easily be two to three units lower than the accumulator pH.
You can not always depend on adequate distribution of
corrosion inhibitor to the areas of the overhead system
where the water dewpoint is occurring. Allowing low pH
condensate to exist where inhibitors cannot reach the cor-
roding surface is not a desirable condition for effective
corrosion control.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
NASSER M. AL-SHAMMA (Kuwait National Petroleum
Co.):
What are the available solutions for the control of chlo-
rides in the crude overhead system? We have a caustic soda
injection downstream of the desalters. We want to stop the
caustic injection downstream of the desalter to protect the
downstream catalyst against sodium.
MURPHY:
The use of caustic can be a very cost effective way to
control corrosion. The main problem, other than caustic
embrittlement, is the negative downstream catalyst
effects. That has limited the use. If you do use it, you must
use it very judiciously. I know of no effective caustic alter-
natives to address the problem. Proper control of desalter
operation is the best method of controlling overhead chlo-
ride levels.
WILLIAM F. FAHEY (Petrolite Corporation):
Most crude unit overhead exchanger failures are caused
by underdeposit corrosion. The underdeposit pitting cor-
rosion rate is often 20 times the general corrosion rate.
General corrosion rates, even at a fairly low pH, can not
account for the failures in these exchangers.
We currently have low pH overhead corrosion control
programs at five refineries operating at the conditions
described previously. All of these refineries originally had
frequent overhead exchanger failures due to pitting cor-
rosion. Failure rates have been substantially reduced by
operating at a reduced pH and eliminating the iron sulfide
deposits. Using a new family of corrosion inhibitors de-
signed for acidic condition these refineries are experi-
encing single digit general corrosion rates, with several of
less than one mils per year.
MO VADEKAR (CHEMTECH Consulting):
Are they effective in this application?
MURPHY:
At a low pH, as indicated in the question?
MO VADEKAR (CHEMTECH Consulting):
To reduce corrosion, yes.
sideration. The disengaging space should be evaluated in
MURPHY:
Filming corrosion inhibitors are effective in reducing
corrosion certainly, but you have to make sure that you are
operating at a pH that effectively ties up the strong acids.
Otherwise, it is a very difficult environment in which to
control corrosion. Filming inhibitors are a necessary com-
ponent of a comprehensive corrosion control package, one
that utilizes an adequate level of neutralizing additives.
Operating at unusually low pH levels gives a risk of easily
slipping into a vigorous corrosion situation.
QUESTION 24:
What minimum disengaging height is recom-
mended between the feed entry device and the wash
zone in the vacuum column for adequate reduction
of entrainment?
25
JUNO:
The minimum disengaging height between the feed en-
try device and the wash zone in the vacuum tower is
dependent on a number of factors. I have experienced satis-
factory operation with as little as 4 feet of disengaging
height if care has been taken to size the furnace outlet
tubes and transfer line such that critical velocities are not
occurring. Obviously the disengaging height is dependent
on the size of droplet that is being entrained and thus the
transfer velocities and the design of the feed entry device
have an effect on the height required to disengage.
Prior experience has shown that if explosive vaporization
is occurring from the inlet nozzle into the tower, an aerosol
can be formed that will not disengage at any reasonable
tower height. As a standard, at least 10 feet is a good
suggested disengaging height with 15 feet being preferable.
PAULES:
The two vacuum towers discussed in Questions 21 and 22
use slotted vane type inlet distributors which are located
8.5 feet below the bottom of the wash zone at one location,
and 9 feet below at the other. With adequate wash oil and
proper distribution through the wash zone, entrainment is
held at the levels discussed.
RAJGURU:
Disengaging height is only one of the parameters to
reduce the entrainment. Other measures include:
design of feed entry into the column,
selection of proper entry flow velocity,
provision of adequate vapor-liquid contact in the wash
zone, and
proper distribution of flash zone vapor to wash oil
section.
Four to ten feet ofdisengagement height is recommended
for tangential entry with vapor horn having velocities less
than 75 percent of sonic velocities.
BRAD FLEMING (Glitsch, Inc.):
We recommend a minimum disengaging space of 0.3
column diameters from the feed entry device to the collector
tray below the wash zone. However, this is contingent on
other relevant design factors being given adequate con-
conjunction with the type of feed entry device, the physical
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
location of the transfer line into the tower, and its orien-
tation and the phase conditions or velocity of the feed.
Our experience has shown that the specific type of feed
entry device and the location of the feed nozzle on the tower
have a more significant impact on the reduction of en-
trainment than does the disengaging space. To illustrate
the point, we have seen towers as large as 30 feet in
diameter with 30 feet of disengaging space and a tra-
ditional vapor horn design having entrainment rates as
high as 5% of the tower charge.
The importance of the feed entry design is magnified
when the feed nozzle is located near or in the swedge section
of the column. Units having this configuration in a tra-
ditional horn design have realized entrainment rates as
high as 10%, even with disengaging heights in excess of 0.5
column diameters. Entrainment rates of 1 to 2% have been
achieved on units having disengaging spaces between 0.3 to
0.5 tower diameters when utilizing more current vapor
horn design technology.
VICTOR TAILER (Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation):
Our experience with the tower disengagement height is
consistent with what Mr. Rajguru mentioned. We would
like to add the disengagement height is a function of the
internal tower diameter which is a function of the vapors/
liquid velocity and density plus a safety margin decided
based on application. A number in the range of 8 to 15 feet
sounds reasonable.
IAN BREMNER (Foster Wheeler USA Corporation):
Foster Wheeler’s current practice is to design the disen-
gaging height as a function of tower diameter. This is
one-fourth of the diameter, typically, measured from the
feed horn inlet to the recycle drawoff pan.
QUESTION 25:
What is the experience with and how do you
measure the effectiveness of antifoulants in crude
preheat exchanger trains?
BONELLI:
We have used antifoulants in crude preheat exchanger
trains at one refinery, but we discontinued the practice in
favor of installation of bypass valves and piping to allow on
stream cleaning of the heat exchangers. This decision was
principally based on just comparative economic factors. The
cost of the antifoulant program was compared to the cost of
the piping modifications and potential crude rate re-
ductions during cleaning. Our decision was to step away
from the antifoulant program.
In regards to how do you monitor effectiveness of anti-
foulant programs, they do require rigorous temperature
and pressure surveys of the exchanger train. Also, they
require an existing database against which you compare
your currently collected data so that you can evaluate the
rate change in fouling.
In one instance the crude preheat exchanger train tem-
peratures were taken two times per week while a full
exchanger train pressure survey was done quarterly. The
data was used to calculate heat transfer coefficients for each
26
heat exchanger in the train. Depending on the fouling rate
of your particular crude slate, it may take up to two years to
tell whether the rate reduction is indeed economically
attractive.
JUNO:
I have been involved in three comprehensive evaluations
of crude unit antifoulants in crude preheat trains. In the
first two evaluations, the incentive was to increase fuel
efficiency in order to justify the cost of the antifoulant
program. Both evaluations indicated that the use of the
antifoulant was justified with all things being equal. How-
ever, when a monitoring program was installed and
economical cleaning cycles of key exchangers were imple-
mented, the justification for the antifoulant was negated.
In the third instance, the antifoulant had been justified
on energy savings and throughput retention. Recently the
antifoulant program has been discontinued and a monitor-
ing program is once again evaluating the timing for ex-
changer cleaning. All the exchangers in the crude preheat
train have the capability to be bypassed and cleaned while
the unit is operating.
MURPHY:
We have had very good experience in controlling fouling
due to asphaltene, inorganic salts, and sediments in crude
preheat systems. An accurate calculation of fouling resist-
ance that is plotted with time is the best parameter to show
effectiveness. Monitoring, using a heat transfer simulator
such as Hextran from Simulation Sciences, will give an
accurate indication of fouling rates. Correctly located and
accurate temperature and flow rate measurements are key
to ensuring performance.
Although Hextran will indicate that fouling is occurring,
it is critical to identify the actual sources of accelerated
fouling and provide a means of improving performance.
OSBORN:
We process a wide variety of crudes in our crude slate and
have used an antifoulant program for several years. It is
important that the preheat train is monitored utilizing
heat transfer programs to calculate fouling factors, heat
transfer coefficients, and duties for the network. We then
compare this data to prior data when the antifoulant pro-
gram was not in service. We generally monitor fuel gas
usage, the preheat pressure drop, throughput, and the
heater inlet temperature for the effectiveness of the
program.
ROY:
At our Pasadena refinery multiple tools are available to
monitor preheat antifoulant performance. Routine moni-
toring is done by tracking heat transfer coefficients, fouling
factors, and pressure surveys. Identification of the fouling
mechanisms is a key factor. As crude changes occur, .which
is quite common in our case, additional predictive screen-
ings are performed. These screenings include asphaltene
tests that can be readily performed in the field.
Other tools available include INSITE, which is a pro-
prietary predictive tool developed by Betz Process Chemi-
cals, Inc. INSITE predicts the fouling tendencies of various
crudes and crude blends. By identifying the crudes’ be-
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
havior ahead of injection, changes to the chemical pro-
grams can be made to address the fouling before it occurs.
Another tool available from Betz is Pacesetter, a feed rate
optimization and control package. This prevents costly
overfeeds and underfeeds of treating chemicals.
QUESTION 26:
What is industry’s experience relating to the ben-
efits of rigorous on-line performance monitoring of
crude units?
LAABS:
We have several sites that are using or are developing
rigorous on-line models for crude units. We have used
Simulation Sciences and KBC products. The potential ben-
efits for such a model are consistently found to be very
great. The actual benefit depends on how the model is used.
One of our refineries has had a ROM for about three years,
and they have been using it as an analytical tool. They are
currently investigating its use as an off-line unit optimizer.
An affiliated site has had more success with their ROM.
They have used it for unit optimization, process and heat
exchanger monitoring, case studies, and design changes.
This site has plans to install models on other units, and to
incorporate reactor models into this system.
The process of developing a crude unit model has identi-
fied opportunities for improved profitability at all of our
sites. However, the final goal, closing the loop and using the
ROM for on-line optimization, has yet to be achieved by
Star Enterprise.
BONELLI:
We had a similar experience with trying to install an
on-line, rigorous unit model and use it as an economic
optimizing tool. In fact, we have run it in the off-line mode.
We have not been successful in getting on-line and using it
as an on-line optimizer. We have, though, as rigorous on-
line monitoring of crude units go, done successful monitor-
ing of the atmospheric and vacuum heaters and displayed
the appropriate performance parameters to the operators
and succeeded in increasing the achieved run lengths of the
furnaces and in having better performance at the end-of-
run through on-line monitoring of various heater per-
formance parameters.
JUNO:
We have used some rigorous on-line models to help us
close envelope calculations around the product draws of the
crude fractionation units in the vacuum unit. These models
are inferential cut point controls to identify limiting con-
straints, such as flooding, heat duties, etc. We have not
closed the loop on any of these controls, similar to the other
panelists’ experiences. We use HY-SIM as the off-line simu-
lation model to give us input to the constraint control
targets.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT (SETPOINT, Inc.):
I want to point out a breakthrough that has occurred
recently in the area ofrigorous on-line monitoring of units.
The availability of equation-based optimization along with
rigorous models provides the ability to actually use the
crude unit measurements to estimate crude composition. If
27
you add to that occasional lab measurements, you can do a
reasonably good job of tracking the composition. Once you
know what is going through the unit, you are in much a
better position to optimize and calculate things like heat
transfer coefficients. This same rigorous model can be used
for control, as mentioned by some of the other panelists.
There is not a lot of actual on-line experience with the
combined technology of rigorous models and equation-
based optimization, which provides for back-calculating
any parameter in the equations, because no one offered the
combined technology until very recently. But the tech-
nology is positioned today to do all of those things. I think
you will see a lot of interesting activity in this area over the
next few months and years.
QUESTION 27:
What impacts high coking rates in atmospheric
and/or vacuum crude furnaces? What remedies have
been applied successfully?
SLOAN:
Heater coking rates are impacted by both feedstock qual-
ity and furnace operating conditions. In general, heavier
feedstocks with higher concentrations of concarbon and
asphaltenes tend to coke more rapidly. In addition, poor
upstream desalting performance can result in elevated
levels of solids, sodium, and other contaminants in the feed
which promote coking.
The design and operation of the furnace also have a
significant impact on the coking rate. Accelerated coking
can result from high heat flux, high coil outlet tempera-
ture, or excessive residence time. In addition, erratic flame
patterns and maldistribution of heat flux can also increase
coking rates.
Although inherent feedstock properties cannot readily
be changed, most of the other variables impacting furnace
coking can be affected. With adequate upstream desalting
and proper design and operation of the furnace, coking
rates can be minimized. To improve the flame pattern, fuel
gas firing is preferred over fuel oil. In addition, advanced
controls can be used to pass balance coils and make heat
distribution more uniform. Finally, steam injection is rec-
ommended to improve vacuum heater coil velocities.
T. WILLIAMS:
In addition to Mr. Sloan’s comments, we have used some
antifoulants to reduce furnace fouling with some degree of
success. In one unit, we have also gone to increasing the
heater tube diameter progressively through the heater in
the design to keep the velocities up.
RAJGURU:
I think this topic was very well covered by Mr. Sloan. The
one comment I have to add is, also remember to water wash
the tubes after the coke burnout to remove the residue
sodium salts, because sodium adds to the thermal cracking
which results in the accelerated coking.
BONELLI:
I think the traditional areas of concern have been identi-
fied in vacuum heaters and those are the heater outlet
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
temperature. We use an on-line, calculated heater duty so
that the board operator, at any given time, can see on his
operating display what his heater duty is compared to the
design. The oil velocity in the tubes and oil film tempera-
ture, particularly in the vacuum heater, are also important.
Monitoring tools that we use have been comprehensive
tube skin temperature surveys done with infrared measur-
ing devices, the heater outlet calculation routines, tem-
perature limits, the fired and absorbed duty calculations
that are resident in our digital control system, and the use
of velocity steam in the heater tubes to get control of the
velocity in the vacuum unit heater. Our vacuum heater also
includes the stage two parameters that were mentioned
previously.
BRIERLEY:
Besides the tube velocity and tube temperature effects
already mentioned, we have also experienced local coking
of furnace tubes in areas where the temperature was ele-
vated by flame impingement. We have reduced this
through the installation of corbels and high velocity burn-
ers. The corbels suppress currents in the firebox while the
burners reduce flame impingement and give better heat
distribution.
JUNO:
The factors that influence coke formation in atmospheric
or vacuum furnaces are the same that affect furnaces which
operate in higher temperature regimes, notably vis-
breaking and coker furnaces. The coking rates are a func-
tion of time, temperature, and fluid properties. Since the
fluid properties are a dependent on the crude that is being
processed, the variables that can be changed are the times
that the fluid spends at cracking temperatures. When
evaluating a crude or vacuum furnace, it is important to
have a working tube and fireside model, such as FRNC-5
marketed by PFR Engineering Company. Generalizations
as to cold oil velocity, or design pressure drop, while they
are rules-of-thumb, do not always accurately depict the
interactions that are occurring between pressure drop, and
fluid vaporization, especially in vacuum furnaces. Using
these techniques to minimize the residence time at elevated
cracking temperature, I have successfully revamped nu-
merous crude and vacuum furnaces to reduce the rate of
coking and extend operating run lengths.
LAABS:
We essentially agree with what everyone else has said. I
would like to point out that we have quite a few advanced
control packages installed on heaters that deal with heater
firing, pass control, firebox temperatures, and tube tem-
peratures. We have had good experience utilizing these
advanced control systems.
MURPHY:
As the other panelists have mentioned, an important
factor is the proper control of the unit operations. Loss of
flow during a single unit upset is known to create quick,
severe coking in the heater tubes. Lost heat transfer in the
crude preheat can demand higher tiring rates to meet flash
zone temperature requirements, further increasing fouling
rates.
28
Improved heat transfer in the crude and vacuum preheat
exchanger circuit can minimize the need to overfire these
heaters. This can be achieved by good, routine modeling
and optimizing the preheat configuration. An additive pro-
gram with an effective coke suppressant additive is suc-
cessfully used in some refineries. Procedures need to be in
place for operators to follow during unit outages or upsets
in order to minimize their effect on each heater pass.
OSBORN:
We have used injection steam at the rate of 6 lbs&bbl to
keep the velocity up in the range of 7 ft/sec. I know some
people inject steam sequentially at the inlet, the outlet of
the convection section, and in the last couple of heater
passes. About 3% years ago, we did install a newly de-
signed heater and currently use no steam injection. We
have not experienced any coking problems, probably due to
consistently high charge rates maintaining good tube
velocities.
VICTOR TAILER (Stone & Webster Corp.):
I just want to add to the comments of Mr. Rajguru and Mr.
Sloan some comments concerning Stone & Webster heater
design considerations. In addition to other design param-
eter which are critical to achieve optimum run length, the
maximum allowable heater pressure drop is very critical
operating parameter and allowances for coke deposit in the
tubes (even if it is not a cracking service) should be included
during the design phase of the heater. Another important
criteria is the proper selection of the mass velocity of the
fluid, because higher or low mass velocity would decrease
substantially the heater run length. It is a very good idea to
provide emergency steam, even if the heater is not initially
designed with this feature. At the low flow rates, typically
for turndown situations or unexpected low flow rates to the
heater, the emergency steam would prevent premature
tubes’ coking.
KRIK V. KRIKORIAN (KBC Advanced Technologies,
Inc.):
As far as coking is concerned, the critical parameter is
the film temperature of the oil and the residence time of the
fluid through the tubes. The evidence of coking is excessive
cracked gas production. The way to monitor a furnace
operating at 815 ºF coil outlet temperature is critical if you
are going to get the three year run length, especially if you
are dealing with different type of crude slates, different
blocked operations with low and high sulfur crudes.
Mr. Laabs actually mentioned one of KBC’s PETRO-
FINE DISTOP monitoring tools for monitoring and opti-
mizing crude and vacuum unit operations. We have a very
easy furnace model that could be applied to that program
which actually allows you to compare skin temperatures
between actual and predicted. We find that this is the most
effective way of ensuring that you identify potential prob-
lems and for maintaining the unit run lengths at the three
year typical target.
S. K. MUKHERJEE (Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.):
Would the panel be able to recommend a good average
heat flux for the vacuum furnace from the operations point
of view?
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
LAABS:
The design heat flux for the vacuum furnace at one of our
refineries is 8000 BTU/hr/ft2.
BONELLI:
I believe that you will find that when people look at
similar regimes such as coking heaters, you are still tend-
ing to stay around the 10,000 BTUs/ft2.
OSBORN:
Our new heater was designed for 11,000 BTU/hr/ft 2
average radiant flux density with a 19,800 BTU/hr/ft 2
maximum radiant flux density.
QUESTION 28:
What is the experience in the use of increased
design uplift pressure on the trays in the stripping
section of atmospheric/vacuum columns?
JUNO:
We installed trays in a lube oil vacuum boot stripper
during our last turnaround. These trays were designed for
a 2.5 psi uplift. We had our usual start-up problems with
our resid pumps and we had a high bottoms level. As a
result, we got some coke out of the pump section strainers,
but no tray parts. A gamma scan was done on all the towers
in this unit several months later. The scans revealed that
the boot trays were still in place. This is not a typical
occurrence.
We also installed trays in two lube oil side cut strippers
during this turnaround that were designed for 1.7 psi
uplift. We put structured packing in a third lube oil side cut
stripper that was designed for 1.7 psi uplift. The gamma
scans revealed that all of these were working well. The
original tray decks were 14 gauge decks. The new boot
trays are ¼" decks, and the side cut strippers are 7 gauge
trays. The original trays were designed for downward load-
ings of 20 psi rather than an upward force.
PAULES:
In order to increase the allowable uplift design pressure
on trays in crude and vacuum stripping section appli-
cations, one must increase clamping, bracing, beam
strength, and metal thickness. Some tray manufactures
have been designing trays for up to a 5 psi design uplift in
these areas and have reported fewer tray panel blowouts
since going to a more rugged tray design. Proper start-up
procedures are probably the single most important step a
refiner can take to prevent this type of tray damage. Insur-
ing that stripping steam sources are completely dry before
lining it up to towers is particularly important.
ROBERT BAILES (Mobil Oil Corporation):
One of the panelists mentioned two things with flame
impingement. One was high velocity burners. What was
the second? Was it corbels?
BRIERLEY:
Corbels are abutments off the side of the furnace wall
that stop smooth gas flow up the side of the wall resulting in
loss of heat flux.
29
BRIAN ALBERT (Koch Engineering):
We have provided a number of successful uplift resistant
tray designs for crude and vacuum tower stripping zones.
Some of the special features that we have used in these
designs are heavy gauge tray decks up to ¼" thick de-
pending on the tower diameter and uplift loading. Typi-
cally, trays in this service are designed for 1 or 2 psi uplift, 1
psi usually being sufficient.
Other features are heavy shell to shell beams (trusses for
larger towers), heavy gauge upper downcomer plates (espe-
cially when used as a tray support member), and through
bolting of all tray joints with close spacing of all bolting or
clamping. We have also used explosion doors to allow the
uplift force to be dissipated without damaging the trays.
Explosion doors should be designed to open at a relatively
low uplift force so they will open during tower upset.
Through bolting to the tray ring or the use of shear clips
is not needed for most designs. Shear clips are useful on
small towers that do not have heavy beams or columns with
long unsupported spans. There is no need to use bolting and
shear clips at the same time. A particular design depends
on the tower diameter, the number of flow passes, and the
severity of problems seen in the tower.
QUESTION 29:
What has been the experience with double fired
heaters (both sides of tubes) in crude or vacuum
service?
JUNO:
There are not a lot of crude or vacuum heaters that have
been constructed with double fired heaters, primarily be-
cause metallurgy for the furnace tubes in these heaters are
generally constructed of lower chrome alloys, 9 chrome or
less. As percent chrome in the tubes and their cost in-
creases, the economic incentives exist to better utilize the
entire surface of the tube, thus making double-fired fur-
naces more practical.
The incentive is a larger furnace box area in a double-
fired furnace but with fewer number of tubes. For the same
number of furnace passes, this also means a lower process
side pressure drop. We are presently involved in a project
that is evaluating a double-fired furnace in vacuum tower
service due to the use of 321 stainless steel as the tube
metallurgy.
QUESTION 30:
What has been the experience in injecting anti-
foulants into the feed of the vacuum heater, and what
are the effects on the vacuum tower bottom and
associated heat exchangers?
ROY:
At our Pasadena refinery, chemical antifoulants have
been injected into the vacuum and crude heaters for a
period of time to control the growth of hot spots that ap-
peared on heater tubes during a run. The chemical was able
to control the size of the hot spots, but not able to remove
enough coke, with the dosage range used, to eliminate the
hot spots. The spots were brought about by localized over-
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
heating due to intermittent flame impingement. The suc-
cessful hot spot control program in place now is burner
tuning and routine observation. We did not see any sig-
nificant effects on downstream exchangers during or after
injecting the antifoulant.
MURPHY:
Chemical antifoulants have been added to vacuum heat-
ers to control coking at the tube wall surface and have
shown good results in many cases. For vacuum resid in
heavy gas oil circuits, antifoulants have been used to con-
trol fouling and coking. The key is to limit the particle size
growth of the asphaltic substance and to use a coke sup-
pressant to seek out the active coking site.
STEPHEN F. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.):
We have two crude units that we have increased the
charge rate through significantly, and we have been firing
them harder lately. We do not have a tube temperature
problem; but we have, in the past, restricted our through-
put because a few of our hangers were going black to red.
We clean the burners to keep fire off the tubes. I wanted to
know, (1) if the hangers showing color is a real problem for
us to be concerned about, and (2) if it is, since we have had
conflicting input from various sources, is there a definitive
reference that the panel could give us to make sure we
resolve the problem safely.
KENNETH N. ABRAHAMS (Star Enterprise):
Yes, we have established hanger metallurgy tempera-
ture limitations on our crude unit heaters, and we re-
ligiously stay within them because the results can be kind
of spectacular if you do not.
E. Instrumentation
QUESTION 31:
Has anyone had success using on-line pH mea-
surement in crude overhead water? If so, what sys-
tems are being used?
OSBORN:
The Farmland Refinery at Coffeyville uses TBI pH
meters on both the #1 and #2 tower overhead receivers as
monitors only. The signals are transmitted into the control
room’s TDC-3000 instrumentation system and could be
used for closed-loop control of the neutralizing amine.
Their accuracy is monitored several times each day as the
operators run grab samples of the receiver water on a
benchtop pH meter. They are on a 30 day preventive main-
tenance cycle for cleaning and calibration by the main-
tenance department and have given good reliability. It is
important to install the probes low enough in the water
boot that they stay below the hydrocarbon/water interface
level where high solids in the interface emulsion could
cause rapid fouling of the probe.
BRIERLEY:
We do not currently measure pH. For this service, our
instrument group would recommend the use of a newly
30
introduced reference electrode with a continuous flow
liquid junction. I believe this probe is manufactured by the
Hach Company. Paint manufacturers have had success
with this kind of probe where other electrodes have failed
due to plugging.
MURPHY:
The main thing with using on-line pH controllers is to get
proper sample preparation. Generally, when we see fail-
ures, it is because of oils coating out. We have used one of
these units where it was the only viable solution to a
reformer fractionation corrosion problem. When reactors
were put on-line, chlorides in the effluent water wash
coalescer would jump from 35 ppm to as much as 900 ppm,
with a pH drop from 6 to less than 2. Automated pH
monitoring with closed loop control of the neutralizing
amine pump was the best solution and perhaps the only
economical answer to this problem.
In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, a properly
maintained unit does provide excellent trend information
and, therefore, more timely response to system variation.
PEDERSEN:
We have excellent experience with a YOKOGAWA
equipment, model PH200 and TG215. We have not imple-
mented closed loop pH control, but the analyzers are coup-
led to our DCS systems. It is our experience that preventive
maintenance is required two or three times per week to
clean the electrodes. Calibration is required every second
week.
J. WILLIAMS:
Historically pH measurement has been the most difficult
instrumentation to maintain from a reliability standpoint.
Several types of probes, L&N, Van London, Orion,
YOKOGAWA are used by Akzo. Each probe is better for
some applications than others. Recently L&N developed a
solid state pH probe with a 1 year warranty. We have found
this probe successful in some applications.
T. WILLIAMS:
On the negative side here, we have given up on on-line
probes and have gone to an off-line pH meter built by Orion.
We have much better success with this approach.
QUESTION 32:
What has been the experience with the near in-
frared spectroscopy (NIR) analyzers? Do they need
frequent updating to keep the analyzer bias in an
acceptable range?
PEDERSEN:
We have had one on-line analyzer for octane in reformate
and RCC naphtha in service for approximately 6 months.
So far the experience is good. The instrument shows low
drift and high precision. The need for updating the appli-
cation seems low. It is also our experience that relatively
high qualified personnel are needed to develop and imple-
ment the applications, but once done, the routine use is
straight forward.
We have for some years been using NIR analyzers in the
laboratory for octane numbers, for TEF, and cloud point.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Also, here the experience is good, but with what we con-
sider first generation instruments which we have been
using in the laboratories, the frequency for updating of
calibration is three to four times per year. There are new
analyzers on the market which are more stable and do not
require recalibrations that often. In addition, the need for
updating is very dependent on the application and the
initial calibration strategy.
PAULES:
At one of our refineries, we are in the process of replacing
the knock engines on an automatic in-line gasoline blend-
ing system to NIR instrumentation. The cost of the NIR
systems is approximately 2/3 the cost of repairing the
knock engines. The NIR instrument is calibrated by run-
ning typical gasoline blends through both NIR and labora-
tory knock engines. Ifgasoline components or blend recipes
change significantly, a recalibration will be necessary.
BRIERLEY:
Our experience is limited to six months of comparing
off-line NIR analyzer results with traditional lab analysis.
It would seem the most likely source of apparent drift is the
laboratory instrument against which the NIR analyzer is
being evaluated. Our work has suggested that changing the
feedstock or operating conditions in a plant would likely
cause a bias to be introduced. If the model is built with data
from as many sets of feed streams and operating conditions
as possible, the model becomes more robust in terms of
being good for the unusual samples, but less precise for
“typical” samples.
THOMAS HANDZA (Sun Refining & Marketing Co.):
Is anybody having any success using it to monitor oxy-
genates in the gasoline?
PEDERSEN:
On the laboratory basis we are doing it, but not on-line.
In connection with the expansion of our Kalundborg Re-
finery, we are planning to install an NIR analyzer in the
gasoline blending system, where MTBE is added.
QUESTION 33:
Are any refiners utilizing on-line analyzers to de-
tect and control to a 0.05 wt.% sulfur diesel
specification?
BONELLI:
At Marathon’s recently completed distillate hydrotreater
in Robinson, an on-line analyzer was considered and not
used for the control of the product quality. We have con-
tinued to use laboratory samples for that purpose. The
favorable process dynamics of the unit and the stable feed
slate make this a generally acceptable control strategy for
now.
PEDERSEN:
There are on-line analyzers on the market, for example,
from Techmation and Hobre, able to detect sulfur levels
below 0.05 wt.% with an accuracy better than ±0.01 wt.%.
We have none of these analyzers in service presently, but
are considering one application.
31
RUSSELL WILLIAMS (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.):
We have recently revamped our distillate hydrotreater to
make low sulfur diesel. We are planning to install a sulfur
analyzer to monitor that, but we are going to keep it open
loop and allow the operators to monitor what sulfur level
they are at and make adjustments accordingly.
QUESTION 34:
What instrumentation is currently employed to
control the desalter interface?
MURPHY:
Three types of instruments are currently used to detect
and thereby allow for the control of the desalter interface.
The oldest is the displacement device. This device is able to
locate the oil/water interface due to the difference in buoy-
ancy between the two phases. Two problems have been
observed in the operation of these instruments.
First, the instrument is calibrated for a given crude
gravity and if the refiner begins to process a crude with a
substantially different gravity, the instrument will indi-
cate an erroneous level.
Second, when processing heavier crudes, these devices
can become fouled to the point that they will no longer
travel through their vertical cage, rendering them useless.
Although some are equipped with spargers to mitigate this
problem; if they are not sparged often, the floats will con-
tinue to plug.
The second type of device is the capacitance probe. This
probe is able to locate the oil/water interface due to the
difference in capacitance between the two phases. In most
cases, this device had provided accurate, reliable infor-
mation. The only systems in which we have observed prob-
lems are those in extremely dirty service in which the probe
can become’ fouled and rendered unreliable. We recommend
the probe be inserted into the desalter through a packing
gland, allowing for on-line removal and cleaning.
The third device is the microwave instrument marketed
by Agar. This device provides a breakdown of the fraction of
oil and water at a given location rather than over a more
general region as with the capacitance probe. Agar cur-
rently recommends two probe systems as the best method
to establish control of the oil/water interface through the
brine flow regulator. Also, Agar states that their instru-
ments are unaffected by fouling of the probe. However, we
would still recommend the use of a system to allow for
on-line removal for cleaning or replacement. We also rec-
ommend that the probe be calibrated after approximately
three months in service to compensate for any fouling of the
probe. At that point, the fouling has reached a critical
thickness and will not increase substantially.
O’BRIEN:
Phillips uses caged displacer sensors for desalter inter-
face level detection. We have had good experience with this
type of instrument in this service.
ROY:
We use a Fisher model 2500T which is a typical level
displacer instrument. The majority of our problems are in
dealing with adjustments for widely changing crude speci-
fic gravities.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
T. WILLIAMS:
We have used the microwave probe by Agar for over 1
year with no problems.
JO AGAR (Agar Corporation, Inc.):
The greatness of the Agar microwave device is not just
the fact that it can work with fouling, but that it can
measure a small amount of hydrocarbon in water. It is
really a concentration device. It is like having an automatic
tricock. By being able to measure a small amount of hydro-
carbon in water, one can control the water dump such that
no hydrocarbons have been dumped with the effluent water.
The emulsion then builds up from that point on and this
is why it is necessary to insert another probe to measure
how wet the emulsion is. Between those two probes, one can
identify the rag layer.
I know that Exxon in Florham Park did quite exhaustive
tests on running two desalters, one with this type ofcontrol,
and one using a conventional displacer and capacitance
probe. From dumping 2 to 3% hydrocarbon in water in the
one desalter, the other one was constantly only a trace, a
few ppm. They tried it with different types of crude from
heavy to light crude, in different mixes. It has now been
running like this for 1 year.
I know that Mobil Oil, Princeton, New Jersey, did a
similar thing with San Joaquin type crude and their results
are similar, again running two desalters side by side and
making comparisons.
F. Product Formulation
QUESTION 35:
What has been the initial experience of refiners in
meeting 0.05 wt % sulfur diesel specifications? To
what actual sulfur levels have refiners been
blending?
LAABS:
The level of difficulty in meeting the low sulfur diesel
specification depends heavily on the existing equipment of
a given refinery. One of our sites is having no problems;
they began blending low sulfur diesel in July, and have
consistently been far below the pipeline spec of 0.047 wt%
sulfur. Their highest blend so far has had a sulfur of 0.035
wt%. They are slowly moving closer to the pipeline spec as
the comfort level of the new operation increases.
Another site has the capability to produce diesel fuel at
0.038 wt% sulfur. They have begun blending in higher
sulfur material to more closely approach the pipeline speci-
fication. They are averaging 0.042 wt% sulfur in their
diesel blends. They report that their advanced control sys-
tem is having a few problems with blending in the high
sulfur component.
Our third site has a blending target of 0.044 wt% sulfur,
and they plan to increase this target when they have
completed the installation of their blending advanced con-
trols. They have had slightly less success with controlling
the finished blend sulfur levels and have had to reblend on
some occasions.
32
An affiliate site on the West Coast has been required to
blend low sulfur diesel since 1985. They have not had any
major problems with their hydrotreater operation to com-
ply with these regulations. Another refinery has only been
able to meet low sulfur specifications with a portion of their
diesel pool. They have an internal sulfur target of 0.045
wt.%.
OSBORN:
To date we have had very little trouble meeting the 0.05
wt% sulfur specification. The pipelines to which we ship
have implemented a 0.047 wt% sulfur maximum specifica-
tion to handle their concerns for test methods, repeatability,
and reproducibility in the EPA enforcement tolerance. We
typically blend to 0.045 to 0.047 wt% by blending small
amounts of our number one distillate stream of a 0.1 wt%
sulfur in the blend to blend up to the specification, much
like we do for octane. This has worked quite well thus far.
BONELLI:
Since our initial start-up of our only low sulfur distillate
hydrotreater this July, we have been blending fuel oil to
below 0.03 wt% in order to do the tank turns at our termi-
nals that are required to get into the low sulfur diesel
terminalling business. For the past month, we have been
blending up to 0.04 wt% sulfur which is about our con-
fidence level at the moment. We have had no difficulty with
the operation of the hydrotreater down to sulfur levels of
below 0.03 wt%.
JUNO:
We have had no trouble in producing 0.05 wt% sulfur
diesel. We typically target for a 0.03 wt% product from our
diesel hydrotreater to insure a specification product and
are gradually moving that closer to 0.05 wt% as we get
more comfortable with the operation of the unit.
PEDERSEN:
We have been producing low sulfur diesel in our re-
fineries for a couple of years. We normally process North
Sea low sulfur crude oils. The gas oil pool sulfur is between
0.1 and 0.15 wt% for both refineries after hydrotreating.
The components used for blending the 0.05 wt% sulfur
diesel oil is mainly hydrotreated atmospheric gas oil and
hydrotreated light coker gas oil. Sulfur levels in the final
products are controlled in the range of 0.045 to 0.05 wt%.
QUESTION 36:
Are gasoline water hazes associated with MTBE
and ETBE blending a major problem for refiners?
Were significant problems experienced during the
winter of 1992-1993 and how were they resolved?
LAABS:
We have had some problems with water hazes when the
water content had exceeded 2500 ppm in MTBE. An affili-
ate site had problems with their MTBE storage tank. It was
an external floating roof tank, and water was seeping into
the ether. They installed an aluminum dome on top of the
tank and have had no further problems. All of our sites
perform regular testing of ether to avoid water hazing
problems in the finished gasoline.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
BONELLI:
We too perform regular testing of the MTBE to make
sure that we stay clear of the water haze problem. We
started our MTBE/TAME unit in December of 1991. We
have experienced no water haze problems with any of the
blends so far.
T. WILLIAMS:
We have experienced no water haze problems with gaso-
line blends up to 12 vol % MTBE. However, during start-up
with fresh resins, we do produce an MTBE/TBA/water
mixture that is off-specification. We blend the mixture in at
5% of the blend and use about 100 ppm dehazer.
QUESTION 37:
Reformulated gasoline includes an “increased”
number of tests of increased sophistication. To satisfy
these requirements, will the refinery operations
scheduler be required to run more of a “swing oper-
ation” on the process units? Are there anticipated
extra costs and yield reductions due to these swings
from steady-state operation?
BONELLI:
At this time, there are several key factors that inhibit all
of us from determining exactly how we will produce re-
formulated gasoline. We do not know what the volume of
our reformulated market is yet. We do not know what
blending system and rundown stream pooling will go on
amongst our four operating refineries. The pooling of the
reformulated and nonreformulating gasoline properties
amongst the refiners is at issue as well. We are still in the
process of changing the sulfur content of our base crude
slate, which has slowed us up some.
Having said all that, we do anticipate that the heavy end
of the FCC gasoline and the coker naphtha and the front
end of the heavy hydrocrackate will probably all have
different destinations than they do today and it will shake
out on an economic optimum.
LAABS:
In our opinion, the higher cost associated with increased
testing is not important enough to risk the higher inci-
dence of off-test reformulated products that is likely to
33
occur in a swing operation. The goal of a refinery operations
scheduler will be to maintain more uniform process stream
qualities so that the more stringent reformulated gasoline
specifications may be met.
If a refinery is limited by its tankage, the penalties of a
swing operation would need to be compared to the cost of
new tankage, provided the latter is a possibility. Even in a
tankage-limited situation, the averaging option could al-
low a scheduler to avoid swing operation.
Most refiners are probably finding that they need more
blend streams to meet reformulated gasoline. Where they
may have had eight or nine streams in their refinery to
blend, they may be looking at 10 or 11 right now as a more
optimum number. This would depend on whether you have
the tanks that you need, whether you need to buy a tank,
whether you need to switch tank services, etc. We have
found that to be true in all three of our refineries, and I
would guess that it is consistent throughout the nation.
BONELLI:
I believe it also is forcing people to look at new blending
and scheduling models because of the increased number of
component streams.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT (SETPOINT, Inc.)
The additional specifications for reformulated gasoline
will not require swings in plant operations as has been
indicated, but, substantial optimization opportunities will
be passed up at steady state. Additional specifications will
complicate the blending problem and will make the plant-
wide material balance more difficult to understand and
manage at steady-state. The real time control problem will
be complicated and will require new tools to avoid sig-
nificant giveaway increases.
However, there is something else about reformulated
gasoline which is likely to cause more swings in operation.
There will be more grades of gasoline in the market and
less fungibility. Instead of having a hand full of operating
modes like heating oil and gasoline modes, some refiners
may define dozens of modes of operation to take advantage
of the market opportunities.
The swings which result can be planned and well con-
trolled to minimize costs, or they can be done in a crisis
mode at a substantial cost. The outcome will depend pri-
marily on how well the plan is modeled and how effective a
job is done in making and executing plans. Increased de-
mands for automated decision support systems is a given.
LEE E. TURPIN (Prolimatic, Inc.):
We have done several statistical studies that quantify the
losses due to swings in refinery unit operations. Most of the
loss is due to product downgrading. Detailed refinery plan-
ning using complex refinery models will put a refiner in a
position to minimize daily fluctuations in product re-
quirements. There will still be a need to shift operations
from those planned because of normal equipment failures
and maintenance problems. The losses can be minimized
by using advanced process controls to move units from one
operation to the next.
The problem that I see is doing short term planning. A
mechanical problem in one unit may require process
changes on several units to meet blending requirements.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
This is going to require detailed models to also be available
to both long term and short term planning departments. If
models are being used in on-line process control it will
probably be necessary to use the same models throughout a
refinery.
The optimal mode of operation is going to be to develop
precise plans and then keep units operating in the manner
prescribed in the plan.
QUESTION 38:
What on-line analyzers are available for gasoline
blending?
O’BRIEN:
A number of on-line analyzers are available for gasoline
streams such as RVP octane, distillation, and composition
analyzers. For blending, you will also need a blend com-
puter to work with the instruments that you select. Borger
is preparing to install a blending system and they will be
using the Ashland Infratane (Fluid Data Spectron) on-line
analyzer which uses near infrared technology to determine
a composition, and then uses correlations to determine
octane and distillation. We will use a blend computer,
Foxboro Blendtrol, to adjust the blend volumes based on the
NIR and an Applied Automation RVP analyzer. Other NIR
instruments that were considered included Guided Wave,
LT Industries, and AAI.
BONELLI:
We have had a Guided Wave NIR analyzer in service for
about a year. We have had reasonable success except that
blend movement away from the calibration point is being a
bit of a problem with the NIR.
LAABS:
We are currently upgrading our gasoline blending
analyzers. Some of these upgrades have been installed, but
have not been running long enough to fully evaluate their
performance.
We are using on-line octane comparators to determine
research and motor octane. These analyzers use an engine
to compare the test fuel to a prototype. Care must be taken
to make sure that the prototype properties have not
changed due to weathering or other causes. Core Lab is the
supplier of this analyzer.
Precision Scientific Reid Monitors are providing our RVP
data. While this analyzer has proven accurate, it has
needed careful maintenance by a skilled technician. One of
our sites is planning to install an ABB Process Analytics
unit. This same site may use Simulated Distillation as a
back up method. We understand that some refineries are
using Simulated Distillation as their primary source of
on-line RVP data. This technology is available from Ap-
plied Automation, ABB Process Analytics, and Fluid Data-
Amscor.
D86 distillation data is primarily being provided by
single boiling point analyzers, typically at the 10, 50, and
90% points. These Precision Scientific instruments require
frequent maintenance and have a compositionally de-
pendent bias. One of our sites is also using a full-range
distillation analyzer from the same company to help iden-
34
tify problems with the bias. Another site will use Simulated
Distillation in the near future. We are still investigating
on-line methods for determining sulfur. One promising
technology is X-Ray Fluorescence, although the method
appears to be limited to a detection limit of 10 to 12 ppm.
Oxygenate levels are currently measured by GC, with an
API gravity analyzer to provide density data for the mole
percent to weight percent conversion. Olefins, aromatics,
and benzene levels are also detected using gas chro-
matography, but Simulated Distillation may provide an
alternative.
While they do not ship gasoline on a vapor-liquid ratio
specification, one of our sites uses a V/L analyzer to avoid
vapor lock problems. This data has proven very useful when
full distillation data is not available on-line, but the ana-
lyzer requires high levels of maintenance.
Near infrared technology appears to be promising. The
technology uses a non-intrusive testing method, and can be
correlated to any number of different blending speci-
fications. Our sites are looking for more industry accept-
ance before moving to NIR. At this point, ASTM has not
accepted NIR as a blend test method.
PEDERSEN:
In our two refineries we have, for some years, used
on-line analyzers for controlling gasoline blending. At
Mongstad, we are blending directly to ship with no final
product tankage, except the small volume required for the
truck loading operation. We apply on-line analyzers to
control our limiting specifications which are RON, MON,
RVP, and distillation.
For RON and MON, we are currently using Waukesha
CFR engines with Octel comparators. There are various
distillation and RVP analyzers on the market, which can be
used for in-line blending. We are currently testing a new
Lintronic Oilline 700 RVP analyzer, which seems
promising.
In Kalundborg, we are going to install NIR analyzers for
this purpose in connection with the expansion of the re-
finery. In addition, complete packages for gasoline blend-
ing based on NIR technology are available on the market.
JAMES NIELSEN (The UNO-VEN Company):
Does anybody ship gasoline, other than Mr. Pedersen,
based on analyzer read-out at the gasoline blenders?
LAABS:
We were shipping gasoline on our Komax analyzer in
Port Arthur. We may not be allowed to do it any more with
reformulated gasolines because we have to certify our gaso-
lines, and the penalties are much more drastic if you are
off-spec. In general, reformulated gasoline and the Clean
Air Act administration is making us take a step back in our
automated blending. From the standpoint of going directly
to a pipeline, you can still automatically blend, but it is
going to have to go into a tank and be certified before it can
be shipped out.
QUESTION 39:
What is the best placement of the heavy gasoline
stream given the stream properties, and what will
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
refiners do with the incremental cut from the T90
decrease in reformulated gasoline if they choose to
reduce T90?
J. WILLIAMS:
Reducing T90 leaves very few options for the heavy
gasoline all of which have substantial costs compared to
going into the pool. The most likely options are: hydrocrack
to jet fuel, hydrotreat to middle distillate, recycle to the
FCCU to reduce volume, olefins, and sulfur.
RAJGURU:
The typical place is to blend into middle distillates.
Problems encountered will be control of a flash point and an
increased complexity of middle distillate blending. Blend-
ing systems can start to look like the current gasoline
blending system.
Loss of the stream from the gasoline pool has a positive
effect on pool aromatics and sulfur level, but will obviously
reduce gasoline volume. Ideas to increase gasoline yield
include recycling to the FCCU for additional conversion.
BONELLI:
Let me preface this with a caveat. If we correctly under-
stand our multi-plant pooling opportunities under the
regulations for reformulated gasoline, we have simulated
what our production will look like and we have identified
three options for T90 reduction. Those are to increase the
production of kerosene which we do not produce to the
maximum market demand. We can also increase the pro-
duction of distillate at our hydrocracker, or turn the con-
version back just a bit and make more unconverted oil
through lowering the heavy hydrocrackate end point.
Third, we can arbitrarily reduce the FCC gasoline end
point.
LAABS:
I think it is totally dependent upon what hardware you
have and what the regulations will look like. Like all of the
other refiners, we have various scenarios that we are put-
ting together. Until we actually get the regulations, we will
probably just slip it into kerosene or jet fuel.
G. Computer/Process Control
QUESTION 40:
In the use of statistical process control (SPC) in the
process, does anyone utilize real time SPC on their
distributed control systems (DCS), or are the SPC
functions done off-line using a database or in a sep-
arate operator maintained PC?
ROY:
We utilize the SPC charts and trends and for analysis of
coker heater operation and changes that may affect that
unit. The SPC functions are done outside the operating unit
by our chemical supplier, Nalco. In addition, a heater mod-
eling system has been established which has enabled cer-
tain heater operational criteria to be set so as to minimize
heater coking. If this criteria is outside the range, a series
35
of operational changes are made either to correct the prob-
lem or minimize coking that may occur during an upset. We
intend to utilize SPC on a real time basis on all our process
units when we switch over to DCS in the near future.
J. WILLIAMS:
Akzo uses SPC from both the DCS and from off-line data
maintained in a logbook. Trends from the DCS are used to
determine when plant conditions, raw materials, equip-
ment, instrumentation accuracy, etc. are changing to pre-
vent off-specification product, rather than to respond to
off-specification product. One example of this is true in
on-line measurement of reactor temperatures.
Akzo also uses the tools of SPC separately from the DCS.
For example, pH probes are constantly checked against the
QC laboratory-calibrated bench meter. The difference be-
tween the hand check and the local readout is charted on a
Shewhart chart and is an indication of whether a problem
with the probe is developing; such as drift, reference gel
contamination, broken probe, etc. Use of this type SPC
chart has led to the creation of a preventive maintenance
system for one key probe in the plant, as well as the
generation of policies to reduce sampling and analytical
variance. Again, this classical SPC monitoring of the proc-
ess in this fashion is preventive rather than responsive.
BONELLI:
At Marathon’s Robinson refinery, which is the plant
control SPC system interface with which we have the most
experience, the SPC applications do not run on the digital
control system. This SPC package is presently an historical
application and is contained in a plant information system
which we purchased from Oil Systems in San Leandro, CA.
The SPC analysis is available as a menu pick for any point
that is trended in the refinery plant information system
and generally looked at off-line by the technical staff.
BRIERLEY:
We currently use both on-line and off-line SPC analysis.
We use a Honeywell SPQC program on our TDC-3000
system as an open loop monitoring tool. We also use an
on-line program called PI-ANALYSIS, which I believe is
the same program Mr. Bonelli referred to, on our plant
information computer system which is available not only to
the operators, but to contact engineers and other analysts
as well. Various versions of different PC-based off-line SPC
programs are also available within our technical com-
munity. As the SQC implementation progresses, the on-
line version at the plant information computer system level
has become more used as it has a wider accessibility than
the unique PC-based versions and the real time on-line
DCS version.
LAABS:
We perform very little SPC on-line in the DCS. Our sites
that use SPC use a combination of manual and PC-based
methods. The manual methods include X-MR and X Bar-R,
which are maintained by operators for a given application.
Software that has been used for off-line SPC include
CUSUM, Northwest Analytical software, and home-made
Microsoft Excel macros. While one of our sites uses SPC in
nearly all of its operating units, most of the Star and Texaco
refineries use the techniques for isolated applications, such
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
as blending, control system verification, and laboratory
instrument reliability testing.
JUNO:
We do have the capability of on-line statistical process
control under the Honeywell system at one of our refineries
and will be implementing InfoPlus SPC at another refinery
in the near future. We are developing a plan to implement a
performance monitoring system using real time SPC at
this refinery. Currently, we are employing SPC using data-
base extraction’s or from the process historian on a demand
basis for the key performance indicators. We are planning
to have key performance indices (such as Total Steam
Consumption/Barrel/degree, Total Product Yield Index,
Total Fuel consumption BTU/Barrel/degree, a Quality In-
dex [# of Products within specification limits] and other
quality indicators) under SPC. Other indicators are either
trended in real time or key causes SPC monitored as well.
The systems are designed using PCs connected directly to
the process historian.
MURPHY:
Most of our Trendcheck customers use a separate PC to
maintain their database and perform the SPC functions.
Data is input into the PC by either the operators or the
technical representative. We do have customers currently
using their Trendcheck system on their DCS system.
QUESTION 41:
What is the incremental benefit, for different
process units, of upgrading DCS single loop controls
to multivariable advanced control schemes?
J. WILLIAMS:
Multivariable controllers offer better control than do
single loop controllers. Also, multivariable controllers offer
advanced control options such as radio control and cascade
control. Furthermore, multivariable controllers are less
cumbersome, more reliable, and thus easier to maintain.
They require less space and most importantly, they offer
significant cost savings to users who require many control
points. Nesting many control points into one multivariable
controller means that only one controller is needed;
whereas many single loop controllers would be required to
do the same job.
PEDERSEN:
At Mongstad, we have just installed a multivariable
advanced control on our RCC unit and we expect pay-back
in about 1 year. Before deciding on this project, we prepared
a master plan study covering possible advanced control
applications for the whole refinery. Payout periods for most
of the units were estimated at 1 to 2 years. We used a rather
conservative basis assuming the standard deviation of the
control variables to be reduced by 50%, allowing operating
targets closer to specifications or unit limitations, resulting
in higher average throughputs or improved yields.
JUNO:
The incremental benefit is directly associated with the
degree of heat integration (process integration), product
36
margin differentials among streams, or the degree of prod-
uct separation required. In most instances, there is little
economic or technical incentive if the process unit is not
highly integrated. In this case, the powerful DCS advanced
control algorithms can be used to implement multivariable
input constraint with single output controllers. The typical
MPC packages were originally offered only for supervisory
computers, but today are also offered to run in the Dis-
tributed Control Systems. Moving this MPC technology to
the DCS is making the implementation of these process
control algorithms much more cost effective than in the
past. The tools for implementation are becoming much
more simple, reducing the implementation costs (dynamic
process identification). With the rapid evolution of com-
puter technology, the implementation of these tools is be-
coming very attractive to optimize crude units, FCCU’s,
hydrocrackers, hydrotreaters, reformers, etc. However, it is
always desirable to have a good fallback control system
based on traditional decoupling philosophies.
DAN HARTLEY (D. H. Associates):
I obtained some information from Continental Controls
in regard to benefits of upgrading to multivariable control.
They have a chart that says that if you make a 20% increase
in the cumulative project cost to go to advance control, you
can achieve about an 80% increase in the cumulative ben-
efits, provided you put in multivariable control with the
associated optimization.
LEE E. TURPIN (Profimatics, Inc.):
A substantial incremental benefit is associated with
upgrading single loop DCS controls to multivariable ad-
vanced control schemes for crude units and most conversion
units such as FCCs, reformers, and hydrocrackers. Even
more benefits can be realized by upgrading to on-line
optimization. Absolute benefits are going to vary from one
application to another, but a few good rules of thumb are:
1. You should expect the savings from multivariable
advanced control schemes for crude units to be ap-
proximately 6 cents per barrel.
2. From multivariable advanced control schemes for
most conversion units expect a savings of approxi-
mately 20 cents per barrel.
This results in a $2 per year return for each dollar
invested. Going a step further to on-line optimization will
result in an incremental return of approximately $4 per
year for each dollar invested. These values will vary sig-
nificantly depending upon the particular process, unit dy-
namics, economics and the active constraints.
QUESTION 42:
What is the current practice for monitoring ad-
vanced control applications after installation? In ad-
dition to measuring up-time, do refiners monitor
deviation from targets and approach to limits when
controls are off as well as when on?
BONELLI:
Following the commissioning of each advanced control
application in our organization, a make-good study is done
of the economic impact of the operation of the control
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
following its incubation period. This study compares the
benefits derived from the control operation to that predicted
in the original project justification.
Data used for these justifications is collected in our plant
interface system, and our linear programming economic
model is used to analyze the effects or changes we have seen
in the plant. Following the make-good analysis, measuring
the control up-time is the principle monitoring tool for
checking the utility of the control. We are not currently
doing a missed-opportunity type of calculation during the
control-off periods.
JUNO:
Current practice is to measure up-time. As soon as the
performance system is in place, the monitoring of deviation
from the targets or different constraints is usually imple-
mented. The reason is that the performance monitoring
system specializes in collecting data and historizing it, thus
freeing the control system to do process control work only.
We historize each important advance control point and
we assign a value of 0% if the point is not on control and a
value of 100% if the point is on control. A custom report
gives a list of each point on a daily, weekly, and monthly
basis that shows the percent on-line for each point. The
range from our targets increases when our advanced con-
trol points are off-line.
O’BRIEN:
We basically do the same thing. Additionally, we issue a
report every two weeks where we show the percent of time
each control scheme was on-line. We also calculate and
report the daily dollars lost for control downtime. For all
control schemes that have losses over $lOO.OO/day a reason
for downtime is included in the report. Emphasis is given to
getting those back on control.
PEDERSEN:
We will normally install a software switch on all appli-
cations and monitor on-time of the switch. Losses when
applications are off are calculated using incentives from the
L.P. model.
QUESTION 43:
How many refiners are converting from “closed/
proprietary” systems to open computer architecture?
BRIERLEY:
Syncrudc has adopted the use of a proprietary dis-
tributed control system for the control of its process units to
retain the highest possible level of security and per-
formance for these systems. Process control systems are
configured to do virtually no end user data processing. We
have had several other computer systems available to do
the end user data processing, and these are all now speci-
fied as open architecture systems.
JUNO:
The general trend is the use of a DCS system connected to
a VAX, VMS, or a Unix computer system. These systems
are then connected to a client’s server computer architec-
ture using Novel Windows workstations. The interface
37
between the DCS and the computer control system is dis-
appearing since most control vendors are now forming
partnerships with computer vendors, such as Foxboro-Sun,
Honeywell-Dee, to mention a few.
To answer the question, there is an evolution into an
open computer architecture, but not a real conversion of
systems. Only where justification exists will an open type
solution probably be considered. Pennzoil is converting to a
client/server information system based on Novel and
Windows technologies.
BONELLI:
Much like Mr. Juno’s experience, Marathon’s experience
with open architecture is that digital control system infor-
mation, in our case a Honeywell TDC system, is passed to a
management information system through a VAX 6300
computer. The management information system provides
for analysis, record, and accounting manipulation of the
information. A DCS has also recently been linked to a
Triconix system for safety monitoring and redundant
safety backup.
DAVID HOLDEN (Johnson Yokogawa Corporation):
Approximately five years ago distributed control sys-
tems began to “open up.” Today most systems are neither
fully closed nor fully open. An open system is one which
adheres to industry standards such as UNIX, Ethernet,
FDDI, POSIX, X-Windows, and MOTIF. Adherence to
these standards enables both the easy interconnection of
third party equipment and support for third party soft-
ware. In contrast, closed systems employ proprietary oper-
ating systems and communication protocols which make
support for third party products difficult, if not impossible,
and always expensive.
The trend towards open systems will continue. This
trend is driven by both the lower cost of producing open
systems and the much lower cost of ownership of open
systems. Distributed control system leaders are now offer-
ing open systems. Other DCS suppliers will either develop
their own open system or will be forced out of the
marketplace.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT (SETPOINT, Inc.):
Basically, SETPOINT offers a number of definitions of
various terms, that are now being thrown around in the
industry, that might be useful for the record.
I will mention that approximately 20 to 25% of the
inquiries SETPOINT receives now are from those actively
seeking automation solutions to be implemented on Unix
platforms which many people equate to open systems. We
do not necessarily agree with that definition, but there is a
lot of activity in that area.
One of our clients has, in fact, implemented a broad
based, open systems control and information network at its
refinery. The open systems do address a number of impor-
tant issues including scalability, interoperability, and
portable computing systems.
Definitions first, open systems are hardware/software
systems which enable (1) scalable, (2) interoperable and (3)
portable computer solutions. Scalable implies distributed
and/or client/server architectures. Interoperable implies
computer systems connectivity via networking standards.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
These networked solutions have come to mean UNIX oper-
ating systems, but it is important to realize that UNIX does
not imply mean open. Portable means not only “plug and
play” software that runs on multiple operating systems, but
also software in which user know-how and training is
portable by the fact that software is intuitive and easy to
use. An example is the ease of use experienced by users of
multivendor software written for Windows.
In terms of trends, SETPOINT observes from its clients a
growing interest in moving from legacy mainframe (non-
UNIX) systems to distributed solutions based on UNIX
workstations. This trend is primarily derived from two
groups of users, those who need to replace obsolete or
overconstrained legacy systems and those who are in-
stalling DCS or supervisory systems on a unit for the first
time. UNIX workstation interest is certainly increasing at
the DCS level as DCS vendors open up their architecture
for implementation of APC technology such as MPC. Tech-
nology and ease-of-use restrictions at the DCS level have
been removed with this opening.
Approximately 20-25% of inquiries to SETPOINT are
from those actively seeking automation solutions to be
implemented on distributed UNIX platforms. For example,
the Star Enterprise refinery in Delaware City is very active
in implementing APC on a distributed UNIX platform.
Refinery-wide users have desktop access to refinery infor-
mation via a MS Windows interface. There are a number of
references to their successes in technical journals.
However, distributed UNIX architectures do not address
the issue of portability and easy integration of multivendor
technology solutions. What are lacking in the hydrocarbon
processing industry are upper level automation software
interface standards. Upstream operations have already
started this software standards development with the Pe-
troleum Open Software Corporation, a standards organi-
zation driven by users instead of vendors. There have been
discussions of doing the same for refining. Until such
standards are established, refiners need to seriously con-
sider software integration and maintenance costs when
selecting automation solution providers. No refiner will be
able to escape the necessity of multivendor technology
solutions to address environmental, safety and competitive
pressures. The most viable path for the short term is to seek
out preferred automation solution providers (with their
proprietary standards) who can deliver not only strong
technical solutions but cohesive and well integrated ones,
whose benefits will not erode over time as natural changes
are made to the advanced automation system.
QUESTION 44:
With all the tank farm work mandated by the new
components and products arising from clean fuels
regulations, has anyone managed to justify reducing
a major capital investment by using a better (auto-
mated) inventory management system?
BONELLI:
The question asks has anyone actually justified reducing
a major capital investment? What I can report is that in a
recent capital budgeting process where we were working
on reformulated gasoline, we were able to optimize our
38
capital requirements by considering the automation and
advanced control technology that is available in gasoline
blending, since we did not actually eject something we
already had.
QUESTION 45:
What is the commercial experience with refinery
scheduling integrated into the real time environment?
JUNO:
We have no experience with the refinery schedule
integrated into the real time environment. We have inves-
tigated a number of programs concerning refinery sched-
uling software, but our situation is complicated by the use
of blocked operations. Most of the vendors are just starting
to develop a cost effective package that can be used for such
a process.
DAN HARTLEY (D. H. Associates):
I understand that Haverly Systems has a refinery sched-
uling system going in at Novacor, in Canada. This system is
called H Ross. There is a module for the plant simulation
and for the graphic displays. It is right in start-up now. The
schedule results are reported to the operators who then
plan to act on the information given to them.
QUESTION 46:
With the trend to more sophisticated advance
controls and computerization, how do refiners now
define the control “board” job position, and what are
the qualifications required?
T. WILLIAMS:
At one of our locations, the control board job is defined as
a console technician. This is the highest paid hourly posi-
tion in our refinery. This person works out of a central
control room and rotates on a weekly basis with the top
outside operator, an “A” operator. All of our “A” operators
are required to be, console technician certified. The console
technicians have a minimum of one year experience as an
“A” operator and a minimum of five years experience in the
zone.
One benefit we have is that our contract states that all
promotions are based on qualifications and not seniority.
This allows us to advance the qualified individuals with
aptitude as rapidly as possible to fill these positions. The
extensive knowledge they have to acquire includes every-
thing from control of the TDC system to in-depth oper-
ational understanding of the units (normal operations,
start-ups, shutdowns, emergency procedures, etc.).
These skills have to be augmented with vocal skills and
interpersonal skills that they need to have to relate with
the outside people. The weekly rotation also helps keep the
“A” operators trained for vacation relief. Additional TDC
stations are located in the field to facilitate training of the
field operators.
PAULES:
In our plants where DCS has been implemented, the
operator board position qualifications have not changed in
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
going from single loop, to DCS, to Advanced Process Con-
trol. The same operators who worked board positions before
the transition are the operators working the DCS system
today. Up to three weeks of training were required to
familiarize the board operators with the DCS system before
implementing DCS. Additional training was necessary for
APC. We are pleased with the results of this approach.
PEDERSEN:
We believe that in addition to the detailed knowledge and
the understanding of the unit and process he or she con-
trols, the control room operator needs to understand the
control strategy and principles and have a basic knowledge
of the system functionalities.
We also think the control room operator should work
more than 50% of his time at the panel to become and stay
sufficiently experienced. It is equally important for the
operator to rotate to field operator positions to keep
himself/herself familiar with the physical aspects of the
unit.
Ideally the control room operator should have a technical
education, preferably with some chemical or process engi-
neering. Before starting training for board position, the
operator will have worked for a minimum of 2 years as field
operator in the units controlled from the board for which he
or she is training.
BONELLI:
At Marathon, we have had experience with the DCS
environment since 1981. The control board operators posi-
tion in these systems is typically the second senior process
unit job on the shift. The board operator still must possess
the capability to understand sophisticated advance con-
trols and base unit operation at the same time. You need to
remain current in the process units’ responses to controls
should you be required to operate the unit without them as
they do not all have 100% uptime.
This task becomes increasingly difficult as the controls
become more efficient and reliable and the process unit
upsets become less frequent. Our typical training re-
quirements for these positions provide training two levels
down. We have included the purchase of some custom proc-
ess unit training simulators in our capital budgeting for
1994 to improve our training.
JUNO:
The “board” or as we call it, “console” operator is the
operator in charge of the units. He is responsible for oper-
ating the unit to meet the plant’s environmental, safety,
throughput, yield, and quality goals for his shift. In doing
so, he/she directs “outside” operators to make necessary
moves/changes, and makes board changes as needed. The
operator also requests resources (maintenance, equipment)
as necessary from the shift team leader. Qualifications
include certification on each job in the unit’s progression
line and finally, certification on the “console” job. Our
console operators are classified as “A” operators. Each crew
has a minimum of two “A” operators. The “A” operators on a
crew rotate through the console on a daily basis. They work
the other jobs in the unit progression line when not work-
ing the console. At one of our refineries, console operators
underwent one week of DCS training on an off-line system
39
prior to installation of the DCS. Newly hired individuals
now get one full day of DCS training from the control
specialist during their initial six-week training. Ad-
ditional training is on the job as they progress through the
operator classifications. As they are training for “A” oper-
ator they contact the control specialist to review or train in
areas they believe more work is needed. They are then
tested on their knowledge of the DCS as part of their
certification. It has been found that “A” operators pick up
the DCS layout and operation without difficulty due to
their previous exposure to the DCS at the satellite control
rooms. However, control concepts such as cascade loops and
advanced control require repetitive training and experi-
ence to master. As part of the management of change
process, all operators are trained in the operation of any
control changes prior to activating that change.
OSBORN:
I feel the board position is probably the most important
position in the unit today, although the top operator still
has ultimate responsibility. We do require thorough me-
chanical knowledge, process knowledge, and technical
knowledge of the process unit. These qualifications can
only be obtained through adequate training and experi-
ence. These abilities must be demonstrated through certifi-
cation testing before an operator is allowed to advance to
this position within the unit.
BRIERLEY:
We do not differentiate between control room operators
and “outside” operators in terms of level or compensation.
Anyone who has qualified on the outside posts who displays
the aptitude, desire, and technical competence is given the
opportunity to train in the control room. It is not for
everyone.
QUESTION 47:
Which advanced process control (APC) schemes
are viewed to be the most beneficial to crude dis-
tillation unit operation? Has there been success using
APC to maintain product specifications? How suc-
cessful have on-line rigorous simulation/optimi-
zation programs been?
JUNO:
We have found that the following schemes to be ranked in
order ofhighest benefits achieved: cut point controls, target
optimization, quality and pressure constraint controls, and
heater pass balancing. We have had good experience in
using cut point controls to maintain product specification
in atmospheric crude towers. More than 50% reduction in
variability was quantified in the crude tower products
going from regulatory controls to Advanced Process Con-
trol(APC). Estimated cut points are used to set tempera-
ture controllers, resetting product feed ratio controllers.
The same degree of reduction was slightly less in the lube
vacuum tower; a 30 to 40% reduction was obtained.
Some additional changes to the control systems have
been made since we did this survey and we are reassessing
these numbers. No use of on-line optimization programs
have been used. Parallel on-line simulation is possible in
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
the Windows environment, but we have not yet utilized this
capability.
LAABS:
We have tried several advance control schemes in our
refinery crude units. Cut point control is expected to have
the highest return, but it requires a stable column pressure
to operate correctly. A control system that maximizes heat
recovery is being used by one site, but their variable crude
slate has limited its benefits. Heater outlet temperature
pass balance controls have proven to be very useful. Multi-
variable and constraint controls that maximize feed rate or
VGO make also have potential benefits.
As we mentioned before, several of our sites have ROMs.
They could provide an enormous benefit, provided we could
get them on-line, which we have not done so far.
BONELLI:
We have been using inferred properties packages as
control applications for maintaining our product draw
specifications in several of our crude units. Those appli-
cations have proven to be quite robust under most normal
circumstances. Occasionally, wildly different crude slates
can give them a bit of a hard time. We have purchased an
on-line simulator for use in the crude unit at Robinson
refinery. However, we do not have it up and running yet. We
have run it in the off-line mode.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT, (SETPOINT, Inc.):
I just want to quickly list the key benefit areas. Charge
rate constraint controls are the highest money makers
when feed has some value, followed by product quality
controls. Some new regression technology that uses a tech-
nique known as Partial Least Squares or Projections to
Latent Structures (PLS) offers significant benefit potential
in product quality controls. We have data which shows a
halving of quality deviations compared to traditional in-
ferred property control.
Predictive models, and MPC in general, to reduce the
variance which occurs during a crude switch are probably
of the next level.
QUESTION 48:
What degree of simulation model rigor is required
for process optimization (on and off-line)? What are
the main criteria in selecting or developing models?
Does the need for accurate simulation models in-
crease as a consequence of producing clean fuels?
SLOAN:
For on-line optimization, we believe the degree of rigor is
generally the same as for a design quality simulator. High
fidelity, first principles models are more robust over a wider
range of operating conditions and are easier to maintain.
For large refinery-wide LP planning tools, simplified mod-
els are both adequate and less expensive in terms of com-
puter resources.
In general, it is advantageous to use the same models and
technical data as used in the design. Another important
consideration is portability among computer platforms
which change frequently today. Tuning parameters such as
distillation tray efficiencies must be available to adjust the
40
models to tit actual plant measurements. More companies
are now using open equation models to take advantage of
the latest mathematical solver techniques, such as Suc-
cessive Quadratic Programming.
The bottom line is, yes, producing clean fuels does re-
quire more accurate models to correctly predict things such
as trace components which become more important.
LAABS:
ROMs that are being used for real time optimization of a
unit need to be very rigorous. Off-line usage would allow for
less realistic models, but more accuracy leads to higher
benefits. One rule-of-thumb is that the model must produce
correct directional behavior and be at least 80% accurate on
magnitude. Any inaccuracies past that point should be
compensated by controller feedback action,
Apart from the economic payback, the most important
criteria for a ROM is that it meets the needs of all of its
potential users. User feedback during the development
process is critical. Potential uses include process opti-
mization and monitoring, case studies, troubleshooting,
economic planning, process training and process design. A
ROM must also have an understandable basis and be easy
to maintain. A “first-principles” model which includes all
major equipment and data reconciliation would be
appropriate.
JUNO:
The degree of simulation model rigor is related to eco-
nomic incentive of optimizing the unit. If the degree of
complexity calls for a system that has multiple options for
operations, then a more rigorous model is required (block
type operations). If the unit is operated with a stable feed, a
simple model is required. The key is having the dis-
turbance variables available to identify opportunities for
improvement.
For a simulation to provide good results, a good set of data
is required. More important than the simulator, or of equal
importance, is to have a set ofvalidated and reconciled data
using a data reconciliation package. There are several data
reconciliation packages on the market. One worth men-
tioning is SIGMAfine from KBC. This package is an object-
oriented system which ties directly to a process historian
and can provide reconciled data for different selectable
time periods. It uses a rigorous least square method.
The reconciled data can be used for on-line performance
simulation, for yield accounting, for process optimization,
design of experiments or evolutionary operations. The last
two options are very valuable when no model exists. In this
case, statistical methods are used to identify the direction
and size of move of the independent variables to optimize
the units.
The most sophisticated models will require a mixture of
physical models and heuristics to account for the unknown
disturbances. The most rigorous technology available is
called Kalman filtering in which a dynamic model is used
in conjunction with measured variables. The results of the
filter are the key unmeasured variables (State variables)
and the best prediction of the dependent variables. The
uncertainty is captured by using stochastic principle and
statistics related to the certainty of the model and the
measured (observed) variables. This technology can be
mixed with expert systems tools to provide a solid model for
control and optimization.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Another emerging technology for process control and
real time performance monitoring is the neural network
technology. In this case, the data collected by the historian
is fed to this neural network which learns the cause and
effect of the process. The controller is then designed based
on this neural network model.
The main criteria in selecting a model is related to the
economic rigor of the problem in hand. Sometimes, a simple
model can provide the necessary results. The key is having
the data to develop the model and the measurement of the
key variables either off-line or on-line for simulation and
optimization. From our experience, having a rigorous
model for control is not enough. The requirements of good
data reconciliation, process dynamics, physical and process
constraints are too many variables for attempting rigorous
process modelling. The emerging technologies such as
process historian combined with neural networks and ex-
pert system shells seem to provide the tools to incorporate
the process fundamentals, heuristics and unknowns in a
robust environment for process control and optimization.
What are the consequences of producing clean fuels?
Probably the process models will have to track components
that are both production, environmental and clean fuel
related.
ROGER 0. PELHAM (Profimatics, Inc.):
We supply a number of process simulation models, and
our business in that area has seen a significant increase in
the last two years. Much of this increase has been driven by
refiners analyzing various clean fuel options. So, I would
say the industry has voted strongly “yes” on that question.
H. C. KLIESCH (Profimatics, Inc.):
We believe the models should be as rigorous as required
to meet the needs of the application. Consideration should
be given to the availability of analytical data (either from
the refinery laboratory or on-line analyzers) and process
measurements to support the development and continued
calibration of the rigorous or theoretical model. We are
seeing standardization in use of the same model for both
off-line and on-line applications, e.g., technical studies,
development of unit representations for refinery fore-
casting and scheduling software, on-line optimization with
advanced control, and as the engine in operator trainers.
One model is easier to maintain and upgrade than multiple
ones. Current product specifications are requiring the
models to be more rigorous, e.g., proposed maximum level
of benzene in gasoline, the effect on alkylate octane when
FCC unit C4 olefins are processed in an upstream ether
unit.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT, (SETPOINT, Inc.):
The degree of rigor required for process optimization is
different for on-line versus off-line. For on-line appli-
cations, the degree of rigor depends on the scope of the
refinery optimization envelope. At the unit level, maxi-
mum rigor is required, comparable or equivalent to that
used in process design flow sheet simulators, in order to
accurately determine the state of the plant, for accurately
predicting yields and constraints. As one goes up the hier-
archy to multi-unit optimization, scheduling, and plan-
ning, the rigor can be decreased, since the resulting
decisions that the optimizer will guide are of a broader
41
scope. It is very important however, that all models on all
levels be consistent and give equivalent results. The only
way to do this is to use the unit models as the “mother”
models and make all other higher level models derivatives
of them, updated often as required to reflect the true state of
the plant. At the unit level, the data reconciliation and
parameter update feature provided by the optimizer can
fine tune the models every time an optimization is
executed.
For off-line optimization, the models have to be even more
accurate, since the automatic parameter update feature of
on-line optimization is not available. For this reason off-
line optimization is usually not satisfactory compared to
on-line optimization.
The main criteria for selecting or developing models are
that they be written in equation-based format, to enhance
robustness and to allow parameter update, data reconcili-
ation and optimization to be done with the same code. This
reduces model maintenance as well as assuring consistent
results. Another criteria is to have models that can be
linked together into larger envelopes, by having consistent
feed and yield structures (e.g. equivalent pseudocomponent
slates and bulk properties, etc.). The modeling platform is
also important. One should select a modeling system that
has a graphical interface, good thermodynamics, ease of
linking to existing models, etc.
Clean fuels require models that accurately predict the
yield components and bulk properties that will be used in
overall constraint and objective functions, such as octane,
sulfur, specific olefin distribution, aromatics, etc. Many
existing yield models do not have this capability and need
to be updated.
QUESTION 49:
What are your experiences with maintenance of
multivariable advanced control applications? How
do you handle model re-identification, problem di-
agnosis, and new software releases? Which depart-
ment is responsible for internal maintenance and
support, and how much “outside” maintenance is
used?
JUNO:
The evolution of this technology is making them easier to
maintain. The models are becoming more robust so they
can work within extended operating limits. But when
major process changes occur, the internal dynamic models
need to be recalculated. These MPC algorithms are not
adaptive and require model identification. The vendor is
usually consulted when major software releases are
involved.
The justification of the MPC controls requires identifi-
cation of the maintenance cost of this technology. If the
controls are not properly maintained, it will not produce
the estimated savings. Usually a large unit with advanced
and multivariable controls requires at least 25% of the time
of a control engineer. The control department is responsible
for maintaining and improvement of the control strategies.
BRIERLEY:
We have limited experience with multivariable appli-
cations to date, but for the foreseeable future, Syncrude will
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
maintain all commissioned process control applications
with its own resources, i.e., our own Applications and
Systems groups. If a technology introduced at some time in
the future causes significant maintenance difficulties, we
will reevaluate whether third party support should be
retained for some or all of the maintenance. We will pur-
chase new process control technology rather than develop it
ourselves, and will utilize consultants for initial, and most
probably subsequent applications.
LAABS:
Our local process control engineers are responsible for
normal maintenance of multivariable controls. Outside
vendors are used for software upgrades and major control
changes. Vendors are called in to help with troubleshooting
in emergencies, or when the site engineers cannot handle
the problem by themselves. Most of our sites are largely
self-sufficient.
ROGER 0. PELHAM (Profimatics, Inc.):
On the maintenance issue, Protimatics experience is that
refiners almost have a “double standard” in their main-
tenance expectations. It intrigues me still, that as a major
42
supplier of off-line simulation, Profimatics would not be
able to provide that technology without also offering com-
prehensive maintenance services. Yet in Profimatics ad-
vanced control business, refiners tend to take a totally
different posture that “we the refiner” must maintain our
advanced control systems. To a significant degree we are
kept at arms length unless there is a major problem the
refinery cannot handle. To illustrate the point, we can
compare the ratio of maintenance revenues/total revenues
in our Process Simulation Business and our Advanced
Control Business. The ratio is a factor of ten higher in the
Process Simulation Business.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT, (SETPOINT, Inc.):
I would like to second the comment from Mr. Pelham
about how refiners treat outside maintenance of APC proj-
ects. If we do an extensive APC project that costs say a
million dollars, one would expect to get benefits on an
annual basis equal to that number if the controls are main-
tained. However at budget time, people choose main-
tenance ratios that are much lower than on other kinds of
sophisticated systems. Typical thinking seems to preclude
or minimize outside maintenance for these APC systems.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
We know that this philosophy leads to downtime of the
control systems. It is an interesting puzzle that we have not
been able to figure out yet either, because we certainly are
willing and able to supply maintenance support services
which will increase uptime significantly and to provide
upgrades to capture benefits not previously available.
H. Miscellaneous
QUESTION 50:
Have any refiners received IS0 9002 certification,
and if so, what steps have they undertaken to ensure
consistent product quality with changing feedstocks?
PEDERSEN:
Statoil’s total downstream operation in Denmark - sup-
ply, refining, and marketing - received IS0 certification
this year. As a part of that project, the quality assurance
system at our Kalundborg refinery was certified according
to ISO-9002. At Mongstad Refinery in Norway, we are
working for certification early next year.
For refiners, the principles outlined in the ISO-
standard do not represent anything really new. The re-
quirements to quality management and documentation for
the typical European refiner are more stringent and com-
prehensive than those practiced according to the pro-
cedures and routines normally in place. But it does not
change our life completely.
The standards specify minimum requirements to the
Quality Assurance system. When in compliance and cer-
tified, the customer knows that when you have agreed to
deliver a product at a given date and to a set of agreed
specifications, you have a system in place to secure the
product delivered as agreed. The standard does not set
requirements to product quality or specifications, and as
such, the standard does not limit the refiner in feedstock
selection. We have to remember, that consistent product
quality does not imply the same mixture of specific hydro-
carbons but fractions that meet certain specifications.
QUESTION 51:
Are refiners using infrared or other types of smoke
detectors to monitor flares? Is automatic control of
steam to the flare tip being used via these detectors?
BONELLI:
Marathon does have some experience in monitoring flare
stacks using something other than IR. At least one of our
locations uses a video camera to do continuous monitoring
to have the operator aware of the flare condition and make
adjustments to the steam to the smokeless flare tips. We
also do in several applications, use infrared or other flame
sensing devices to automatically control the steam to the
flare. The system works quite well.
ROY:
We also use IRD Smoke Detectors at our Pasadena Plant
43
for flare monitoring. We recently instrumented for auto-
matic control of steam to the flares and are in the process of
evaluating these.
PEDERSEN:
In 1989, we installed an infrared detector for controlling
the flare steam. It never became a success as the detector
was too sensitive to weather conditions, in particular, rain.
QUESTION 52:
What types of measurement devices are being used
to measure flow and composition of flare gases?
BRIERLEY:
Each of our three flare headers is equipped with a
Panametrics Model 7100 meter with local molecular
weight, pressure, and temperature indication. The molecu-
lar weight indication can be compared to a fingerprint file
consisting of individual process stream compositions so the
most likely flaring culprits can be identified. The com-
pensated mass flow signal is sent back to the control room.
In addition, each of the flare headers has a number of
temperature measurement signals that are sent to the
control room. All major process units have KURZ Model
455 meters on the flare headers near the unit battery limits
to measure the velocity of the flared gasses at that point.
All these indications are used to determine which process
unit is flaring in the quickest period possible.
LAABS:
Two of our sites use Panametrics Ultrasonic mass flow
meters to measure flow to the flare. These meters have
proven satisfactory for controlling steam flow to the flare
tips. Several flares have orifice meters or pitot tubes, but
they are considered unreliable and are not used for steam
control. One site also measures flow at the unit blowdown
drums with Alphasonics meters.
BONELLI:
Our flare gas composition measurement is done by dis-
crete manual sampling methods. We just go to the unit
battery limits when we have unidentified flare gases and
take samples and take them to the laboratory. We have
purchased a Panametrics analyzer or flow meter for use in
the flare header, but have not yet installed it.
PEDERSEN:
Last year we installed a Fluenta ultrasonic flare gas
meter in Mongstad. The meter, which is of Norwegian
fabrication, is an insertion type with transmitter and
receiver positioned flush with the pipe, which in our case is
a 60 inch line. Velocity and density are measured, and
volume and mass flow calculated. We have no analyzers for
determination of the composition, but take samples for
laboratory analysis when required.
The molecular weight of the flare gas is normally be-
tween 8 and 15, and in this range, the meter seems to
overestimate the density. In our case, the problem seems to
be to get a signal strong enough without generating too
much noise.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
QUESTION 53:
What methods are effective in reducing fouling in
process water strippers?
MURPHY:
Fouling in process water strippers can have a number of
causes. Insoluble oils, which are visually apparent or mea-
sured by oil & grease testing, cause fouling by forming a
film on the metal surfaces. This phenomenon also provides
a media which traps suspended particulates leading to
further fouling. If this is the cause of fouling, bulk oil
removal through gravity separation and floatation is nec-
essary. In addition to bulk oil removal, an oil dispersant is
useful to keep metal surfaces free of oil buildup and its
adhesive effect.
If the particle sizes are large enough, suspended solids
such as iron sulfide or grit can settle out in low flow areas.
Particulate dispersants are capable of keeping these solids
in suspension, but it is critical to select a dispersant that is
functionally specific for the problematic solid.
Frequently, the processed water can become super satu-
rated with minerals. The degree of super saturation is a
function of mineral constituents, temperature, and pH.
Typically, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and
magnesium silicate are the most common problem mineral
scales. These can be addressed by the use of scale inhibitors
and dispersants.
BONELLI:
In addition to what Mr. Murphy said, control and rigor-
ous maintenance of the interface level controllers in the
process units upstream of the sour water strippers are also
crucial items. The control of suspended solids in the feeds to
the strippers is also critical.
LAABS:
The best way to avoid fouling in the sour water stripper is
to monitor water feeds. Water hardness and high silica
levels will cause fouling, and streams with these con-
taminants should be pretreated or redirected if at all
possible.
Ammonium salts have also caused problems in the past
in one of our sour water strippers. We have avoided this
problem by maintaining an overhead temperature of
195 ºF and a reflux minimum temperature of 140 °F.
Two affiliated sites are using chemical injections to
minimize fouling. Their experience has been positive.
While shutdowns are still necessary for cleaning, they are
less frequent than before.
RAJGURU:
My response is specifically related to the sour water
strippers. Typica1 fouling in the sour water strippers is
caused by ammonium bisulfide formation, corrosion prod-
ucts from acid gas and contaminates such as cyanides and
chlorides, and gum formation from heavy hydrocarbons.
Bisulfide formation is prevented by maintaining the strip-
per overhead system temperature above 180 °F. We prefer
at least 200 ºF Fluor Daniel, Inc. recommends to heat trace
the overhead lines to the sulfur plant and also all the lines
that go to the instruments and the safety relief valves.
In sour water strippers using overhead vapor condensers,
we recommend air coolers, with autovariable fin fans or
44
automatic louvers; and in the cold weather conditions, we
also recommend the steam heating. We do not recommend
hot vapor bypass. Fouling due to the corrosion products can
be minimized by selection of the proper metallurgy for
various components of the system, reducing the con-
taminates such as heavy hydrocarbons, by providing ade-
quate residence time for the feed surge drum, and by
providing oil skimmers in the surge drum and in the over-
head accumulator. It should also be noted that brine from
the desalters adds to the corrosion and subsequent fouling
problems.
QUESTION 54:
What programs have been developed for universal
safety training of contractors to be approved and
accepted at those refineries which require safety
training programs?
LAABS:
Safety training by industrial cooperatives is becoming
very popular for refineries. Two of our sites are currently
involved with such programs and the third site is inves-
tigating a local cooperative. Our Louisiana refinery is
involved in a cooperative developed by the Greater Baton
Rouge Industrial Manager’s Association, and our Port
Arthur, Texas refinery is a member of the South East Texas
Safety Association (SETSA). Our Delaware Plant is cur-
rently talking with the Delaware Valley Construction
Users Council. These programs provide generic training in
such subjects as personal protective equipment, hearing
conservation, respiratory protection, material handling,
hazard communication, signs and barricades, electrical
work practices and work permits. Some also include site
specific information. Refresher courses are required on a
yearly basis.
By pooling their resources, area refiners and chemical
plant operators are able to ensure consistent and high
quality safety training for all of their contract workers. At
SETSA, in Texas it is actually required to have a SETSA
safety card before you can enter the refinery.
Proof of training is sometimes required for jobs that
include such activities as asbestos abatement and haz-
ardous material handling. This training is expected to be
handled by the contract company.
Typically, site specific safety practices are detailed in a
manual that is included with every contract. These prac-
tices are reviewed with on site contractor supervision
before starting a job. These manuals are sometime aug-
mented by formal training at the job site.
MURPHY:
As a contractor to many plants, Nalco is required to
follow all general safety rules and the additional site speci-
tic rules at each location. We are pleased with the continued
emphasis on safety. Recently enacted regulatory rules re-
quire our field representative and national support staff to
take multiple training courses country-wide. These include
both refinery specific courses at the refinery and general
courses from local area safety councils.
From our viewpoint as a nationwide contractor, we would
like to see more of reciprocity agreements such as exist
between the Houston area and Texas City Area Safety
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Councils, as well as those mentioned by Mr. Laabs, for at
least the umbrella course work.
In addition to meeting the safety requirements of the
refinery, Nalco has developed a corporate safety training
program for all of its field representatives and support staff.
This program was written internally with the input of
many customers so that regardless of the level of safety
training provided at each location, all Nalco people would
meet the minimum OSHA training specifications.
Among the topics covered in the training are:
Asbestos
24 OSHA Regulated Substances
OSHA Subpart Z - Air Contaminants
Reporting Occupational Illness & Injury
Fork Truck, Powered Lifts
Machine Guarding
Portable Ladders, and
Mechanical/Electrical Safety
In addition to the general safety topics, the following
safety training subjects are covered:
Hazard Communication (Right-to Know)
Emergency Response Actions (HAZWOPER)
Personal Protective Equipment
Respiratory Protection
Hearing conservation
Fire Safety
Confined Space Entry
Lockout/Tagout
Access to Medical and Exposure Records, and
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
BONELLI:
The most effective programs which we have in place
include the active participation of a contractor safety coun-
cil or a similar organization which includes all the con-
tractors which work in any particular refinery. These
organizations participate actively, in the development of
the contractor safety training program, including videos
and the course work which Mr. Laabs has covered for us.
These contractor safety councils also elect a representative
to sit on the refinery’s safety advisory group which is a
safety coordinating council for each refinery.
SLOAN:
M. W. Kellogg has its own standardized orientation pro-
gram, including HAZCOM, process safety management
guide lines, etc. that meet most client requirements. The
clients unique specifications are incorporated into the pro-
gram to meet individual project needs. We also have used
the Deepened Stop program for training supervisors as
well as the development of our own Safe Task Assessment
and Reinforcement Training program, called “START”,
used to assist supervisors in pre-task evaluation of task
hazards and training their employees in the safe per-
formance of each task on a daily basis.
There are also other sources of safety training courses
that are universally accepted at most plants and by OSHA
at this time. These sources include:
1. The Contractor Safety Councils such as those estab-
lished at the Houston Area Safety Council, Brazo-
sport, Texas City and Beaumont, as well as the one in
Richmond, California - Bay Area Training Trust.
45
They have standard orientation programs for
petrochemical facilities, training in HAXCOM,
HAZWOPER, etc. They work with the plants to offer
standardized courses acceptable to the clients in the
area they serve. They also often offer the site specific
training for selected plants that video their presen-
tation and offer it at a central location.
2. OSHA’s Training Institute in Des Plaines, Illinois
where OSHA compliance officers and other federal
personnel, as well as the public, receive their training.
They offer numerous courses that are acceptable to all
parties. These include the OSHA 10 and 40 hour
courses, courses on Scaffolding, Ergonomics, Toxicol-
ogy, Excavations, etc.
3. The Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associ-
ated General Contractors and National Constructors
Association as well as many other unions and con-
tractor associations offer courses in construction
safety. The ABC for example offers many of the OSHA
training courses, standardized orientation programs,
etc.
4. The ASSE, AIChE, and other professional as-
sociations provide an excellent source of training
courses for Safety in Design and in Construction.
5. Some consultants, major independent client and Con-
struction USER Groups - Business Roundtable - and
Insurance organizations have developed their own
proprietary programs that many companies have
used. International Loss Control Institute, Deepened,
Argonaut Insurance each have special training pro-
grams available for use.
BRIERLEY:
Syncrude and Suncor Inc. Oil Sands Group undertook a
joint effort to produce a Health and Safety Orientation
training package that would be common for both of the
plants. To produce the package, both plants agreed to
standardize various items such as emergency phone num-
bers, emergency assembly point designations, personal
protective equipment, etc. Personnel receiving the training
at one plant are qualified to receive access to either of the
plants for a one year time span. Records are kept by each of
the plants and shared on a monthly basis to produce a
common database.
QUESTION 55:
The use of gamma scanning to solve plant oper-
ating problems has been in use now for over a decade
with net positive results. Are refiners using this tech-
nique for reasons other than unit troubleshooting?
J. WILLIAMS:
Gamma scans can be utilized by refiners to optimize unit
operations, as well as for trouble shooting. These opti-
mization studies can be performed on any piece of equip-
ment ranging from distillation columns, reactors, tanks,
separators, etc. If you have a specific application, there are
companies who operate globally with whom you can discuss
the extent of the work and the quality of the data. However,
below is a brief discussion of possible applications.
TOC/INDEX
GENERAL PROCESSING AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
l Optimization studies - Scans can locate areas of vapor
and liquid flooding when fractionator’s throughput is
being pushed. This can be used to compliment simu-
lation studies and used as basis for debottlenecking.
l Distribution studies - Distribution studies can be per-
formed on reactors, packed distillation columns and
piping. Scans of packed towers can reflect the liquid
distribution of various operating rates. Also scans on
standpipes and risers can reflect the radial dis-
tribution. For instance in the riser, the scan can indi-
cate the proper distribution of catalyst for optimal
contact at various points in the riser. This is accom-
plished by performing a grid of scans and mapping out
the catalyst density in the riser.
BONELLI:
In addition to those applications which were just men-
tioned, the gama scanning is also used for monitoring solid
and liquid inventories such as acid inventories in alkyla-
tion units and catalyst hopper levels in CCR platforming
units. Many refineries use gamma scan to establish normal
operating baselines for fractionators and FCC regenerators
so that when trouble shooting is necessary, they have a
standard set of reference data.
JUNO:
In addition to what has been mentioned, we have used the
gamma scan to accurately set the FCC reactor stripper
catalyst level in order to span and set the level on an
indication instrument. This is done shortly after start-up,
but it helps to have a baseline performed without any level.
BRIERLEY:
We have used gamma scanning a few times for purposes
other than troubleshooting. Generally, we’ve attempted to
monitor the liquid distribution within trayed or packed
columns as part of unit optimization or debottlenecking
studies. We also use gamma radiation sources in fixed
nuclear gauges in several locations within the plant. They
are used for level indication in vessels and for density
measurement of various process streams.
QUESTION 56:
Is anyone applying inspection techniques for de-
tecting and measuring under insulation corrosion
46
and thinning of piping, without removing the
insulation?
PAULES:
I am aware of one scanning technique which can examine
pipe wall thickness without removing insulation. It uses a
radioactive source, a detector, and through the use of a
computer program calculates the wall thickness. So far,
this method has only been used in power plants, but there
have been efforts to introduce it to the refining industry.
The people who provide this service claim that it is more
accurate than standard x-ray techniques.
J. WILLIAMS:
Ultrasound and gama scanning are the two conventional
methods of nondestructive testing that have been used for
corrosion monitoring without requiring removal of in-
sulation. In pipes carrying vapors, ultrasound is accurate to
a few millimeters compared to gama scanning that can
detect down to one eight of an inch. However, ultrasound
accuracy diminishes with dense liquids or solids. A new
technique called Edge Radiography is being used in Europe
with excellent accuracy and a broad range of applications.
QUESTION 57:
Describe any experiences with inert gas de-
hydration in process or product streams.
T. WILLIAMS:
We have used hot nitrogen in a dehydration step after an
in situ reformer regeneration. The start-up dryout time
was cut by approximately three days.
ROY:
At our Tyler Refinery, on occasions when our salt dryer
has experienced a breakthrough, we have bubbled kerosine
tanks with nitrogen in order to dry or coalesce moisture to
meet HAZE rating. In order for this to be effective, the tank
needs to have a bottom distributor or spider.
TERRY TUCKER: (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.)
Concerning the dehydration after regeneration, we use a
series of pressuring and depressuring with nitrogen to
dryout the catalyst. It has cut our unit start-up time at low
severity by one or two days.
TOC/INDEX
II. HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
A. Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Mechanical
QUESTION 1:
What are the main operating problems with elec-
trostatic precipitators in FCC flue gas systems? What
are the main maintenance problems? What pre-
ventative maintenance is required?
OSBORN:
We have experienced the following operating/mainte-
nance problems over the years with our precipitators.
a) inlet slide gates stuck due to catalyst fines collecting
behind the seals,
b) wires breaking causing loss of efficiency and/or short-
ing of field,
c) wearing of keyhole support and/or wearing of the
button at the top of the wire due to wires spinning
while in operation (Some have worn to the point of
failure causing the wire to fall through with loss of
efficiency and/or shorting off. Repairs included weld-
ing new keyhole bars over the originals, tack welding
the buttons to the keyhole, and using heavier wire
weights.),
d) sagging of the floor of the penthouse in one or more
sections resulting in misalignment of the insulators
and grids (We replaced the floor in one section of one
precipitator.),
e) bridging of catalyst in the bottom of the precipitator,
f) mechanical failure of conveyor augers,
g) leaks in the steam coils on the hoppers (We discon-
tinued the use of these heating coils and have looked
into replacing them with electric heaters, but have
not installed them yet due to cost considerations.),
and
h) cracked insulators.
Preventive maintenance includes routine inspections
during turnarounds, sometimes using outside experts.
After twelve years of use since it was built, we replaced all
the wires at our last turnaround and plan to change them
every six years, which is every other turnaround.
BRIERLEY:
Our main process operating problems are variable solids
loading and variable gas loads, particularly SO3 and am-
monia. The main maintenance problems are caused by
leakage through the hopper valves. Air ingress through the
valves leads to condensation, corrosion, and hopper plug-
gage. The moisture also contributes to cracking of the
47
porcelain support insulators. Hopper valves are now re-
placed “on the run” on a planned basis, and maintenance on
the external electrical components is conducted on the run
on individual transformer rectifier systems.
MURPHY:
Nalco FuelTech has experience with ESPs on FCCUs in
one refinery in California. Here, the FCC CO boiler is
treated with NOxOUT. The NOxOUT system has been run
in a manner as to generate more ammonia slip than would
normally be done. This additional ammonia slip served to
augment the existing downstream ammonia injection. It is
believed that the ammonia released by the NOxOUT en-
hanced the precipitator performance because of the longer
contact time of the ammonia and the catalyst fines.
PAULES:
Some of the main problems associated with electrostatic
precipitators are smaller than normal fines, excessive flue
gas rates, lower than design operating temperatures, drain
leg plugging, and bad rapper control. Precipitators must be
thoroughly purged to remove SO2 before cooling to the
dewpoint or severe damage to the grids can occur. Some
refiners have installed digitally controlled rapper systems
to more effectively clean the grids during normal operation.
At one of our refineries, over the course of time, the ESP
performance will deteriorate. The ESP is then bypassed,
the grids are cleaned with a water jet spray, and then
returned to service. This procedure apparently removes
very small fines which tend to build up on the grids and
affect performance.
PEDERSEN:
At the Mongstad refinery we have been operating a
40,000 bbls/stream day, UOP RCC unit for approximately
four years with a set of electrostatic precipitators down-
stream of the CO boilers followed by a seawater scrubber.
We have not experienced any serious problems with those
precipitators and maintenance required has shown to be
very little. We do not have any preventive maintenance
program in place yet. However, as we gradually have in-
creased the throughput above the original design level, the
particulate content in the flue gas leaving the precipitators
has increased. Over the last two years, we have experienced
fines collecting in the flue gas system between the scrubber
and the stack, causing sour particle emission from time to
time.
ROY:
Most of the problems experienced in our ESP operation
are a result of catalyst buildup in the hoppers which, when
over full, cause the electrical grids to go to ground. We have
had to do some shell crack repairs in the vicinity of our
TOC/INDEX
precipitator vibrators. We have also completely corroded
the ESP blowers due to catalyst buildup. The buildup also
causes vibration problems. Hoppers need to be kept in-
sulated with the steam tracing in good working order in
order to keep moisture from condensing inside the hopper.
Normal monitoring of the blower and motor operations,
including periodic checks of the vibrators, constitute part of
the PM program.
J. WILLIAMS:
One of the prime operating problems of ESPs is their
tendency to drift from the optimum settings of the rapper
system with changing unit conditions. Optimum condi-
tions should be reestablished by the instrument shop in a
routine preventive maintenance program. In addition to
checking the actual function of each rapper, the optimum
setting for rapper frequency, intensity, and duration should
be verified for changing conditions.
KENNETH A. PECCATIELLO (Grace Davison):
We have seen where high temperatures on the ESP itself,
being either from a CO boiler problem or some other effect,
causes the plates to warp. Once the plates warp, it becomes
very easy for the wires to short-out against the plates. The
other problem with a high temperature is that people
sometimes try to control the ESP inlet temperature with
the use of flue gas duct spray boiler feed water. If there is
not enough of a knockout area, the spray water will also end
up shorting out the wires.
JOSEPH W. WILSON (Caltex Services):
Mr. Paules, you mentioned that you bypass the electro-
static precipitator. Do you do this on-line? What type of
hardware do you have to do this, i.e., the bypassing equip-
ment? Can you actually get in there? Do you bypass it
effectively where you can open it up and do the wash?
PAULES:
Yes, that is right. Our ESP has an isolation valve on its
flue gas inlet and outlet and a bypass valve in a flue gas line
around it. The block valves are 66 inch butterfly valves and
the bypass is a 44 inch butterfly valve. When taking the
ESP out ofservice we first open the bypass valve then block
the inlet and outlet isolation valves. Blinds are then in-
stalled on the ESP side of the isolation valves before any
work on the ESP begins. The ESP will cool to a temperature
that will allow entry in less than one day by simply remov-
ing the manways and allowing it to radiate heat to the
atmosphere. It should be mentioned that we do go out of
compliance on the stack opacity while we perform this
procedure.
OSBORN:
We also bypass, we have two banks of precipitators and
are able to bypass one side using the main slide gate to
isolate.
QUESTION 2:
Fouling of heat exchangers in the bottoms and
heavy cycle oil circuits of the FCC fractionator has
been reported. What conditions are necessary to
48
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
eliminate fouling and coking in fractionators and
heat exchangers? How can the fouling be monitored
on-line?
O’BRIEN:
Phillips has experienced fouling of the bottoms pump-
around steam generators in a heavy oil cracker. The fouling
seems to occur when processing a high percentage of un-
hydrotreated resid. A series of tests were conducted during
periods of accelerated fouling and periods of little or no
fouling. The testing indicated that the fouling was the
result of asphaltene precipitation. The asphaltenes may
precipitate due to the carryover of unreacted feed, or pos-
sibly the formation of asphaltene precursors in the riser
reactor. We are currently evaluating additives to eliminate
this problem.
Other factors in bottoms pumparound fouling are the
temperature of the oil, exchanger velocity, residence time
in the bottom of the fractionator, the amount of catalyst
contained in the oil, composition and physical properties of
the bottom pumparound oil, and feed quality. Sometimes it
seems that the phase of the moon has an impact.
As far as oil temperature goes, the lower the tempera-
ture, the less the fouling. This is true for both asphaltene
deposition and polymerization types of fouling. One of our
heavy oil cracker feeds an oil with a 19” API gravity, and
Conradson carbon of 6.5. We maintain oil temperatures in
the fractionator bottoms below a maximum of 635 ºF, and
vapor temperature above the shed decks below the maxi-
mum of 680 °F Units with less severe feed can run hotter
than this without fouling.
As far as exchanger velocities go, fouling can occur at
higher rates if the velocity is not kept above a threshold.
Our heavy oil crackers maintain velocities above 7 ft/sec.
The more solids, the easier it is to foul because the catalyst
can bind agglomerate with polymers to form hard deposits,
As mentioned earlier, we think we see more fouling with
unhydrotreated resid.
We monitor fouling of the steam generators with cal-
culated heat transfer coefficients and with fouling factors
that are calculated every 60 seconds.
OSBORN:
As mentioned, there are several factors which contribute
to the fouling and coking in the FCC fractionators and
bottoms heat exchangers. They include: insufficient
quench oil, high catalyst content in the slurry, heat history
(meaning the residence time of the oil at the elevated
temperatures), and velocity of the oil in the bottoms circuit.
All will tend to contribute to deposition of catalyst and
certain heavy hydrocarbons. We target a maximum bot-
toms temperature of 690 ºF, maximum slurry viscosity of
110 SUS at 210 ºF, and a minimum velocity of 4.5 ft./set. in
the exchange train. However, an excessive velocity can lead
to erosion in the exchangers.
BONELLI:
I think we have covered most of the basic design con-
siderations, but I would like to add that minimum velocity
through the exchangers may be determined historically on
your particular unit. It can vary from type of feedstock and
type of catalyst. Previous problems with erosion in the
exchangers dictate the upper limit and obviously, the plug-
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
ging dictates the lower velocity limit. Now, for instance, we
use pool temperatures somewhere in the 680 ºF range and
do not experience fouling from asphaltene deposition or
polymerization. Catalyst fouling can vary with the type of
catalyst that you use.
MURPHY:
I agree with most of the factors mentioned. We have seen
the same thing in many of the applications we have. We see
catalyst fines, coke fines, polymeric substances, iron-
containing deposits, and oxidized polymers in these sys-
tems. A solution to the problem requires the development of
a complete plan to control fouling for all heavy hydrocarbon
applications on the feed or hot oil side of an exchanger. This
plan would incorporate process changes as well as additive
application.
Pressure drop and fouling resistance calculations plotted
over time is the best method for measuring the effect of
fouling on unit performance. Again, the data quality for
temperature and flow is the key parameter for effective
monitoring and analysis.
PEDERSEN:
Coking is a spontaneous, thermal process favored by
temperature and residence time. At temperatures below
360 °C (680 ºF) the rate of reaction is very low, but it
increases rapidly at higher temperatures, depending on the
characteristics of the oil. This implies that coking in the
bottoms and heavy cycle oil circuits of the RCC fractionator
cannot be eliminated, only reduced.
In general, to avoid coking in hydrocarbon systems we
have to minimize residence time of the hydrocarbons at
elevated temperatures. It is also important to ensure high
linear velocities in the system as it will prevent particles
from settling out, but on the other hand it directionally
increases erosion.
We have also experienced that it is very, very important
to keep high flow rates in the bottoms and heavy cycle oil
circuits for several days after start-up or after any unit
upset, which may cause catalyst carryover to the frac-
tionator, in order to flush the catalyst out of the systems.
Catalyst carryover during the start-ups and shutdowns
should of course be minimized. Catalyst which is allowed to
accumulate in parts of the circulation system may cause
plugging or fouling. Fouling or plugging is monitored by
measuring the pressure drop or calculating the relative
49
heat transfer coefficients of the heat exchangers based on
temperature measurements.
ROY:
The only thing I have to add is that we do have additional
exchangers that can be bypassed and cleaned on-line. If
high pyrole nitrogen content cannot be reduced, it can
promote polymerization; so a proper antioxidant additive
selection would help. High temperature dispersants are
also quite effective in reducing solids deposition in towers
and pumparounds.
SLOAN:
One thing I have not heard mentioned yet is that the use
of a bottoms quench system designed to subcool the frac-
tionator bottoms about 20 ºF, or so, will reduce coke for-
mation in the bottom section. We believe this design feature
is pretty much standard on modern FCCUs that produce
high endpoint cycle oils.
T. WILLIAMS:
In one of our locations we monitor C7 insolubles in the
slurry system. We have noticed a tremendous increase in
fouling rate when the C7s increase above 5%. The only way
to alleviate the problem is to pull the slurry circuit hard to
storage to reduce the concentration, which has a very
negative economic penalty. We have also found that some
antifoulants have helped in this service.
DAVID LININGTON (Marathon Oil Company):
We also have had a lot of fouling problems due to feed
leaking through to the bottom of the main fractionator
through a feed diversion valve on the FCC feed circuit. This
is not a true fouling situation, but it does lead to coke
formation in the bottom of the fractionator which will plug
up the heat exchangers.
JOSEPH W. WILSON (Caltex Services):
Does the panel or anybody else in the audience have
experience using a U-tube exchanger instead of floating-
head in the feed bottoms slurry service? Have these im-
proved or helped with their fouling problems?
STEPHEN F. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.):
We use some U-tube bundles in our bottoms circuit. It
does not really help with the fouling problem, but you can
clean them a lot quicker and get them on-line quicker. The
same goes for plugging tubes.
REZA SADEGHBEIGI (BP Oil Company):
In one of our units, the bottom exchangers are seldom
cleaned. The tricks to keep them clean are:
(1) using a good bottoms cracking catalyst,
(2) keeping tube velocity over 10 fffsec,
(3) maintaining the bottom’s temperature less than
680 °F,
(4) using an aromatic-rich flush, and
(5) having no catalyst carryover.
RON M. LATHROP (Tosco Refining Company):
One of the things that seems to prolong the on-stream life
of these exchangers is high velocity. With velocity ranging
between 8 and 12 fps you generally have enough erosion
TOC/INDEX
that all the fouling goes away. The tubes will tend to go
away too, unless you use sulfur corrosion resistant alloy.
The so-called “erosion,” I found, really is removal of the
protective film that protects the tube from corrosion and
that removal accelerates corrosion causing the tubes to
thin.
Once you go to an alloy tube, this so-called “erosion”
disappears. We went to 5 chrome, ½ molybdenum, which
stopped this problem of so-called “erosion.” We now go over
three years without having to clean them.
To get this kind of high velocity, you usually have to go to
a large tube diameter. We changed to 1¼%, inch tubes to get
the pressure drop down so we could get the high velocity.
This gives you another benefit because the tubes are
thicker and it allows you to have a little more wall to go
through in case you do have a little erosion. The larger
inside diameter reduces plugging by tramp material also.
QUESTION 3:
Does anyone use a sintered metal or ceramic filter
as a third or fourth stage separator? What has been
the experience with reliability?
SLOAN:
We are aware of several experiments on demonstration
scale equipment, but know of no commercial operations
that use this type of filter in these services.
O’BRIEN:
We have not used this type of filter in flue gas service, but
we are aware of their use in coal gasification and fluidized
combustion. The specific references are as follows: Zeh, et
al. “Evaluation of Performance of Ceramic Candle Filters
in a Hot Particulate-Laden Stream”, USDOE, MERC, Mor-
gantown, WV (May 1990); Salter, et al. “Shell Coal Gasi-
fication Process SCGP-1, High Temperature Filtration Ex-
perience”, 2nd EPRI Workshop on Filtration and Dust from
Coal-Derived Reducing and Combustion Gases at High
Temperature, (March 11-13, 1992).
QUESTION 4:
What is the latest thinking with regard to expan-
sion joints? Are purges used? What are the material
of construction and number of plies?
ROY:
We have gone to packed joints on all new flue gas and
reactor overhead expansion joints. These are considered to
be more reliable and do not require steam purges and as
well have less potential for corrosion from condensation.
All new joints are multiple ply, usually double in our case.
These joints are of Inconel 601. Packing material is a
Kaowool type material.
SLOAN:
Our current practice is also to use only packed type
expansion joints. We use multi-ply joints with a testable
bellows.
BRIERLEY:
The expansion joints in our fluid cokers are usually
fabricated from type 321 stainless steel. For higher tem-
50
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
perature services, we have used Incoloy 625. In general, we
do not use purges to keep the bellows clear, but instead use
sealed, transition liners or sleeves. We do occasionally have
pluggages in the lines, not necessarily in the bellows, but
they are cleared with steam blasting.
I
JUNO:
After a regenerated catalyst slide valve bellows failed at
one of our refineries, we replaced it with a two-ply bellows.
Instead of a purge, we have a tattletail valve that is checked
once a shift to see if the inner bellows has failed. The new
bellows has been in service since February, 1992, without
any problems.
In general, packing is used in our bellows to prevent
catalyst accumulation between the bellows and the inner
wall instead of a purge unless coking is a problem. The
bellows are made of Inconel625. On the spent catalyst slide
valve, we have steam purged bellows.
LAABS:
We have recently replaced an expansion joint at one of
our refineries. The new joint chosen was a steam purged
unit from Pathway Manufacturers. This joint has two plies,
and it is constructed of 321 stainless steel.
Other sites have both purged and packed joints. They are
normally purged with about 75 psig steam and the packed
joints are packed with Kaowool. This refinery is moving
towards packed joints because of recent problems with one
of their purged units. They have observed cracking on the
nozzle where it connects to the joint. The use of wet steam
has caused thinning due to erosion, and they have had some
corrosion problems.
Most companies that run multiple refineries find that
some sites prefer packed bellows and others prefer purged.
Our company is no exception.
O’BRIEN:
We are replacing our purged expansion joints with In-
cone1 625, two ply, packed joints.
QUESTION 5:
What is the panel’s experience with thermal shock-
ing of flue gas turbine blades to remove catalyst fines
and recover turbine efficiency? How is the quench
(shock) done? How fast (ºF/hr)? or how long? Do
vibrations (wheel/coupling) increase during shock
cycle? Will this procedure remove catalyst adhering
to stator blades?
O’BRIEN:
Our procedure calls for starting with an initial expander
inlet temperature of about 1,320 °F, and cooling at a rate
not to exceed 100 ºF/hr, to the range of 1,120 to 1,150 ºF
Epically this cool down can be done using the flue gas
quench system.
Vibrations typically increase during this procedure as
the fouling deposits come off the blades, and then decrease
when the blades are clean. We have had to reduce charge
and decrease the expander inlet temperature to near
1,000 ºF to clean the expander blades well. It is impor-
tant to cool slowly to avoid thermal stress and increasing
cycle fatigue.
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
Critical monitoring includes rotor casing vibrations,
bearing temperatures, and flue gas pressure and tempera-
ture. Operators should be familiar with procedures in the
event an emergency arises.
Visual inspection of the rotor prior to, and after cleaning,
should be made to determine the effectiveness of the ther-
mal shock. We have had no success with mini quenches that
others have used or walnut hulls.
PAULES:
We used to use thermal shocking of our flue gas turbine
to remove catalyst fines, but have discontinued this pro-
cedure. The procedure was to inject quench water in the
flue gas outlet and drop the expander inlet in 50 ºF incre-
ments over 20 minutes and hold at each increment for an
additional 15 minutes. This was down done to an expander
inlet temperature of 900 °F, where this temperature was
held for 1 hour. The procedure was reversed to bring the
unit back to normal operation. Vibrations occurred during
the procedure and many times afterwards due to uneven
spalling of the catalyst fines and the resulting imbalance.
This is why the procedure is no longer used.
RAJGURU:
I have input from a Gulf Coast refiner. It says, “we use
two procedures to remove catalyst from the shroud: walnut
blasting and thermal shock.”
Thermal shock procedure is designed to cool inlet tem-
perature to the expander to 600 ºF by reducing regenerator
bed temperatures. To achieve this temperature, the feed is
removed from the unit. The drop in temperature is about
300 °F/hr. Temperature is maintained at 600 °F for 1 to 3
hours or until catalyst is spalled from the shroud. Inspec-
tion is performed using a visual inspection of the shroud to
insure the procedure was effective prior to putting feed
back into the riser.
ROY:
At our Pasadena plant we have tried thermal shocking of
expander blades to remove catalyst deposits. The latest
attempt involved lowering the temperature set point on the
flue gas quench control by 100 °F/hr, trying for a net lower-
ing of 400 °F We only achieved about 200 ºF lower tempera-
ture, but recovered 5 to 8% of our lost horsepower. The
whole process may take 6 to 8 hours, but usually depends on
prevailing conditions or operation at the FCC unit.
Some increase in vibration may occur during the spalling
due to additional imbalance. This should be closely moni-
tored with a vibration reading and video camera or photo-
graphs taken from the view ports so as to avoid any blade
tip rub. Spalling is expected to remove catalyst from stator
blades, but is not in view from our inspection windows.
QUESTION 6:
Has anyone observed deposits on centrifugal com-
pressor impellers in gas recovery units? If so, does
anyone use wash liquid injection? What is the liquid
recommended?
MURPHY:
We have seen deposits of this type in compressors. Typi-
cally a clean light wash oil can be atomized into the suction
51
of the compressor to stop the fouling. In some cases a
filming or dispersing additive has been used very suc-
cessfully to help maintain clean surfaces.
BRIERLEY:
We have found black paste-like deposits on our compres-
sor rotor, thought to be the product of butadiene polymeri-
zation. While we do not use any continuous liquid injection,
we have allowed light coker naphtha to condense in the
compressor casing during a short outage and found that at
least some, if not most, of the deposit was removed.
LAABS:
We have observed these deposits at one of our refineries.
Their wet gas compressor has the capability of being
washed on-line, using hot condensate. It is washed when
necessary, but this has never been needed to be done more
than once during the normal three year run. The com-
pressor at the coker is also set up to be washed in this
fashion, but it is used more often due to polymer buildup on
the blades.
An affiliated site also washes its compressor impellers
with condensate, although other possibilities for the wash
liquid are being explored.
RAJGURU:
There have been deposits on the FCC wet gas com-
pressors. Our design normally includes wash liquid in-
jection using either heavy naphtha or light cycle oil. This
hydrocarbon liquid is injected on an intermittent basis
through nozzles provided by the compressor manufacturer.
ROBERT L. FLANDERS (Retired, Chevron):
I certainly would recommend that intermittent wash
never be used. Put it on and leave it on because if you are
not careful with a large deposit release, you are going to
have severe vibration problems.
PETER G. ANDREWS (Consultant):
I agree with Mr. Flanders. If you are going to put it on,
leave it on; and spray through a well designed liquid in-
jection system. Someone mentioned the use of light cycle
oil. I would suggest that if you use light cycle oil, you also
look at your gasoline endpoint, because it will increase. The
preferred injection (wash) material is cool, stabilized
gasoline.
QUESTION 7:
What are the necessary process and mechanical
considerations for revamping an FCCU from 970 ºF
riser outlet to 1025 ºF?
SLOAN:
First, it is important to simulate the units operation at
the intended new reactor conditions. Yields and operating
variables should be simulated with a good process model to
determine whether the regenerator temperature, air
blower, wet gas compressor, catalyst circulation rate, or
converter vessel size limits, can be maintained. The process
model may show the need to obtain improved coke and dry
gas selectivity.
TOC/INDEX
The latest feed injection and reactor disengager devices
should be employed in order to reduce undesirable post
riser, thermal, or catalytic cracking which result in poor
coke and dry gas selectivity. Two stage spent catalyst strip-
ping is also an essential part of the revamp to make sure
hydrogen and coke are maintained at a reasonably low
value.
An upgrade of the unit to closed cyclones is considered
essential to reduce dry gas and thermal reaction products,
such as butadienes. Mechanically designing the closed
cyclones for the reactor requires consideration in the choice
of metallurgy for the cyclones. Typically carbon steel is
used when the reactor temperature is at the 970 ºF level. As
the reactor temperature increases toward 1,025 ºF, use of
low chrome or stainless steel should be considered. Mate-
rial selection should be based on expected corrosion rates
and induced stresses in the cyclone and support system.
If the unit is a hot wall design, it may be necessary to
upgrade the design temperature by installing internal
refractory to lower the wall temperature. The effect of
refractory weight on reactor support structure loads needs
to be considered in this analysis.
RAJGURU:
The process considerations are: assuming the same
throughput and the same pressure levels, higher riser
outlet temperatures mean higher riser and disengaging
velocities, higher catalyst circulation and correspondingly
higher stripping steam rates. Higher riser outlet tempera-
ture also means different reactor yields affecting different
components or systems of the FCC unit. Each FCCU com-
ponent must be reviewed for the revised process duty
specifications.
On mechanical considerations, usually the reactor has to
be rerated although it is doubtful that it can be rerated from
970 to 1025 ºF as the reactor allowable stresses drop drasti-
cally. One way is to install refractory on the reactor wall to
drop the temperature of the reactor shell. We did this on one
unit by adding 1” hex mesh internally and removing some
of the external insulation. The wall temperature was
dropped by about 30 ºF At another refinery we installed a
4” thick insulating refractory to bring the wall temperature
down. This was quite successful, but it is a relatively high
maintenance item. Adding the refractory on the inside of
the reactor tends to reduce the capacity of the unit.
Also the fractionator nozzle usually must be sleeved with
an insulation sleeve to insulate the shell at the nozzle from
the high inlet temperature. Once in the fractionator, the
vapor will be cooled by the fractionator liquid.
JUNO:
In 1991, we revamped an FCCU at one of our refineries
from 970 ºF riser operation to 1,020 ºF design. We installed
a new reactor riser and reactor vessel changing the metal-
lurgy from carbon steel to alloy based on the newly revised
Nelson curves. One of the considerations in revamping to
higher temperature operation is to minimize the time of oil
at the higher reactor temperatures to prevent over-
cracking. We elected to install closed couple cyclones.
Other design considerations were the installation of a
light cycle oil quench in the reactor vapor line, vapor line
52
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
metallurgy upgrade, and main fractionator tower bottoms
metallurgy. Particular considerations should be given to
reactor vapor line sizing for velocity criteria, as coke can
form in the reactor vapor line at these increased tempera-
tures. Our reactor vapor line was replaced with a larger
line reducing velocities from 100 ft./set. to 60 ft./set. We
experienced a coke orifice formation at the end of the vapor
line inside the main fractionator which was a first for coke
formation in this unit at that particular location.There is
also an increase in catalyst circulation for the higher tem-
perature operation which may require changes in catalyst
valves and circulation piping. The higher severity oper-
ation may result in an increase in coke make which impacts
air blower capacity, regenerator operating temperatures,
cyclone capacity and possibly even regenerator diameter.
The higher severity may also increase dry gas make, taxing
main fractionator diameter, wet gas compression, and frac-
tionator heat removal. If it appears that the entire unit
must be assessed, then I think I have been successful with
this answer.
LAABS:
I do not think there is much else that could be added. I
would like to bring up one other thing: be sure to check your
pressure valve and flaring systems because the increased
dry gas may cause problems in those areas.
JOSEPH W. WILSON (Caltex Services):
One thing that has been mentioned here and certainly is
true is you are probably going to be looking at higher
catalyst circulation rates as you go up in temperature. This
means you need to look at the capability of the stripper to
handle higher catalyst circulation rates. A lot of units,
older units especially, are already pushed on their stripper
capacity, ability to strip, and the mass velocities through
the stripper. So as you raise temperatures and raise cata-
lyst circulation rate, you could come to a point where the
stripper becomes less effective.
Another thing I did not notice and I may have missed that
you also need to think about is the design temperatures of
your transfer line to the main fractionator and the design
temperature of the bottom section of the main fractionator
below the baffles or packing. Both of these can very easily
be exposed to reactor temperatures and may not have been
designed for temperatures in the 1,000 ºF + range.
WARREN LETZSCH (Stone & Webster Engineering
Corp.):
There is one point that has not been mentioned, the end
of the riser. A revamp to higher temperatures should
prompt a change at the outlet, too, but that will be ad-
dressed in Question 17.
Feed injection technology becomes critical as reactor
temperature is increased because the temperature at the
base of the riser increases as well. Without good feed
injection technology and good mixing, more thermal crack-
ing is going to occur. This shows up downstream as more
dry gas so a change in the feedstock injection technology
should be considered as part of the revamp for higher
reactor temperatures.
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
Catalysts
QUESTION 8:
What success has there been with FCCU catalysts
that contain nickel and vanadium traps? Is it more
effective to use these as additives or incorporate
them into the catalyst structure?
J. WILLIAMS:
There are metal traps available which clearly improve
metal tolerance, but most have proven to be of marginal
cost effectiveness. The most successful approach has been
multifunctional matrix technology with high resistance for
vanadium and sodium, and a deactivating effect on nickel.
Active matrix providing poor dispersion for nickel can
reduce the production of hydrogen and coke to acceptable
levels even in cases above 4,000 ppm nickel.
T. WILLIAMS:
We have had limited experience with an early generation
vanadium trap, no experience with a nickel trap, and
extensive experiences with nickel passivation. The vana-
dium trap we used worked well and minimized the vana-
dium effects. However, the yield structure was not good
because the trap had very poor attrition resistance in our
UOP stacked unit. We recommend separate addition for
these materials.
O’BRIEN:
We have found no significant effect of nickel traps or
nickel resistant catalysts. At this time Phillips feels the
most effective method of addressing nickel and vanadium
contaminants is to use metals passivation technology. We
are not aware of commercial vanadium traps that have had
wide spread success.
JOSEPH B. MCLEAN (Englehard Corporation):
We do have a vanadium trap technology which is based
on a separate particle that was described in detail in NPRA
paper AM-93-30. It is now in current use in about four
applications around the world. So we are going through the
first generation of this product and getting feedback from it
right now. We have seen some good things.
On the issue of separate particles versus incorporated
particles, you have to distinguish between nickel and vana-
dium. Separate particles can work for vanadium capture
because there are a lot of particle to particle transfers that
do occur. Whereas with nickel there is essentially none. So
if you want to get nickel tolerance, you really have to build
it into the matrix and the overall architecture of the cata-
lyst particle itself, or use a passivator added with the feed.
TIMOTHY J. DOUGAN (Grace Davison):
With regard to the vanadium traps, unit specific vana-
dium mobility, plays an important roll in determining the
trap effectiveness, with the greater the mobility, the more
effective the trap. We have underway, or recently com-
pleted, about one half dozen trials. We have observed vana-
dium concentrations on the trap in excess of 12,000 ppm
vanadium, which was roughly 5 to 6 times that of the base
catalyst. Microactivity increases have been on the order of 3
to 5 numbers. As to which is more effective, additives or the
53
integral approach, we have commercial experience with
both, and I would say that the jury is still out.
STEPHEN K. PAVEL (Coastal Catalyst Technology,
Inc.):
Literature has shown the equivalence of various poisons
for matrix, zeolite, or both. There are many more con-
taminants in the FCC feedstock stream than just nickel
and vanadium; designing a system to control just one
contaminant such as vanadium is an oversimplification of a
very complex problem. A typical analysis of one FCC feed-
stock showed nickel and vanadium were at reasonable
levels, but not the only contaminants. The top 20 are listed
by descending content in ppm: Na-22.4, Ca-19.9, Fe-14.3,
V-3.5, Al-2.9, Mg-2.5, Ni-2.2, Zn-0.9, P-0.7, Bi-0.6, Cr-0.6,
K-0.6, Sr-0.6, Pb-0.3, Ce-0.2, Cu-0.2, Mn-0.2, Sb-0.1,
Sn-0.1, Ti-0.1. All feedstocks are different; metal balances
enveloping the FCCU circulating catalyst system should
include a full accounting of all the contaminant elements
not just two or three. An increase of one contaminant due to
incremental tolerance for one element would be over-
shadowed by the effects of all other contaminants shown in
the above feedstock.
With the catalytic sequence of absorption/reaction/
desorption events in the riser, reactor, stripper and re-
generator, it is clear that any contaminant restricts the
unimpeded series of reaction steps and is potentially detri-
mental. Contaminant “elements” include compounds of
those elements, mostly considered as oxides. Ranking con-
taminants is beyond the scope of the response. The fol-
lowing contaminants are listed alphabetically by atomic
symbol. Due to the contaminant elements deposited on the
catalyst, the performance of the FCC catalyst is diminished
due to 1) contaminants (K, Li, Na, V, et al.) which catalyze
the steam destruction of active sites; 2) contaminants (Ca,
Cu, Cr, Fe, Na, Ni, V, Zn, et al.) which cause nonselective
yields of lower valued secondary reaction products, e.g.,
coke, hydrogen, methane, etc.; and 3) contaminants (Ca,
Co, Cr, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Mn, MO, Na, V, W, Zn, et al.) which
reduce the structural strength of the catalyst components
either zeolite or matrix, or both. Further, deposits on sur-
faces within the regenerator were found to contain pri-
marily oxide compounds of elements (Al, Ba, Ca, Cr, Fe, K,
Mg, P Si, Zn et al.) that caused mechanical plugging prob-
lems. Although many elements are not popularly recog-
nized as catalyst poisons (as Ni, V), and are not targeted for
analysis in the feedstock; it is apparent that there would be
some loss of effectiveness of zeolites or acidic sites covered
by a contaminant, a portion of which is transferrable to
another surface in the regenerator.
The DEMET® process removes nickel, vanadium, iron,
sodium, copper, et al. from spent FCC catalyst. The Coastal
Refining and Marketing, Inc., Westville, New Jersey, re-
finery has successfully controlled many contaminants, not
only those reported on equilibrium data sheets, by using
the DEMET® process to demetallize and recycle over 7,500
tons of spent FCC catalyst (to date), thus reducing solid
waste for disposal in landfills or incineration in cement
kilns commensurately.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
INTERCAT has commercialized a separate particle ad-
ditive to trap vanadium. We have found the additive to be
TOC/INDEX
effective in absorbing 12 to 25 times as much vanadium as
stays on the host FCC catalyst.
The use of the vanadium trap in combination with the
nickel passivator allows for optimization of operations
while minimizing cost when both vanadium and nickel are
present in amounts deleterious to unit performance.
QUESTION 9:
Physical properties of FCC catalyst such as particle
density and size distribution are understood to affect
catalyst flow in an FCC unit, along with unit mechan-
ical configuration and proper aeration. What limits
of catalyst physical properties have been observed in
various FCC configurations before catalyst cir-
culation problems occur? What test or factors, in-
cluding carbon-on-catalyst, are found to best rank a
catalyst’s “flowability”?
ROY:
Our revamped unit at Pasadena has a moderately long
spent catalyst standpipe. Upon start-up, we quickly
learned that catalyst circulation problems could occur if
there were not sufficient amount of fines in the equilibrium
catalyst to aid flow of catalyst. We found that, if there were
not at least 6 wt% of O-40 micron material in the equi-
librium catalyst, erratic circulation could occur. Given the
relatively low efficiency of our older regenerator cyclones,
we could not depend on retaining a large percent of fine
catalyst in the regenerator. We therefore asked our catalyst
vendor to supply a larger percent of fines in our fresh
catalyst.
SLOAN:
Catalyst circulation is influenced by both the catalyst
and the unit configuration as the question indicates. Most
units begin to experience problems when fines content, or
the O-40 micron fraction, gets low. It has been mentioned at
times in the industry that low is somewhere around 4 to 5
wt%, O-40 micron. However, this is greatly influenced by
design and unit operation, such as standpipe, flux, and
aeration. A paper by R. E. Wrench and others entitled;
“Design Features for Improved Cat Cracker Operations”,
presented in 1985 at the “First South American Ketjen
Catalyst Seminar” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil contains some
useful information on catalyst “flowability”. This paper
also contains some useful references including a paper by
M. F. Raterman, “FCC Catalyst Flow-Problems Pre-
dictions”, Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 83, No. 1, January 7,
1985.
The Raterman paper contains some very useful infor-
mation on the subject and contains comments on carbon
(coke)-on-catalyst acting as a lubricant and improving
catalyst “flowability”. Raterman suggests that the im-
provement in catalyst circulation following the intro-
duction of feed could be due to fluidization gas viscosity
increasing due to temperature and compositional changes.
I would also refer you to a recent paper by Martin Murphy
presented at the Englehard Q&A Session in Luxembourg,
September 14-16,1993. There are several correlation defin-
ing methods to rank catalyst “flowability”. Another useful
method for rating catalyst “flowability” can be found in a
paper presented by Magnussen, J. E., “Fluidization Proper-
54
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
ties of Equilibrium FCC Catalyst”, at the 1985 Katalistiks
Symposium. This paper contains information on the in-
fluence of fines and apparent bulk density (ABD) on
“flowability”.
J. WILLIAMS:
The three primary factors affecting catalyst flow ability
are particle size distribution, catalyst density, and particle
morphology or roundness. FCC catalyst will fluidize most
easily if the particles are small, spherical, and low density.
Scanning electron microscopes can be used to evaluate
the catalyst morphology. Very irregular particles such as
multiple parts jointed into dumbbell shapes, are easily
recognized. Particle size is monitored with screens or par-
ticle size analyzers. Catalyst bulk density can be measured
by sample weight and volume.
Lastly, I want to give a basic reference for catalyst fluidi-
zation which can be found in an Oil & Gas Journal article
titled “FCC Catalyst Flow-problem Predictions” published
in 1985. This article talks about the operating area that you
need to work in and where you start to get into problems. It
is a very good basic reference article.
LAABS:
One factor that has proven to consistently affect the
flowability of the catalyst is the particle size distribution.
Specifically, the amount of catalyst in the 0-40 micron
range has an effect. We typically try to maintain the dis-
tribution above 10% in this range. We have seen circulation
problems when the percentage is 7% or lower, although one
refinery has gone as low as 6% without problems.
An affiliated site uses a correlation equation developed
by Gulfthat relates fines content, average bulk density, and
average particle size to a flow property factor they call
FPROP. When the value of FPROP fell below their site-
specific target, they experienced poor pressure buildup in
the standpipe and the slide valve differential pressure
reached its limit. When they checked the particle size
distribution, the 0-40 micron range had fallen to 5%.
Flowability can also be altered when mixtures ofcatalyst
are used. We have had circulation problems on two separate
FCC units with an approximately even mixture of two
different types of catalyst.
We find a good reference to catalyst standpipe flow
characteristics is the W. R. Grace Catalagram #83, which
was written in 1992.
O’BRIEN:
In general, we have been able to maintain acceptable
circulation with fines (0-40 micron) levels of 4% or greater.
We have even circulated well with lower fines levels, as long
as we have maintained good aeration.
The “flowability” of the catalyst can be determined from
the development of bed expansion and bed deaeration
curves. This data can be used to determine a deaeration
rate and minimum fluidization velocities.
A good reference on this approach is Steenge, et al,
“Fluidization Behavior of FCC Catalyst: Effects of Catalyst
Properties and Gas Distribution”, Katalistiks’ 8th Annual
FCC Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, June 1987.
ROBERT L. FLANDERS (Chevron, Retired):
I am happy that nobody on the panel mentioned carbon
on catalyst. For forty years I have been listening to oper-
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
ators say “if there is not carbon on it, it will not flow”. There
is no truth to that at all. As a matter of fact, there is just as
much trouble coming out of a stripper as out of a
regenerator.
A. WITOSHKIN (Englehard Corporation):
I think we have to properly define a “circulation prob-
lem.” If the problem is related to defluidization in the
standpipe then more fines, adjustment of aeration and
possibly lower density catalyst would help to alleviate it.
On the other hand, if the problem is a “low” pressure
differential across the standpipe control valve, then a
denser catalyst may help.
On the subject of “fluidization” and its relationship with
carbon on catalyst, I agree with Mr. Flanders. Carbon on
catalyst does not affect catalyst flowability. However, the
operating conditions that determine the carbon level will
impact it. Thus, many people relate carbon on catalyst and
the flowability problems. That is wrong. What they should
relate is the flowability difficulties and associated oper-
ating conditions.
WARREN LETZSCH (Stone & Webster Engineering
Corp. ):
If you want to do a theoretical test on a catalyst, then
measure the difference between the minimum fluidization
velocity and the minimum bubbling velocity. The wider
that difference is, theoretically, the easier the catalyst
should be to fluidize. If laboratory equipment is set up to
look at fluidization and flow properties, and the viscosity of
the bed is measured, the catalyst with a lower viscosity
should fluidize better.
Very interestingly, if fines are added to a coarse catalyst,
you will find that in fact the viscosity goes down very
noticeably. You might use a test like that to measure the
viscosity and relate it back to your particular unit to de-
termine how the catalyst would flow. All of these tests are
very simple tests to set up in a laboratory.
JOSEPH W. WILSON (Caltex Services):
I would like to support Mr. Flanders on the item of carbon
on catalyst. You can actually run laboratory fluidization
tests on regenerated catalyst and spent catalyst and find
almost no difference. However, you can find some units that
do seem to respond when carbon is on the catalyst coming
out of the stripper. What you generally see here is that
these are units where the stripper volume below the strip-
ping steam ring has enough residence time to give you
severe defluidization.
When you have carbon on catalyst, as Mr. Witoshkin
said, you have other operating conditions which also en-
courage the evolution of gas in the stripper and in the
standpipe and that helps to refluidize the catalyst.
ROBERT L. FLANDERS (Chevron, Retired):
Those of you who have an electrostatic precipitator and
have circulation problems may find it useful to recycle first
stage catch, which is the largest portion of a precipitator
catch. That material has substantially more fines in it than
the circulating inventory and I have seen plants jump in
terms of circulation rate with that technique.
55
ALVARO A. MURCIA (Stone & Webster):
In reference to the catalyst properties, I agree with all
the comments made from the panel and from the floor. But
there is a point that was not mentioned. It is the fact that
you may have good aeration in the standpipes and a very
good level of fines in the catalyst; however if your catalyst
entering the standpipe is not correctly fluidized, the system
will not work. I believe that is practically explained in the
paper presented by Balbir Lakhanpal at the GRACE Sym-
posium in Berlin, in 1990, titled “45 Years of Fluid Catalyst
Visbreaking at Babco Bahrain.”
QUESTION 10:
How much sulfur reduction in the FCC gasoline
stream is possible through changing FCC catalyst
and/or additives? What other properties of FCC
products are affected by this catalyst change?
O’BRIEN:
We believe that pretreatment of the feed is the most
effective way to reduce sulfur in FCC gasoline. Lab testing
has demonstrated that at higher conversions, the total
sulfur in the liquid product is reduced. Higher activity
catalysts also tend to produce lower sulfur in gasoline.
These changes are not major. In our refineries, we run
hydrotreated resids and heavy gas oils. Average gasoline
sulfur runs between 100 and 200 ppm.
J. WILLIAMS:
NPRA paper AM-92-17 discusses this subject. Octane
catalysts leave more sulfur in gasoline than high rare earth
catalyst. Catalyst with highly accessible matrix reduce
sulfur 10 to 20% below catalysts with similar rare earth.
The sulfur compounds mostly affected are mercaptans,
disulfides, and alkyl thiophenes, boiling about 350 ºF The
compounds are converted to hydrogen sulfide gas and ole-
fins. Accessibility to acid sites and increased numbers of
acid sites are critical to reduce sulfur levels in FCC
gasoline.
CHARLES C. WEAR (Grace Davison):
Grace Davison reported its work on techniques to reduce
FCC gasoline sulfur levels in NPRA paper AM-93-55. The
use of high hydrogen transfer catalysts and low reactor
temperature favor modest sulfur reductions (lo-15%) in
full range naphtha.
More encouraging is our work with nontraditional cata-
lytic materials described in the paper as GSR technology.
Current formulations of GSR cracking catalyst show sulfur
reductions of 15-30% in riser pilot studies with various cut
points and feed sulfur levels. Except for a small coke pen-
alty there is minimal impact on yields. We think we can do
better as development continues. Hopefully we will have
commercial trials starting in about 6 months.
QUESTION 11:
What has been the experience of catalytic SO,
reduction technologies, compared to other tech-
nologies in meeting regulatory requirements?
Which, catalytic or alternate methods, has better
TOC/INDEX
operating and/or installation cost efficiencies? Is
anyone operating with both catalytic technologies
and noncatalytic technologies?
PAULES:
There are basically three ways of lowering SO, emis-
sions: feed hydrotreating, SO, reduction additives, and flue
gas stack scrubbing. Feed hydrotreating is extremely capi-
tal intensive compared to the other methods, but it also
provides FCC yield and operating cost benefits which
usually make the high investment justifiable. FCC feed
hydrotreating alone, however, cannot always reduce SO,
emissions below some of today’s stringent requirements.
SO, additives are usually beneficial in applications
where the SO, emissions need to be lowered only mod-
erately below base case operations. When extremely high
reduction levels are necessary, SO, additives can increase
operating costs substantially.
Stack scrubbing is the best solution, when extremely low
levels of SO, emissions are required. Stack scrubbing can
also be the cost effective solution on new installations as
scrubbers also reduce particulate emissions. Bear in mind
that stack scrubbing also generates solid wastes which
must be dealt with.
SLOAN:
Kellogg recently completed a study to evaluate options
for controlling both SO, emissions and particulate matter
from a revamped unit.
The trade-off of capital versus operating costs is site
specific so it is difficult to generalize. However, in the
referenced study, the DESOX addition was increased to
meet the New Source Performance Standards. The oper-
ating costs of DESOX was higher than all other options.
The capital cost depends on the scope of work associated
with the revamp.
Wet Sulfuric Acid (WSA) technology (Topsoe) is the only
option studied which provides a payback on the emissions
control equipment and does not consume chemicals. This
technology produces no waste products, nor continuous
wastewater streams. However, particulate removal prior to
the WSA equipment is needed.
Wet Gas Scrubbing (WGS) has been applied in many
industrial applications including FCC units and appar-
ently is working quite well. This creates a liquid and solids
waste stream that will need to be handled.
The Dry Gas Scrubbing (DGS) system is used in many
power plants. The primary advantage of this system is that
the sludge produced, calcium sulfate, is collected in a bag-
house, eliminating the handling of collected solids in a wet
stream.
J. WILLIAMS:
The regional SO, regulations vary from stat to state, but
the federal NSPS standards are the same throughout the
U.S. The NSPS standards call for 9.8 kg SO2/1OOO kg of
coke for additive use and 90% reduction (max 50 ppm) for
scrubber operation. The option to select low sulfur feeds or
hydrotreat FCC feed is given as long as feed sulfur is
maintained below .3 wt.% on 7-day averaging. Some local
regulations call for SO, levels well below this.
When choosing the technology to be used, it depends on
the refinery flexibility and varying costs of the different
56
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
technologies. Flue gas scrubbing involves high capital in-
vestment and operating costs related to caustic prices. This
technology is often most cost effective if very high levels of
feed sulfur are unavoidable and considerable reduction is
necessary.
Feed hydrotreating is becoming more appealing as low
levels of sulfur in gasoline and diesel products are also
mandated. Feed Hydrotreating involves large capital in-
vestment and high operating costs but results in sub-
stantial improvement in conversion and selectivities as
well as lowering SO, emissions, gasoline sulfur, and LCO
sulfur.
SO, additives are still the best method of reducing SO,
emissions without capital investment and meeting chang-
ing needs on a short term basis. Many refiners with very
low limits use SO, additive in conjunction with feed hydro-
treating with very good success. The additive is used to trim
to the final level or is used at high rates during hydrotreater
shutdowns or upsets. One problem with reduction additives
is the variability of their effectiveness, particularly in
partial burn operation.
In a paper presented at the 1990 spring AIChE meeting
by J.A. Sigan, P A. Lane, the cost of an additive versus the
cost of scrubbing was compared for meeting NSPS regu-
lations. Many of these costs have changed and are varying
continuously. The cost of a scrubber was estimated at $6-8
million with operating costs of $4,000-5,000 per day. The
operating cost are mostly related to caustic consumption
and the cost of this raw material. The cost of using an SO,
additive was estimated at $4,000 per day, with the cost of an
additive loader estimated at $5,000 (manual) to $35,000
(automatic). The cost of an installed SO, monitoring device
was estimated at $50,000-100,000. The cost of a feed hydro-
treater was estimated at $50 million but the operating costs
and resulting yield benefits are not addressed.
T. WILLIAMS:
To give a specific example, we did use, on a test run,
Intercat’s NOSO, material. Results indicated a reduction
in SO2 of 45%.
MURPHY:
Nalco Fuel Tech has used Sorbent injection for SO,
reduction. The Sorbent procedure is noncatalytic, but has
proven to be very effective. Sorbent technology requires
down stream solids, calcium SO, salts, to be captured by an
ESP or bag house.
O’BRIEN:
This question was discussed extensively in the 1992
Q&A, Question 13, on pages 60 to 62, and Question 19,
pages 67 to 69. In addition to what has been said, Phillips
pretreats feeds in high pressure HDS units as a primary
method to control SO, emissions from the FCC regenerator.
SO, additives can be used to further reduce SO, emissions.
This technology is a means of trimming SO, emissions.
However, we do not feel that this is the best means for
primary control of SO,. At this time we are able to meet our
permitted emission levels without the use of flue gas
cleanup technology.
PETER G. ANDREWS (Consultant):
This question has no simple answer. To make statements
TOC/INDEX

HEAVY OIL PROCESSING

regarding the best direction, deserves specific introspection. ALLAN M. EDELMAN (Exxon Research & Engineering
1. I know of a refiner who is using NO-SO, to reduce the Company):
SO, from 1,200 ppm to less than 300 ppm SO,, at the cost of We have many wet gas scrubbers on-line. There was
$275,000 a year. some mention that there are problems with the disposal of
2. Currently, a gas oil hydrotreater for a 25,000 BPD the sulfates and the wet fines, but we have had very good
unit, including a hydrogen plant, costs about $100 million. experience with that.
3. Now throw in FCC conversion upgrade and gasoline We put in a Purge Treatment Unit (PTU) to treat the
sulfur specifications and we have gas oil hydrotreating purge from our scrubbing system. The effluents are benign.
versus gasoline hydrotreating. In our PTU, the solids are separated from the stream in a
The economics of these three scenarios will set the di- clarifier and subsequently further concentrated in the
rection for your specific operation. thickener. A final processing step in the dewatering basin
removes all free water from the solids. Thus, the only solids
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.): disposal stream is “earth moist”catalyst. As there is no free
INTERCAT feels that in the majority of operations the water in the solids (catalyst), all applications to date have
use of the additive has a lower total cost than the com- been able to dispose of the solids in sanitary landfill.
bination of high capital cost and high operating cost of the From the clarifier, the solids-free liquid stream then
mechanical options. INTERCAT’s NO-SO, has been suc- passes to an oxidation tower where there is repeated inti-
cessfully used under a variety of conditions to reduce SO, mate contacting of the stream with air to reduce the COD
emissions. The amount of reduction any individual unit (chemical oxygen demand) to generally less than 100 wppm
achieves is dependent upon a variety of factors, and it prior to discharge. Most refinery receiving waters can
varies significantly from unit to unit as can be seen in the accept this stream without further processing.
following Table of three different commercial operations.
STEPHEN F. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc.):
NO-SO, SO, Reduction and Efficiency We added an Exxon wet gas scrubber and saw very good
performance. We routinely get better than 90% reduction
COMMERCIAL TRIAL: A B C in SO,. But we have had significant mechanical problems
FCC FEED (BPD) 11800 11100 19500 with repeated holing through of the sweeps, and valves and
CSO SULFUR (Wt%) 4.95 5.12 3.0 bellows not performing. I think refiners, especially inde-
Uncontrolled SO, pendents, have to really look hard at the kind of support you
Emissions (vppm) 1504 1522 563 are going to get and how good the mechanical package is
Emissions (#/hr) 320 309 212 when you install systems like this.

CONTROLLED SO, ALLAN M. EDELMAN (Exxon Research & Engineering

Emissions (vppml 1178 1299 220 Company):
Emissions (#/hr) 250 264 82 I would like to make two additional points. First, experi-
ence indicates that with respect to materials, operating
SO, Reduction (%) 22 15 61 conditions within the scrubbing system are as demanding
NO-SO, Addition (#/D) 100 60 280 as in the FCCU. Therefore, it is important that proper
NO-SO, Efficiency refractory preparation, installation and dryout procedures
(#SOx/#NO-SOx) 17 18 22 be followed. Second, we note commercial experience with
various types ofenvironmental control facilities has shown
There are also cases where 85% reduction in emissions that the Exxon WGS system has higher service factors and
were achieved. The amount of reduction will depend upon lower maintenance costs than alternative control ap-
where a unit starts, how low it wants to go and how much proaches. In fact, Exxon WGS units have service factors
additive it is willing to add. greater than the associated FCCU’s. No FCCU has ever
been shutdown due to failure of the Exxon WGS system.
WILLIAM A. KELLY (Grace Davison):
Published data comparing the cost of additives and flue
gas scrubbers to meet New Source Performance Standards QUESTION 12:
indicate that additives are favored when SO, emissions are Please discuss various options for increasing light
roughly 1500 ppm, or lower, for a 50,000 bbl/day full com- olefin yields including; ZSM-5, USY or other higher
bustion FCC unit. That breakeven point increases if an silica alumina ratio catalysts, other additives, ultra-
ESP is already installed at the refinery. Units with capaci- short contact time, etc. What have been the maxi-
ties under 50,000 bbl/day also have a higher breakeven mum light olefin and isobutylene yields observed
point favoring additives. We agree FCC feed hydrotreating from the FCCU?
has a large capital expense and the yields make it a sep-
arate decision from simply SO, compliance. Feed hydro- BONELLI:
treating and SO, additives have been used simultaneously, At one of our refineries, in an effort to increase iso-
the SO, additives, to trim emissions. DeSOx and non- butylene yields without violating an olefin processing con-
catalytic technologies have been used together. However, straint, we have tried several catalyst combinations and
typically once a flue gas scrubber is installed, the operating additive combinations. The unit in question has a mini-
costs of the caustic are lower than the SO, additives. mum riser time of about 1.5 seconds. We tried high rare

57
TOC/INDEX
earth catalysts in which our base LPG yields were 23 to 24
liquid vol % and isobutylene was 2 to 2.1.
We did try the ZSM-5 additive and wound up with LPG
yields increasing to about 30 to 31 vol % liquid, and iso-
butylene up to about 3. We have since changed catalyst,
gone to a lower rare earth catalyst and are currently oper-
ating with LPGyields in the 26 to 27 LV percent range with
isobutylene of about 2.8. So the ratio is favorable.
JUNO:
Several years ago we did a test run adding ZSM-5 to our
catalyst inventory. We experienced higher FCC gasoline
octane, more light ends, greater olefin production, but less
FCC gasoline with a very waxy feedstock.
O’BRIEN:
A fresh catalyst composed of USY zeolite versus REY
zeolite will yield a product with higher olefins. The USY
zeolite produces more olefins due to reduced hydrogen
transfer reactions. The increase in olefin yields will be unit
specific depending on feed type, operating temperature and
residence time in the riser and reactor.
We tested ZSM-5 in our pilot plant units and the trends
were as expected. Gasoline yield was decreased with in-
creased yield of alkylation feedstock. Gasoline components
reduced in the ZSM-5 product are nC7 through nC11 olefins
and paraffins. The maximum yield of butene-1 plus iso-
butylene in a Phillips HOC is 5 wt% of fresh feed. Approxi-
mately 1/3 of this is isobutylene.
SLOAN:
Options for increasing light olefin yield fall into cate-
gories of catalyst, process operating conditions, and hard-
ware. Operating variables and catalyst play a decisive role
in determining how much light olefin can be formed in the
first place. Process equipment design, in addition to cata-
lyst, is important in determining how much olefin yield is
retained against secondary hydrogen transfer reactions.
All of these factors are interrelated. Catalyst options
include:
(1) Controlling catalyst unit cell size and rare earth level
to minimize hydrogen transfer. Ultrastable Y zeolite
catalyst is preferred. This is a complex issue in itself
and really goes beyond the scope of this question.
(2) Using ZSM-5 additive which converts low octane
olefins in the gasoline boiling range to light olefins.
The primary operating variable affecting light olefin
formation is reactor temperature. As cracking temperature
is increased to increase conversion, light olefin yield in-
creases. Beyond the peak gasoline yield, it increases very
rapidly with conversion.
Design variables affecting light olefin yield include reac-
tion time and pressure:
(1) Reaction time - Catalyst and oil vapor contact time
should be short to minimize hydrogen transfer. Par-
ticularly, long residence time, low velocity back-
mixed conditions in the disengager dilute phase need
to be avoided. Also, short contact time in the riser
involves more than just restricting the physical vol-
ume of the riser. Design of the catalyst delivery and
feed injection systems should be optimized to prevent
58
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
zones of high catalyst slippage and refluxing within
the riser itself.
(2) Pressure - The independent effect of hydrocarbon
partial pressure is higher C3 and C4, olefinicity with
lower partial pressure. Partial pressure can be
lowered with additional dispersion steam usage,
which may be a design variable or an operating
variable, or through operating at low pressure. Since
most operating units do not have the flexibility to
reduce pressure, this needs to be considered during
the design of the unit.
It is also worth pointing out that the higher cracking
temperatures mentioned earlier require a reaction system
which will minimize dry gas formation. This means avoid-
ing thermal cracking at the feed injection point and in the
disengager. A state-of-the-art atomizing feed injection sys-
tem is needed in the mix zone of the riser, and closed
cyclones are needed in the disengager to fulfill this
requirement.
A paper presented at this year’s NPRA Annual Meeting
gave some estimates as to what modern hardware and
catalyst technology could do in a unit purposely designed to
maximize light olefins. The results showed that with 20%
ZSM-5 in the catalyst inventory, and using high tempera-
ture, short contact time cracking, potential MTBE yield
could be 6.6 vol % and potential alkylate yield could be 61.9
vol % of FCC feed. These figures corresponded to an iso-
butylene yield of 5.4 vol % and a combined propylene plus
butylene yield of 35 vol %.
J. WILLIAMS:
Light olefins can be increased by ZSM-5, high silica
alumina ratio zeolite, or low contact time. Other additives
have yet to be as effective as the methods mentioned. ZSM-5
has the advantage of increasing light olefins even with a
high activity catalyst without increasing coke and dry gas.
The olefin increase comes largely from mid range FCC
naphtha of poorer octane.
High silica/alumina ratio zeolites increase light olefins
through lower olefin saturation and cracking of heavy
gasoline. There is also an increase in isomeric compounds
in the gasoline due to high stability of secondary and
tertiary carbenium ions.
Ultrashort contact time, and by that I mean 0.1 to 0.5
seconds, provides the highest olefin ratios in light olefins
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
and gasoline streams with olefinicities of 80% or more in
the BB stream. This has not been a popular option due to
the required increase in catalyst to oil ratio, catalyst ac-
tivity, or reactor temperature to offset the loss of severity
with ultrashort contact time.
T. WILLIAMS:
We have used ZSM-5 seasonally in one our FCCU’s with
the primary interest of increasing refinery grade propylene
for sales. One test run on this material showed a 1.4 liquid
vol % increase in both C3 and C4 olefins with a cor-
responding decrease of 2.1 liquid vol % on our FCC gasoline.
FCC gasoline octane did increase 1.1 numbers RON and .4
numbers MON.
JOSEPH B. MCLEAN (Englehard Corporation):
Concerning light olefin yields, a lot of the choice on which
option to choose depends on which light olefins you want to
make. For example, ZSM-5 is very much selective towards
making propylene relative to C4s, with 50-60 % of the yield
shift typically to propylene. So if you have a good outlet and
a good value for propylene that is a very favorable way to go.
Reactor temperature, again, is also somewhat non-
selective because of the increase in dry gas make. On the
other hand, if you are interested in making isobutylene,
which is the primary direction people are going these days
for MTBE feed, we found that the combination of a selective
low hydrogen transfer catalyst at the minimum possible
operating temperature that you can afford to work with
within your constraints and objectives, is the best way to
maximize isobutylene yield.
There were some details on these comparisons which
were published in NPRA paper AM-92-45. Also, I do not
think that ultrashort contact time by itself really does
much of anything for olefin make. But what it does do is get
you off of gas make limits which allows you to increase
operating severity through either temperature or catalyst
or some combination. The combination of those effects will
allow you to make some pretty dramatic increases in poten-
tial light olefin yields.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
What we found is that in most unit operations, you get
equivalent amounts ofpropylene and butylene from the use
of ZSM-5, and about 40% of that butylene yield is iso-
butylene. We have also had people that have worried a little
bit about the gasoline loss and have gone to a high rare
earth catalyst using additional amounts of ZSM-5 to avoid
the gasoline loss while increasing the octane and the ole-
fins. Also the next generation of ZSM-5 additives are
coming out now and they offer the possibility of increasing
that isobutylene yield.
MICHAEL A. SILVERMAN (Stone & Webster Engineer-
ing Corp.):
We are now licensing a new technology called Deep
Catalyst Cracking developed by the Research Institute of
Petroleum Processing (RIPP) in China. This technology is
similar to conventional FCC, but it operates with higher
circulation rates and reactor outlet temperatures on the
order of 1100 ºF The key to the process is the use of a
proprietary high activity catalyst. We have seen iso-
59
butylene and isoamylene yields over 6 wt% respectively
with significant propylene and naphtha production from
VGO feedstocks.
JOSEPH W. WILSON (Caltex Services):
I am going to have to take issue with the gentleman from
Englehard about the effect of low contact times. Hydrogen
transfer reactions, which you are trying to suppress to
achieve maximum olefin yields, are intrinsically slower
than catalytic cracking reactions. Anything that reduces
the contact time will suppress the hydrogen transfer reac-
tions that saturate your olefins. Consequently short contact
time risers, good separation of the catalyst and the product
vapors at the end of the riser, and in fact things like closed
cyclones should all add to increase the olefin yields.
JOSEPH B. MCLEAN (Englehard Corporation):
I agree that the reduction in hydrogen transfer is key to
maximizing light olefin yield. However the light C&
olefins of interest here are not consumed by hydrogen
transfer reactions; rather, their higher molecular weight
precursors are saturated resulting in gasoline range paraf-
fins being formed and retarding further cracking to light
olefins. So simply reducing the contact time by itself will
not increase these yields. The use of shorter contact times
and such devices as closed cyclones typically work together
with increases in catalyst-to-oil ratio and/or temperature to
result in the observed olefin yield increases.
Process
QUESTION 13:
What tests are available to identify FCC catalyst
stripper damage?
J. WILLIAMS:
FCC catalyst stripper damage is usually first detected by
changes in process conditions such as an increase in hydro-
gen and coke, or catalyst circulation problems. Radioactive
tracer studies are frequently used to verify the damage and
determine the nature or location.
Both solid and vapor tracer studies have been formed on
FCC catalyst strippers to evaluate damage. A vapor tracer
injected into the stream line entering the stripper can
indicate the vapor flow pattern through the stripper. This
could assist in identifying the damage’ to either dis-
tributors or baffles.
Also, a solid tracer, usually a radiated FCC catalyst, can
be injected at the base of the riser. It can provide identifi-
cation for the distribution of the FCC catalyst flow through
the stripper showing evidence of damage to the baffles.
SLOAN:
The general practice is to determine the hydrogen con-
tent of the coke from the flue gas analysis and the unit heat
balance. However, it has been our experience that the flue
gas analysis is often suspect. Accurate information is
critical in this calculation and I would recommend that
several evaluations be carried out. If there are ways to
confirm the stripper level and density measurement this
TOC/INDEX
can be helpful if the normal measurements appear incor-
rect. It has been mentioned that there is a test method
using acetone that may be useful, but we do not have the
details.
JUNO:
The result of catalyst stripper damage would be poor
stripping efficiency and afterburning in the regenerator.
This might be determined by delta P measurements and
catalyst density to determine if proper aeration of the
catalyst was occurring in the stripper. Another test to
determine if damage had occurred would be to do a gamma
scan on the reactor stripper to inspect for damaged
internals.
O’BRIEN:
In general, poor stripping can be related to inaccurate
steam metering, poor catalyst/steam contacting due either
to damage or poor design, catalyst properties or error in
material balance calculations.
After the obvious things have been checked, the per-
formance of the stripper should be compared to typical
performance criteria. The hydrogen in coke should fall
between 6 and 8 wt%, and the steam rate should be from 2
to 3 lb/1000 lb of catalyst. If the steam usage is reasonable
and high hydrogen is still found, the steam rate can be
increased. If the stripping is improved, the circulation rate
will increase and the regenerator temperature will
decrease.
Improved stripping, as a result of steam rates above the 2
to 3 lb/1000 lb ofcatalyst is indicative of either a poor design
or stripper damage. Most traditional strippers remove the
hydrocarbon and the interstitial spaces between the par-
ticles and do not effectively strip the pores. In general, a
large average pore diameter catalyst is desirable to maxi-
mize stripping.
KEVIN R. PROOPS (Conoco Inc.):
I agree with most of the panel’s comments. We have had
some difficulty accurately measuring hydrogen on coke or
inferring it. We have had some luck looking at the plot of
coke yield versus second order conversion. If you have some
historical data, you will see that you will lose conversion or
conversely increase coke at constant conversion if the
stripper is not performing.
ROBERT L. FLANDERS (Chevron, Retired):
I suggest that every stripper have pressure taps, top and
bottom, on all four quadrants. This is a very simple way to
determine whether you have channeling, or difficulty in
the mechanical structure of the stripper.
QUESTION 14:
Does commercial experience indicate problems
stripping high surface area equilibrium catalysts?
Does increasing stripping steam save the problem or
is a revamp a more efficient solution?
BONELLI:
In at least one of our commercial units, it does appear
that since we switched to a higher surface area catalyst, the
60
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
weight percent hydrogen in the coke has become more
difficult to control. In fact attempts to reduce that hydrogen
content of the coke by increasing the stripping steam have,
to date, not been successful. So we are just tolerating this
slightly higher coke make we believe.
ROY:
While our catalyst is only moderately high surface area,
we improved catalyst stripping by changing our stripper to
an extended, two stage stripper. The results are a lower
stripping steam rate, a difference of about 1 lb/1000 lbs of
circulated catalyst, a lower carbon on spent catalyst, and a
change in hydrogen on coke from 7.9 to 7.3 wt%. The overall
results were positive in our case.
J. WILLIAMS:
In units with good stripping, the difference can be ac-
counted for by the zeolite micropore volume. The hydro-
carbon return to the regenerator can be improved at higher
stripping steam rates. Units with poor stripping have been
substantially improved by the use of catalyst equilibrating
to low surface area and high pore volume, between 0.35 and
0.45 cc/gram. But a stripper revamp is the only real
solution.
T. WILLIAMS:
Going to a higher surface area catalyst forced us to
increase our stripping steam as much as 3.5 lb&000 lbs of
catalyst circulation. Unfortunately in our case a revamp to
lower flux rates did not improve our situation.
ALVARO A. MURCIA (Stone & Webster):
We believed that deficient stripping is more a problem of
distributor performance. At Stone & Webster we use two
stage stripping. First, early stripping of catalyst leaving
the riser catalyst separator outlet, followed by the final
stripping through the carefully designed baffle stripper. I
would suggest that a careful review of existing facilities
considering catalyst mass flux, catalyst residence time,
stripping steam rates, baffles, type of baffles, and ar-
rangement of the baffles should be reviewed before going
into a revamp or increasing the stripping steam.
QUESTION 15:
Can a refiner expect higher dry gas production
with a revamped/more efficient stripper?
PAULES:
Directionally it is true that with a more efficient stripper,
dry gas production will go up. Instead of letting hydro-
carbons slip to the regenerator and burn as coke, an in-
creased amount of hydrocarbon reenters the reactor where
some portion of it is cracked to dry gas. However, the
benefits of a more efficient stripper should not be evaluated
on this simple point alone.
With a more efficient stripper, the delta coke of a base
case operation will decrease. This will allow operating with
lower regenerator temperatures, higher catalyst to oil
ratio, higher reactor temperatures, and an increased ca-
pacity to process higher concarbon feeds.
TOC/INDEX

HEAVY OIL PROCESSING

ROY: SLOAN:
I agree with what Mr. Paules has said. Basically we have Kellogg revamped a Model B unit which had been oper-
a more efficient catalyst stripper after our FCC revamp. ating as a bed cracker, to riser cracking. The designed
Our wet gas and dry gas make have both actually decreased contact time in the riser was 1 second. A somewhat higher
relative to pre revamp periods due to the installation of riser outlet temperature and catalyst circulation rate are
close coupled cyclones. Our mass yield of dry gas has used to maintain the same conversion when compared to a
decreased by about 1 wt%, after all changes. riser of twice the contact time. Test run results confirmed
that the conversion and gasoline yield were essentially the
SLOAN: same as predicted. However, the coke and gas yields were
In most cases we would not expect the dry gas make to below the design predictions.
increase solely because the stripper has been revamped to
provide greater efficiency. However, there are situations in BONELLI:
which improved stripping leads to slightly higher dry gas The Marathon FCCU in Robinson, Illinois was revamped
production. This is due to increased unit conversion that from a bubbling bed type unit to a short riser time unit in
usually accompanies a successful stripper revamp. 1988. The yields from the unit using an Octane catalyst are
Inadequate stripping permits underflow of hydrogen rich attached.
hydrocarbons to the regenerator resulting in high bed
temperatures and uneven cyclone temperatures. This in- Short Contact Time Riser
creases catalyst deactivation and also reduces catalyst FCCU Normalized Yields (MIN. 1.5 SECONDS)
circulation and conversion. at Standard Cut points Average Gasoline Season
Commercial practice has shown staged strippers to be C2 -(wt%‘o) 2.72
most efficient. Commercial two-staged strippers have pro- 2.42
duced 6 to 6.5 wt% hydrogen in coke at approximately 2.5 C3 = 8.33
lbs steam/1000 lbs circulating catalyst. Steam introduced i - C4 5.38
initially in the stripper displaces the interstitial hydro- n - C4 1.38
carbons entrained by the catalyst from the riser. This i-C4= 2.42
avoids back-mixing and nonselective recracking of valu- C4 = 6.30
able primary products. The remaining steam is introduced Total C3/C4 Yield 26.23
near the bottom of the stripper to fluidize the bed and sweep C5 + (90% Pt = 380 ºF) 62.65
out hydrocarbons generated by desorption and cracking. A LCO (90% Pt =600 ºF) 14.30
stripper revamp should be considered part of an overall HCO (90% Pt = 775 ºF) 4.60
converter modernization. If you are worried about dry gas CSO 3.10
production because of a dry gas limit, this can be reduced Coke Yield (wt%) 4.50
significantly by eliminating disengager thermal cracking Total LV Yield 110.88
with the installation of closed cyclones or by improving feed Conversion (90% = 380 °F), LV% 77.96
atomization and distribution. Gasoline Selectivity 80.35
Coke Selectivity (Conv./wt% coke) 17.36
CLAUDIO HERRMANN (Petrobas):
We do not expect any increase in production of dry gas. DAVID B. BARTHOLIC (Bar-co Processes Joint Venture):
The revamp in the stripper caused a reduction in re- Our 1991 NPRA Annual Meeting paper AM-91-44, “The
generator temperature. The temperature where the solids Simplified Approach to Residual Oil Upgrading”, details
contact the feed is lowered, reducing the thermal reaction commercial data from switching from riser cracking in the
on the bottom of the riser. This effect can be observed even 2 second range to Milli-Second Catalytic Cracking (MSCC)
when it has a good dispersion system. in the millisecond range. As discussed in the paper, the
yield shifts and benefits to be gained from short contact
time catalytic cracking (MSCC) are not marginal and typi-
QUESTION 16: cally the MSCC technology has a much higher return on
Does anyone have commercial data from oper- investment than conventional riser cracking. As in any
ating at riser residence times of 1 second or less? Are FCC system, the conversion is maintained by catalyst
there noticeable yield shifts? How is conversion circulation.
maintained?
QUESTION 17:
J. WILLIAMS:
Refiners are currently installing various cyclone
Akzo has provided FCC catalyst to a unit operating far
designs, i.e., close coupled and direct coupled, as
below one second residence time. We can certainly say the
well as extending the primary (rough cut) cyclone
yield shifts were profound. The catalyst was more or less
outlet tubes to decrease dilute phase cracking (oil/
jointly designed by Akzo and the client for ultra-high
catalyst residence time). Please comment on the
activity and high light cycle to bottoms ratio. Yield benefits
following:
at low contact time are very attractive. High catalyst-to-oil
ratio is essential to maintain conversion at low contact l What conversion and yield changes have been
time. observed, including experience with resid feeds?

61
TOC/INDEX
l Have any coking problems been experienced with
resid feeds?
l The length of the extended tube design, i.e., dis-
tance from outlet tube to the upper cyclone inlet.
l Any specific operating problems during start-up or
upsets.
BONELLI:
After our Garyville Refinery installed Mobil’s closed
coupled cyclone technology, they did see some major shifts
in their yield patterns. Their dry gas make decreased by
about 20%, propylene production increased approximately
5%, and butylene production increased about 10%. They
did have an increase in total volume gained of around 2%
and a decrease in delta coke of about 15%.
We did discover that the system is sensitive to pressure
swings and that catalyst can be carried over to the frac-
tionator if the reactor or fractionator pressure drops sud-
denly during a start-up. If you have additional questions
about this particular operation, you might contact Ms. K.B.
Harbison who is our engineer at Garyville.
JUNO:
This is one of the questions where we certainly have had
experience. We saw a definite reduction of dry gas make
with our conversion to high temperature reactor operation
and the addition of closed coupled cyclones.
That was the good news. We did experience coking prob-
lems, but they were not associated with the running of our
resid feed. We experienced catalyst carryover into the main
fractionator on several start-ups of our unit, due to im-
properly designed cyclone dip legs. This problem has been
corrected with a change in cyclone dust bowl and dip leg
design.
We also experienced coking problems in the stagnate
area of our reactor vessel. Significant coking occurred. To
quantify this, I am talking about the entire dead space of
the reactor vessel. I was told from a reliable source that this
amounted to approximately 36 tons of coke. Low density
coke filled the majority of the vessel with hard coke cover-
ing the dip leg and gas tubes of the cyclone. Indication of the
presence of coke was first detected by opacity excursions
and regenerator temperature increases along with oper-
ating difficulty with the spent catalyst slide valve. This was
due to coke balls dislodging from the reactor dead space and
falling into the reactor stripper area.
Several changes have been made to alleviate the prob-
lem, including increasing the catalyst stripping steam rate
by approximately 50% to increase velocity in the reactor
dead space, raising gas tube inlets to the top of the reactor
dome, and finally, the design of a super heated dome steam
purge system.
We can also verify that operating without the cyclone dip
leg sealed with catalyst is another good method for pro-
ducing reactor vessel coke. Overall, I would not say that the
situation was critical, but at one point it was rumored that
the refinery manager had contacted a welder and was
going to decouple the cyclones.
ROY:
With our close coupled cyclones we have seen a definite
volume conversion gain, increase in LCO, and gasoline
62
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
production, and a decrease in dry gas and wet gas
production.
We are in the first cycle of our operation with new close
coupled cyclones. We do not know yet if we expect buildup
of coke inside or outside the cyclones. We do have a steam
decoking ring around the plenum of our reactor to prevent
coke accumulation outside the cyclones.
We understand that the length of extension of the outlet
pipe into the inlet barrel is desired to improve the efficiency
of the cyclone. The downside is increased wear on this
extension.
We installed all the cyclone outlet thermocouples indi-
cated by design to detect indications of possible catalyst
carryover through any single cyclone pair. Our policy is to
come down if any such indication occurs, and pull catalyst
out of the reactor to below the diplegs before trying to start
up again. We follow the design guidelines on velocity to be
maintained in the riser and cyclone inlets using steam
during start-ups or shutdowns. In this way we have so far
avoided major catalyst carryover from our reactor.
Also maintaining minimum riser outlet temperature at
all times will avoid condensation of hydrocarbons and se-
vere reversal in the regenerator.
SLOAN:
Kellogg has been licensing the Mobil closed cyclone
system since 1990. In addition to 8 Mobil FCC’s using the
technology, Kellogg has now licensed 11 units which are
either in operation or under design and construction.
With regard to the yield and conversion changes, the
shifts that have been observed depend on the effectiveness
of the vapor/catalyst disengager which was in use before
the closed cyclone installation.
Closed cyclone principles were first demonstrated by
Mobil on units which were already equipped with riser
cyclones in the first place. These cyclones are over 99%
efficient and make an excellent initial separation between
catalyst and vapor. Since there is little catalyst in the
freeboard zone, closed cyclones had the effect of reducing
only thermal cracking. Thermal cracking is essentially
coke neutral. Therefore, closed cyclones had little or no
impact on coke selectivity or regenerator temperature. The
effect of closed cyclones for constant temperature cracking
was to increase gasoline and light cycle oil yield by up to 2.8
vol% and decrease dry gas yield by about 1 wt%.
Some of the non-Mobil units which have now been re-
vamped, however, had much less efficient inertial type
disengagers at the end of the riser. With a much lower
efficiency of around 80 to 85%, these devices leave a sig-
nificant amount of catalyst in the freeboard region of the
FCC reactor. Catalytic conversion occurs in this back-
mixed, high residence time zone; however it is nonselective
and produces higher coke on spent catalyst. This results in
higher regenerator temperature and lower catalyst-to-oil
ratio. Also secondary reactions such as recracking of gaso-
line and hydrogen transfer occur.
It is almost impossible to precisely quantify the shifts
attributable solely to riser disengaging changes when
other revamp modifications, including feed injection and
stripper sections are also carried out. Nevertheless the
following directional trends relative to pre-revamp oper-
ation have been noted:
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
(1) Higher riser temperature is used to achieve pre-
revamp (or higher) conversion.
(2) Regenerator temperature is lower.
(3) Catalyst-to-oil ratio is higher as a result of the above
two factors.
(4) Gas yield is sharply lower and coke selectivity is
improved.
(5) Gasoline and light olefins yields are higher.
The drop in regenerator temperature often provides the
flexibility to increase catalyst rare earth content to in-
crease activity.
The second part of the question deals with resid feed-
stocks. We have two purpose designed resid crackers using
closed cyclone technology. No coking problems have oc-
curred in these units. A third unit will be starting up in
about one year.
Actually, the potential for coking exists whether the
feedstock is a gas oil or a resid. Coke formation in the
disengager is avoided with closed cyclone units by injecting
steam via a distributor into the dome area and having a
well designed stripper which allows a net upflow of steam
from the stripper into the disengager vessel.
Coke formation in cyclones and overhead lines is avoided
by having intimate feedstock and catalyst mixing at the
feed injection zone. Results from feed injection revamps
using our ATOMAX™ nozzles have proven this.
Extended primary cyclone outlet tubes were used by
Kellogg prior to the availability of closed cyclone tech-
nology. Our opinion is that, while these designs may di-
rectionally reduce disengager residence time, a significant
amount of backmixing still exists.
The last part of the question deals with specific operating
problems during start-up or upsets. Regarding closed cy-
clones, these were first used in Mobil units starting in
1985. From then until this technology was offered for li-
cense in 1990, a number of operational guidelines were
developed as a result of Mobil’s cumulative experience in
their eight units. One of the lessons learned from this
experience was how to avoid catalyst losses to the frac-
tionator at start-up. Catalyst losses can be caused by one of
several factors:
- low riser cyclone velocity, and hence low efficiency,
- high catalyst bed level in the reactor due to loss of level
indication, and
- cyclone and dipleg damage.
These problems are avoided by maintaining riser cyclone
inlet velocity above a certain minimum velocity at all
times, proper maintenance of level indicators, and most
importantly, adhering to established procedures. As a gen-
eral comment, our experience and that of our licensees with
start-up of these systems has been very good.
J. WILLIAMS:
The different methods of reducing long residence time in
dilute phase all share common process improvements and
generally have small effect on conversion. The most noted
improvements are:
(1) good reduction of diolefins, such as butadienes by up
to 50%,
(2) 10 to 15% reduction in dry gas at common riser outlet
temperatures of 980 to 1,010 ºF, and
(3) coke yield decreases of 5 to 7 % of the base yield at
constant conversion.
63
The key to utilizing this revamp is to regain and surpass
the previous conversion by taking advantage of the lower
coke and gas yield to increase the severity. There have been
some start-up problems associated with close coupled cy-
clones. For example, catalyst to vapor ratios are sometimes
far from design and the catalyst does not separate well. The
people that I have talked to say that rigorous attention to
the start-up details minimizes those circulation problems.
CARLOS A. CABRERA (UOP):
In general, I would agree with the commentary that we
have heard from the panel members. I think that it is
undisputable that confining the reactions to a lower vol-
ume at elevated temperature is a true advantage and de-
creases the loss of selectivity that occurs by having
additional volume where nonselective thermal reactions
occur. That is what the close couple cyclone system
achieves.
However, there are two other considerations that are very
important and what the industry needs to begin to focus on
now. These are related to some of the coking phenomena
that has been described. Once you separate the catalyst
from the hydrocarbons, whether you do it by a cyclonic
device or any other type of separation, the catalyst will
entrain a considerable amount of hydrocarbons into either
the catalyst stripper section or the reactor system.
In a direct coupled system, the amount of hydrocarbon
that is entrained is in the order of 7 to 10 vol% of the total
reactor effluent, depending on the cyclone design. That is
where today’s focus has to be, that is: (1) prevent hydro-
carbons from reaching the reactor vessel through the con-
ventional stripping design, (2) minimize the amount of
hydrocarbons that get entrained with the catalyst as they
travel down the diplegs.
This substantial improvement is currently achieved
commercially in two designs which have been in operation
approximately for 1% years. UOP calls this design Vortex
Disengaging System. It is an integrated cyclone and striper
which achieves what the direct couple separation does
followed by stripping in the separation device. Therefore
prior to reaching the catalyst stripper, hydrocarbons are
removed from the catalyst stream. Hence, they cannot
travel around the reactor and deposit coke in undesirable
locations. But most importantly, the nonselective reactions
that continue to occur post the riser are eliminated. If
anyone is interested, UOP can provide details on the com-
mercial operations and potential new unit or revamp
applications.
One quick note on the start-up problems reported, I think
that, yes there is no question that you always have to give
up something for additional selectivity gains. But, I think
the industry, in general, with the help of all the licensers
which are involved as well as refiners, have overcome these.
Living proof is that a brand new UOP Licensed FCC Unit
that incorporates the direct coupled design has just started
up in Germany and achieves all the yield benefits that have
been mentioned.
VICENTE A. CITARELLA (Exxon Research & Engi-
neering Company):
a) Our experience with the Flexicracking DIR close
coupled cyclone design has consistently shown im-
proved selectivity and reduced gas and coke yields at
TOC/INDEX
constant conversion. We have achieved 11 to 12%
decrease in coke yield, and 20 to 25% decrease in gas
yields. This improvement is usually translated into
higher conversion, higher feed rate, heavier feed or
some economic combination of these. In addition,
there is increased olefinicity of gasoline and LPG and
improved distillate quality, that is higher API gravity
and cetane. Similar effects have been obtained with
both resid and gas oil feeds.
b) We have not experienced coking problems with resid
feeds.
c) The operation of our close coupled cyclone design does
not depend or interact with other operating param-
eters of the reactor system.
d) Finally, we had a problem with some catalyst carry-
over during the initial start-up of one unit. However,
we studied the problem, adjusted the procedures, and
now have it understood and resolved. Since then, the
same unit has had no problems during restarts or
normal operation.
MICHAEL A. SILVERMAN (Stone & Webster Engineer-
ing Corp.):
I would like to propose a very good alternative to close
coupled cyclones. First of all, by way of background, we
studied several end of riser separation devices by radio-
tracers and reaction mix sampling. We have noted that
conventional ballistic separators show vapor times as high
as 50 seconds with significant dilute phase yield de-
gradation. Typical rough cut cyclones show 6 to 20 seconds
vapor times, post-riser. We still think this is very
significant.
The Stone & Webster Ramshorn Axial Cyclone System
shows about 1 second post-riser vapor time with essentially
no yield degradation. I will give you an example. We mea-
sured in one unit, zero dry gas make, and essentially no
hydrogen transfer from the riser outlet to the reactor outlet
using the Ramshorn Axial Cyclone System. That par-
ticular unit showed about a 40% reduction in dry gas yield
and a very large increase in throughput and gasoline yield,
along with an increase in LPG olelins.
The important thing to note is that cyclone systems were
originally designed to separate catalyst efficiently, but
little attention was paid to the vapor flow out of the system.
It turns out that cyclone systems are very inefficient at
getting vapor out of the FCC reactor system. One of the
riser cyclone systems we studied showed a large amount of
gas exiting the dipleg and a very large post-riser residence
time with significant after cracking. This is eliminated
with the Ramshorn Axial Cyclone System. In fact, we noted
in this system less than 3% vapor traveling down the
Ramshorn diplegs and this had the effect of unloading the
stripper, reducing the coke make in the system.
We typically duct the Ramshorn outlet to about 3 feet
from the inlet to the reactor cyclones. We have noticed that
this has two benefits. First, there is only a marginally
higher residence time in the vessel (all thermal) than a
closed coupled arrangement. And two, this arrangement
eliminates the problems we are always hearing about cata-
lyst carryover to the fractionator, pressure fluctuation,
start-up problems, etc. These problems do not exist with
the Ramshorn and we pay almost no penalty in terms of
extra residence time in the reactor vessel.
64
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
Also, we have demonstrated no coking problems with the
Ramshorn System. In contrast to this, we have information
that indicates that when you hot wire riser cyclones to
reactor cyclones, there are frequently significant coking
problems, especially with resids. Also, the Ramshorn Axial
Cyclone System has been tested on both gas oil and light
resids to date.
ERNEST LEUENBERGER (ARC0 Products Co.):
I would like to comment on extending the rough cut
cyclone outlet tubes up into the area of the secondary
cyclone inlets. We tried this during our 1992 FCC turn-
around at Los Angeles. We felt that we could not possibly
fill the main fractionator with catalyst because we did not
close couple the cyclones. We found we were wrong; we
filled the fractionator with 200 tons of catalyst during
start-up. Our experience indicates that you should be care-
ful during start-up of units with extended rough cut
cyclone outlet tubes as well as during start-up of units with
closed coupled cyclones.
STEPHEN F. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc.):
We operate a vented riser cyclone system. It was a re-
vamp. We have seen a dramatic decrease in off gas and an
increase in gasoline. The technology definitely worked for
us. The coking problems that we have seen have been down
in the stripper. We had a UOP designed stripper with a lot
of very intricately designed holes. We found that the small
holes coke within a week of start-up and we see a marked
decline in performance as the holes plug. We are obviously
getting coking somewhere in the reactor, probably down in
the stripper section.
As far as problems during operations and start-ups, we
have experienced massive catalyst carryovers. We have
modified our internals repeatedly, but it was not uncom-
mon for us to see 35 to 75 tons lost in about a 5 minute
period. We also have continuous catalyst loss several times
higher than expected. Those episodes could be started by
opening the regenerative slide valve no more than 1 or 2%
past the conditions we were trying to maintain.
If you are considering installing a system of this type, I
would like to highlight the importance of paying attention
to all the details. These include the engineering effort
required, start-up support, and operations support. This is
particularly the case if you are considering retrofitting this
type of design to an existing unit. Whereas, we have
achieved the throughput, selectivity, and yield advantages
of our retrofit, we have been troubled by catalyst carryover.
In this respect, I believe all licensers have made progress.
Kellogg has some good technology, Stone & Webster incor-
porates some very good features and I understand that UOP
has addressed the catalyst carryover problems we have
experienced.
QUESTION 18:
Can refiners comment on their experience with
changing feed injector style and location in the riser?
What is the experience with retrofitting a unit from a
single feed distributor at the wye to multiple injectors
located radially up the riser?
TOC/INDEX

HEAVY OIL PROCESSING

SLOAN: after one year of operation, we found severe erosion had

The product selectivities and ultimately the profitability occurred in the upper row caused by impingement of steam
of the FCCU are governed by the condition of the catalyst and feed vapors from the bottom row. A significant increase
and feedstock at the point of contact in the riser. The riser in conversion, approximately 3 vol%, was experienced after
design and feed injection system must combine to produce the damaged nozzles were repaired.
the most uniform possible cracking environment.
Kellogg and Mobil have recently conducted extensive PAULES:
laboratory and commercial scale studies of riser hydro- We have revamped two FCCU’s from a shower head type
dynamics and feed injection. These studies have shown that feed distributor to multiple injectors located radially up the
axially oriented feed injection at the wye, even with mul- riser. We are seriously considering a similar revamp on a
tiple injectors, causes severe maldistribution of catalyst in third FCCU. At one location this allowed a maximum feed
the riser. Gamma-ray scans in the mixing zone above the concarbon increase from 1.0 to 1.7, with only a 30 °F in-
axially oriented nozzles showed a very high catalyst den- crease in regenerator temperature. This permitted us to
sity near the walls and low densities near the center. They shut down the vacuum tower at this refinery and crack all
also showed substantial asymmetry, with 2/3 of the catalyst produced atmospheric tower bottoms (ATB) on a sustained
in the half (hemi-cylinder) of the riser opposite the basis. You do lose some regenerated catalyst slide valve
standpipe. delta P after a revamp of this type and this should be
Radially oriented feed injectors produced relatively flat examined closely. Also, we have experienced some fluidiza-
density profiles with nearly the same catalyst density near tion problems at the bottom of the riser which were solved
the walls as in the center. Backmixing was reduced by half by injecting air into the regenerated catalyst standpipe.
compared to the axially oriented injectors. No asymmetry
was found. There were equal amounts of catalyst in both BONELLI:
sides of the riser. We performed several of these feed conversions from the
The differences in density distribution created by chang- single injection to multiple feed nozzle injections. For one of
ing injector style and location have a substantial impact on the units that is typical, yield structure data follows. It
FCC yields. When coupled with advanced feed injection should be noted that largest benefit to the unit was the
technology, such as Kellogg’s ATOMAX™ nozzles, yield increased ability to run lower value feedstocks. The coke
improvements have been remarkable. We can cite two yield decreased by almost 10% while LPG decreased by 8%,
recent examples as illustrated below. and LCCO production increased almost 2%. It appears that
Normalized Commercial Post Audit Data combined heavy cycle and slurry oils increased by 1%. This
is directly attributable to larger quantities of lower value
Yield Shift, wt% Unit A Unit B
feedstock (coker gas oils) being processed in the unit. Since
Dry Gas -0.3 -0.1 the revamp we have changed to an octane catalyst with
Total LPG -3.3 + 0.6 better bottoms upgrading ability to take advantage of the
Gasoline +5.0 i-3.4 coke selectivity improvement and further increase bottoms
LCO &Bottoms - 1.4 -3.9 upgrading. In addition, the catalyst provides high iso-
Coke 0.0 0.0 butylene selectivity which is of great economic benefit due
Conversion + 1.4 +3.9 to our MTBE production capabilities.
- Unit A replaced “Showerhead” type distributor.
- Unit B replaced proprietary atomizing nozzles. FCCU as Produced Yields Pre Feed Post Feed
Normalized for Nozzle Revamp Nozzle Revamp
ROY: Mass Balance Avg. Avg.
In 1991 our FCC unit was converted from nine low Barrel Catalyst (Oct. 26.Nov. 5) (Jan. 24-Apr. 18)
pressure feed nozzles to two rows of multiple feed nozzles Low Matrix Surface Area 1992 1991 % Delta
located in the feed riser. On inspection of the new nozzles C2 - (wt%) 2.71 2.59 4.45
C 3 2.66 1.87 42.14
C3= 7.85 7.97 -1.53
i - C4 5.52 5.99 -7.86
n-C4 1.35 1.77 -23.80
i.-C4 2.01 1.84 9.49
C4 = 5.74 7.83 -26.64
Total C3/C4 Yield 25.13 27.27 -7.84
C 5 63.64 64.69 -1.63
LCO 12.50 12.28 1.81
HCO + CSO 9.55 9.46 0.98
CSO
Coke Yield (wt%) 4.08 4.51 -9.65
Total LV Yield 110.82 113.70 -2.53
Conversion LV% 77.94 78.26 -0.40
Gasoline Selectivity 81.64 82.66 -1.23
Coke Selectivity
(Conv./wt% coke) 18.88 17.35 8.80

65
TOC/INDEX

HEAVY OIL PROCESSING

Barrel Octane single feed distributors at the wye, to multiple injectors

Catalyst Catalyst located radially at the riser, has resulted in gasoline yield
Low Matrix Higher Matrix improvements ranging from 2 to 7 vol%, depending upon
Surface Area Surface Area factors like feed characteristics, type of injector replaced,
FCCU Normalized Avg. Avg.
Yields at Standard (Oct. 26-Nov. 5) (Sept 1-Oct. 21)
atomizing steam rates, riser characteristics, and other de-
cut points 1992 1993 % Delta tails. Stone & Webster has designed over 40 installations of
feed injection systems, and in all cases, the reproducibility
C2 - (wt%) 2.71 2.71 0.00 of the predicted yield has been excellent. In addition to that,
C 3 2.66 2.38 -10.58 we have not received reports of plugging, erosion, or dam-
C3= 7.85 8.18 4.28 age to the riser internals.
i-C4 5.52 5.28 -4.33
n-C4 1.35 1.30 -3.76 VICENTE A. CITARELLA (Exxon Research & Engi-
i-C4 = 2.01 2.34 16.23 neering Company):
C4= 5.74 5.98 4.06 We have replaced feed injector nozzles to our modern
Total C3/C4 Yield 25.13 25.46 1.29 designs in over 30 installations covering all Exxon and
C5 + (90% Pt = 380 °F) 62.91 63.34 0.68 many licensed units with excellent results. The new in-
LCO (90% Pt = 600 °F) 13.13 14.21 8.23 jectors result in lower dry gas and coke yield which, like I
HCO (90% Pt = 775 °F) 5.92 4.61 -22.16 said in my comment to the previous question, can be trans-
CSO 2.94 3.06 4.07 lated to improved yield selectivity (estimated 2-6% increase
Coke Yield (wt%) 4.08 4.58 12.27 in naphtha yield) at constant throughput, increased
Total LV Yield 110.4 110.68 0.58 throughput or ability to run poorer quality feeds.
Conversion We also have experience with changing 5 units from
(90% = 380 °F), LV% 76.77 77.89 1.46 multiple feed distributors at the “Y” to radial injectors
Gasoline Selectivity 81.95 81.33 -0.75 further up the riser. Although the magnitude of the im-
Coke Selectivity provement has varied from unit to unit, in all cases the
(Conv./wt% coke) 18.88 17.09 -9.45 results have been positive with improved conversion. We
have no case where the change was made from a single
JUNO: distributor at the “Yn.
We found that we did not have enough head to properly
inject our slurry to the upper feed nozzle. Because of this we L. RICHARD DOSS (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
have not utilized our upper feed nozzles. We have had Mr. Sloan and/or others, on your ATOMAX™ nozzles,
difficulty preventing coke buildup despite the use of a have you measured or estimated the particle size of the oil
steam purge. We have not used the gas lift operation on our after the nozzle? Also, what is the delta P required for this
unit because of wet gas compressor limitations. We need type of nozzle? Is there a minimum?
this to be in operation since the delta P incurred without
aeration of the bottom nozzles limits our air blower ca- SLOAN:
pacity and also prevents us from using the upper feed We conducted full-scale cold flow tests on the ATGMAX™
nozzles. and several other commercially available FCC feed nozzles.
The following table summarizes the relative droplet sizes
LAABS: produced by three of these nozzles. The data show that the
Recently, two nozzle configurations were tested at one of ATOMAX™ nozzle produces a smaller average droplet size
our catalytic crackers. The first nozzle was a pigtail, and it and fewer large droplets than competitive nozzles.
was installed at the normal feed location. The other nozzle
was of the slotted variety, and it was positioned 5 ft. higher Comparison of Nozzle Atomization Quality
than the previous one. The slotted nozzle performed Impact-
slightly better, with a conversion increase of 1 to 2 numbers
and a higher increase in selectivity. The unit is currently type
Slotted Tip High dP ATOMAX
using the slotted nozzle in the higher position. Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle
An affiliated site changed from a single open pipe to a
shower head feed nozzle without any visible performance Relative Sauter Mean 2.35 1.08 1.00
benefit. They then installed 7 nozzles around the cir- Droplet Size (RSMD)
cumference of the riser, approximately 2 ft higher than the Vol% > 1.6 RSMD’s 81 44 31
original feed injection site. This change was the subject of a Vol% > 8.0 RSMD’s 23 4 0
“before-and-after” study with gamma-scanning to deter- Pressure drop, relative 0.2 7.4 1.0
mine the operational benefit. The scanning showed that the
new nozzle arrangement slightly improved the cross- As far as the pressure drop for the nozzle is concerned, it
sectional density profile, but selectivity benefits were diffi- is a relatively low oil side pressure drop of up to about 50
cult to estimate given other process changes that were psi. We do an excellent job of atomization through using the
made at the same time. energy of the atomization steam.

ALVARO A. MURCIA (Stone & Webster): TIFFIN E. JOHNSON (The M. W. Kellogg Company):
Stone & Webster’s experience in retrofitting units from The pressure drop on the ATOMAX’” nozzles is actually

66
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
in the range of 50 to 60 psi for most applications, depending
on a number of variables. I’d also like to mention that the
post-audit yield improvements in gasoline that were seen
that Mr. Sloan mentioned, 3.4 and 5% were actually weight
percent improvements. So the volume percent improve-
ment would be even greater.
STEPHEN F. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc.):
We replaced our UOP shower head at the wye with our
internally designed radially injecting system slightly
above the wye. If you are an independent, I just wanted to
comment that it is probably the most significant payback
modification you can make to your FCCU.
QUESTION 19:
What are the effects on product properties and
unit yields obtained commercially when recycling
hydrotreated light cycle oil to the FCC unit? Please
comment on any advantages this process scheme
may offer in light of reformulated gasoline produc-
tion requirements.
SLOAN:
Results depend on where the recycle is introduced in the
riser. Light cycle oil or other fractions such as naphtha can
be recycled to a mid point in the riser and used as a quench
material. When this is done, the lower part of the riser just
above the feed injection nozzles becomes a short contact
time, high temperature cracking zone. The impact on
yields will be more light olefins for alkylation and etherifi-
cation at essentially constant gasoline yield. For refractory
feeds with high nitrogen content, higher conversion can be
expected.
This can also be an effective way to cool the regenerator
and improve operations when processing higher concarbon
feedstocks without a catalyst cooler. The recycle material
calls for a higher catalyst circulation rate which has a
cooling tendency on the regenerator. The heat balance,
however, requires that more coke be made to provide the
heat to vaporize the recycle. This, of course, means that
there must be adequate air blower capacity for the oper-
ation, not to mention adequate heat removal in the main
fractionator.
PAULES:
I am familiar with this type of operation; especially in
landlocked refineries with excess FCCU capacity. It can be
used to shift refinery yields from distillate products to
gasoline when market conditions dictate. It rarely, if ever,
would make sense in a Gulf Coast or East Coast refinery
where incremental supplies of FCC feed are available at a
competitive price. Waterborne FCC feed at typical market
prices will almost always be more profitable in the FCC
than hydrotreated LCO.
QUESTION 20:
How do the effects observed when recycling
hydrotreated light cycle oil as described in the pre-
67
vious question compare to those obtained when re-
cycling straight run diesel boiling range material?
PAULES:
I have no specific data on this, but it stands to reason that
hydrotreated LCO will have a higher aromatic content than
straight-run diesel. This is true unless the LCO is being
processed in a very sophisticated hydrotreater designed for
a high degree of aromatic saturation. The yield shifts are
likely to be similar to those seen between refractive FCC
feeds and paraffinic FCC feeds.
JOHN HUGGINS (Turner Mason & Company):
On recycling of the LCO, you do have to hydrotreat this
material and hydrotreat it severely enough to have an effect
on the aromatics content. Otherwise it is a waste of time. I
can relate data that proves it is a waste of time.
ERNEST LEUENBERGER (ARC0 Product Company):
We once supplemented our gas oil hydrotreater feed with
LCO because we were short of gas oil. The treated LCO
conversion was 50% in the FCC unit. Hydrotreated LCO
converts almost quantitatively to high octane aromatic
gasoline. We saw a 0.4 R+ M/2 increase in cracked gasoline
octane with only 10% LCO in the FCC feed. Although we
believe that hydrotreated LCO cracking can be profitable,
we do not hydrotreat LCO if it would displace gas oil.
QUESTION 21:
To what extent can FCC naphtha sulfur level be
reduced by changing FCC operating variables or the
recycle of various streams?
J. WILLIAMS:
The following variable changes increase sulfur in FCC
gasoline:
1) increased catalyst-to-oil ratio,
2) increased reactor temperature,
3) increased gasoline endpoint, and
4) higher silica alumina ratio catalyst.
Increased recycle of slurry or heavy cycle oil tend not to
increase sulfur as much as predicted because heavy cyclic
sulfur compounds tend not to crack. FCC gasolines could be
reduced 20-40% by a combination of the above variables.
SLOAN:
Recycling FCC naphtha to a mid point in the riser as
described in the answer to Question 19 can result in about a
20% gasoline sulfur reduction without any loss in gasoline
yield. The gasoline is generally more olefinic with up to one
number higher research octane number in the operation.
QUESTION 22:
Many refiners would like to operate their FCC
main fractionator bottoms sections such that the
temperature of the vapor products leaving the lower
shed decks is greater than 720 °F. Some designs fea-
ture a bottoms quench loop that involves sending a
portion of the bottoms pumparound return to a point
TOC/INDEX
below the shed decks, thus, subcooling the bottoms
liquid. What incremental increase in vapor tempera-
ture have refiners been able to run with this design?
LAABS:
One of our refineries has achieved a consistent tempera-
ture of 735 ºF above the shed decks by using bottoms pump-
around to sub-cool the fractionator bottoms liquid. The
bottom temperature is kept below 700 °F and decant oil
gravity is kept above - 8”API. They have experienced se-
vere fouling in the bottoms circuit when operating outside
of these limits.
Another site has exceeded 720 “Fin the vapor zone while
keeping the bottoms temperature below 690 ºF This con-
figuration has pushed the heavy cycle gas oil viscosity to its
maximum limit.
A third refinery retrofitted a quench system on-line
using an existing nozzle. They were able to achieve 720 °F
in the vapor zone while keeping the bottoms liquid at
680 ºF. They are currently running a lower vapor zone
temperature in order to keep the slurry API gravity be-
tween - 6º and - 7°, but they plan to lower the gravity in
the future. They have had no coking problems with their
present setup.
PEDERSEN:
Our RCC fractionator has a bottom quench loop as a part
of its original design. We keep flash zone temperature at
approximately 700 ºF and bottoms draw around 665 ºF. We
have experienced significant coking when running at
higher temperatures. The quench flow rate is typically
around 80,000 bbl/day, or approximately double the feed
rate to the unit, and the bottoms product rate is around
4,000 bbl/day. Return temperature is controlled at about
460 to 480 ºF.
ROY:
We inject slurry recycle to the bottom of the fractionator
as quench at about 400 ºF, maintaining about 670 ºF on the
fractionator bottoms outlet. The tray immediately above
the shed decks is at about 550 ºF, while the liquid leaving
the shed decks and entering the quench zone is at 750 ºF
ROBERT L. FLANDERS (Chevron Retired):
I would be careful about temperatures quoted by the
panel on what you can live with, because the temperature
you can live with with a paraffin is far lower than with a
naphthene. If you are running Sumatra, for example, you
had better stay below 670 ºF. If you are running California,
you can run 710 ºF
QUESTION 23:
We intend to upgrade FCC clarified oil/heavy cycle
oil by solvent extraction. Extracting high Bureau of
Mines Correlation Index (BMCI) stock will make a
good source of carbon materials and raffinate may be
recycled to improve the FCC product slate. Does
anyone have experience with this approach? If so,
with what results?
O’BRIEN:
We have operated an SO2 extraction facility to extract
66
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
the aromatics from heavy cycle oil. The products from the
operation were very good, with the extract having a rating
of 100 + BMCI. The raffinate was excellent FCC feedstock
and actually better quality than the gas oil charge that it
was produced from. At the time the extraction facility was
operated, the FCC units were operated with total slurry
recycle and the only bottoms product was the extract from
the extraction facilities.
However, the SO2 extraction was very expensive to oper-
ate, because of the maintenance cost and the cost of the
utilities required for compression of the SO2. Control of the
corrosion rate was difficult, and the unit was prone to SO2
leaks. We discourage anyone from using SO2 as a solvent.
HIMMAT SINGH (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
The genesis of this question is that when we process
heavy vacuum gas oil (HVGO), particularly from waxy
crudes, as feedstock to FCC units, it generates a lot of
recycle stock. This is particularly more so when the FCCU
operation is in middle distillate maximization mode. The
BMCI values of the recycle stock so generated is low
(around 60-70) and cannot be used as feedstock in indus-
tries like manufacturing of carbon black. In such events, we
suggest that the recycle stock can be extracted with solvent
like N-Methyl Pyrrolidone (NMP) to generate aromatic
rich extract having high BMCI value. The corresponding
raffinate generated can be recycled back with the FCC feed.
Such an approach will prove very useful.
QUESTION 24:
When removing fines from a slurry stream on an
FCCU/RCC, what methods are being used for dis-
posal of the back flush material? Does anyone have
experience with recycling slurry to the riser with 1
wt% or more ash? Where is the slurry injected and
why? What kind of nozzle is used?
PAULES:
Modern filtration systems usually use fresh feed or a gas
assist method of backwashing. In these instances the
backwash material is usually recycled back to the FCC
riser. In many cases it can be routed to a coker or to a special
high-ash fuel oil blend. At least one refiner claims to have
successfully recycled a backwashed stream in excess of 1
wt% ash to the riser by utilizing specially lined pumps and
a separate feed nozzle located high up the riser. This has the
effect of lowering recycle residence time and preventing
excessive coke formation.
PEDERSEN:
A year ago we installed a Gulftronic unit for removing
catalyst fines from the bottoms product, which now fed to
the delayed coker unit. The unit throughput is approxi-
mately 4,000 bb1/day, and we produce use approximately
2,500 bbl/day of backflush material. We use fresh feed for
backflushing, and the backflushed material is injected to
the riser through two simple nozzles approximately 10 ft
above the feed nozzles to avoid coking of the catalyst prior to
mixing with the feed.
The ash content in the bottoms product upstream in the
separation unit increases from approximately 0.3 to 1.7
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
wt% when the Gulftronic unit is in service. We have not
experienced significant increased erosion after taking the
filter in service last year.
J. WILLIAMS:
Recycle of tines to the riser with fresh feed as a backflush
or as a diluent is the preferred disposal. There is of course
some recycle established, but even with 10 micron particles
are retained to a certain degree. Recycling to the riser
allows fines to exit as ECAT or precipitator fines to avoid
land till and the associated liability.
LAABS:
One of our refineries routinely processes 2,000 to 5,000
bbl/day of slurry recycle material with an ash content
between 0.3 and 2.0 wt%. They preferentially inject the
material into the reactor bed, although they have the abil-
ity to inject it into the riser feed mix zone when the FCC
unit is coke-burning limited.
Reslurry produces about 3 times as much delta coke
when injected into the bed as when injected in the riser, but
sending it to the riser with the fresh feed hurts conversion
by muddying the catalyst-oil mix zone. The ideal place for
the reslurry would be in the riser but through separate
nozzles one-half to 1 second above the fresh feed zone.
Injection at this location would act to quench the reaction.
Slotted tip nozzles are currently used and they perform
well for slurry injection.
O’BRIEN:
We routinely recycle slurry with up to 2% fines. This
material is mixed with fresh feed and steam, roughly 150
bbl/hour of slurry and 500 bbl/hour of fresh feed. This mix is
injected into a center nozzle at the level of the radial fresh
feed nozzles. The center nozzle is an open pipe with a
restriction orifice.
This feed system has operated since 1985, with no erosion
problems in either the center or radial nozzles. Open,
low-pressure nozzles are probably best to minimize erosion,
but we are interested if anyone has realized benefits from
recycling slurry through atomizing type nozzles, and what
type was used.
We tried using a whistle type nozzle at one of our units,
with steam used to shear the slurry, but it lasted about as
long as this discussion.
L. RICHARD DOSS (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
About a year ago the Lake Charles FCCU’s discontinued
the slurry recycle back to the riser. We feel we had sub-
stantial economic reasons for doing that and we still have a
salable No. 6 oil product in the slurry oil. If there is some-
thing else to do with the slurry, and you are having con-
straints on air blower or other equipment when recycling
the slurry, it does not seem like a good idea to recycle slurry
to the riser.
QUESTION 25:
What steps can be taken to increase light cycle oil
yield at the expense of heavy cycle oil? What re-
vamps of main fractionator systems have been suc-
cessful at maximizing light cycle oil yield? What are
69
typical operating conditions and stream inspections
following the change? What are practical limits on
the 90% distillation point of light cycle oil and the
10% distillation point of heavy cycle oil?
OSBORN:
We operate with zero net heavy cycle oil yield. The heavy
cycle oil is circulated through a pumparound exchange
train back to the fractionator. The heavy cycle oil draw tray
is a chimney-type tray operated in an overflow condition.
Heavy cycle oil pumparound returns at the top of the shed
trays. Our light cycle oil 90% point is approximately 650 ºF,
with a targeted endpoint of 670 to 680 ºF We target slurry
oil gravity to be a - 6° to - 8º API. It has been as low as a
- 9.2° API for short periods. The fractionator bottoms tem-
perature runs about 685 ºF. The most important factor is
achieving good conversion in the reactor system.
ROY:
At our Pasadena FCCU, converting our feed nozzles from
simple distributive nozzles to near-atomizing nozzles was a
major factor in improving our yield structure. Achieving
small oil droplet size promotes better vaporization and
intermixing, and maximizes cracking or crackable mate-
rial. We also hope to find improvement in the LCGO,
HCGO yields from improved fractionator bottom sep-
aration with future revamps.
We have run a split return to the fractionator bottoms,
believing that the flash zone should run in the 730” to
740 ºF range, while controlling the fractionator bottoms
liquid temperature at or below 690 °F The liquid quench
prevents coke formation and accumulation and protects the
bottoms pumps. Uneven distribution between these two
quench points, due to existing hydraulic conditions, has
created other problems in this circuit, preventing best
possible fractionator bottoms separation.
Our average LCO 90% point is at 658 ºF, (691 ºF end-
point). At our Tyler FCCU we routinely operate to produce
LCO with a 90% point of 665 ºF (695 ºF endpoint). Use of
high matrix FCC catalyst has been very successful in
increasing LCO at the expense of HCO clarified oil.
SLOAN:
LCO yield can be increased to the point where there is no
net heavy cycle oil yield. Maximum endpoint on the LCO is
generally set by maximum temperature limits acceptable
in the fractionator bottoms. LCO endpoints of 700 to 720 °F
may be obtained using a bottoms quench system to mod-
erate the bottoms temperature.
Maximizing LCO yield also involves reducing the initial
point of the LCO product. As the LCO initial point is
decreased, the gasoline endpoint decreases and the frac-
tionator top tray temperature falls. Water will condense if
this temperature is allowed to fall much below 230 °F. This
condition corresponds to an LCO initial point of 320 to
325 ºF
J. WILLIAMS:
There are two approaches to increasing light cycle oil at
the expense of heavy cycle oil. In the fractionator, increased
separation via a packed section is sometimes used. Light
cycle can be drawn to a higher endpoint, if the diesel pool
TOC/INDEX
allows this increase. From the reactor yield standpoint,
high catalyst-oil ratios and catalyst with high bottoms
conversion favor light cycle oil over heavy cycle oil.
BONELLI:
There is a three step approach that we have used at one of
our locations to increase light cycle oil at the expense of
heavy cycle oil.
1. We have revamped the feed nozzles. We went from the
showerhead type to the radial type, and as the result of that
work we increased the light cycle oil yield about 1% at the
expense of heavy cycle and slurry yields.
2. We subsequently have changed catalyst from a low
surface area to a high surface area octane type catalyst
with some bottoms upgrading capability. We increased the
light cycle yields by 7 to 9% at the expense of heavy cycle
and slurry.
3. We revamped the main fractionator. We converted
from a trayed design to structured packing. Typically our
light cycle oil 90 percent point is 620 ºF to 630 ºF, while the
heavy cycle oil 10 percent point is about 590 ºF to 600 ºF
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Glitsch, Inc.):
The practical limits on the light cycle 90 percent point
depend on the refinery middle distillate blending. Typical
values are around 650 °F TBI? In this question, assuming
that the heavy cycle oil is the bottom product, the issue is
lost LCO to the bottom product. With an LCO 90 percent
point of 650 ºF, the minimum achievable LCO content in
the bottom product is a TBP 5 percent point of between
650 °F and 660 ºF The main column requires sufficient
fractionation capability and relatively high heat removal
in the top of the column. To reduce the 650 ºF and lighter
fraction in the bottom product requires use of a bottoms
product stripper.
There are several FCCU’s operating with bottoms prod-
uct strippers, and the bottoms product 650 ºF and lighter
content is reduced to 1 to 2%.
A. WITOSHKIN (Engelhard Corporation):
I would like to re-emphasize the fact that catalyst type
should be considered as a viable option whenever you are
attempting to increase light cycle oil yield. There are some
very good bottoms upgrading catalysts on the market that
will increase LCO at the expense of heavy cycle oil yield.
ROBERT L. FLANDERS (Chevron Retired):
I would like to remind you that the split between light
and heavy cycle stock is strongly feed related. Every plant I
have seen that tried to introduce resid into a gas oil cracker
has wound up with substantial increases in bottoms.
QUESTION 26:
Nitrites are known poisons to the etherification
process. What levels of acetonitrile and propionitrile
have been measured from the FCCU, and what feed,
catalyst, or operating condition effects have been
found?
T. WILLIAMS:
We have measured acetonitriles in our butylene stream
at 20 to 40 ppm. We have done extensive laboratory testing
70
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
to try to correlate this to feed quality, nitrogen in the feed,
reactor severity, etc. We have varied our reactor tempera-
tures by 20 ºF with no measurable effect on acetonitrile
production. We have also tracked nitrogen, and in one
instance our acetonitrile production came up with a drop in
nitrogen in the feed. So at this point we have no correlation
at all between acetonitrile and the operating variables
mentioned.
RAJGURU:
I agree with Mr. Williams. We do not have any correlation
to relate the feed to the acetonitrile (ACN) or propionitrile
(PRN) contents, but the levels are basically a function of
the feed and operating conditions.
Primarily, for the hydrotreated feed the C4, cut contains
about 6 to 10 ppm of ACN. Without this treatment, typi-
cally they are 20 to 40 ppm. Most waterwash systems that
are designed for 50 ppm, ACN, although we have designed
some systems containing ACN in excess of 500 ppm.
For the C5s, the acetonitrile level is about 10 ppm with
FCC feed hydrotreatment. Without feed treatment ACN is
about 30 ppm. Most water wash systems have been de-
signed for 50 ppm.
ROY:
Basic nitrogen compounds such as acetonitriles have
been found to be the primary contributor to catalyst deacti-
vation in our MTBE unit at Pasadena. Our current analyt-
ical equipment limits are ability to analyze for specific
basic nitrogen compounds. But we typically see from 5 to 10
ppm total nitrogen in our feed stream to the MTBE unit.
BONELLI:
At one location where we have investigated the
acetonitrile production phenomenon, the levels of
acetonitrile that we measure from the FCCU, going to our
MTBE waterwash column, averaged typically 8 ppm. After
the water wash, the levels are 0.5 ppm or less, so it is not a
big operating problem.
Our attempts to correlate the levels of acetonitrile and
the reactor temperature, RVP of the debutanizer operation
and nitrogen levels in the feed have all been unsuccessful.
QUESTION 27:
What levels of oxygen or carbonyl sulfide have
been found in FCC dry gas, if any, and what variables
have been seen to affect the concentration?
ROY:
At our Pasadena unit we do not look for carbonyl sulfide
in our tail gas. We find about 0.06 mol% oxygen in our tail
gas. This has increased slightly since 1991 when we
changed from concentric air rings with center-bottom re-
generated catalyst standpipe, to air grids with side-draw
regenerated catalyst standpipe. The new standpipe also
has an aeration point close to the mouth of the standpipe.
We are aware that this configuration may be resulting in a
slight increase in entrained air with the regenerated cata-
lyst and have on occasion looked to this for possible wet gas
compressor loading problems. The load effect of entrained
air is small.
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
We have also investigated the possibility that this en-
trained air was combining with feed sulfur to produce
carbonyl sulfide and creating an LPG amine usage prob-
lem. This has proven to be insupportable.
QUESTION 28:
In order to increase coke burning capacity, many
refiners have been practicing oxygen enrichment of
regeneration air. Have the practitioners of this
technology:
l exceeded 30 vol% oxygen?
l observed changes in gasoline stability or phenol
production?
l observed changes in yields and/or operating
conditions?
JUNO:
We have not exceeded 30 vol% oxygen enrichment of the
regeneration air. At the time that we utilized this oper-
ation, we were not monitoring the effect on gasoline stabil-
ity or phenol production. We directionally did produce less
coke and better gasoline yields, which were the result of
less carbon on regenerated catalyst. We utilized oxygen
when we had maxed out our air blower, and generally the
carbon on catalyst improved from 0.1 to 0.05 wt% when we
put the oxygen in.
The operators liked using the oxygen, as it stabilized the
operation, raising the regenerator temperature slightly
and lowering the catalyst circulation, and providing more
control on the catalyst slide valve.
PAULES:
We currently operate two FCC’s utilizing O2 enrichm.ent.
We limit our combustion air O2 content to 25% to keep a
safe margin away from 28%. At O2 levels above 28% it is
reported that carbon steel can experience enhanced ig-
nition properties. At 25% O2 in your combustion air, you
can obtain a 20% increase in coke burning capacity over
your air blower alone, assuming that you stay with other
unit constraints, such a regenerator temperature and
cyclone velocity.
We have not experienced any noticeable increases in
phenol production or changes in gasoline stability. Oper-
ationally, the only noticeable effect is an increase in re-
generator temperature. With the ability to oxygen enrich,
we have obtained greater flexibility to burn more coke,
resulting in higher reactor temperatures, higher feed Con-
radson carbon levels, and increased throughput.
J. WILLIAMS:
Most refiners limit oxygen to 26%. Some oxygen sup-
pliers recommend up to 28%. These limits are generally felt
to avoid equipment damage from high temperatures in the
vicinity of the air distributor.
Gasoline stability may decrease due to thermal cracking
in the mix zone as the regenerator temperature rises. This
would be more severe with poor feed distribution.
Conversion will decrease as regenerator temperature
rises and catalyst-to-oil ratio decreases. Decreasing ac-
tivity to stay within regenerator temperature limits also
reduces conversion and selectivity. Increasing reactor tem-
71
perature will increase conversion back, but it will also
lower gasoline selectivity.
PETER G. ANDREWS (Consultant):
Mr. Juno, if I heard correctly, you lowered your carbon on
regenerated catalyst and increased your gasoline yield.
Will you please tell us the before and after CRC levels
versus your gasoline yields?
JUNO:
The CRC went from 0.1 to 0.05 wt%. I do not have exact
data on the increase in gasoline yield.
PETER G. ANDREWS (Consultant):
I again want to draw to the attention of some of my
friends who say there is no difference between 0.1-0.12, and
0.05 wt.% CRC.
JOSEPH W. WILSON (Caltex Services):
Regarding phenol production, what we have seen is that
it is more related to the feedstock. The more resid you put in
the unit, the higher your wastewater phenols are going to
be. Probably what is happening here is that resid includes
oxygen-containing compounds that produce phenols when
cracked. If you think about it, the riser is actually a re-
ducing atmosphere. There is not going to be a great deal of
oxygenation of the hydrocarbons in the riser.
DELBERT F’. TOLEN (Rocky Mountain Salvage &
Equipment Co.):
I have seen an FCCU operate continuously at about 33%
oxygen. Several times the equipment damage was severe.
The catalyst damage is also severe. If you run up at those
levels, you can look to use 50 to 100% more fresh catalyst to
maintain your catalyst activity.
If you think about the rate of burning of the unstripped
hydrocarbon coming back into the regenerator into a 30%
oxygen atmosphere, or even a 26%, your flame tempera-
tures on catalyst particles reach 2,400 ºF Catalyst damage
is severe at the higher oxygen contents, so I am sure that all
the catalyst manufacturers would like to see all of you use
more oxygen.
A. WITOSHKIN (Engelhard Corporation):
Operatingregenerator pressure varies significantly from
unit to unit, depending on the licensor of the process. Thus,
maximum oxygen content permitted in the air should be
dictated by the oxygen partial pressure and the tempera-
ture in the air inlet to the regenerator and not on the
absolute oxygen level by itself. We should be careful when
we quote satisfactory operation at a given absolute oxygen
level.
As a safe precaution, contact your oxygen supplier for
recommendations on the maximum O2 level for your speci-
fic unit.
QUESTION 29:
What process variables are available to control
stack emissions, such as SOx, NOx, and CO? What is
the sensitivity of the emissions to changes in the
process variables? When the stack SOx emissions are
TOC/INDEX
controlled with process variable changes, how are
the sulfur contents of the other products affected?
J. WILLIAMS:
This is a very broad question addressing many variables.
The SOx emissions are mostly related to feed sulfur and
feed sulfur type. Many variables which appear to reduce
SO2 emissions actually just convert SO2 to SOx, which is not
measured by on-line analyzers. Some variables, such as
raising preheat or lowering reactor temperature, have been
shown to reduce SOx, emissions, but are simply reducing
the total coke burned and thus the sulfur burned. These
adjustments result in lower conversion and increased
slurry production. High amounts of iron on equilibrium
catalyst can substantially raise SOx, emissions and lower
H2S make.
We have seen data which showed SOx could be reduced by
increasing stripping steam. Highly efficient strippers of
recent design may not show the same effect. It is postulated
that the steam reacts with the sulfur in coke to form H2S. In
some cases this H2S is carried into the regenerator where it
oxidizes back SO2 or in the case of partial combustion H2S
may exit the regenerator as H2S.
The amount of sulfur going to SOx is usually in the 5-10%
range and reductions in emissions capable by adjusting
operating variables will have very little effect on the
measurable sulfur in the other products.
Typical NOx emissions from FCC regenerators vary from
as low as O-10 ppm for low temperature partial burn oper-
ations to as high as 1000-1500 ppm for regenerators oper-
ating with high excess oxygen and promoter. The nitrogen
in the feed may have some effect on NOx emissions but
operating factors have such a tremendous effect on NOx
that it will usually completely mask any effects by feed
nitrogen. There is a significant amount of information
about NOx, emissions in past NPRA Q&A transcripts. This
information speaks of the tremendous effect of excess oxy-
gen and promoter on NOx emissions. It is also well known
that the emissions from the CO boiler will be significantly
higher than emissions from the regenerator of a partial
burn FCCU. There is also the mention of reactor tempera-
ture, catalyst-to-oil, and stripper efficiency on NOx emis-
sions but again these effects will seem small compared to
the effect of promoter and excess oxygen.
CO emissions have been very well understood for many
years and are related to the presence of oxidation pro-
motion components, excess oxygen, regenerator tempera-
ture, and distribution of the catalyst and air within the
regenerator. One thing to mention is that in partial com-
bustion the presence of iron, Ce, and other non-platinum
oxidizers can have a significant promotion effect par-
ticularly at low temperatures.
T. WILLIAMS:
We agree with the comments of Mr. James Williams. As
far as the distribution of the sulfur in the liquid products, a
sulfur balance around the unit will show that the reduction
does not affect the liquid products to any significant degree.
The most important factor in controlling NOx and CO is,
of course, the excess oxygen. We have an optimum range of
0.5 to 1% in the flue gas. This needs to be monitored closely,
and is the primary control. All the other factors would be
additive on top of the reductions from excess oxygen. As
72
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
previously mentioned, we have also used the low SOx,
additives.
SLOAN:
As combustion products, SO x , NO x , and CO are de-
pendent on the levels of sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon on the
spent catalyst and on the operating conditions in the
regenerator, primarily temperature and oxygen partial
pressure. Under complete CO combustion conditions, with
excess oxygen and high regenerator temperatures (above
1300 °F), CO levels are extremely low. In incomplete com-
bustion, CO level is governed by temperature, oxygen par-
tial pressure, and the presence of CO oxidation promoters.
Several kinetic models are available to predict CO con-
centration as a function of these parameters.
SOx emissions are reduced by increased oxygen partial
pressure in the regenerator. They are less sensitive to
temperature, except in the presence of SOx additive. Since
the additives pick up SO3, conditions which increase the
SO3/SO2 ratio will reduce SOx emissions in the presence of
SOx additive. These include reduced temperature and
higher oxygen partial pressure. SOx additives are also
more active and stable at reduced regenerator temperatures.
On the reactor side it is possible to reduce the amount of
sulfur deposited in the coke by reducing conversion. How-
ever, within typical commercial constraints, SOx emissions
cannot be significantly reduced in this manner. Feedstock
quality, of course, has the most significant impact on SOx,
emissions. Depending on the source and processing history
of the feed, 1% to 50% of the feed sulfur may end up in the
coke.
When SOx, emissions are controlled by using additives or
by manipulating regenerator process variables, the sulfur
contents of the liquid products are unaffected. In this situ-
ation, SOx, emissions in the regenerator are traded for H2S
in the product gas. When SOx, emissions are controlled by
reducing conversion, the amount of sulfur in the liquid
products is expected to increase slightly.
NOx emissions are very sensitive to temperature and
oxygen partial pressure, particularly in the presence of CO
combustion promoters, such as platinum-based additives.
NOx, formation is favored by high temperature and high
oxygen partial pressure.
O’BRIEN:
NOx, emissions have been related to the use of platinum
promoter. The elimination of afterburn, and thus the use of
platinum promoter by balancing the air and spent catalyst
distribution in the regenerator bed should directionally
lower NOx, emissions. Also feeding the spent catalyst to
areas of solids upflow near the surface of the regenerator
bed should reduce NOx,.
ROBERT L. FLANDERS (Chevron Retired):
I know of one refiner who has an illegal NOx level,
because the regenerator is not at equilibrium, or rarely is at
equilibrium. So he routes the gas to a CO boiler, where
equilibrium is reestablished. His NOx, has dropped to about
10 ppm.
WILLIAM A. KELLY (Grace Davison):
A process variable not mentioned is slurry recycle, which
has the highest aromatic sulfur content of any stream in
the FCC unit, and can greatly affect SOx, emissions.
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
DELBERT F. TOLEN (Rocky Mountain Salvage &
Equipment Company):
A lot of the NO, is formed in the regenerator on catalyst
particles that have very high surface temperatures. So
improvements in the stripper design will frequently lower
the NO, emissions.
QUESTION 30:
How can “fouling” of hot gas expander on flue gas
power recovery units be prevented?
ROY:
If fouling of the expander unit refers to fouling with
catalyst fines, the best way to prevent this is to use high-
efficiency cyclones, insure that the temperature-pressure
envelope of the cyclones is not exceeded during operation;
and install a well-designed third stage separator before the
expander. This installation should also be instrumented to
bypass the expander if a catalyst release from the re-
generator occurs.
SLOAN:
Fouling of FCC expanders can be avoided by removing all
the catalyst from the gas stream, an event that we do not
think is likely to occur very soon. So we try to eliminate the
catalyst, as much as practical, using third-stage separators.
Investigations are underway to prove ceramic candle filters
and other high temperature separation technology for po-
tential use in this service. However, none has been com-
mercialized as yet, to my knowledge.
Elliott has designed a system that detects catalyst dumps
and opens a partial bypass line that preferentially allows
hot catalyst to be diverted away from the expander.
One major utility is installing a demonstration unit to
permit testing of particulate control devices similar to work
previously done with the candle filters. Granular bed filters
are also being investigated.
PAULES:
We have experienced flue gas expander fouling problems
on our unit since the start-up in 1974. As stated earlier,
thermal cycling was formerly used to remove catalyst fines
from the expander blades, but was discontinued. We cur-
rently use walnut hull injection upstream of the expander
on a periodic basis, as dictated by photographic obser-
vations of buildup and unit vibrations.
O’BRIEN:
We agree that you need to keep the catalyst out of the
expander or live with thermal quenches. One interesting
note is that we were operating a unit with severe afterburn,
and we did not have appreciable fouling of the flue gas
expander. Once the afterburn was controlled, the expander
began to foul. We believe the reason for this may be that
each time we added CO promoter we were essentially
performing rapid quenches and unknowingly keeping the
expander clean.
QUESTION 31:
What type/brand of on stream analyzer do other
refineries use in monitoring oxygen, CO and CO2 in
73
their regenerator flue gas? How reliable are they and
what is the frequency of calibration or maintenance
checks/repairs?
LAABS:
We have used the Foxboro 931C analyzer and an Applied
Automation gas chromatograph, and both have proven to be
very reliable. The Foxboro analyzer has a self-cleaning
filter with an eductor. We believe that this addition is
responsible for the current reliability. Both units are ser-
viced on a monthly basis.
OSBORN:
We have a Lear Seigler EX-4700A “Energy Expert” gas
analyzer to monitor the CO, CO 2 , and moisture in the
regenerator flue gas. Control and diagnostic functions are
accomplished via a UNICON 700 Universal Control unit. It
has been very reliable. We typically recalibrate prior to test
runs and rarely otherwise. However, accuracy has not been
of great concern, due to the high excess 02 levels we typi-
cally run (2.5-3.0 %).
PAUBLES:
We also use a Lear Siegler stack gas analyzer on the flue
gas, which monitors CO and CO2. We do not experience any
significant maintenance problems. However, the instru-
ment is complicated enough that we use the manufacturer’s
technicians for routine maintenance, rather than train
in-house personnel. This routine maintenance is required
two to three times a year.
PEDERSEN:
At Mongstad we have installed a combined CO/CO 2
analyzer, a Siemeus Ultramat 22 P. Typical concentrations
of CO and CO2 are 5% and 15% respectively. The analyzer
itself is reliable and stable. It requires little maintenance
besides a monthly calibration. Our problem seems to be the
sample loop, which frequently plugs with catalyst fines.
ROY:
We analyze our FCC flue gas at our CO boiler stack. We
have three analyzers in this service, a Lear-Seigler
SM-8100A for SO, and NO,, a Lear-Seigler EX-4700A for
CO, CO2, and H2S, and a Lear-Seigler Dynatrum 401 for
oxygen. These are reliable by our standards, but do require
TOC/INDEX

HEAVY OIL PROCESSING

routine maintenance every two weeks, and it is done by our
in-house personnel.
J. WILLIAMS:
Westinghouse Model 1500 has good reviews for oxygen
and SO2, and gets very good reviews for reliability. Beck-
man Model 865 is common for CO and CO2. Opacity was not
mentioned here, but Westinghouse has very good reviews
for reliability in that situation as well.
T. WILLIAMS:
For oxygen analysis we use Yokogama analyzers. We
have had very little maintenance required on these units.
QUESTION 32:
How is fouling in FCC debutanizer reboilers (both
tower side and tube side) being controlled with the
advent of low RVP gasoline requirements?
MURPHY:
The first step was to determine the source of the reboiler
foulant. If it is corrosion byproducts, get to the root cause of
the byproduct formation with an effective corrosion control
program. A study of polymer formation can also be used to
find out whether a radical terminator or an ion or polymer
dispersant is needed to control excessive fouling on the
gasoline side.
For the hot oil side, again look at the root cause of the
problem, such as insufficient flow velocity, and address
that. If these process changes do not solve the problem,
chemical additives have been used successfully to address
problems found to be caused by the composition of the feed
stream. Economics dictate the appropriate response.
BONELLI:
We have recently replaced the fired reboiler oil heater
system with a slurry oil heat-integrated design and new
debutanizer. We have been monitoring the traditional
slurry side variables that we have talked about before,
including not exceeding the 680 ºF pool temperature and
the gravity of the slurry oil being limited to no heavier than
a -6” API.
I agree with the previous comments about the gasoline
side of the reboiler.
cycle oil pumparound, which provides reboiler heat for the
stripper tower. The chemical injection is primarily to pre-
vent fouling in the stripper reboiler, but part of the stream
returns to the fractionator just above the bottom section
shed decks, resulting in the chemical also treating the
slurry stream.
The debutanizer has two parallel reboilers, each of which
can be removed from service and cleaned as necessary
without a unit shutdown. The gasoline or shell sides of our
debutanizer reboilers do not normally experience fouling.
KEVIN R. PROOPS (Conoco Inc.):
A couple of additional comments on gasoline side fouling.
Certainly corrosion upstream can contribute. We have had
some problems in units with free water getting to the
debutanizer which is coming over from the stripper. I would
suggest looking for entrained water in the stripper feed in
that case, and possibly preheating the stripper feed.
Also, as you go to low RVP gasoline, you increase the
boilup in the debutanizer and may have problems with
hydraulics if you have a thermosiphon reboiler. It may be
appropriate to increase the circulation by reducing the
pressure drop in that loop.
Finally, in one revamp we have gone to a once-through
operation on the gasoline side, which involves adding a
trapout tray to the tower. This reduces both the residence
time and gasoline temperature.
B. Residual Oil Upgrading-
Delayed Coking
QUESTION 33:
Does anyone have experience in using remote
operated block valves in delayed coking units, with
the purpose of reducing the time spent in the coke
drum switch?
RAJGURU:
We have used remote operated, motor operated valves as
well as air operated valves, in our delayed coker designs.
However, the purpose is not so much for reducing cycle

PAULES:
At one of our refineries we have experienced fouling on
the gasoline side of the debutanizer reboiler. Several years
ago we discontinued injecting a corrosion inhibitor in the
tower reflux and began putting it in the tower overhead
vapor line prior to the condensers. Since doing this we have
seen the run length on the reboiler go from 6 months to 1%
years.

ROY:
Debutanizer reboiler fouling occurs on the tube side
(slurry) of our Pasadena unit. The fouling is primarily from
catalyst carryover from the fractionator, and not from cok-
ing. Maintaining a maximum of 670 ºF on the slurry leav-
ing the fractionator minimizes coking. We inject a chemical
dispersanffantifoulant into the fractionator intermediate

74
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
time, since valve movement takes only a few minutes, but
for improved operator safety.
SLOAN:
The Wilson-Snyder multi outlet switch valve commonly
used for this service is not designed for a motorized ac-
tuator. The problem of automating this valve is related to
the fact that in order to open the valve, a set of nuts, which
pressurize the valve plug must be loosened, then another
set must be tightened to loosen the plug valve in the body.
After changing the valve position, these operations are
repeated in the opposite sequence.
We do not see any technical problem with automating
this operation. However, high reliability and safety must
continue to be the main driving force in this operation.
BONELLI:
I agree with Mr. Rajguru, that operator safety concerns
preclude reducing cycle times. The valves we use in this
service are Pacific ball valves. However, they are still prone
to sticking and not seating completely during the switch so
an operator is always present to make sure the valves
switch and seat completely.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA Corporation):
We are aware of one client using remote operated block
valves for the switch and steam purge valves in the coke
structure. However, it is more common to have locally
motor operated valves in these services. An operator in the
structure is important during the switch to confirm that
the valves are being turned. Switch valves can also be
motor operated. Ball type switch valves are commonly
supplied with motor operators, and the Wilson Snyder
Valve can be purchased with hydraulic operators and a
motor drive.
QUESTION 34:
What are the experiences with packing and spray
nozzles in the coker fractionator? Please discuss risks
and pressure drop comparisons.
SLOAN:
Packing has been succssfully used in coker frac-
tionators above the HGO pumparound section. Because of
the concern with coking, packing is not recommended
below the HGO draw off. We are aware of some units where
packing has been used in the HGO pumparound section,
but results have been mixed. In most instances, packing
was installed as part of a revamp to obtain additional tower
capacity to increase the unit throughput.
In general, packing has several benefits over trays, such
as lower pressure drop, higher capacity, and higher heat
transfer efficiency. At the same time, packed tower design
must take into account unique coker operating conditions,
such as the presence of coke particles in product streams
and the units cyclical nature.
We have recently looked at the use of packing in a
grassroot coker fractionator for low pressure coker designs.
Our results indicate that there is only a marginal economic
incentive for the use of packing in a coker fractionator in
this situation. The incremental gas oil yield obtained when
operating coke drums at about 1 to 1.5 psi lower pressure
75
drop does not appear to justify the net incremental capital
cost associated with packing over trays.
BONELLI:
We agree with Mr. Sloan. We have no experience with
packing in our coker fractionators. We would not use it
below the gas oil draw tray due to the risk of heavy fouling
below this tray. We already see fouling in the towers from
time to time with the trays that we have.
We do use spray nozzles in the fractionators, however.
They are located above the fractionator baffles below the
gas oil draw tray. Their primary function is to wash out
particulate material from the coke drum vapors and also to
act as a coke drum quench. These particular spray nozzle
installations were able to use either distillate or gas oil as
the wash medium. And like most other things in cokers, we
found out that you need to keep a continuous flow through
them.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA Corp.):
Our “ultra-low recycle operation” design employs a wash
zone spray chamber to contact coke drum overhead vapors
with wash oil. This is part of our strategy for designing
maximum liquids cokers characterized by low recycle
ratios and low pressures. At low wash rates associated with
these low recycle cokers, trays are typically not suitable
because they would tend to coke due to insufficient wetting.
Even in clean conditions, the pressure drop for trays in this
zone, would be too high.
Therefore, we believe a spray chamber is the proven best
choice. With proper design of the wide angle spray nozzles,
the refiner can more accurately control the amount of wash
oil required to contact the vapors and consequently, the
amount of recycle back to the coker heater. To maximize
distillate products by going to low pressure, low recycle
operations, we have performed revamps to coker frac-
tionators removing the wash zone trays and installing
spray chamber designs. We use packing in coker frac-
tionators predominately in revamped designs when the
refiner wants to increase the capacity of the delayed coker
or significantly change crude feed/operations. Typically,
structured packing replaces existing sieve or valve trays,
enabling the fractionator to handle increased load. We do
have reservations concerning use of packing in the wash
zone of coker fractionators designed for maximum liquid
yields, because of the increased tendency to coke that
section.
QUESTION 35:
What is the typical run length between outages for
furnace decoking? How do you judge the need to
spall versus a full decoking?
BONELLI:
We typically run for 9 to 12 months between furnace
decokings on both of our cokers. We use furnace tube skin
temperatures and coil P in conjunction with visual in-
spection of the tubes to determine when we need to decoke
the furnace. Both of our existing coker furnaces are of the
plug-header design, so we mechanically clean these fur-
naces by hydroblasting and running an air-motor driven
knocker through the tubes.
TOC/INDEX
We are in the process of building a double fired, two pass,
coker heater which will have the capability to on-line spall
and also to steam and air decoke one pass at a time while
running the other. We believe that the information that
people gain from operating their vacuum unit furnaces
gives you a good indication of when you just need to spall
and when you need to do a full decoking.
BRIERLEY:
While we do not have coker heaters, our bitumen fur-
naces are in similar service. We no longer thermally decoke
our furnaces. We use pig decoking to clean the tubes. Pig
decoking has replaced steam air decoking because it has
lower costs and much lower risk of damaging the tubes. You
can clean to bare metal and the time to complete the tube
cleaning is shorter and allows other maintenance activities
in parallel on other furnace components.
LAABS:
One of our sites spalled on-line once, 9% months into the
run. They were very pleased with the results and if sub-
sequent instances also go well, they plan to stop decoking
between shutdowns. They spall when the heater skin tem-
peratures exceed 1,200 ºF
An affiliated site decokes their furnace on a yearly
schedule. The current run has extended to fourteen months
and they will decoke after another month of operation.
They do not spall their heaters, they do not feel the gain in
the heater life is worth the temporary cut-back in the
delayed coker charge.
Another refinery has an average run length of 14
months. They spall the heater on-line when the skin tem-
perature reaches 1,250 °F, and steam air decoke the tubes if
the skin temperature reaches 1,350 °F.
A third affiliated refinery decokes during maintenance
shutdowns on a 3 year schedule.
MURPHY:
Our experience has shown that run lengths vary between
3 and 12 months with some exception seen at both ex-
tremes. One thing, to bear in mind though, contaminates in
the feed such as caustic can cause a significant reduction in
run length.
OSBORN:
Unless we have numerous upsets, we are usually able to
run 12 to 18 months without any problems. Steam spalling
has not been successful in extending our run, so we rarely
do it. Certainly, visual inspection and pressure drop across
the heater are primary monitoring devices. Charge quality
certainly impacts the coking rates of heaters.
PEDERSEN:
Our typical run length is 7 to 8 months, limited by
maximum skin temperature of 1,200 °F. We always do a full
steam/air decoke and have never spalled. The reason is that
we have 5 chrome material in our furnace, where, at least a
9 chrome coil is required for spalling.
ROY:
At our Pasadena unit we are achieving run lengths of 9 to
13 months between steam air decoking processes and 4 to 6
76
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
months between steam spalling episodes. We used to use
450 psig steam injection to our primary heater, even at full
charge rate. However, we determined that it is better to run
without it at full charge rate. Since we took it out, our rate
of rise in tube skin temperatures have fallen and we now
get longer runs between spalling and decoking.
The most probable reason for higher skin temperatures
with steam injection at maximum feed rate is that we need
to input more heat above design to compensate for the
added steam flow through the heater. We continue to use
steam condensate injection to our auxiliary heater, since
we are normally below design charge rate on this one.
Generally when our tube skin temperatures reach
1,300 °F, we decide that it is time to steam air decoke, or
steam spall. The decision to spall versus decoke is based
upon skin temperatures, heater pressure drop, as well as
current economics, and the opportunities of scheduling
other refinery units.
At our Tyler refinery, the delayed coker has generally
been run limited by fractionator wash zone fouling or
plugging, and not heater coking. Run lengths of over one
year have been very common without significant heater
decoking. The unit will generally employ full decoking
unless there is a very short run, at which time spalling will
be used if minimum heater coking is expected.
SLOAN:
Conventional single fired delayed coker heaters charg-
ing virgin vacuum resid historically have exhibited run
lengths of about 9 to 12 months, or even longer, between
steam-air decoking. Today with delayed coker feedstocks
becoming heavier, run lengths are more difficult to main-
tain with a conventional heater. However, with a modern
double fired furnace utilizing on-line spalling, run lengths
of 12 months or longer are possible even for these heavier
feedstocks. In fact, some people have reported runs of up to
3 years.
On-line spalling is less than 100% effective and a per-
centage of the pressure drop caused by coke laydown cannot
be recovered. Thus, the time between spallings tends to
decrease over the heater run. Steam-air decoking becomes
necessary when the frequency of spalling becomes imprac-
tical or when on-line spalling fails to reduce the tube wall
temperature enough. This will vary from unit to unit.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA Corp.):
We define heater run length as the time between steam-
air decoking operations. Typical heater run lengths are 6 to
12 months without the use of on-line spalling. The run
length of a coker heater is effected by feedstock quality,
continuous operating conditions, and frequency and han-
dling of upsets.
Our clients have reported an increase in coker heater run
lengths due to the use of our on-line spalling technology.
Some of the clients have used on-line spalling techniques to
continue operation of the unit until the unit is shutdown for
routine maintenance. Usually, once on-line spalling tech-
nology is added, the coker heater continues to be a key
determinant in setting unit run lengths and turnaround
schedules. Some of our clients have reported run lengths of
2 to 3 years with periodic use of on-line spalling. Most
refiners spall the heater several times before steam-air
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
decoking operations. These refiners typically steam air
decoke the heaters, once the unit has been shutdown for
reasons other than the heater.
We recommend on-line spalling based on the following:
1) when hydrocarbon coil tube skin temperature reaches
1,250 °F,
2) if the hydrocarbon coil inlet pressure becomes ele-
vated by as much as 30 to 50 psi above normal, or
3) if the coil hot spots are noticed.
KRIK V. KRIKORIAN (KBC Advanced Technologies,
Inc.):
Yesterday, we discussed the design criteria for achieving
three year run lengths on vacuum unit furnaces when
operating at deep cuts at coil outlet temperatures as high as
815 °F Obviously, design technology is even more critical
on a coker furnace due to the heavier feedstock and the
more severe operating conditions which are sometimes in
excess of 915 °F at the coil outlets.
Just a point of practical experience, we have recently
revamped a coker furnace or a coker unit from atmospheric
to vacuum residue when processing heavy Venezuelan
crudes. Apart from some of the other furnace modifications,
and as part of the revamp, we removed about 20% of the
radiant tubes, to minimize both residence time and the
conversion levels taking place in the coils.
Currently, the monthly increase in furnace skin tem-
perature is about half the rate before the revamp, and cycle
lengths are expected to be doubled to over 12 months. Even
though the feed is significantly heavier and dirtier, and the
heat flux is, in fact, marginally higher than before the
revamp.
What type of feedstocks (atmospheric or vacuum resi-
dues) are being processed by the panelists and what are the
origins of the crude slates, and their stolting contents and
their feedstock?
BONELLI:
We coke vacuum residue in both of our cokers. The
refineries’ crude slate typically contains Illinois basin,
Patoka sweet, a little bit of light Louisiana, with the bal-
ance either North Sea or Middle Eastern crudes. Our crude
gravities are generally no lower than 34” API and metals
content of our crudes are reasonably low.
LAABS:
Star’s Port Arthur Refinery typically runs almost exclu-
sively Saudi heavy - Saudi light crude. The Delaware City
Refinery has a fluid coker, which is a slightly different
situation and it is running Venezuelan, Egyptian, and
Arabian Crudes. Some of the California cokers are using
the heavy Californian crudes.
OSBORN:
We coke vacuum residue from Montana Mix, Alaskan
North Slope, and Mid-Continent Crudes. Typically, 8” to 10
API, 18 to 20 Conradson carbon content, and a viscosity of
about 5,000 SUS at 210.
PEDERSEN:
We feed North Sea type of atmospheric residue to the
coker in combination with heavy cycle oil from the RCC-
unit.
77
ROY:
We run vacuum residue to our cokers and typical crudes
are quite varied. To give you an example, we run ANS,
Angolan, North-Sea and West Texas crudes at our Pasa-
dena refinery. We stay with mostly East Texas crudes for
our Tyler refinery.
SUDHIR MENON (Nalco Chemicals India Ltd.):
The problems of not having sodium in the feed cannot be
less emphasized. We had an experience with one of the
refiners who was having a 45 day run length on the coker
heaters and with the installation of the desalter they went
to one year right away, all conditions remaining the same.
LUIS E. MARQUEZ (Maraven, S. A.)
I think that there is no typical run length for decoking.
As it was said before, it depends on feedstock quality,
basically the sodium content when it is over 20ppm, and the
coke drum operating conditions. The run length could vary
between three months and two years based on this. The
main objective for decoking is to reduce the skin wall
temperature back to 950 °F, either by using on-line spalling
or by steam-air decoking. There is sometimes when on-line
spalling is no longer practical and effective so steam-air
decoking will be necessary.
HIEU TRAN (Suncor, Inc. OSG):
I just want to make a comment about the pigging process.
In 1992 we tried pigging to remove coke deposits and
fouling in one of our coker heaters. Pigging could not
completely remove the hard fouling inside the tubes.
Longitudinal stripes of fouling were left on the tubes’ inner
surfaces. When the heater was returned to service, the
rates of rise of tube metal temperatures (TMT or tube skin
temperatures) in the radiant section were doubled and in
effect the run length was halved. Convection tubes’ TMT
did not show any change in rate of rise. As a result, we have
discontinued pigging in the radiant sections. Only the
convection sections are annually pigged to clean up fouling
and coke deposit.
BONELLI:
One of the things that might have happened, depending
on your feedstock quality, is that the material laid down on
the furnace tube walls can be an amorphous iron sulfide.
That material is much more difficult to remove than coke
and it also has a much lower thermal conductivity.
QUESTION 36:
What is your experience with the use of additives
for the control of furnace fouling in delayed cokers?
Does anyone have clear evidence of their effec-
tiveness? Has any additive been found to be par-
ticularly good?
MURPHY:
Chemical additives have been used successfully for more
than 10 years in various plants across the country. How-
ever, adding a chemical additive is only a part of the delayed
coker-heater coking control program. An approach which
addresses nonchemical modifications, is used in those
plants with successful programs.
TOC/INDEX
Important key variables are identified and controls are
established for both unit operation and chemical additive
addition. We have found feedstock composition plays an
important role in the coking rates in the furnace. Adjust-
ments are needed to compensate for the type of coke pro-
duced and the type of feed introduced to the unit. As these
feeds change, so must the operation and perhaps the chemi-
cal additive program.
Based on feedstock characteristics and unit operating
conditions, one or more separate additional anticoking
components may be used as part of the program to com-
pensate for more severe coking tendencies.
BONELLI:
Antifoulants effectiveness, we have found to be quite feed
property dependent. We have been evaluating coker anti-
foulants off and on since 1968. We have not yet found one
that is economically attractive.
We are currently evaluating antifoulants from a number
of different vendors for our coker furnaces. We have com-
pleted one trial, again, not a successful trial, in terms of its
economic impact. One of the things that we have found in
antifoulant testing is reflective ofwhat you have just heard,
and that is that you have to also recognize feed property
changes and the operating changes may push you into
another coking regime.
LAABS:
Tube coking in the delayed coking unit of an affiliated
site has been reduced through the use of Champion Tech-
nologies RP-301 antifoulant in conjunction with velocity
steam.
Antifoulant from Betz was used during the beginning
and the end of the recent furnace run at another affiliated
refinery. This particular run had a clearly improved fur-
nace life, but the local engineers are not sure whether the
success was due to the chemical injection or to the variable
nature of coking.
ROY:
We are currently using Nalco 5270 antifoulant at our
Pasadena coker unit, and have been using it for quite a few
years. We noticed that when skin tube temperatures begin
to rapidly rise, for what ever reason, we seem to be able to,
at times, control or arrest this rate of rise by temporarily
increasing the antifoulant injection until the rate of in-
crease of skin tube temperature slows down.
Recently, however, we had a unit upset which caused a
rapid rise in tube skin temperature which we were not able
to retard by increase antifoulant injection and eventually
had to steam spall the heater, Interestingly, it seems that
increased antifoulant works better if the tubes are rela-
tively clean, and works less effectively as coke lay down
builds up.
Anti-foulant seems to be more of a preventive measure
than one that would help you once you have progressed to a
bad situation. We have reduced our rate of tube skin tem-
perature rise from 3º to 4°F/day, using no antifoulants, to
about 0.5” to 1°/day using Nalco 5270.
SLOAN:
Our survey of several of our licensees indicates a wide
range of experience with these additives. At least one
78
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
operator reported good success with the additives and felt
that the cost was far out weighed by the benefits. Other
reports ranged from, “no effect”, to “there was a benefit but
our operation is so variable due to feed and operating
changes that the benefit just paid for cost of additive, if
there was any help at all”.
QUESTION 37:
What has been the experience in coking units
when drilling directly to crushers or conveyors?
ROY:
At our Tyler refinery we drill directly into a crusher car
that discharges through the bottom into a coke pit. Con-
veyors in the coke pit move the coke directly into rail cars.
After initial modifications, this system has performed quite
well for over thirteen years.
SLOAN:
Drilling of coke from the drum directly to a crusher is
commonly used for hydraulic coke handling. In fact, this is
the preferred way to discharge coke from a coke drum with
particle sizes suitable for hydraulic coke handling.
However, for other coke handling schemes, a fixed
crusher located remotely from the coke drum is a preferred
solution. This makes the crusher installation less costly,
more reliable, and easier to maintain. The scheme also
tends to produce less fines.
Discharging coke from the drum directly to a conveyor is
not recommended. The only type of conveyor which can
accept the impact of the large coke lumps and wet condition
of operation is an “apron conveyor” which is made of metal
plates. Operation of this type of conveyor requires high
maintenance. Kellogg has an installation with an apron
conveyor below a crusher, but not directly below a coke
drum.
RAJGURU:
Fluor Daniel has designed cokers to crush the coke as it
falls from the drum and then use a water slurry system to
transfer the coke to storage area. Experience shows that a
deliberate, measured pace is required for coke cutting
operation. Rushing the operator will allow the large
chunks to fall into the crusher and jam the operation.
Experienced operators can watch the amperage on the
crusher and the movement of the drill stem to stay out of
trouble. We do not have any experience when coke is dis-
charged directly to the conveyors.
THOMAS L. HRABAN (Conoco, Inc.):
Conoco has one coker and two client coker units that drill
directly into the crushers. All three units work very well in
meeting the needs of the individual refineries. From the
crusher, the coke is either hydraulically conveyed or loaded
directly into a rail car. Conoco has been able to operate with
a 93% stream factor on the coker on 12 hour cycles.
QUESTIONS 38:
The metallurgy of our coker heater tubes is
9Cr-1 M O. for which the maximum skin temperature
allowed is 1250 °F. Currently, the heater outlet tem-
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
perature is 935 ºF. If we alonize our heaters tubes,
what advantages are expected compared to the pres-
ent service? What is the maximum skin temperature
allowed with this tube material?
BRIERLEY:
Alonized tubes would provide increased resistance to
high temperature sulfur and naphthenic acid attack. How-
ever, if there are any chlorides or chlorine in the process
stream, the diffused aluminum layer will be attacked. One
vendor has suggested to me that alonized steels are accept-
able if chlorides are present at levels less than about 300
ppm, and if sulfur is present, less than 1000 ppm is accept-
able. Calculation of maximum skin temperature requires a
detailed mechanical analysis, we cannot do here.
RAJGURU:
Alonizing 9 chrome 1 molybdenum tubes usually only
helps in corrosion resistance for a few years. Ultimately,
the aluminum in the alonizing layer will tend to diffuse into
the tubes at high temperature and thus depleting the
original alonizing layer. Alonizing will not increase the
maximum permissible skin temperature. In coker heaters,
alonizing is said to have cut down on coke deposits in the
tubes.
QUESTIONS 39:
Is there any experience in injecting water to in-
crease velocity and reduce coke formation in furnace
tubes?
ROY:
In our auxiliary coker heater at Pasadena, we use steam
condensate instead of steam injection in order to increase
velocity through the heater. This we do along with anti-
foulant injection. We do not notice any difference in tube
skin temperature rise using condensate as opposed to using
steam, when below heater maximum throughput rates.
Nalco claims that at maximum heater flow rate, an
annular mist flow regime is created which is not effective
for reduction of fouling in a coker heater. However, we put
the condensate into the heater with a positive displacement
pump which causes flow pulsation and consequent tem-
perature fluctuations.
We are considering switching to steam or a centrifugal
pump to smoothen the flow. The tube skin rises with con-
densate are similar to those with steam, about 0.5” to
lo/day, as well as similar rate of increase of pressure drop
across the heater.
At our Tyler refinery we routinely inject high pressure
deaerated condensate into the charge heater. The amount
of water is varied to control the pressure drop across the
heater between 280 to 300 psi.
SLOAN:
Steam or water is commonly injected into the radiant
coils of coker furnaces to improve coil velocities. Typical
injection rates vary between 250 and 750 pounds per hour
per coil. Steam injection normally offers the simplest de-
sign, but water can be used if the steam is not available at
high enough pressure. If water is used, it must be free of
contaminates that will deposit inside the furnace tubes.
79
Either steam compensate or treated boiler feed water can
be used.
BONELLI:
We inject superheated 600 lb steam into the radiant coils
for velocity control on both of our cokers.
JUNO:
I have seen water injection utilized to increase velocity
and reduce coke formation in the furnace tubes of delayed
coking furnaces. An overall approach is needed to model
the furnace and minimize the residence time at cracking
temperatures in order to reduce coke formation. Mechan-
ical changes to the tube size in the furnace may have a much
more profound effect than the use of velocity, water, or
steam.
This is an area where one cannot generalize on the effect
of steam without an accurate idea of the tube by tube
velocities, and reaction kinetics in the furnace. I might also
add that one advantage of putting either water or steam
into the furnace is that if you have a situation where your
charge pumps quit operating, you do have steam to sweep
through your furnace and keep the oil moving and not have
a stagnant fluid condition.
LAABS:
Two of our refineries are currently using water injection
in individual heater passes. One of the sites is injecting
boiler feed water into the tubes, at a maximum rate of 1.5
gallons/minute. They use an automatic control system cas-
caded to the internal pressure of each individual pass to
manage the amount of water that is injected.
An affiliate site uses condensate for this service and they
typically run 2 to 3 gallons/minute through each heater
tube.
Another site changed from using water to steam for the
service. They inject 600 psig steam into each individual
pass of the heater. Each injection point is on flow control so
that a target pass inlet pressure is maintained.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA Corp.):
We have seen coker heater injection with either con-
densate or steam. Steam is preferred for injection into the
coils, but the pressure levels required to gain entrance are
generally too high, necessitating the use of condensate. We
agree that it is important to keep the tube velocity suf-
ficiently high to maintain turbulence in the tubes to reduce
coke deposition, and increased run time. We also warn
clients not to use untreated boiler feed water because it
would tend to foul.
PAUL J. ELLIS (Great Lakes Carbon Corporation):
One of the problems with condensation (water) injection
directly into the tubes of the coker furnace is that the water
can be injected in slugs intermittently if gas pockets are
formed in the piping. The pressure in the coker tube fur-
nace throbs (goes up and down) so the pressure can hold
back the water flow compressing the air in the pocket.
Then, when the pressure decreases in the tube, a slug of
water will be injected. The water will flash to steam, and
the resultant bubble of steam will displace the oil. The
steam having a lower specific heat will allow the tube wall
to suddenly increase in temperature and then when the oil
TOC/INDEX
again touches the wall a thin film of carbon will be laid
down, eventually causing the furnace tube to foul.
QUESTION 40:
What improvements have been made to reduce
top head vapors during the unheading cycle?
OSBORN:
We have four thermocouples staged throughout our
drums. Our standard policy is to not unhead unless all four
are reading below 200 °F. However, there is still some
steam. The 200ºF temperature is achieved by a second fill
of the drum during the cool down cycle with the water
overflowing to the coke pit.
BONELLI:
At our cokers we have tried a number of things and never
found an effective one until we recently modified the coke
drum top head flange nozzle itself, to increase the distance
between the top head flange and the coke bed. In the nozzle
below the top head flange we have installed a quench water
ring which has a two inch line that allows us to put quench
water directly into the nozzle when we first unhead the
drum. We can also put steam into that ring in case we have
a bad quench cycle and need to control some vapors out of
the top head of the drum.
This has proven to be effective in quenching the residual
steam that used to flood the drill deck when we unheaded
the coke drums.
QUESTION 41:
What improvements have been made to the
quench procedure to reduce drum thermal stresses
without increasing cycle time? Is there any experi-
ence with multiple quench water injection?
OSBORN:
We feel that it is important to maintain the chamber
pressure near normal operating pressure during the cool
down cycle. This is accomplished by adjusting the steam
and water injection rates. We have only one injection point.
I am aware of a technology called Acoustic Emissions
Monitoring. Basically it consists of installation of numer-
ous temperature indicators on the drum walls. It is pri-
marily used to evaluate mechanical integrity on-line, for
cracks or potential crack areas. However, it can also be used
during the cool down cycle to monitor cycle consistency, and
through calculations create a stress profile in the drum.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA Corp.):
In a new delayed coker design, the quench cycle is set to
minimize the coke drum thermal stress by controlled steam
and water injection. For a revamp or increased capacity
unit operating on a short cycle, Foster Wheeler has incor-
porated both quench water injection at the top of the coke
drum and has also provided alternate quench locations at
the drum knuckle. In this way, cooling around the conical
section of the drum can be controlled better, as this point in
the drum tends to have the highest thermal stress. Foster
Wheeler has also patented an advanced control concept
80
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
that utilizes feedback from drum quench operations into a
programmed controller to keep drum stresses due to
quenching within limits. The system is designed to recog-
nize the non-ideality of coke drum quench operations.
STANLEY CARP (The UNO-VEN Company):
Referring back to the acoustic emissions testing, we
recently completed some testing on a couple of our drums
and it did provide some valuable information in regards to
the cooling and heat up cycles of the drums.
THOMAS L. HRABAN (Conoco, Inc.):
Conoco commonly uses two methods to optimize the
quench cycle versus the metal stresses of the coke drum.
One method is to use the unit computer control system to
ramp the quench water rate over the quench cycle. The
second method is to adjust the quench water rate based on
the coke drum pressure. Conoco has studied the drum
stresses and identified the operating guidelines to mini-
mize the metal stresses.
QUESTION 42:
What feedstock analyses are used to predict de-
layed coke quality such as; bulk density, volatile
combustible material (VCM) and fines production?
What processing changes can be made to improve
coke quality?
ROY:
We have observed VCM to be the only parameter in the
question that is affected by feedstock property, namely API
gravity. The higher the feedstock API gravity, the higher
the VCM for a constant coke drum vapor line temperature.
Decrease of 1 wt% VCM requires an increase of 7 ºF to 9 °F
coke drum vapor line temperature. Decreasing cycle time
by 6 hours, increases coke VCM by 1 wt%.
Bulk density of the coke is a function of the amount of
steam in the heater. The higher the steam, the greater the
bulk density. Fines production is a function of the amount
of water used for drilling. If the drill nozzles are worn out
causing less back pressure on the pump, and hence more
water to flow for a fixed drilling cycle time, more fines will
be produced.
For other processing changes that can be made to im-
prove coke quality, please look up Mr. Norm Lieberman’s
article in Oil and Gas Journal, dated March 10, 1986, pg.
53.
Rules of Thumb for Delayed Cokers
1. Each 8 psi reduction in coke drum pressure reduces coke
yield on feed by 1.0 wt%. (The term feed refers to fresh
resid).
2. Each 8 psi reduction in coke drum pressure increases
liquid yields by 1.3 vol% on feed.
3. Each 10 ºF increase in coke drum vapor line tempera-
ture increases gas and distillate by 1.1 vol% on feed.
4. Each 10 ºF increase in coke drum vapor line tempera-
ture decreases coke yield by 0.8 wt% on feed.
5. Each decrease of 1.0 wt% VCM requires an increase of 7
to 9 °F coke drum vapor line temperature.
6. Reducing recycle by 10% on feed reduces coke yields by
1.2 wt% on feed.
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
7. Reducing the virgin gas oil content of coker feed by 10%
reduces coke yield by 1.5 wt% on feed.
8. Reducing coke yield by 1.0 wt% on feed raises liquid
yields by 1.5 vol% on feed.
9. Decreasing cycle time by 6 hours increases coke VCM by
1.0 wt%.
One item that is not mentioned in the article is iron in
coke. Reducing the crude atmospheric tower overhead cor-
rosion rate and reducing iron coming into the crude by
proper desalter operation can significantly decrease iron in
the product coke.
PEDERSEN:
We produce anodegrade coke with relatively low sulfur
and low reactivity specifications. We are concerned about
the density, viscosity, Conradson carbon residue, sulfur,
sodium, calcium and vanadium in the feedstocks.
Feedstock density, viscosity and Conradson carbon are
relevant to predict product yields. Sulfur, sodium, calcium,
and vanadium are of concern to keep sulfur and reactivities
within coke specifications. Increasing the aromaticity in
the feed will directionally decrease the bulk density of the
coke.
Soft coke and fines production are usually associated
with high VCM coke. We like to keep our coke VCM
between 7 and 9 wt%.
Results from pilot plant tests show that coke VCM de-
pends upon the following coking conditions:
(1) Drum vapor outlet temperature
(2) drum operating pressure and recycle ratio.
Decreasing the drum outlet temperature, or the recycle
ratio, increases the coke VCM. Lowering the drum oper-
ating pressure has a small effect towards production of
harder coke.
Drum cycle time is also known to have a significant effect
on coke VCM. It is generally accepted that reducing the
cycle time by 4 hours will raise the coke VCM by approxi-
mately 1%.
BONELLI:
The principal analysis we use for coke quality prediction
is the Conradson carbon residue test on vacuum residual
charge to the cokers. We have worked with one of our coke
81
customers to produce some proprietary testing methods.
There are other indicators of coke quality rather than just
Conradson carbon. I encourage you to go search for them,
you will find them.
I have one addition to the previous comments regarding
iron and coke. We made a concerted effort in both of our
cokers to reduced the iron content of our coke. We dis-
covered that operating the desalter in a mode to remove the
tramp iron solids that had come in with our crude oil was
effective in improving coke quality. However, the solids
overwhelmed our API separators and wastewater treat-
ment plant. So we have not been successful at reducing our
iron,
I also agree with Mr. Roy’s comments on the literature in
coking providing some insight in how to improve your coke
quality. One other thing, we have found fines production to
be a maintenance problem at our facility. It is related to the
output water pressure, the decoking water pump, and the
condition of the nozzles in the cutting tool. If those are
rigorously maintained, it is not generally a problem for us.
OSBORN:
Basically, I would echo what most everybody said. Cer-
tainly, poor condition of the cutting nozzles will sometimes
increase fines as will poor cutting technique. You need to be
sure that the stem is continually moving downward and
hitting in an area at least 18” away from the previous spot.
Additionally, Great Lakes Carbon performs a test called
the coefficient of thermal expansion. They can laboratory
pot coke crudes or coker charge, and do that determination
and give a good idea of what quality the coke will be for
many different crudes.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler Engineering)
Bulk density, volatile combustible material (VCM) and
fines production depend more on coke drum operating
conditions than feedstock quality. For a constant set of coke
drum operating conditions, the boiling range, asphaltene
content, and aromaticity of the feed can influence these
coke properties. However changes in coke drum operating
conditions can negate some of these effects.
In general, increasing the coking temperature will re-
duce the VCM, increase bulk density, coke hardness, and
reduce fines production.
QUESTION 43:
What has been the recent experience with ad-
vanced control systems on cokers to minimize oper-
ational upsets during drum switching and warm-up
phases of the coking cycle?
LAABS:
We have had success with this type of advanced control
on the delayed coking unit at an affiliated refinery. The
coker is a two drum unit, which is likely to have more severe
fractionator and recovery section upsets than a four drum
unit. They use fractionator top reflux flow rate as a mea-
sure of tower slump during the switch and warm-up pro-
cedures. The advanced control system installed on this unit
has been able to control the top reflux rate within 20% of
the desired optimum immediately following the drum
TOC/INDEX
switch, when the upset is at its most severe. The overhead
product quality control is maintained during this time.
We also have another site that is implementing multi-
variable control for this service. They are confident that the
installation will stabilize operation and improve unit
profitability. The project payback is estimated at 1 year.
BONELLI:
We also commissioned an advanced control on our de-
layed coker several years ago to do a hands off switch. Once
the operator initiated coke drum switch, he could sit and
watch the coker switch itself. One of the problems we had
was that coker operation is not the most stable in the
refinery and it was frequently difficult for the advanced
control to determine what was operating and what was a
coke drum switch, so that was a tuning problem for us.
We also used a number of different variables to have the
control initiate switch. What we found was that the control
was extremely maintenance-intensive in terms of re-
quiring control engineer’s time. We no longer use the con-
trol because we are not able to economically justify the
manpower to keep it up to date.
SLOAN:
I will just add that the payback on these systems has been
so good that a lot of operators are installing them on their
cokers almost as a matter of course without going through
full economic justification.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT (SETPOINT, Inc.):
I just want to give a little bit of information about how the
coke drum switch controls actually work. What you do is
you model the dynamic behavior of the unit in various
modes responding to the cycle key steps, such as the ad-
dition of steam, warm-up, cool-down - all the issues.
Then, you must identify some method of detecting the
transition; either, by some switch, etc. that is occurring in
the cycle or some variable moving. With the models that
were identified earlier, a zero gain impulse is input to the
feed forward models to simulate the disturbance-which is
then minimized with the controller. These can be imple-
mented either in a traditional feed forward sense (which
SETPOINT has been doing for a number of years) or in a
multivariable controller as recently done on two coking.
QUESTION 44:
How do low pressure and/or low throughput ratio
affect: HGO quality, coke quality, and overhead line
coking?
PEDERSEN:
The most significant effect of lowered drum operating
pressure is the increase in heavy gas oil production and
corresponding decrease in coke and gas yields. A slight
increase in heavy gas oil density is observed.
Lower recycle ratio significantly increases the produc-
tion of heavy gas oil with a slightly lower density. With the
relatively small variations in recycle ratio we can operate
within, we have not observed any effect on overhead line
coking.
82
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
SLOAN:
Reducing throughput ratio has a direct impact on HGO
quality. As less gas oil is refluxed below the HGO draw pan
to wash coke drum vapors, contaminates such as metals,
CCR, and coke tines increase in the HGO product. Pressure
reduction has similar effects but to a lesser extent.
Traditional designs normally produce HGO product with
an endpoint less than 1000 ºF, a metal content of about 0.5
ppmw, and 0.3 to 0.5 wt% CCR. For a low pressure, low
recycle operation endpoints typically exceed 1000 °F and
metals and CCR levels just about double. In addition to
affecting HGO quality, reducing recycle can also increase
the tendency of making shot coke.
Minimizing coke drum overhead line quench is critical
for a low recycle operation and Kellogg normally specifies
additional temperature indications in the line to maintain
adequate quench control. However, to our knowledge ex-
cessive coking in the overhead line has not been a sig-
nificant problem for refiners operating at low recycle. In
any case, facilities to clean the overhead line are normally
provided.
QUESTION 45:
What limits the reduction in throughput ratio and/
or coke drum operating pressure?
SLOAN:
There are different limitations associated with reducing
recycle and reducing coke drum operating pressure. I will
address the recycle issue first. As noted in the previous
response, coker HGO quality is directly affected by the
throughput ratio. HGO metals or CCR limitations and
down stream hydroprocessing units often set the limit for
reducing recycle.
If higher HGO metals and CCR levels are acceptable,
then recycle control itself can become a limit. Accurate
control of the coke drum overhead line quench is essential
as I mentioned previously. In addition, careful con-
sideration must be given to the design of the fractionator.
Kellogg normally provides a heat shield between the hot
vapor inlet and the bottom surge zone of the fractionator to
prevent unwanted condensation of recycled material on the
cold liquid surface. Resid feed is also normally fed below the
bottoms liquid level for the same reason.
Reducing coke drum operating pressure is more a ques-
tion of economics. As pressure is reduced, the coke drums,
fractionator, wet gas compressor and piping in between all
become larger and more expensive. The additional cost
associated with lower pressure must be offset by the benefit
of reduced coke yield. Our experience, has been that coke
drum operating pressures, as low as 15 psig, can be jus-
tified. However, many factors can impact the economics and
the selection of coke drum pressure should be made on a
case by case basis. Normally, a coke drum pressure sig-
nificantly less than 15 psi will be difficult to justify.
PEDERSEN:
Our fractionator has one side stream, heavy coker gas oil,
and a top stream which is fed to the hydrogenation unit.
Lowering the recycle ratio increases heavy gas oil produc-
tion at the expense of top stream yield. The value of the
TOC/INDEX
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
hydrogenated products compared to the value of the heavy
gas oil is the determining factor. In other words, economics
will set the priorities. Increases in coke VCM by reducing
recycle ratio is another factor of concern.
A reduction in recycle ratio can be achieved by a re-
duction of the heater feed throughput or an increase in
fresh feed throughput. Reducing the feed rate to the fur-
nace reduces the velocity and increases coke laydown in the
tubes. Increasing fresh feed throughput may be limited by
pump capacity or by allowable heat flux in the furnace.
Drum operating pressure is, in our case, limited by the
lack of a wet gas compressor. In general, reduction of drum
operating pressure should be considered for maximizing
liquid yields.
BONELLI:
Messrs. Sloan and Pedersen have covered most of the
design criteria. In existing cokers, when you are attempt-
ing to revamp for lower pressure coke drum operation,
existing gas compressors need to be thoroughly researched
to be sure that they can achieve operation at the low suction
pressure required. Again, the need to replace the associ-
ated piping and compressor parts between the coke drum
and the outlet of the unit header, frequently are economi-
cally unattractive.
In terms of achieving the minimum throughput ratio,
again HGO quality is critical in terms of how it is used in
downstream units. It is frequently what we have found to be
the limit in lowering throughput ratios.
In addition, if you are charging feeds that have high
asphaltene content they can also give you problems in the
furnace at the low throughput ratios.
THOMAS HRABAN (Conoco, Inc.):
With Conoco’s patent coke technology you can achieve
minimum coke yield by eliminating the natural recycle.
This technology is available through license. Conoco is the
only operating company that is available to offer this tech-
nology. Eliminating natural recycle will allow the refinery
to maximize the coker throughput.
The economic benefits are often offset by the capital costs
of the equipment and the energy costs when operating
below a 20 psig coke drum pressure.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA Corpl:
Regarding a reduction in throughput ratio, currently,
Foster Wheeler designs cokers for throughput ratios as low
as 0% recycle. Most of our current designs have coke drum
operating pressures of 15 psig. This pressure is dependant
on the compressor inlet pressure, overhead piping design,
and fractionator design and size.
As long as these components are designed with low
pressure drop in mind, a low pressure operation can be
achieved. We can also design units with coke drum pres-
sures as low as 10 psig. This requires a specialized frac-
tionator design and also special incentives to go that low.
The whole system needs to be economically evaluated to
make sure that pressures at that level are justified.
QUESTION 46:
To assist refiners in preventing formation of shot
83
coke, please comment on the following:
l the use of clarified oil;
l the use of outlet temperature;
l coker operating variables including recycle ratio,
drum pressure, and heater outlet temperature;
l when are process changes made during the coking
cycle to prevent shot coke?
l what is the experience with use of deep cut vacuum
distillation (1100 ºF) on formation of shot coke?
SLOAN:
Shot coke production is influenced by both the feedstock
quality and coker operating conditions. The feedstock fac-
tors which increase the tendency to form shot coke are high
specific gravity, high Conradson carbon and high as-
phaltene content. Therefore, any attempts to improve re-
covery of heavy vacuum gas oil using deep cut vacuum
distillation are likely to result in the production of shot
coke for many feedstocks. Several refiners have observed
this in their cokers. Shot coke production can be reduced by
mixing FCC slurry in the fresh feed. However, this can
create the potential for recycle between the coker and
FCCU if coker gas oil is processed in the FCCU.
Shot coke production can also be reduced by varying
coker operating conditions, such as increasing the recycle
ratio, and to a lesser degree, the coke drum pressure. Both
of these options will also produce more coke at the expense
of liquid product yield. The economic incentives for mini-
mizing coke and increasing gas oil yield are generally so
attractive that refiners choose to operate cokers at low
severity and accept the shot coke production where coke
handling facilities permit handling it safely. The heater
outlet and coke drum temperatures do not influence the
type of coke produced as much, although a high coke drum
temperature tends to produce more shot coke for a given
feedstock quality.
OSBORN:
Use of clarified slurry oil can be done. The slurry should
be at least, a negative API. Normally you inject it at the
rate of 10 to 15% of the total charge to eliminate shot coke.
Decreasing the temperature will also eliminate shot
coke. However, all things done to do that will increase the
amount of coke produced.
There has been a report that when shot coke starts to
form, that the temperature of the vapor overhead can in-
crease 4” to 6°F as an indication of the formation.
The heavier the feedstock to a coker, the more likely the
formation of shot coke. There have been instances where
refineries ran atmospheric bottoms and made sponge coke,
and then added the vacuum distillation and began pro-
ducing shot coke.
JERRY LACATENA (Foster Wheeler USA Corp.):
Clarified oil is a refractory type of material and in this
respect is similar to recycle, which is known to inhibit shot
coke formation. Therefore the addition of some clarified oil
to the feed having a tendency to form shot coke will help
minimize shot coke formation. However, there are other
factors which must be considered when adding clarified oils
to the coking operation.
TOC/INDEX
By outlet temperature, we assume the questioner was
referring to the heater outlet temperature. Decreasing the
heater outlet temperature will minimize shot coke forma-
tion. However, this will reduce yield of liquid products and
increase coke make.
Increasing the recycle ratio and pressure, and decreasing
the heater outlet temperature, all tend to reduce shot coke
formation. However, this will also result in the increase in
coke yield, and a decrease in liquid product yield.
Some refiners have attempted to ramp the heater outlet
temperature during the coking cycle with mixed success, to
minimize and even eliminate shot coke formation.
In general, the deeper the cut, the greater the tendency to
form shot coke since shot coke formation is a strong func-
tion of the asphaltenes content, which will be higher for
deep cut residues.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
A mention was made of the coking cycle time. I would
like to ask the panel and the audience if there are any
refiners out there who are operating their cokers at less
than 14-hour coking cycles?
BONELLI:
Our minimum achieved is 20 hours.
SLOAN:
We have heard reports of refiners who are operating less
than 12 hour cycles. They are present here today. I do not
know if they want to admit to it.
THOMAS HRABAN (Conoco Inc.):
We operate our cokers as low as 11-hour cycles. We prefer
12-hour cycles just for the fact that everything happens at
the same time everyday. We are currently designing a new
coker for 14-hour cycles.
C. Residual Oil Upgrading-
Visbreaking
84
HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
QUESTION 47:
Can anyone suggest an antifoulant effective
against asphaltene deposits found in heat exchangers
and product lines?
MURPHY:
We have successfully controlled asphaltene deposits in
visbreaker applications. As I previously stated, we have
found success to be dependant on thorough upfront testing
and the proper selection of the additive. The best additives
work to limit the size formation of the asphaltenes by a
dispersion mechanism. Also, if a coke particulates are
present, a coke inhibitor should be considered to control
them.
QUESTION 48:
Does anyone have experience with visbreaking
material from a deep cut vacuum distillation oper-
ation? Specifically, what is the impact on viscosity
reduction and unit run length relative to visbreaking
more conventional feedstocks?
PAULES:
We recently changed the cut point on the vacuum tower
bottoms feeding a visbreaker from around 1010 ºF to
1050 °F. We observed initial drop off in conversion at typical
start of run cracking temperatures, but it was regained by
raising cracking temperatures by 35 ºF. This particular
unit’s run length is limited by furnace and fractionator
coke formation. We have not seen any increase in coking
rate or shortening of run length due to the heavier feed and
higher cracking temperatures.
SLOAN:
Reports from one operator of deep cut distillation units
indicate that there are no problems with running deep cut
bottoms to either visbreakers or delayed cokers.
TOC/INDEX
III. HYDROGEN PROCESSING
A. Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Manufacturing
QUESTION 1:
What has the actual life of PSA adsorbent material
been versus the expected life? What has caused less
than expected life for the PSA material?
BRIERLEY:
The adsorbent is expected to last the life of the plant. We
have had two 12-bed PSA units in operation for 5 years and
have no reason to suspect less than design adsorbent life at
this time. The adsorbent can be damaged by irreversible
adsorption of certain gas components, by rapid de-
pressurization, or by contact with oil or water. We have
successfully emptied several PSA adsorbers for inspection
and then screened and reloaded the adsorbent without
incident.
JUNO:
At one refinery we were quoted a 10-year life for the PSA
adsorbent material. After 8 years we dumped, screened,
and reloaded, with a little fresh makeup, adsorbents from
all the vessels. The only reason we unloaded was that one of
the adsorber vessels had suffered a through-wall crack, and
we wanted to inspect the others for the same type of
cracking.
Slugs of water, liquid hydrocarbons, and chlorides, such
as from platformer offgas, can damage the catalyst or ad-
sorbent material. In theory, there does not appear to be any
reason that this material would not last for 20 years or
more.
LAABS:
UOP quoted us 15 years on some adsorbent material. At
one site where a PSA unit is used on a portion of the
reformer hydrogen product, the previous load of material
lasted for 6 years before liquid entrainment saturated the
adsorbent. The current load at this location has lasted 5
years, and is beginning to show problems with dusting.
This dusting is believed to be caused by valve leakage
which can result in bed fluidization. Rapid pressure
changes will fluidize and crush the adsorbent.
O’BRIEN:
Phillips Borger refinery PSA beds were 10 years old in
May of this year. Five of the beds were dumped in 1991 for
vessel inspection, screened, and reloaded. The other 5 beds
will be dumped this fall for vessel inspection. Of course,
85
some losses occur during dumping, which requires
makeup. Barring contamination or crushing from upsets,
the material will last a long time.
RAJGURU:
We have a Gulf Cost refiner’s input as follows: our steam
methane reformer was started in mid-1983. We have seen
no significant decline in performance. Expected life is the
life of the equipment. Free water and heavy hydrocarbons,
such as C3 + will deactivate the PSA sieve. Possible causes
for less than expected life is mechanical damage to the
sieve.
DARRELL SCRUGGS (KTI Corporation):
We had an experience in one of our plants that has a high
shift without a low shift. Shortly after start-up the client
tried to improve the design recovery by running longer
adsorption times, because the CO slip out of the high shift
was much lower than design end of run. As a result of
running longer cycles, the CO2 front got up into the bed and
contaminated the molecular sieve. Consequently, for a long
period of time traces of CO2 showed in the final product that
normally would not occur. Obviously, the conclusion is to
take care in trying to improve recovery over design.
QUESTION 2:
How long are steam methane reformer tubes ex-
pected to last? What is today’s preferred metallurgy?
Is there a maximum design pressure (i.e. maximum
wall thickness) recommended for the newer alloys
like HP-50 modified?
PAULES:
Steam methane reformer tubes are typically designed to
last 100,000 hours. This does not necessarily mean that
they will not last longer. The preferred metallurgy today is
HP-50 modified, which for a given design pressure, will
have lower tube wall thicknesses than other alloys, such as
HK-40.
Most hydrogen plants, designed and built today in re-
finery applications, produce product gas at 200 to 350 psig.
RAJGURU:
Typically most designs use a 50 °F design margin, and
maintaining the tube metal temperature below this 50 ºF
margin amounts to doubling of the creep life. HP modified
with niobium has higher allowable temperatures than the
HK alloys. The HP modified with microalloying can oper-
ate at higher temperature than the HP modified. The
compositions of these microalloys are vendor confidential,
and creep/rupture curves are supplied by the vendors for
the heater design.
TOC/INDEX
Because of the increased capabilities of these micro-
alloyed tubes, the HP modified with microalloyed tubes are
presently preferred for reformer tubes. The ultimate prop-
erties of their alloys vary among the vendors.
As a rule of thumb, the maximum recommended tube
thickness is about 0.5 inches. The thickness is calculated
again, based on stress/creep rupture curves.
SLOAN:
The actual tube life of steam methane reformer tubes is
strongly dependent on the operating conditions to which
they are exposed during operation. There are several con-
tributors toward reduced tube life which impact all re-
former furnaces to some degree. Any operating situation
which produces a change in the tube metal temperature
gradient through the tube thickness (during start-up, shut-
down, or operating upset), also can produce a significant
thermal stress in the tube. Each occurrence of such a
situation reduces the tube life to some degree. The higher
the rate of change of the temperature gradient, the higher
the thermal stress generated becomes, and the greater the
impact on tube life. This impact is greater on tubes with
very thick walls, since the temperature gradient will be
greater and, therefore the thermal stresses will be higher.
Any operating upset which exposes the reformer tubes to
temperatures and/or pressures in excess of design will also
have a detrimental impact on tube life.
Any abnormality in the catalyst loading which produces
a localized hot spot, due to voids or a reduced flow through
an individual tube due to catalyst crushing or carbon for-
mation, can also expose individual tubes within the fur-
nace to temperatures above design. Flow restrictions will
impact tube temperature more on reformers which operate
with very low methane slip.
With consideration of all of the above, it is expected that
steam methane reformer tubes will last approximately
80% of the design life. For a reformer tube which is de-
signed for 100,000 hours, it would be expected that the
actual life would be 9 or 10 years.
I agree with Mr. Rajguru’s comments on the second part
of the question. And finally the preferred reformer tube
thickness is in the range of 9 to 11 millimeters. However, in
an effort to put forth more economic designs, the drive is on
to reduce the tube count and/or increase tube diameter.
This requires thicker tube walls.
Due to the concerns with excessive temperature gradi-
ents through the tube wall thickness as the tube becomes
thicker, it is generally recommended that maximum tube
thickness of 12 to 13 millimeters be used. In certain cases,
where the heat transfer rate (and therefore the thermal
gradient) is low, a thickness of up to 16.5 millimeters can be
accepted.
T. WILLIAMS:
At one of our facilities, we use the HK-40 centrifugally
cast tubes with a life expectancy of 10 years. In talking
with Howe-Baker Engineers, they use a microalloyed 35/25
Ni/Cr alloy and design for a minimum life of 100,000 hours.
They have found that in their experience, it is not the
catalyst tube wall thickness itself that is limiting; it is the
wall thickness of the outlet pigtail. They have designed
units with up to 350 psig product pressure from the PSA.
86
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
BRIERLEY:
Reformer tubes are normally designed for 100,000 hours
at a specific design pressure and temperature. However,
service life is dependent on actual service conditions occur-
ring during start-ups, shutdowns, steady state, and tran-
sient operation. Our preferred metallurgy for reformer
tubes is still the modified HP material. However, there is
new microalloyed HP material that has recently been in-
troduced. Microalloyed HP will give longer life than modi-
fied HP Increased creep strength results from the addition
of titanium, tungsten, zirconium, and other elements that
provide resistance to the movement of dislocations which
cause creep damage.
There is no maximum design pressure for modified HP
alloys based on the material’s strength, provided that code
equations for design are utilized. However, increasing pres-
sures cause an increase in wall thicknesses. This also
causes increased thermal stresses. For a given furnace
operating condition, there exists an optimum thickness.
Increasing the wall thickness beyond this value will not
provide additional tube life, due to the increase in sec-
ondary thermal stresses.
HENRY JONES (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
I basically agree with what everybody has said. Howe-
Baker, in using the HP modified and microalloyed material
as our tube material, has been able to design plants with
catalyst tube outlet pressures up to 400 psig; that relates to
a hydrogen product pressure of approximately 350 psig.
The design tube thicknesses that we generally utilize are
in the neighborhood of 0.25 in. to 0.3 in. for a nominal 4.5 in.
OD as-cast tube.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
In the Haldor Topsoe reformers, we normally design for
100,000 hours, and we normally obtain 100,000 hours or
more of tube life. The factors exerting a negative influence
on tube life are excessive tube temperatures caused by
flame impingement, insufficient catalyst activity leading
to carbon formation and poor heat transfer, and thermal
cycling; emergency trips are particularly damaging. We
use the microalloyed derivative of the well-known 25/35
CrNiNb alloy with controlled amounts of titanium and
other additives.
NITIN PATEL (Air Products & Chemicals Company):
For many years, we designed reformer tubes for 100,000
hours. Recently we have reevaluated that, and we think
that designing for 200,000 is more economical. We do have
an in-house-developed reformer tube life program that
could give us an accurate prediction of life. We do use
HP-modified niobium and microalloy reformer tube mate-
rials. With those new metallurgies, we are able to keep the
tube thickness within 0.5 to 0.55 in. and achieve 200,000
hours, even at reformer effluent pressures ranging from
450 to 500 psig.
KEN CHLAPIK (ICI Katalco):
It is important for existing plants that are trying to
extend their tube life to consider catalyst choice in the
reformer. ICI Katalco has designed catalyst that can pro-
vide improved heat transfer, allowing lower tube wall tem-
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
peratures to be achieved while still maintaining the same
performance. The achieved tube life is strongly influenced
by a range of operational factors as well as initial choice of
metallurgy, wall thickness, and catalyst. I reference the ICI
Katalco paper “Reformer Tools: Failure Mechanisms, In-
spection Methods, and Repair Techniques” by Dr. Ben J.
Cromarty presented at the 1991 AIChE Safety in Ammonia
Plants and Related Facilities Symposium in Los Angeles
CA.
DARRELL SCRUGGS (KTI Corporation):
We would agree with essentially everything that has
been said, particularly in regard to designing according to
the API procedure using the microalloys. For long life the
most important factors primarily would be to minimize the
number of swings (that is start-ups and shutdowns) and to
minimize the number of spurious trips. Secondly, the oper-
ation must make certain that the tubes stay in a position of
relative balance between stress and tension in the sup-
porting system.
QUESTION 3:
What limits should be considered for processing
heavier hydrocarbons (C3/C4) in feed to a plant de-
signed for light feed gas? Can the reformer catalyst
tolerate some percentage of heavier gases without
serious problems?
PAULES:
A hydrogen plant designed for methane feed typically
utilizes a catalyst which is specifically tailored to methane
conversion. If C3/C4, feeds are processed across these cata-
lysts, the tendency for cracking and coking will be
increased.
If processing of C3/C4 feeds on a sustained basis is de-
sired, it is recommended to replace the first 40 to 50% of
catalyst in the reformer with a nickel alkali catalyst, which
will be more selective to the heavier feed.
RAJGURU:
I agree with Mr. Paules.
JUNO:
For a hydrogen plant that is designed for light feed gas
and uses conventional natural gas type of reforming cata-
lyst, only a very limited amount of heavier (C3/C4) hydro-
carbons can be tolerated in the feed. However, by loading a
suitable potash-promoted reforming catalyst in the top 40
to 50% of the reformer tubes, higher quantities of heavy
hydrocarbons can be reformed without carbon laydown.
KTI has designed hydrogen plants that use feeds ranging
from natural gas through heavy naphtha. Plants can be
designed with the flexibility to use 100 percent natural gas,
or 100 percent naphtha with suitable reformer catalyst.
LAABS:
The hydrogen plant in one of our refineries routinely
runs a fuel gas stream from the coker without problems in
the reforming furnace. This stream is desulfurized before it
is fed to the plant. The C3 + material accounts for about 2 to
3% of the total feed to the unit. The biggest limit to running
87
a heavier feed is the amount of steam that can be injected
into the reformer furnace inlet. A higher steam/carbon
ratio will allow the reforming of propane and butane.
O’BRIEN:
Potassium promoted reforming catalyst can tolerate
heavier hydrocarbons in the feed. These catalysts are less
active so usually the top 30 to 40% of the tube is filled with
potassium catalyst, with the remainder being conventional
catalyst. The potassium catalysts do not prevent coking,
but convert coke to hydrogen (as it is formed by the fol-
lowing reaction:
C + H20 = CO + H2.
Our last catalyst load contained 40% potassium pro-
moted catalyst and was designed for an upset feed con-
taining 9 mole percent propane, 8 mole percent butanes and
5 mole percent pentane and heavier.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
The amount of heavier hydrocarbons that can be tol-
erated in a reformer designed for light gas feeds depends on
a number of factors which are all related.
1. Some catalysts have a high activity for conversion of
the higher hydrocarbons to hydrogen and CO, thus
preventing cracking resulting in carbon formation.
2. Poisoning of the catalyst, particularly by sulfur, leads
to a sharp increase in the tendency for carbon
formation.
3. Increasing reforming catalyst inlet temperatures
sharply increases the tendency for carbon formation.
4. High temperature gradients at the top of the reformer
tubes lead to increased tendency for carbon formation.
5. Some improvements in tolerance towards higher
hydrocarbons can be obtained by increasing the
steam/carbon ratio.
If you do have a problem in a certain unit, it can be
overcome in a very simple way by installing an adiabatic
prereformer upstream of the reformer. This allows also for
some capacity increase.
QUESTION 4:
Is anyone using a naphtha containing 2 to 5 vol%
aromatics as feedstock to a hydrogen plant? Are
special catalysts used, either in the hydrogenator or
reformer? Have there been problems with coking or
hydrocarbon slip?
SLOAN:
Kellogg has designed several reformers that use naphtha
as feedstock. The light naphtha feeds have 2 to 5% aro-
matics, and some of the heavy naphthas have 12 to 20%
aromatics. Special nickel alkali reforming catalysts are
required to handle the naphtha feedstock, and coking can
be a problem which is aggravated by high aromatics
concentrations.
PAULES:
I agree that there is catalyst available that can tolerate
up to 10% aromatics, so no special catalyst should be neces-
sary in the hydrogenator. Usually olefins are a much bigger
concern.
TOC/INDEX
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe AS):
We do not consider a naphtha with 2 to 5% aromatics
difficult to handle, particularly if you use a highly active
alkali-free naphtha reforming catalyst like the Topsoe
RKNR. In one case I remember, we have processed a naph-
tha with up to 23% aromatics.
Coking will be a problem in case of insufficient de-
sulfurization, or in the case of too high temperatures in the
top part of the reformer tubes. You have to get the higher
hydrocarbons broken down to gases, including methane,
while the temperature is still so low that you do not have
thermal cracking.
Low steam/carbon ratios will aggravate the situation,
but the installation of a prereformer will eliminate the
problem and allow operation at low steam/carbon ratios.
KEN CHLAPIK (ICI Katalco):
Addition of heavier hydrocarbons to the feed can first
result in thermal cracking and carbon formation in the
preheat coils in the reformer convection section. To avoid
carbon laydown in the reformer tubes, use of a nickel
alkali-containing catalyst may be necessary to accommo-
date the heavier feedstock or an increase in steam to carbon
ratio. ICI Katalco offers a range of reforming catalysts that
handle lean gas feedstocks up to heavier gas feedstocks in
order to make this choice uncomplicated. Alkali metals are
known to be active carbon gasification catalysts at the
temperatures found in steam reformer tubes and, there-
fore, enhance the rate of carbon removal. I reference the ICI
Katalco paper “Carbon Formation and Removal in the
Primary Reforming Process” by Dr. Ben J. Cromarty pre-
sented at the 1990 ICI Catalysts Customer Symposium
Thaicat 90 in Bangkok, Thailand. The addition of heavier
hydrocarbons to the feed can also result in a higher level of
carbon oxides exiting the reformer. This increase in carbon
oxides can change the demand on the downstream units
affecting the overall hydrogen purity and production of the
plant. A review of the condition of the downstream hydro-
gen purification units should be performed prior to intro-
duction of heavier hydrocarbons to the feed.
ICI Katalco reforming catalysts have much experience
operating with feeds containing aromatic contents from 1 to
22% without coking of catalyst or increasing hydrocarbon
slip. We recommend the use of our 46-Series nickel alkali
catalysts for the steam reforming of high aromatic content
feeds.
RONALD BREDEHOFT (KTI Corporation):
KTI has designed plants which have up to 20% aromatics
in the feed.
QUESTION 5:
Traces of methanol are formed in the low tempera-
ture shift converter. What problem does this cause
downstream?
PAULES:
In a hydrogen plant equipped with a low temperature
shift converter, the bulk of the methanol formed will be
found in the condensate after cooling. This condensate is
typically routed to a deaerator, where most of this methanol
88
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
is vented to the atmosphere. Any methanol remaining in
the hydrogen stream does not cause problems in a PSA
unit. It is removed into the tail gas stream.
RAJGURU:
Traces of methanol can be formed in both high tempera-
ture and low temperature shifts. The amount of methanol
formed varies with the age and the activity of the catalyst.
In typical hydrogen plant designs, this methanol is con-
densed in the low temperature shift effluent cooler and
stripped along with carbon dioxide in the process con-
densate stripper. With proper condensate stripper design,
there are no downstream problems associated with meth-
anol formation. We have inputs from two refiners who have
hydrogen plants, and they both concur with these findings.
DARRELL SCRUGGS (KTI Corporation):
To us the only problem with methanol formed is in plants
that have export steam, i.e. potential contamination of the
export steam system from traces of methanol. As was
mentioned by the panel, methanol in the process con-
densate can either be stripped or can be recycled back to the
reformer where it goes through and is reacted. If not con-
taminating the plant steam system is a real concern, KTI
suggests that the steam system be split with a separate
steam drum mounted on the process gas boiler with process
condensate only being sent back to that steam drum. The
process gas boiler steam drum then feeds process steam
only into the inlet of the reformer, containing the methanol
within the plant.
KEN CHLAPIK (ICI Katalco):
The equilibrium methanol levels at the operating condi-
tions of the low temperature shift are a couple thousand
ppm. However, due to the kinetic limitations of this reaction
on the catalyst, the levels achieved are several hundred
ppm. At these levels, methanol does not have any detrimen-
tal effect on low temperature shift or methanation cata-
lysts. The kinetics are affected by temperature with lower
temperatures reducing the ability for this reaction to occur.
Lower operating temperature will lower the level of meth-
anol formation making the choice ofcatalyst important. ICI
Katalco is now offering higher activity low temperature
shift catalysts which allow operation at lower temperature,
thus reducing the level of methanol formation.
- -
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
QUESTION 6:
If hydrogen reformer catalyst tube inlet and outlet
pigtails are pinched during operation due to a leak in
the pigtail, can the tube be reused after repairing the
pigtails?
BRIERLEY:
The reuse of pinched tubes is possible, depending on the
time the tube remains in the furnace prior to recom-
missioning. Metallographical examination of pinched re-
former tubes has shown increased rates of oxidation and
decarburization over that experienced in operating tubes.
This increase results in less effective wall thickness for
containing internal pressure. However, the full thickness is
present for the determination of thermal stresses. Stress
rupture tests of specimens cut from pinched tubes have
shown no significant loss in strength in the midwall for
tubes that have been pinched for up to three years. Careful
investigation and evaluation should be preformed prior to a
recommissioning decision.
JUNO:
KTI does not recommend placing pinched tubes back into
operation, due to the unknown amount of creep and other
tube damage that might have occurred.
T. WILLIAMS:
I have nothing to add. We also agree and do not recom-
mend reusing the tubes.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
I want to reemphasize what Ed Juno said. The reuse of
these tubes looks great based simply on metallographic
examination. However, early stages of creep life are hard to
detect. You may well be putting in a tube that has in fact
only half the life you expect. I think reuse is a bum idea, as
the panel suggested.
HENRY JONES (Howe-Baker Engineers):
We agree with that, also. We would not recommend
reusing a tube that has been pinched off.
NITIN PATEL (Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.):
We totally agree with the panel. At Air Products, we do
pinch the reformer tubes to stay on-line to supply our
customers with products. However, we highly recommend
not to reuse those tubes.
QUESTION 7:
What is your experience with improved solvents
and additives in Benfield CO2 removal systems?
CHARLES W. HOOPER (ICI Kataico):
ICI has an associate company in Ireland, Irish Fertilizer
Industries. Since 1988, they have been using the British
Gas additive, LRS-10 in their Benfield system. This is in an
ammonia plant. Their experience has been recorded in a
paper at this year’s AIChE Safety in Ammonia symposium.
I can confirm that they have had good experience with the
British Gas additive. They have seen a reduction in utility
use and improved controllability of their Benfield system.
89
T. A. CAVANAUGH (Exxon Research & Engineering
Company):
Our Flexsorb-HP solvents can give about 25% greater
CO2 removal capability in existing hot potassium car-
bonate units. In most cases this is essentially drop in
technology involving the addition of a proprietary-
hindered amine promoter. The amount of H2S present will
dictate the need for appropriate corrosion control.
QUESTION 8:
What is the operating and start-up experience with
using a medium temperature shift reactor in a steam
methane reformer-based H2 Plant? How is the reac-
tor configured into the process design for maximum
benefit?
T. WILLIAMS:
We do not have a medium temperature shift. I did talk to
Howe-Baker Engineers, however, on this subject. Our per-
spective of the medium temperature shift is that it would be
a third shift reactor which would be located between the
high and low shift reactors. Essentially this reactor would
be a low shift reactor operated at an elevated temperature.
For design of a new unit, we do not think this is
economical.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
Haldor Topsoe’s medium temperature shift catalyst type
LK-811 has been in successful operation in hydrogen
plants since 1984. Lifetimes in excess of 8 years have been
achieved. The catalyst is copper based and it is as other
similar catalysts started by in situ reduction, without any
special precautions.
The use of a medium temperature shift catalyst allows
process configurations which are impossible when the tra-
ditional catalysts are used. As an example, the naphtha-
based hydrogen plant, owned and operated by Yukong Ltd.
in Korea, with a capacity of 65 MMscfd/day, started up in
1992, is based on the following process scheme: pre-
reforming and tubular reforming at a steam/carbon ratio of
2.5, heat recovery, medium temperature shift, cooling, and
final purification by pressure swing absorption.
As you see, we have only one shift reactor. Further
discussion of process configurations are given in “Topsoe
Topics,” of February, 1993.
DARRELL SCRUGGS (KTI Corporation):
The use of a medium temperature shift is really nothing
new. It is replacement for either a combination of high and
low shift. At KTI’s design plants incorporating medium
temperature shift, the medium temperature shift is used
for the same reason you use a low temperature shift.
Such a flow scheme is economically feasible for a PSA
plant only when there is significant credit for high export
steam, and the fuel has a low value relative to the feed.
KEN CHLAPIK (ICI Katalco):
ICI Katalco offers medium temperature shift catalysts,
for both adiabatic and isothermal operation. We have per-
formed a number of designs for both new as well as existing
hydrogen plants. The medium temperature shift can re-
duce CO levels compared to a single high temperature shift
TOC/INDEX
vessel and reduce the loading of the hydrogen purification
portion of the plant. ICI currently operates two isothermal
medium temperature shifts in two of its ammonia plants in
Severenside, England since May 1988. Methanol formation
is not a concern with the isothermal arrangement because
the condensate from the exit gas of the medium tempera-
ture shift is converted back to process steam. The higher
outlet temperatures that are achieved in the adiabatic
situation result in equilibrium methanol levels of only a
few parts per million.
HENRY JONES (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
We have not designed any plants with medium tempera-
ture shifts, but would like to ask anybody who is operating
one: what type of results do you get with methanol for-
mation in the medium temperature shift, compared, say, to
a low or high temperature shift?
HIGGINS:
No answer.
QUESTION 9:
What is the maximum sulfur content for H2 plant
feeds that can be desulfurized by hydrogenation
followed by ZnO beds?
SLOAN:
There is no clear limit on sulfur removal by zinc oxide
beds. Generally the design is set, based upon changing the
zinc oxide on a one year cycle or greater. If the flows are low,
the sulfur content can be high and not use up the zinc oxide
within the one year cycle. On the other hand, if the flows
are high, the sulfur content must be lower.
As a rule of thumb, if the natural gas is of pipeline
quality, or the sulfur content does not exceed 40 to 50 ppmv,
then zinc oxide can be used. If the sulfur content gets much
higher, generally some form of feedstock pretreatment is
economically justified.
PAULES:
There is no maximum feed gas sulfur content for a zinc
oxide bed, as long as minimum space velocity criteria are
followed. However, the more sulfur in the feed, the faster
you will spend the zinc oxide, and typically the larger the
bed size will need to be.
JUNO:
The limiting factor for sulfur content of H2 plant feeds
would be the amount of sulfur that is unconverted and
remains to be reacted in the zinc oxide beds. The sizing of
these beds reflects the amount of spent zinc oxide disposal
that one wants to contend with and the change out time
that would be required. Generally, feed levels above 200
ppm sulfur to the zinc oxide beds tend to be uneconomic.
With this sulfur limit set for the desulfurization section
outlet, the desulfurizer feed sulfur is set by reactor volume
and H2S cleanup section that is economic for the feed gas
that is desired to be processed. One caution is that if the
feed contains a large volume of COS, it will be very difficult
to remove this sulfur compound with the conventional
desulfurization and zinc oxide beds.
90
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
Zinc oxide systems are typically designed for 6 months to
2 years operating life depending on the size of the plant and
the sulfur level. This type of system by itselfis economically
used up to 100 to 200 ppm sulfur before the beds become too
costly. At higher concentrations of sulfur in the feed gas, a
lean amine system is used to absorb the H2S from the
hydrogenated feed down to a level of about 100 ppm and the
residual H2S is then removed by the zinc oxide beds.
HENRY JONES (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
I tend to agree with Ed Juno that once you get above 200
ppm, you are getting into a situation that is not very
economical for zinc oxide only. However, Howe-Baker is
currently designing a plant with zinc oxide that has a
feedstock sulfur content between 175 and 200 ppm. Obvi-
ously, the bed life in this type of plant is not going to be 1
year. You have big beds, and you are going to have to change
out the zinc oxide in a shorter time period.
QUESTION 10:
Has anyone successfully used in situ regeneration
to regenerate steam methane reformer catalyst that
has been contaminated with sulfur?
LAARS:
We have successfully performed this type of re-
generation. Sulfur is stripped from the catalyst by running
a high steam/carbon ratio. It is very important to bypass
the low temperature shift reactor during this regeneration.
The sulfur that is stripped will permanently poison the low
temperature catalyst. Because of this bypass, we have
found it necessary to run the reformed gas to the flare.
RAJGURU:
Our investigation indicates that in situ regeneration has
been tried on occasion, with little or no success. We believe
that a reliable and adequate sulfur removal system up-
stream of the reformer pays for itself by extending the
catalyst and tube life. In situ regeneration also requires
isolation of the reformer from the shift reactor to protect the
shift catalyst.
SLOAN:
Sulfur contaminated steam methane reformer catalyst is
not necessarily a serious problem. If the source of sulfur
contamination is discontinued and the contamination of
the reformer catalyst is not severe, the sulfur will be re-
moved through normal operation. It would be advisable to
operate with a higher steam to carbon ratio than normal. In
some extreme cases, the sulfur has been burned off using
air. Occasional sulfur contamination of the reforming cata-
lyst is easily reversed through normal operation combined
with higher steam to carbon ratios to accelerate the sulfur
removal rate. Many operators have used these techniques
to remove sulfur in reformers. It is important to note,
however, the sulfur will be carried downstream as it is
removed from the reforming catalyst.
T. WILLIAMS:
We did have a minor sulfur contamination problem, and
we did a high temperature steam strip. We were losing
about 1 to 2% hydrogen purity, which we did recover.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
KEN CHLAPIK (ICI Katalco):
Many of our customers have successfully steamed both
alkalized and nonalkalized reforming catalysts and have
recovered activity by doing so. Much of the activity recov-
ery will depend on the age of the catalyst and the amount of
sulfur that has been incorporated on the catalyst. The
stability of the catalyst support will also affect the success
of the steaming. The stable support systems used in ICI
Katalco reforming catalysts allow effective in situ re-
generations to occur. I reference the ICI Katalco paper
“Safe Start-up and Operation of Steam Reformers” by Dr.
Ben J. Cromarty presented at the 1992 AIChE Safety in
Ammonia Plants and Related Facilities Symposium in San
Antonio TX. It is important to note that steaming will
cause some sintering of the nickel sites on the catalyst also
affecting the activity of the catalyst. We normally recom-
mend a steaming period of 6 to 12 hours at normal reformer
operating conditions to achieve this kind of recovery.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
In principle it should be possible to regenerate the cata-
lyst by decreasing the sulfur in the feed back to normal.
However, while you can put sulfur on very fast, it only
comes off at equilibrium level, and diffusion in the pore
system further limits the rate.
When the catalyst is regenerated by steaming, S is con-
verted to H2S and SO2. The success of the regeneration in
steam depends on the catalyst. If the catalyst is promoted
with sodium or potassium, it is nearly unaffected since
alkali sulfates are formed.
Reference is made to an article by J. Rostrup-Nielsen
describing the chemistry and to a successful industrial
regeneration in an article by Andriano and Sinaga. Refer-
ence: J. Rostrup Nielsen, Catalysis 5, 1984, 101-103. Ir.
Andriano and O.G. Sinaga Ammonia Plant Saf. 32, 1992,
232-235.
QUESTION 11:
What techniques are currently utilized to reliably
predict remaining catalyst life during operation of
hydrogen production units?
BRIERLEY:
Temperature profiles in our shift reactors and metha-
nators are trended regularly, along with biweekly checks of
CO or CO2 slip. At least twice a year, operating data and
laboratory data are compiled and forwarded to the catalyst
vendors for comparative analysis. Their results are
compared with our in-house approach to equilibrium
calculations.
JUNO:
This answer was obtained from KTI. They basically
design for a maximum slip of 0.1 ppm sulfur from the zinc
oxide drums. They also design the methane slip from the
reformer to be between 3 and 6%, and fired duty is in-
creased to meet design methane slip. End of run for the
reformer catalyst is based on the maximum tubeskin
temperature.
They normally design the high temperature shift reactor
for a maximum inlet temperature of 660 °F, and then design
91
the low temperature shift for a maximum CO slip of 0.5
volume percent.
LAABS:
We agree with the previous remarks.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
The very concept of “approach to equilibrium” as a mea-
sure of steam reformer catalyst deactivation is suspect; in
fact, in steam naphtha reforming it simply does not work.
Furthermore, analytical imprecision introduces errors in
the calculation which net out larger than the alleged
catalyst life span. Thus in the particular case of steam-
reforming catalyst, asking the supplier whether the cata-
lyst is spent seems a bit like putting the fox in charge of
the hen house.
KEN CHLAPIK (ICI Katalco):
ICI Katalco offers simulation capabilities to our hydro-
gen plant customers in order to do this type of analysis. We
strongly encourage them to provide their data to us for
these services, but also encourage them to do their own
trending of operating parameters around the units. Trend-
ing is very important to see subtle changes that are occur-
ring in the performance of the unit before something major
happens to require a premature shutdown or a loss of
hydrogen purity. Trending allows the removal of sys-
tematic errors that occur with analysis and data gathering.
Ultimately, a working relationship between the hydrogen
plant operator and the catalyst supplier can achieve re-
liable catalyst life predictions as well as optimize the per-
formance of the catalysts.
BRIERLEY:
I initially suspected that the vendor who supplied the
catalyst would suggest that it would last forever, and the
other vendors would suggest immediate replacement. But
the vendors have been coming back with very close, nearly
identical results, and have always been fairly conservative
from our point of view, in terms of running the plant. We
treasure their input.
QUESTION 12:
How do you handle hydrogen plant process con-
densate? Can it be degassed and reused as boiler
feedwater? What tests are needed to determine
water quality? Is degassing done in the hydrogen
plant or the refinery utilities area? Are there other
uses for this condensate?
BRIERLEY:
Two of our hydrogen plants operate at a steam/carbon
ratio of about 6 to 1. Process condensate from these units is
steam stripped in a condensate stripper and then treated
with a liquid-neutralizing amine-hydroquinone blend to
neutralize CO2 and scavenge oxygen. The stripped con-
densate is mixed with makeup condensate and used as
boiler feedwater.
A single liquid phosphate-dispersant blend is added to
the steam drum as part of our congruent phosphate pH
treatment program. Alkalinity, pH, phosphate, and con-
ductivity tests are conducted each shift.
TOC/INDEX
Our third hydrogen plant operates at a steam/carbon
ratio of 3 to 1. Due to this lower ratio, short chain organic
acids are formed as a byproduct of the shift reaction and are
not removed in the unit’s deaerator. These acids depress the
steam system pH, so a new liquid phosphate blend with a
higher sodium to phosphate ratio is used to control the pH
in that unit. Good boiler water control has been achieved to
date.
LAABS:
Several sites are able to recycle this water to some other
use. One refinery uses the condensate as feed to a 600 psig
steam boiler after deaeration. The deaerator is on the
hydrogen plant plot and is constructed primarily of stain-
less steel, due to the corrosive nature of the stream. They
monitor the quality by measuring the condensate
conductivity.
Another of our hydrogen plants reroutes the condensate
to the unit quench system. This avoids the treatment of the
stream to make it usable.
An affiliated site degasses the condensate in two steps:
with air, and then with low pressure steam. They then use
the water for boiler feed.
O’BRIEN:
Similar to Mr. Laabs, at our Borger Refinery, the hydro-
gen plant process condensate is deaerated and used for
boiler feedwater. The deaerator is located in the hydrogen
unit area. Qpical boiler feedwater tests, such as pH, al-
kalinity, hardness, and total dissolved solids are run.
MURPHY:
Hydrogen Plant process condensate is normally a major
source of boiler feedwater for the hydrogen plant. It is
typically very pure with iron and carbon dioxide being the
only contaminants usually of concern. Iron in the system is
usually the result of corrosion, however iron is usually not a
problem since most condensate systems are constructed of
stainless steel, specifically because of the high CO2 con-
tent. Iron pickup is usually the result of makeup water
system contamination. This condensate is usually reused
within the hydrogen plant battery limits and is not ex-
ported to the general utilities area because of CO2 content.
Some degassing of CO2 is accomplished in the deaerator,
however, this is not an efficient method since the unit is not
designed for the large volumes of CO2 contained in the
condensate. Usually a CO 2 stripper or a separate con-
densate deaerator is used to strip the CO2. Any CO2 that is
not stripped must be neutralized with high purity caustic or
an amine to raise the boiler feedwater pH to the required
range.
After CO2 stripping, the condensate would be suitable as
a replacement for stripped sour water in a variety of ser-
vices such as process water washes. Any testing that may
be required can be done by your local water treatment
representative.
We have developed boiler programs specifically for the
needs of hydrogen plant systems to deal with their specific
problems.
T. WILLIAMS:
We use a portion of the condensate as temperature con-
92
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
trol upstream of the low shift reactor and upstream of the
amine reboilers. The rest of it is used in production of steam
in the hydrogen plant itself. The condensate is degassed in
a deaerator within the hydrogen plant.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
I believe the deaerator should be in the hydrogen plant.
As Pat Laabs said, it not only has to be stainless steel, but
this is a tough deaeration job. Getting the CO 2 out of
recycled condensate is not just a matter of a flash deaer-
ation, and the hydrogen plant operators obviously have the
proprietary interest in making sure it is done right.
Hydrogen Purification
QUESTION 13:
What has been the panel’s experience in operating
and maintaining prism and cryogenic separators for
H2 separation (operating factors, etc.)?
O’BRIEN:
Sweeny produces all of its high purity hydrogen in a
cryogenic separation unit. Our complex has three, some-
times more, ethylene units in operation. The tail gas from
the ethylene units and gas from the reformers are the major
components of the stream we are purifying. The major
unique opportunities for problems are wet feed and con-
taminants such as H2S and CO2. Since the temperature in
the cryogenic unit gets down around a - 280 ºF, it is very
important to remove these impurities. As long as the feed is
properly conditioned prior to entering the plate fin ex-
changers, the unit has a very good on stream factor.
LEE E. TURPIN (Profimatics, Inc.):
Comparing operating and maintenance experience be-
tween membrane units and cryogenic hydrogen puri-
fication units is like comparing apples and oranges. Other
than both units are used for hydrogen recovery, they have
different operating objectives, and are completely different
processes.
Most of the operating problems with cryogenic units
evolve from the driers ahead of the coldbox. Normally if the
driers are functioning properly, the coldbox will operate
relatively trouble free. Nearly 100% hydrogen recovery can
be expected with hydrogen purities in the range of 90 to
95%. Moving the feed very far from the design rate and
composition can also lead to significant operating prob-
lems. The major maintenance problem is getting a coldbox
clean prior to performing maintenance. This problem can
be overcome in the initial design.
The operation of a membrane unit is also dependent upon
gas treating ahead of the membrane. If you keep the gar-
bage out, the operation is relatively trouble free. Sig-
nificant down turn in feed rate is attained by blocking off
parts of the unit. Hydrogen purity and percent recovery is a
function of feed composition and operating pressures. If the
feed composition is changed, the hydrogen purity will
change, but the unit will keep on running. The membranes
must be replaced on a scheduled basis, but it is not a
difficult task if planned for during the unit design.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
QUESTION 14:
How do you improve hydrogen recovery at low
throughput operation in PSA units?
PAULES:
Well-designed PSA units can maintain design recoveries
at reduced throughput with appropriate adjustment of
cycle time. A rough approximation of the adjustment would
be the inverse of the extent of turndown. For example, a
throughput of 50% of full feed rate would require about two
times the absorption time. In most units today, the cycle
time and other intermediate step times are determined by
the control system automatically from input of feed rate,
temperature, pressure, and product hydrogen purity.
RAJGURU:
A Gulf Coast refiner simply raises the absorption time to
improve the hydrogen recovery at low throughput oper-
ation. At low throughput operation, you can also reduce the
waste gas drum pressure to further increase the hydrogen
recovery. It should be also noted that the reduction in the
waste gas drum pressure must consider the type and oper-
ation of waste gas compressor.
BRIERLEY:
I would agree with Mr. Paules’ comments, but to expand
on those comments, we have considered building a simple
computer application that would integrate the PSA feed
rate over a period of time and adjust the cycle time in a feed
forward fashion. The cycle time would also be adjusted in a
feed back fashion using a CO analyzer on the product line.
JUNO:
We agree with the other panelists comments, As you
continue to go below 30% of design, your hydrogen recovery
will probably suffer despite the continued lengthening of
the absorption cycle.
QUESTION 15:
Please discuss the factors affecting hydrogen
purity and adsorbent life in PSA units.
JUNO:
Purity is affected primarily by the PSA feed and the
adsorption time. If the unit is pushed in rate, the purity will
suffer due to reduced time for the adsorption cycle. On-line
analyzers, infrared sensing devices that identify a methane
breakthrough, can be used to warn of a breakthrough of
hydrocarbons and cause the system to switch out of the
adsorption bed.
Adsorption life is affected by liquids that reach the PSA
bed, especially heavy ends that have been entrained in the
feed gas. These heavy ends damage the adsorbent and
cannot be removed by the normal regeneration cycle, thus
reducing its absorbing capacity. The only way to rejuvenate
the absorbent is to go through an ex situ high temperature
regeneration.
LAABS:
We have found that the hydrogen purity is most affected
by adjustments to the adsorption time. More adsorption
93
time will improve the product purity, but too long a time
will overload the adsorbent with feed contaminants. Too
high a feed rate will also load the material with impurities.
Heavy contaminant loading will result in a loss of product
quality, and will eventually cause the unit to lose its ability
to control pressure change functions.
The condition of the adsorbent can be affected by many
factors. Exposing the adsorbent to liquid will effectively
deactivate that portion. Liquid is very difficult to desorb
from the material. We have had to completely replace
adsorbent beds for this reason.
Dusting is another problem that we have encountered.
Fluidization of the bed will break the adsorbent particles
apart, and can be caused by valve leakage or sudden pres-
sure changes.
High impurity levels in the feed, or new impurities that
were not considered when the unit was designed, will
shorten the adsorbent life. Extremes in feed temperature
can also cause problems, as the adsorbent capacity varies
with temperature, and low temperatures can result in
condensation on the material.
BRIERLEY:
We have already discussed the factors affecting ad-
sorbent life. Besides the feed rate and impurity loading, the
other factors affecting product purity are feed gas tempera-
ture and operating pressure. Higher feed gas temperatures
are unfavorable to the adsorption equilibrium and will
result in impurity breakthrough unless the cycle time is
reduced. Operating at less than designed pressure will
reduce the PSA adsorbent capacity.
QUESTION 16:
What are the major causes of PSA valve failures
and how have they been addressed?
BRIERLEY:
We have suffered numerous tail gas valve failures, pri-
marily caused by positioner failures. The original
actuators and positioners were replace with Valtek posi-
tioners and actuators on our hydrogen plant PSA, and with
Keystone actuators and positioners on our LC-Finer PSA.
Since that time, there have only been a few Valtek actuator
failures when the sharp-edged piston gouged the cylinder
wall or when O-ring failures led to slow deterioration of
valve performance. The O-rings are replaced in kind when
necessary, but the sharp-edged pistons have since been
replaced with rounded edge pistons.
On the adsorber valve skids, about two valve failures per
year are caused by positioner failures. The original I/P’s
also used to fail regularly, about one every two months.
They have all been replaced with Rosemount I/P’s Slug-
gish valve action can usually be addressed with positioner
or volume booster adjustments.
The majority of our failures today are actually the result
of a false valve position indication. The valve stem rotates,
moving the proximity switch target away from the sensor.
This results in a “valve failure” because the valve position
as sensed by the proximity switch differs with that expected
in the PLC. A permanent solution to the valve stem rota-
tion is being worked on with the valve vendor, but until
TOC/INDEX
then, the limit switch targets are bent so they cannot rotate
out of range of the sensor.
JUNO:
Most failures are due to the solenoid, positioner, or limit
switch failures. These failures are being addressed by logic
improvements in some of the controllers. The new con-
trollers can sense changes in pressure and flow to override
the sensors located on the valves and prevent unit shut-
down due to error in signals from the valve components.
Older controllers do not have this function. Valve sticking
has been addressed by going to soft-seated, bubble type,
butterfly valves. The seats on these valves will need re-
placement or repair after an approximate two year run
lengths. High quality valves with successful history in this
service should also be selected when purchasing the PSA
unit.
LAABS:
One of our sites has experienced PSA valve failures that
have been caused by erosion of the valve internals. Ad-
sorbent dust in the system will impinge on valve parts and
eventually cause a failure. We minimize dust creation by
trying to prevent pressure swings in the feed stream.
Some of our refineries have had problems with the in-
strument air going to the PSA valve positioners. Dirt and
scale from the instrument air system will accumulate in
the positioner internals and hamper valve operation. The
number of failures has been reduced by installing filters on
the air going to each individual positioner. One such in-
stallation uses a filter canister, a 20 micron basket, a
bypass line, and local pressure differential instrumen-
tation to ensure a clean air stream.
PAULES:
I agree. The major cause of PSA valve failures has been
the solenoid valves and positioners.
RAJGURU:
It seems that valve failure is a major cause for an inter-
ruption to the operation of a PSA unit. So during the
designs, we would recommend at least one extra PSA bed so
you can attend to one of the beds on the run.
B. Hydrotreating
Mechanical
QUESTION 17:
It has been reported that injection of an antifoulant
can turn a feed-effluent exchanger fouling problem
into a reactor pressure-drop problem. How can we
avoid this? What has been the experience in this area
and if problems have occurred, how can they be
alleviated?
OSBORN:
It is possible to move the material that has fouled the
feed-effluent exchangers onto the reactor bed. The best way
94
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
to avoid this problem is to initiate the hydrotreater anti-
foulant program after the system has been cleaned. If you
start the antifoulant program during a run, you will risk
moving the material which has fouled the feed-effluent
exchanger onto the reactor bed. If you are able to run a
simulation program and can determine that your feed-
effluent exchangers are not fouling, you may be able to
avoid this problem. If you are faced with the possibility of a
very short run because your reactor delta P is increasing
rapidly, I would recommend starting your antifoulant pro-
gram at a low dosage rate and increasing the injection rate
slowly.
BONELLI:
We previously injected an antifoulant in one of our
hydrotreaters which processes naphthas that are trans-
ported from outside the refinery location. Because of pres-
sure drop problems on the feed preheat train and the
reactor, the unit is typically shut down every 1% to 4
months to clean feed-effluent heat exchangers, decoke the
reactor charge heater, and scalp the bed.
Comparative runs, with and without the antifoulant,
showed that runs without the antifoulant were as long as
the longest runs with the antifoulant. We determined that
it was possible that the antifoulant application could
transport some foulants from the feed-effluent exchangers
to the heater and the reactor. In fact, a dispersant program
was in place on one of our hydrotreaters when we experi-
enced a tube failure in the feed preheater. To alleviate the
situation, of course, you have to determine the base cause of
the fouling.
As noted in a previous NPRA Q&A Session, excluding
oxygen from stored naphtha, which is to be processed in the
hydrotreater, is an effective way to do that, as is oxygen
stripping using fuel gas prior to charging to the feed-
effluent exchanger train. In the case of the unit mentioned
above, the installation of an oxygen stripper has resulted in
dramatically improved run lengths.
MURPHY:
I agree with the previous two responses where an incor-
rectly selected dispersant or inappropriately applied dis-
persant can move the problem downstream, although we
rarely see this. When it does occur, it is more often seen in
naphtha units than heavier feed units. It is important to do
proper product selection based upon feed analysis and
testing before putting antifoulants into one of these units
in order to avoid this type of problem.
In addition to the problems that were mentioned, inor-
ganic substances such as brine or iron salts can also enter
the system and affect reactor bed. We have found feed
conditioners in the tankage can help minimize the carry-
over or water laden with salts which get into the reactor
bed.
Downstream fouling can also be a consequence of inad-
equate upstream corrosion control. This tramp iron can be
addressed by a proper corrosion control program upstream
or by use of filters downstream. An effective iron dispersant
can limit particle growth to a submicron range and show no
pressure increases at the reactor bed.
Certain chemical additives have been used to attempt to
reduce pressure drop increases. These can be effective,
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
however application of the additive must not be delayed and
the reason for the pressure increase needs to be estab-
lished. We have seen increases due to iron salts, polymeric
substances, coke fines from a delayed coker, calcium sulfate
from a products drier, among others. Again in each case, it
is important to go through a problem solving process to
identify the source of the foulant.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
L.P.):
One of the things you people probably have not heard
about is this continuing dialogue that we have with the
people who provide additives. We know that the pressure
drop affects the catalyst bed, so we receive about two or
three calls a month from various additive companies talk-
ing about the additional things that they would be using
upstream of hydrotreaters.
One of the things we are particularly pleased with is our
association with Betz where we have had various “what if”
meetings, where we look at their research programs and we
will talk about ours, so we can help solve your problems
before you get them.
A. K. ARORA (Indian Oil Corporation Limited):
Would the panel share experience on use of magnetic
filters on naphtha pretreaters?
T. WILLIAMS:
We use a cartridge filter in a naphtha hydrotreater and
although it is not a magnetic filter, it did solve our problem.
We were getting corrosion products from oxygen in our feed
tank coming through and depositing on the tubes. We
would get a major upset in the unit and the material would
sluff off and redeposit in the top of our catalyst bed and
cause high pressure drop, resulting in subsequent shut-
down and skimming operations. We have worked down to
where we are using a 0.5 micron polypropylene filter at this
time. That has solved our problem.
BONELLI:
We have no experience with those. I have heard of them
but have not tried them.
THOMAS KELLY (ARC0 Products Company):
Oletin polymerization can cause pressure drop buildup in
our preheat exchange, heater, and reactor since we hydro-
treat and reform our coker naphtha. Pressure drop buildup
is minimized by processing coker naphtha directly (with-
out storage). Since coker is blended with straight-run
naphtha before processing, our straight-run tanks are gas
blanketed to exclude all oxygen. Failure of our gas blanket-
ing system usually means that pressure drop will shut
down our’desulfurizer within 3 to 4 months, even with the
use of antidispersant and antioxidants. Adding chemicals
with clean exchange and heater may slightly extend the
time between shutdowns but does not solve or minimize
this pressure drop problem.
MARK S. DORAN (ICI Katalco):
Where the foulant is chloride salts, an alternative to
injection of an antifoulant is to remove the chlorides onto a
fixed bed of our absorbent. If the source of chlorides is the
hydrogen feed gas to the unit, then the guard bed can be
95
placed in this line. If chlorides are present in the hydro-
carbon feed, then we recommend placing the bed down-
stream of the hydrotreating reactor. One advantage of this
approach is that it avoids injection of amine-based ad-
ditives, which can slip from the hydrotreater and poison the
catalysts on downstream conversion units such as catalytic
reformers. ICI Katalco’s PURASPEC’” absorbents have
been successfully used in such applications.
QUESTION 18:
What is the metallurgy of choice today for high
pressure effluent coolers and piping in hydrotreating
units where ammonium bisulfide may form (i.e.,
exchangers and piping with water wash)?
BRIERLEY:
Duplex stainless steels are acceptable for this service so
long as there are no chlorides in the process fluid that could
sublimate to form ammonium chloride, and there is suf-
ficient wash water with complete distribution throughout
the exchanger. If either of these conditions cannot be met,
then the preferred tube metal material is alloy C-276.
HASTALLOY is one brand of C-276. We have recently
retubed several of our effluent coolers with C-276 following
two major incidents.
For piping, either carbon steel or low chrome alloys are
acceptable depending on the temperature and hydrogen
partial pressure. The wash water injection point should be
located right at the exchanger with an engineered dis-
tributor. If the injection point is in the piping, there is a risk
of corrosion and hydrogen damage in the downstream
process piping if any ammonium chloride is present.
O’BRIEN:
Sweeny’s air fin tubes are ASTM A-789, a seamless
duplex stainless steel. The header boxes are carbon steel
lined with 309L and the first foot of outlet piping is lined
with monel. Borger’s entire system is carbon steel. There
are NACE papers that cover this topic in detail.
RAJGURU:
The metallurgy of choice today depends upon the severity
of application, quality of wash water, owner’s previous
experience on similar units, project specific life expectancy
of equipment and piping, and overall economics.
TOC/INDEX
Availability of a good quality wash water (deaerated
clean condensate, if you can get it), properly designed water
wash injection system, and limiting the fluid velocities to
less than 20 ft/sec lends to the use of carbon steel with
heavy corrosion allowances as an economical choice.
Carbon steel tubes with high alloy ferules have been in
operation at several places for extended periods of time.
Alloy 2205 has also been used for cost reasons. We have
also used alloy 800 and 825 for severe applications where
high Kp values and/or high fluid velocities were some of the
concerns.
SLOAN:
The refining industry has been concerned for many years
about corrosion in the reactor effluent of hydrotreaters and
hydrocrackers caused by aqueous ammonium bisulfide so-
lutions produced from streams rich in hydrogen sulfide and
ammonia. Severe corrosion has been reported in carbon
steel and Type 316 stainless steel due to ammonium sulfide
concentration exceeding 2%, stream velocity, pH, oxygen
concentration, etc. Corrosion in air cooler, condenser tubes
and interconnecting piping has been experienced in carbon
steel material.
Water wash is normally injected into the reactor effluent
to prevent fouling. Water injection rates to keep the am-
monium bisulfide concentration below 2% have suc-
cessfully been used to reduce corrosion in the common
carbon steel metallurgy of the air coolers, condenser tubes
and piping. Carbon steel can be used if the concentration of
the ammonium bisulfide can be kept below 2%, pH of the
water drawoff can be maintained between 8.3 and 9.0 and
velocity below 20 fps.
When water injection is not feasible and the above condi-
tions cannot be maintained, alloys such as Incoloy 825, ally
2205 (duplex stainless steel), and Monel400 will be neces-
sary for exchanger tubes and piping for corrosion
resistance.
T. WILLIAMS:
We use monel overlay on exchangers including piping
and monel inserts in the tubes. This is primarily for am-
monium chloride deposition. We use water wash for the
bisulfide.
MURPHY:
In addition to the previous comments, many refiners
have avoided alloying by the application of a substantial
water wash and a dispersant filming amine to prevent salt
deposition.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
LB):
Most units are designed for x bblsl/day and a lot of times
you run at, maybe, 0.5x, or 0.6x. I would seriously consider
putting water addition points before and after the cooler to
make sure that if your sulfide condensation points move,
you will be ready for it.
QUESTION 19:
What inspection techniques are most widely used
to monitor effluent systems for corrosion? How fre-
quently are effluent cooler inspections performed?
96
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
BONELLI:
For us a typical inspection program provides for product
condenser inspection at each unit turnaround, which may
be at up to 4 year intervals. Using an eddy current tech-
nique, ultrasonic inspection of header boxes for metal
thickness, and random tube inside diameter measure-
ments are also done. The product separator is also ultra-
sonically inspected at each turnaround.
Our inspection groups use a plant corrosion manage-
ment system to determine the frequency and location of
testing of the associated piping based on both the short and
long term corrosion rates. We have made a concerted effort
across our company to standardize the use of this inspection
system in order that our inspections of the process units
themselves are consistent.
BRIERLEY:
Syncrude uses Ferroscope, Eddy Current, and IRIS tech-
niques on 100% of the effluent cooler tubes. Spot RT of the
outside tube rows is also performed. Extended tube ID
gauges are used to check for ID thinning. These gauges are
designed specifically for these exchangers and will inspect
the entire tube length. Inspections are performed every two
years or during opportune shutdowns if they come earlier.
Piping is monitored annually using a combination of
straight beam UT and RT techniques at critical points in
the piping system such as mix points, direction changes,
drains, and vents. Particular attention is paid to welds and
the heat-affected zones. The UT’s are performed in 360
bands rather than spot locations.
LAABS:
Typically our sites use ultrasonic testing to monitor
corrosion after the wash water injection point, with prob-
lems confirmed with radiography. The frequency of testing
depends on the history of the area in question. One of our
refineries defaults to a yearly inspection while an affiliated
site begins with a 6 month interval. All of our refineries
adjust their schedules according to the corrosion history of
the given area. Full cooler inspections are normally done
during maintenance shutdowns, about every 3 to 4 years.
MURPHY:
Several methods that we have seen for monitoring cor-
rosion include corrosion probes and coupons; accumulator
water and product testing for iron, copper, and other
metals; slip stream corrosion monitors; and if the corrosion
is ammonium chloride fouling related, sometimes you can
infer corrosion by watching “U” values.
O’BRIEN:
We check thicknesses by UT two times per year and x-ray
welds on turnarounds, which are about once per year. We
will perform an internal inspection this year for the first
time in four years.
TIM L. HECKEL (Unocal Corporation):
One caution in using histories is that most processing
plants make their money by operating on higher rates and
tougher feeds. So when you are using your history, please
bear in mind what your recent history has been and what
your projected operation is in determining where and what
frequency you need to do your inspection.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
QUESTION 20:
“Soaking Gas” (a slipstream of hydrogen treat gas)
is sometimes injected into an otherwise all-liquid
hydrocarbon feed stream upstream of the feed
preheat/reactor effluent exchangers in order to pre-
vent exchanger fouling on the feed side. How effec-
tive has this procedure been? Does the benefit of any
reduced fouling outweigh the added metallurgy ex-
penses for handling a mixed phase hydrocarbon/
hydrogen feed stream in the exchanger?
JUNO:
In a recent revamp of one of our high pressure hydro-
treaters, we added a hydrogen recycle loop to reduce pres-
sure drop in the reactor feed exchangers and heater. We
elected to keep the makeup hydrogen injected into the
hydrocarbon feed to prevent exchanger fouling on the feed
side, and to enhance the feed side film coefficients. Since
these exchangers were already alloy exchangers, there was
not a decision to be made concerning the extra cost of
metallurgy. The use of the makeup hydrogen has been
effective in retaining the heat transfer coefficient and in
our opinion is warranted. Also, if you do make a decision to
use carbon steel exchangers without hydrogen injection,
all scenarios such as shutdown and start-up must be evalu-
ated to make sure that during upset conditions, these lines
and exchangers are not subject to high hydrogen partial
pressures at high temperatures for an extended period of
time.
BRIERLEY:
Our research department has concluded that hydrogen
injection does indeed reduce polymerization of unstable
olefinic hydrocarbons by reacting with the free carbon
radicals before they can polymerize and coke. We are cur-
rently retrofitting this feature into our feed effluent
exchangers in our two GO-Finers. This has not been com-
pleted, but we expect that the savings realized from re-
ducing unplanned shutdowns will outweigh the added
metallurgy expenses.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
Many refiners put all of the recycle gas and the makeup
gas through the feed effluent exchangers. Many do not. The
advantage ofputting all of the hydrogen, along with the oil,
through the exchangers is improved heat transfer and
perhaps better thermal efficiency, and, as Mr. Brierley said,
reduction of the polymerization tendency. Others who be-
lieve in heating hydrogen separately think there is a safety
benefit in doing so.
QUESTION 21:
High pressure residual hydrotreaters usually have
a guard reactor which will have shorter catalyst life
than the following reactors. Do refiners remove the
guard reactor from service by using block valves, or is
the entire unit shutdown? If valves are used, what is
your experience?
O’BRIEN:
Borger does not have the capability to bypass the guard
reactors on the run. The Sweeny system has a bypass
97
around the guards with block valves in the inlet to the
guard and in the bypass. Both are physically located above
the guard reactor vessels. The outlets of the guards have no
block valves.
During a recent run, both our guard reactors were spent,
as indicated by no temperature increase. The guards’ pres-
sure drops had dramatically increased. We partially
bypassed the guards to maintain approximately 80 psi
pressure drop. The reactors after several months, developed
hot spots due to poor distribution and channeling.
At this point, we cooled all the reactors to 500 °F, opened
the bypass around the guards and closed the inlets. With
only hot hydrogen flowing through the guards to maintain
reactor skin temperatures and keep oil from backing in, we
started the unit back up. The unit operated this way for
approximately 2% weeks until the scheduled shutdown.
BRIERLEY:
We added double block isolation and bypass valves to our
guard reactors in the mid 1980’s. We have had good success
taking the guards off-line during the run so long as the
procedure is very carefully followed. We swing the guards
not usually to address pressure drop, but to insure the
guard catalyst is trapping any metals in the feed.
JUNO:
We do not have a residual hydrotreater, but we do have
high pressure lube hydrotreaters. It would not be our prac-
tice to install block valves to isolate a reactor from service.
On lower pressure combination diesel dewaxing de-
sulfurization units, we have recently installed figure 8
swing blinds to remove a reactor from service during cer-
tain times of the year. This requires a depressuring step to
isolate the reactor, but we feel the extra time is merited in
view of the safety aspects of the alternatives.
PAULES:
We are in the process of relocating an Exxon-licensed
residual hydrotreater to one of our refineries. This unit
utilizes motor-operated block valves to double block the
guard reactor inlet and outlet and bypass the unit charge to
the second reactor on the run. Although we have yet to
operate this unit, the prior operator and licenser state that
this type of system had been used more or less routinely
without any significant problems.
RAJGURU:
Only one of the Fluor Daniel designed atmospheric resid
desulfurizer units have a motor-operated valve (MOV) on
the inlet to the guard reactor and a MOV on the bypass.
There is no block valve to the guard reactor outlet. This
arrangement allows bypassing the guard reactor without
removing it from the service. The other two Fluor Daniel
designed units do not have the block valves to isolate the
guard reactor from the service. We are aware of overseas
installations where guard beds can be isolated and
bypassed.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
LP.):
I would just like to emphasize that this is a very impor-
tant point as we try to move the existing residual hydro-
treating process into a new era. Right now the residual
TOC/INDEX
hydrotreater is limited to heavy Arabian atmospheric
tower bottoms or better quality because of run lengths and
product quality.
It would be very interesting if this could be taken as a
challenge by some of the engineering companies to be able
to come with a way to do this. Mr. Paules, I know that the
plant that you purchased does have that ability, but has not
used it before, but it is also relatively lower pressure than
most of the residual hydrotreaters. Consider it a challenge.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
Are those just standard gate valves or something
different?
BRIERLEY:
I know they are standard gate valves, 1500 lbs stainless
steel gate valves. But as to the manufacturer, I can get that
for you if you want Mr. McCoy.
O’BRIEN:
Ours are also standard gate valves.
KARL KLEEMEIER (UOP):
UOP has more experience with guard beds than guard
reactors, although we have designed both. The typical
problem in the guard reactor, as has been mentioned
already, is not so much the catalyst life but the pressure
drop buildup. We typically design the guard bed with a
bypass line consisting of just a single gate valve with no
block valves on the inlet to the reactor. This bypass line
allows the continued operation of the unit with high guard
bed pressure drop if there is still acceptable product qual-
ity. It should be noted that if the feed is properly desalted
and filtered, the bypass is typically not required during a
cycle. By desalting properly, I mean double desalting.
NASSER M. AL-SHAMMA (Kuwait National Petroleum):
Can you recommend a procedure for bypassing the guard
chamber?
BRIERLEY:
Generally if you are bypassing it for pressure drop, the
most delicate part of the procedure is actually opening the
bypass. If you have multiple trains as we do, you can get
wild swings in hydrogen and gas oil flow that can result in
unit trips. What we typically do is block in the inlet after
the bypass is opened, do a hot hydrogen sweep of the reactor
bed, to push residual oil into the main reactor. The reactor
outlet is then isolated, and the reactor is then depressured
to flare. We gradually cool it down with a natural gas
stream that is initially heated to reactor temperature with
an external furnace and then vented to flare after it goes
through the bed. I cannot over emphasize the risk one takes
if you bypass the guard without depressuring it. If the skin
temperature drops below the brittle fracture threshold, the
reactor could fail catastrophically.
TIM L. HECKEL (Unocal Corporation):
We agree that a few hydrotreaters have been designed
with guard reactors that can be taken off line and dumped.
These are mostly the lower pressure units. We believe that
the most cost effective design is to bypass the guard reactor
while continuing to operate the unit, but not designed to
98
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
isolate and dump. In that case, the guard reactor is main-
tained at full pressure with a warm gas flow through the
bed to keep the walls warm.
QUESTION 22:
Has any refiner experienced a net improvement in
HDS performance (barrels per pound of catalyst) by
retrofitting a single bed hydrotreater with quench
internals? In other words, when temperature rise is
high, does it make sense to trade catalyst for quench?
SLOAN:
According to Mr. Art Suchanek of Criterion Catalyst,
yes, the addition of the quench in most cases will reduce the
overall weighted average bed temperature (WABT), giving
a longer run length and better color stability. The quench
will be most useful with cracked feedstocks which produce
high temperatures. The reactor L/D must be high enough
that the quench section does not severely reduce the overall
catalyst volume, and excess hydrogen must be available for
the quench.
J. WILLIAMS:
Cracked feedstocks, such as coker naphtha, have a ten-
dency at high temperature to form gums which result in
reactor plugging. As the heat release for this material is
quite large, several refiners have, or are considering, guard
reactors for diolefin saturation at relatively low tempera-
tures which minimizes the exotherm and gum forming
tendency.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
LP):
I will add to what Mr. Sloan said. One of the things that is
not mentioned here is whether or not this is a total liquid
phase or total vapor phase or mixed phase. If it is a mixed
phase, as you have in diesel, it is important to understand
the mass flux and the L/D ratio and their affect upon each
other. Three years ago, we were involved with a client who
had 100% coker distillate going to a treater. We recom-
mended that he put in quench points at 1/3 of the way down
the catalyst bed and he doubled his catalyst life.
QUESTION 23:
Pressure-temperature limits for carbon-½ molyb-
denum steel have been lowered by the recent version
of the Nelson hydrogen-attack curves. Have any
reactors been downrated or retired because of this?
SLOAN:
The current Fourth edition of API 941 was published in
April, 1990. The curves are based on industry experience
and are an essential reference in material selection for
equipment and piping in high temperature, high pressure,
hydrogen service.
Changes in API were due to unfavorable service experi-
ences with carbon-% molybdenum steels which reduced
confidence in its performance in hydrogen service appli-
cations. In 1983, the majority of the failures in carbon-½
molybdenum equipment were reported to be in catalytic
reformers.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
It has been reported that in 1990 one refiner replaced six
2-¼ chrome, 1 molybdenum old generation, which are 25
years or older, hydrotreater and hydrocracking reactors.
One of the reasons was indications of hydrogen damage.
PEDERSEN:
We have not been forced to downrate or retire any reac-
tors as a consequence of the lowered Nelson curve. We have
however, increased the extent of inspection in compliance
with API 941 which requires inspection of 10% of the welds
each year. In addition, we do magnetic particle or eddy
current inspections of the shells during turnarounds.
Process
QUESTION 24:
What is the acceptable chloride concentration in
hydrotreater feeds? Is monitoring of chlorides in
effluent wash water an effective technique for infer-
ring feed chlorides? What methods are used for
controlling chlorides in the feed?
BRIERLEY:
The maximum chloride concentration is a function of the
chloride type. If the chlorides are organic chlorides, am-
monium chloride, or another easily hydrolyzable salt, HCl
will be formed in the reactor. The feed chloride level must
be kept low enough so that the HCl and ammonia vapor
pressures are not sufficient to cause ammonium chloride
deposition upstream of the final gas cooler equipped with
water wash. Most chloride salts, particularly sodium chlo-
ride will not hydrolyze, but will remain as a solid deposit
near the reactor inlet causing pressure drop and flow
maldistribution.
Monitoring the wash water effluent chloride con-
centration will not detect chlorides trapped in either the
reactor or chlorides deposited in or upstream of the effluent
coolers. We have experienced two major incidents as a
result of chloride induced effluent cooler tube failures. If
the current chloride level is close to causing deposition
upstream of the final gas cooler, we would strongly recom-
mend the coolers be inspected using the techniques just
discussed in Question #19.
MURPHY:
Acceptable chloride concentrations in hydrotreater feeds
will be unit specific. Of course, directionally the lower the
chloride level, the better. The resulting NH4Cl sublimation
temperature is the most critical parameter since the NH4Cl
must sublime at temperatures downstream from where the
reactor effluent wash water is injected. If too much chloride
is in the feed, NH4Cl plugging ahead of the water wash is a
possibility.
Monitoring chlorides in the effluent wash water is OK for
inferring feed chlorides if you assume that the makeup
hydrogen stream is chloride free, such as from a hydrogen
plant or from a reformer through a chloride guard bed.
There are two common methods for controlling chlorides
in the feed.
First, make sure the feeds are as dry as possible, thereby
eliminating the chlorides carried in the water. This can be
99
accomplished with the use of an additive injected prior to
tankage to drop the salt laden water. Proper operator train-
ing is critical here.
Second, determine which crude in the crude slate has
organic chloride contamination and either eliminate that
crude or limit its charge to a manageable rate.
S L O A N :
Chlorides can enter a hydrotreater both in the feedstock
and makeup hydrogen streams. Chlorides in reformer
hydrogen makeup streams can be removed utilizing a
simple alumina absorber. Chloride contamination in crude
caused by oil field production additives has also been
documented. This chloride will normally concentrate in the
naphtha cuts and can cause severe corrosion problems in
naphtha hydrotreaters. In units with substantial nitrogen
in the feed, ammonium chloride salts can form at tempera-
ture levels above the normal wash water injection points.
These deposits can plug exchanger tubes and lead to severe
under deposit corrosion and chloride stress corrosion
cracking.
In general, the allowable chloride concentration in
hydrotreater feeds with significant nitrogen should be less
than 1 ppm. If chlorides are known to be present, it is very
important to evaluate the possibility of corrosion and
cracking at stagnant cold spots, such as low point drains
and instrument taps.
Since chlorides can tend to salt out in hydrotreaters,
monitoring the chlorides in wash water may not be an
effective technique for inferring feed concentration. The
best procedure would be to monitor chlorides in crude oil
and intermediate streams and maintain very tight speci-
fications for the stocks which must be hydrotreated.
T. WILLIAMS:
We monitor chlorides in our hydrocracker effluent water
to track the amount of chlorides coming into the system.
Besides controlling desalting upfront in the crude, we also
have a chloride guard bed to clean up the hydrogen makeup
stream and use chemical treatment on the feed.
QUESTION 25:
What specifications are imposed on wash water
injected into reactor effluent for ammonium bisul-
fide removal (chlorides, TDS, oxygen, etc.)? Do you
use stripped (or unstripped) sour water for this
purpose?
PAULES:
Some general guidelines for hydrotreater wash water
quality are: H2S, 1000 ppm maximum; ammonia, 1000 ppm
maximum; chlorides, 50 ppm maximum; calcium, 3 ppm
maximum; and O 2 , 50 ppb maximum. We do not use
stripped sour water as wash water. However, we do use
hydrotreater steam stripper overhead water. Some residual
hydrotreaters utilize a circulating water stream as a sol-
vent to extract ammonia from the reactor loop. Then the
ammonia is stripped in a sour water stripper, and then the
water is returned to the reactor loop. This circulating water
stream must have a sizable purge and makeup to prevent
buildup of soluble contaminants.
TOC/INDEX
ROY:
At our Pasadena refinery, we are using steam condensate
for hydrotreater wash for the purpose of flushing out am-
monium chloride salts. In our Tyler refinery, we are plan-
ning to use stripped sour water for reactor effluent water
wash.
SLOAN:
The most common specification for wash water source is
either deaerated steam condensate or boiler feed water.
Oxygen content should be less than 50 ppb and chloride
limited to 5 ppm. For once-through washing, these speci-
fications should be sufficient, provided the water is not
completely vaporized at the injection point. In principle,
recycling stripped sour water is acceptable, provided a
sufficient blowdown is maintained to limit total dissolved
solids to 5 ppm. The total wash water rate will have to be
adjusted based on maintaining an acceptable ammonium
bisulfide concentration in the sour water. Another poten-
tial source of wash water makeup in units with steam
stripped fractionators is the overhead condensate water.
BONELLI:
Our reactor effluent systems are typically water washed
using clean condensate or deaerated treated boiler feed
water. I agree that it is acceptable to use recycled sour
stripper water if you control total dissolved solids. I think 5
ppm is a reasonable number. In general, the blowdown and
fresh water makeup is around 40% when using those
streams. There may be some oxygen dissolved in those
streams and it is typical to add some sort of oxygen scaveng-
ing chemicals to those water streams.
MURPHY:
Wash water injection rates, using stripped sour water,
should be set to keep the ammonium bisulfide con-
centration below 10 wt%, preferably 3 to 5%, with carbon
steel metallurgy. If 316 stainless steel is used, then 35 wt%
ammonia bisulfide can be tolerated.
The oxygen content of the wash water, as everyone else
has stated, should be 50 ppb or less. We have effectively
utilized oxygen scavengers to reduce the oxygen level well
below this upper limit.
O’BRIEN:
I agree with the specifications that Mr. Paules and Mr.
Sloan stated. Borger has used a combination of stripped
sour water and boiler feed water. Sweeny has always used
vacuum condensate and, at times, we have had high oxygen
levels as a result of leaks on our surface condensers. We use,
regularly, an oxygen scavenger to maintain near 20 ppb
oxygen.
KARL KLEEMEIER (UOP):
Units we design typically have similar wash water speci-
fications as stated already. We typically do not allow
stripped sour water at all from an outside water stripper. If
there is a dedicated water stripper for the unit you are
using, we allow up to 50% stripped sour water with similar
specifications. But, we also have a H2S limit of 20 ppm and
an ammonia limit of 20 ppm.
100
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
QUESTION 26:
How effective have feed filter systems been in
removing solids and minimizing pressure drop in-
crease when hydrotreating gas oils and residuals?
What are the most popular types of filter systems in
use today?
BONELLI:
The first part of the question asked how effective the feed
filter systems have been in removing solids. Our general
comment is that we have those types of filters ahead of our
hydrocracking, hydrotreating reactor. They have been
quite effective for us. Our system is a pleated paper car-
tridge installed in parallel vessels to allow filter element
changes without interruption of the filtering. Elements are
typically replaced when the pressure drop across the filter
approaches the filter cartridge manufacturers suggested
maximum allowable pressure drop. These filters have
effectively removed the solids from the feed, chiefly iron
oxide, iron sulfide, coke fines, and catalyst fines, pre-
venting pressure drop problems at the fixed bed reactors. A
similar filter and coalescer installation is also used to
remove water from the reactor feed. Filters used in gas oil
hydrotreating service are typically 25 micron, although we
have used 5 and 10 micron elements in filtering our hydro-
cracker charge. The 5 and 10 micron elements were discon-
tinued because the filter life was dramatically shorter and
we saw no improvement in the reactor pressure drop in-
crease over time.
BRIERLEY:
Syncrude uses Ronningen-Petter Reactor Guard feed
filters on all three gas oil hydrotreaters. These systems are
very effective at screening out coke, scale, and other large
particulates that would plug the first reactor bed. Low
micron and submicron particulates can pass through these
filters and may plug reactor beds if the right flow regime
exists in the reactor.
MURPHY:
Feed filters are good at removing about 70% of the solids
above the nominal rating of the filter. One thing to keep in
mind, filters obviously do not remove soluble substances
and various foulant precursors such as iron naphthenates
and olefins begin forming foulant only when temperature is
applied, which is after the feed filtration.
O’BRIEN:
We feel that the feed filters are effective and important to
have upstream of residual hydrotreaters. In 2 of our 12
catalyst loads at Sweeny, we have experienced high guard
reactor pressure drops. On one of those, we had 25 micron
filters. Since then we have changed to 50 micron and have
only had one high pressure drop incident. These filters
consist of 5 bays of 16 metal cartridge filters which back-
flush automatically, one bay at a time, on pressure drop.
The Borger unit has 25 micron feed filters.
SLOAN:
I will add that not all components that cause catalyst bed
plugging are filterable. Soluble corrosion products nor-
mally associated with acidic crudes can pass through filters
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
and react with hydrogen sulfide to form scale at the top of
the catalyst. When processing such feedstocks, the top
catalyst bed should be graded in size and activity to allow
for the accumulation of solids while minimizing pressure
drop increases.
J. WILLIAMS:
Feed filters are effective in removing particles down to 10
microns and larger. However, we also recommend the tech-
niques of catalyst grading to increase the ability of the
reactor bed to handle any remaining particulates with
minimal increase of pressure drop.
T. WILLIAMS:
We have, in the past, used filters on our gas oil/
deasphalted oil hydrotreater services and had similar
results.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
L.F?):
The 25 micron filter was selected in resid processing to
stop particles from going through the 1/32" catalyst down-
stream, but using double desalted feed. That is one of the
things that I did not hear mentioned so far. It is very
important to have efficient filter operation in order to
prevent your catalyst from becoming a better filter.
QUESTION 27:
What quantities of wash water do refiners find
necessary to add to reactor effluent in order to avoid
deposition of salts on the effluent condenser? What
factors determine the quantity? Is washing ever done
intermittently?
MURPHY:
Typical starting point rules of thumb for water wash are
3 to 5 vol% based on liquid charge to the unit. Ultimately
the sublimation temperature of the ammonium chloride
and ammonium bisulfide salt should be calculated along
with the water dewpoint temperature to ensure that the
water dewpoint temperature is hotter than the salt sub-
limation temperatures. Of equal importance is the correct
injection technique including a properly installed injection
quill with the consideration of the flow regime. This is to
ensure that the wash water will get to where it is needed
and will work properly.
As refiners are cutting back on the amount of water
discharge because of environmental regulations, we have
seen some successfully switched to intermittent washing.
Delta P has been used in some of these cases as an indicator
of fouling and as a guide to water wash frequency. However,
this should be evaluated carefully and has to be looked at on
a unit by unit basis.
Please note that some refiners have run into salting
problems when the unit severity was increased, causing the
salts to sublime ahead of the existing reactor effluent wash
water injection location. Relocation of the wash water in-
jection locations, or the addition of a dispersant chemical
program are options in this case.
BONELLI:
At our gas oil hydrocracker wash water is added to the
101
reactor effluent exchanger train to maintain a velocity of
between 12 and 18 ft./sec. Lower velocities result in accel-
erated fouling of the exchangers due to the salt buildup and
potential ammonia carryover into the recycle oil. In our
unit, which is not a once through design, recycle oil con-
taminated with ammonia reduces the reactor conversion
activity.
Excessive velocity in the effluent train can accelerate
corrosion, so it is carefully monitored. For naphtha hydro-
treaters with low nitrogen feeds, typically less than 0.5
ppm by weight, we perform washing on a weekly basis
using a formula of a 1 hour wash and approximately 1200
gallons of condensate per wash.
BRIERLEY:
Ideally, the wash water rate should be that required to
achieve an annular flow regime in all of the tubes of a
horizontal gas cooler, thereby dissolving and removing any
salts as they deposit throughout the length of the ex-
changer. Distribution of the water wash is the key to ensure
all the tubes are sufficiently wetted. We do not recommend
intermittent water washing on those heat exchangers de-
signed for salt deposition and removal. Intermittent water
washing of any upstream heat exchanger is generally not
recommended because the process temperature is usually
too hot and salts can be transported into the fractionator
circuit.
LAABS:
The amount of wash water injected into the system can
be very different from site to site. We have found that the
rate of injection can be affected by the severity of the
process, the type of feed, the quality of the wash water, the
design of the injection system, and the metallurgy of the
tubes. The injection rate is normally set so that 20 to 30% of
the water remains liquid after injection. If the tubes are
made of carbon steel, the injection is adjusted so the emu-
ent water contains no more than 4 wt.% ammonium bisul-
fide, and the stream velocity is kept between 4 and 20
ft./sec. to avoid erosion effects.
Only one of our related refineries uses intermittent
wash. They inject two gallons per minute of wash water for
twenty minutes, six times a day. They report that this
arrangement has been very effective in minimizing the
pressure drop in their reactor etlluent condenser.
SLOAN:
I would like to mention the two papers published by
NACE in the mid 1970’s should be required reading.
l “Survey of Corrosion in Hydrocracker Effluent Air
Coolers”, by R.L. Piehl, Materials Performance, January
1976 and “Corrosion Correlations with Ammonia and
Hydrogen Sulfide in Air Coolers”, by E.F. Ehmke Materials
Performance, July 1975.
ROY:
When injecting wash water to reactor effluent con-
densers care must be taken to use sufficient water to
quench the hot vapors and ascertain that at least 25 vol%
remains as free or liquid water.
If the injected water was to completely vaporize, am-
monium chloride salts could still deposit downstream of the
injection point in a moist environment causing pressure
TOC/INDEX
drop problems and accelerated under deposit pitting cor-
rosion. Typical injection rates are 5 to 6 wt% of feed rate.
Intermittent water injection is not recommended but can
be used following the above mentioned rules.
KARL KLEEMEIER (UOP):
I agree with everything that has been said so far. I would
like to emphasize that the intermittent water wash really
does nothing for you. Once the ammonium bisulfide depos-
its, the water is not going to dissolve it because ammonium
bisulfide does not exist in the liquid form. The wash water
is injected to keep the ammonia and the hydrogen sulfide in
the effluent from combining and desubliming. Once de-
posited, the ammonia bisulfide can be eliminated only by
warming up the fin fan and resubliming the ammonia
bisulfide.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
Someone mentioned intermittent water wash on a naph-
tha hydrotreater. My experience is that intermittent water
wash on a naphtha hydrotreater usually results in more
migration of scale into the reformer. This scale can cause
serious problems during the regeneration of the reformer.
Usually continuous water wash and regardless of how low
the nitrogen content is or how low the sulfur content, will
result in a better reformer operation than intermittent
water wash in a naphtha hydrotreater.
QUESTION 28:
Operation of a diesel hydrotreater at very low
charge rates sometimes causes color problems. What
have refiners done to eliminate this problem? Is
product recycle effective?
J. WILLIAMS:
Although this problem most commonly occurs at start of
run with high activity catalyst, we are familiar with one U.
S. refiner experiencing bright green diesel after two
months of operation. They are operating at half their de-
sign velocity and we feel that due to the low charge rate,
there could be pockets of oil undergoing dehydrogenation
in the reactor causing these color problems. We have rec-
ommended increasing the space velocity by recycling in an
effort to improve color. However, the refiner does not feel it
is a critical problem at this point.
SLOAN:
The problem is usually caused by one of two things. First,
the reduced rates can cause channeling which will lead to
localized hot spots and color problems. Second, low rates
may be lowering reactor temperatures enough so that the
color is not being improved. In either case, the addition of
product recycle increases the mass flux, eliminates the
channeling, and improves the overall operation.
BONELLI:
I agree with the comment about localized hot spots being
a possibility. At our recently constructed distillate hydro-
treater in Robinson, we have an 825 °F inside film tempera-
ture in a fired heater tube, and we also control the catalyst
bed temperature to 680 °F maximum at any point in the
bed.
102
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
MARK RILEY (Unocal Corporation):
Diesel color is largely determined by three operating
parameters, hydrogen partial pressure, reactor tempera-
ture, and liquid hourly space velocity. Generally, diesel
color is improved by operating at low temperatures, high
hydrogen partial pressures, and low space velocities. Turn-
ing down the charge rate will normally improve diesel color.
Color deterioration at very low charge rates may be indica-
tive of poor reactor hydrodynamics. Product recycle may
solve some color problems associated with poor flow dis-
tribution at very low charge rates. Installing more efficient
reactor internals is another solution. Color degradation can
also occur if the reduction in charge rate is not followed by a
reduction in reactor temperature.
SUDHIR MENON (NALCO Chemicals India Ltd.):
It has been useful sometimes to bypass the hydrotreater
while processing very low charge rates and to use an effec-
tive diesel fuel stabilizer to control the color if the sulfur is
within specification.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
The color problem is most often, in my experience, caused
by passing through the dry point in the reactor, so that a
little bit of oil stays on the catalyst and presumably poly-
merizes. Product recycle does indeed work; it keeps a liquid
phase present throughout the reactor.
QUESTION 29:
For those refiners who are hydrotreating their FCC
gasoline, what octane losses have been experienced?
LAABS:
One of our refineries has historical octane data for se-
verely hydrotreating heavy FCC gasoline. We have ob-
served an octane loss of 5 to 7 numbers during the testing
period. More recent data is not available, as the site is
currently comingling their FCC gasoline with other feeds
before hydrotreating and reforming.
Research at an affiliated laboratory has shown that there
will be a 1 number loss in research octane for every 1.5 to
3.0 vol% olefin reduction in the hydrotreating process, and
a 1 number loss of motor octane for every 2.5 to 5% olefin
reduction.
Texaco Development Corporation has a new hydro-
treating catalyst, called TX-SDS, that allows deep de-
sulfurization of FCC naphthas with minimal octane loss.
Laboratory data indicate that at 85% desulfurization, oc-
tane loss can be expected to be less than 1 number and at
95% desulfurization, less than 2 numbers.
PAULES:
At one of our refineries, we control our gasoline pool
sulfur by limiting the FCC gasoline end point to 380 to
400 °F and drawing the heavier gasoline with the LCO.
This LCO is then hydrotreated and the heavy gasoline is
recovered in a hydrotreated product rerun fractionator.
With this processing scheme, it is difficult to measure the
octane loss of the heavy gasoline itself, but it is believed to
be minimal as most of the octane quality of this cut comes
from aromatics and not olefins. This strategy allows the full
range FCC gasoline sulfur to be reduced 35 to 50% versus
blending the full range cut directly without hydrotreating.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
RAJGURU:
Our recent studies and ongoing designs indicate that the
octane losses for FCC gasoline can be in the order of up to 10
RON and 8 MON. The treated gasoline sulfur levels in
these cases are less than 50 ppm. This reduction is, how-
ever, highly dependent on the FCC feed characteristics, and
severity of FCC operation.
High olefin levels of the gasoline will result in higher
octane losses. One of the considerations to minimize the
octane loss is to split the full range FCC gasoline into light
and heavy gasoline and hydrodesulfurize only the heavy
gasoline which is mostly aromatic and does not incur the
same degree of octane loss as the full range FCC gasoline.
Estimated octane loss for heavy FCC gasoline is in the
order of 2 RON and 1 MON.
SLOAN:
In last year’s NPRA Q&A transcript, pages 30 & 31, Mr.
Safa George of Criterion discussed a very similar question.
J. WILLIAMS:
Octane loss of 4 to 5 numbers is typical when hydro-
treating full range FCC gasoline to the current levels of 500
to 1,000 ppm sulfur. For future reformulated gasoline speci-
fications, heavy octane penalties of 8 to 10 number drop in
RON could be expected when refiners target below 250 ppm
sulfur. We believe high severity operation of FCC feed
hydrotreaters will be the preferred operation to achieve the
future gasoline pool sulfur specifications.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
LP):
Lummus and Criterion have now developed a process for
SynSat FCC gasoline desulfurization which we announced
today. One thing that I would like to caution is that looking
at gasolines today and looking at gasolines tomorrow are
different problems. What I heard was desulfurization of the
heavy gasoline. I am not sure that is going to be in gasolines
of the future.
The T90 proposed changes are going to drastically im-
pact on how much FCC cracked gasoline can be used. There
are many heated discussions on this subject.
When looking at octane numbers of FCC gasolines, make
sure the octane number of your base case is defined. As we
go towards reformulated gasolines and you change the
FCCU operation to make more olefins for downstream
ether or alkylate production, the front end point is going to
change significantly. A lot of your octane, which will be lost
in desulfurization, is lost from the front end. That is be-
cause of the high concentration of low molecular weight
olefins that are in that gasoline fraction.
If you cut at C5s and if you are also trying to minimize
olefins in your downstream gasoline, it could be a different
situation. The processes we look at for almost any of the
streams for reformulated gasoline will give less than a 1 to
2 octane number loss.
QUESTION 30:
Are any refiners currently producing ultra low
sulfur diesel (i.e., less than 0.02 wt% sulfur)? How
serious are problems, such as lubricity, for the ultra
low sulfur diesels?
103
PEDERSEN:
Since January 1991, ultra low sulfur diesel fuels have
been marketed in Sweden following legislation that offers
attractive tax incentives for the manufacturing and sales of
these fuels. For a diesel fuel meeting, the 50 ppm sulfur
specification, so-called class 2 specification, the tax incen-
tive is about $50/ton. For fuel meeting, 10 ppm sulfur, class
1, the incentive is about $lOO/ton. The base fuel, with no
tax incentive, called class 3, is currently limited to a maxi-
mum of 0.1 wt% sulfur, but it is expected that this will be
reduced to 0.05 wt%.
In addition to the tight sulfur specifications, there are
limiting specifications on aromatics, 20 vol% and 5 vol% for
class 2 and 1, respectively. On distillation, a 95% maximum
at 295 ºC and 285 °C, respectively. These environmental
fuels are produced at some European refineries. The class 2
diesel is today the standard diesel quality at the service
stations in Sweden. It is expected that within a year or two,
the class 1 specification will be the standard. Some prob-
lems have been reported related to lack of lubricity, pri-
marily for light duty engines in passenger cars. Whether to
expect a problem or not depends basically on two factors: (1)
the fuel injection system in the engine and (2) how severe a
hydroprocessing operation the product has seen. To get a
good understanding of the possible problems and causes, I
can refer you to a recent article in the Oil & Gas Journal
from August 16, 1993.
BRIERLEY:
Syncrude produces an ultra low sulfur, i.e. less than 10
ppm diesel fuel for internal use by our mine fleet. The fuel
is cleaner burning and less corrosive than commercial
diesel fuels. We add small quantities of a commercial lu-
bricity additive as a safeguard. There have been no adverse
effects on engine life and actual field performance has
exceeded expectations.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
LI?):
I was fortunate enough this past week to give the sum-
mary talk on diesel processing at the Fuels Conference in
Washington. I emphasized that the problems we are seeing
supposedly with diesel fuels at low sulfur are being caused
by units that are being operated at very high sevedties. A
properly designed unit, understanding what is going on in
a diesel hydrotreaier, can achieve products which do not
have these problems.
As Mr. Pedersen mentioned, Sweden has a class 1 diesel,
which I classify in the U. S. terms as a heavy jet fuel. This is
10 ppm sulfur with 3 to 5 vol% aromatics. That material, at
one point, did have some lubricity problems as was reported
recently in the Oil & Gas Journal.
Lubricity is an interesting facet. Lubricity is a function of
the viscosity and the distillation at the front end. If you
change them by a very small fraction on the cut point, the
lubricity can be changed significantly. So I go back to what I
have been saying many times, understand your chemistry
and you go run these things to your low sulfur levels
without any problems.
HIGGINS:
Mr. Suchanek, you say lubricity is a function of viscosity
TOC/INDEX
and the front end distillation. Are there available cor-
relations on that relationship?
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
LI?):
No. There was a great study that was done in Sweden by
Volvo, which I have given to quite a few people here. Last
spring, we presented a paper with ScanRaft on the SynSat
application. My coauthor Kurt Karlson had sent me a copy
of the Volvo paper and I have sent it to many people.
Anyway there is a developing correlation. From what I
have been told by people who operate engines, viscosity and
front end cut point are the two key variables which have an
effect on lubricity, perceived lubricity in the engine. The
sulfur, of course, is important too because of its natural
inhibition, but if 10 ppm works out at some units, I do not
see where it is that big a deal.
HIGGINS:
There appears to be another problem in the United
States with the low sulfur diesel. The Cummins, L&N
series, engine has an O-ring on the PT pump made of
butly-n and they appear to be leaking, causing quite a few
problems out there in the market place. I understand that
Cummins has, this week, sent a letter to their dealerships
warning them of that and telling them the solution is to
change out that O-ring.
QUESTION 31:
What is the maximum temperature for hydro-
processing diesel and kerosene streams without sig-
nificantly impacting color or stability? What
correlations exist between color and operating con-
ditions? What are the mechanisms that cause the
formation of color bodies? What can be done after
hydrotreating to improve stability?
PAULES:
This question has been discussed very thoroughly in the
last several NPRA Q&A sessions. As a general guideline, to
avoid color and stability problems, the reactor outlet tem-
perature should not exceed 720 ºF, or exceed 50% vapor-
ization. Also, cracked stocks high in nitrogen and un-
saturates will cause more problems than straight-run.
104
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
J. WILLIAMS:
The maximum reactor temperature achievable before
impacting color and color stability depends on the feedstock
and operating conditions. It is generally believed that this
threshold temperature is between 720 and 735 ºF There is
no strong correlation between color and operating condi-
tions. However, the main factor contributing to color
degradation is temperature. Therefore, any operating vari-
able which reduces reactor temperature required to achieve
the product specifications will help to improve color. This
includes maximizing hydrogen partial pressure, reducing
diesel end point, and minimizing cracked stocks. It is
widely accepted that color and color stability are affected by
aromatics, specifically polynuclear aromatics, and hetero-
cyclic nitrogen compounds. Since air and light adversely
affect the final product, we recommend nitrogen-blanketed
storage tanks. However, if the final product fails the color
stability test off the unit, it cannot be improved except for
further hydrotreating or blending with other good quality
diesel.
OSBORN:
This is certainly dependent on the design of the unit,
whether the end of run is potentially reached due to the
color. Typically, we target to not exceed 700 to 710 ºF in the
reactor system. The crude source, the operating pressure,
space velocity, percent vaporization in the bed, are all
important factors in the performance of the unit and the
associated product color and stability.
The two most likely sources of color degradation are
nitrogen compounds and the associated formation of color
bodies, or the possibility of cracking due to an excessive
delta T across the bed. Stability is affected by the degree of
saturation of olefins and diolefins and has not been a prob-
lem with the severity of hydrotreating required to meet the
0.05 wt% sulfur standard.
We are requested to add minimum levels of a stabilizer to
meet pipeline specifications, although early testing indi-
cates this may not be necessary. A small amount of cor-
rosion inhibitor seems to be necessary to meet a B + NACE
test however.
RAJ PATEL (Unocal Corporation):
An economically attractive alternative to preventing
color body formation is to allow the color bodies to form and
treat the diesel separately to improve the color. Unocal
licenses hydrotreating processes which utilize diesel color
control technology called DCC, which can be retrofitted to
an existing unit to reduce color in diesel and in jet fuel.
T. A. CAVANAUGH (Exxon Research & Engineering
Company):
Based on extensive pilot plant studies and confirmed in
commercial deep desulfurization operations, we find that
distillate color and stability are highly influenced by the
feedstock type and operating severity. Although somewhat
difficult to generalize, experience suggests that virgin dis-
tillates can be subject to temperatures in the range of 700 to
800 °F, while cracked stocks require a more limited range of
600 to 700 ºF The mechanisms for the formation of color
bodies is rather complex and related to multiring aromatics
formation via condensation in or dehydrogenation
reactions.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
QUESTION 32:
For producing 0.05 weight percent sulfur diesel,
most refiners are operating their units at 0.04 to
0.042 wt% sulfur to insure they stay below the 0.05
wt% level. This offset is primarily due to the analyt-
ical uncertainty in the sulfur measurement. Are there
any new or emerging technologies that can sig-
nificantly improve the accuracy of the sulfur mea-
sure, allowing the refiner to operate at a level closer
to the mandated sulfur specification?
SLOAN:
For the determination of sulfur in petroleum feedstock,
specifically diesel stocks, there are very few accepted
methods that have the required precision to allow a closer
offset. The classic ASTM D2622, wavelength dispersive
x-ray, is well equipped to analyze sulfur in diesel at 500
ppm. The reported repeatability of this method is 25 ppm.
As ASTM subcommittee is now trying to establish an
energy dispersive x-ray method that has the required pre-
cision for diesel specifications, newer instruments in this
category have detector resolution and software algorithms
that provide significantly better performance than earlier
models that were limited to high sulfur applications. With
these instruments, a draft method has been tested by round
robin and found to give a repeatability of 28 ppm and a
reproducibility between laboratories of 54 ppm.
Even more sensitive methods are being developed that
have not yet obtained the required precision. These include
the use of chemiluminescence detector, such as used by
Antek, or the use of inductively coupled plasma (ICP)
spectroscopy. The Antek’s advantage over the x-ray method
lies in the speed of analysis, lack of interferences, and cost
of the required instrumentation. The ICP is expensive, but
can be used in a great number of applications and is quite
fast. For interested parties, I have three literature refer-
ences on the ICP for sulfur determinations.
l Fabec, J.L. Ruschak, M.L., “Determination of Ni, V,S,
in crudes and heavy crude fractions by ICP/AES and
FAAS”. Analytical Chemistry, 1985, 57 (9), pg 1853-1863.
l Floyd, R.C., “Determination of Sulfur in Petroleum
Products Using ICP With Vacuum Spectometer”. Plasma
Spectrochem Anal. Prod. Int. Winter Conf. 1980, paper No.
15.
l Blades, M.W., Hauser, P., “Quantitation of Sulfur in
Xylene with an Inductively Coupled Plasma Photodiode-
Array Spectrometer”. Analytica Chimica Acta 1984, 157,
163-169.
Even with the development of improved analytical tools,
the real problem is the calibration bias which is best at-
tacked by having an identical reference sample in both
buyer and seller laboratories to use for adjusting results to
a common basis. This type of arrangement could, indeed,
reduce the need to run with large offsets. For the new ED
x-ray method, two NIST standards are recommended with
0.0152 and 0.169 wt% sulfur. A standard close to the 0.05
wt% sulfur could reduce the between laboratory bias to a
value near the 28 ppm repeatability and lead to smaller
offsets.
BRIERLEY:
Existing ASTM methods cannot accurately measure the
low sulfur in our diesel cut, which is between 100 and 300
105
ppm. They are susceptible to interference from nitrogen,
metals, chlorides, and are sensitive to ambient tempera-
ture. We use the ANTEK method, which I believe Mr. Sloan
referred to, even through it does not fully meet the re-
quirements of ASTM D3120. The ANTEK method has been
shown to have better accuracy and precision, and is cur-
rently in for balloting by ASTM and may be approved next
year.
LAABS:
The sulfur testing method of choice for low sulfur diesel
fuel at our refineries is the ASTM D2622 x-ray fluorescence
test. This method has a published repeatability of 0.0025
wt%, which would allow for a much tighter operating speci-
fication. The design of x-ray spectrometers has greatly
improved in the past few years. Using these instruments,
along with proper quality control in the laboratory, we have
achieved a repeatability of 0.001 wt%. Pipelines have ac-
knowledged this increase in testing capability by relaxing
their low sulfur diesel specification to 0.047 wt% sulfur.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
L.P):
A really fine paper was put out last week at the Fuels
Conference entitled “New Testing Options Offer Compliant
Success”, by Terry Thompson of Caleb Brett. I would sug-
gest you contact Information Resources of Virginia to get a
copy of it.
FRANK J. KLEINSCHRODT (SETPOINT, Inc.):
At least two new sulfur analyzers have come on the
market recently.
Fluid Data sells an analyzer called “FdSulf-Tane’“”
which uses a chemiluminescence technique to measure
total sulfur down to 1 ppm. The analyzer first conditions
the sample through a gas chromatograph column then
burns the effluent of the column to give SO2 and SO. The
combustion products are combined with ozone and a chemi-
cal reaction between the SO compounds and ozone gives off
a telltale frequency of light. The light is detected and
converted to a signal proportional to the sulfur content.
Fluid Data claims a cycle time of 2 minutes and repeat-
ability of 1%.
ABB Process Analytics also has a new total sulfur analy-
zer which uses a flame photometric technique. (More in-
formation expected from ABB soon.)
QUESTION 33:
What unanticipated operational problems have
refiners experienced in producing low sulfur diesel?
How has this impacted your operations?
PEDERSEN:
Both in Kalundborg and Mongstad, we have been pro-
ducing 0.05 wt% sulfur diesel fuels for some time. We have
not really experienced any unanticipated problems. But, of
course, we are much more vulnerable to product con-
tamination. Therefore, good sulfur control of your tank
heels and your loading lines are essential. We are, for
example, using the same loading line to ship standard
sulfur diesel and low sulfur diesel and have to flush the
systems carefully when low sulfur product follows the
higher sulfur product.
TOC/INDEX
J. WILLIAMS:
We have found that both hydrogen consumption and heat
of reaction are higher than anticipated for low sulfur diesel
units processing light cycle oil. This is apparently due to an
increase in polynuclear aromatic saturation as evidenced in
improved cetane index.
JUNO:
In our two diesel hydrotreaters, we have not experienced
any unusual operating problems. Within two days of start-
up on one of our new hydrotreaters, we were on speci-
fication with our diesel product.
PAULES:
The only concern we have encountered so far is that the
cloud point of the hydrotreated low sulfur diesel is not as
responsive to kerosene blending as nonhydrotreated diesel.
For example, a nonhydrotreated diesel of cloud point 25
may need 15% kerosene to meet an 18 cloud point speci-
fication. This same stream, after hydrotreating to 0.05
sulfur may still have a cloud point of 25, but will need 30%
kerosene to meet an 18 cloud point specification. We have
not experienced any color or stability problems, but we
have not come close to end-of-run conditions on our unit.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
Last night a catalyst salesman proudly told me about his
hottest new product that is desulfurizing a 50:50 mix of
cycle oil and straight-run to 0.05 wt% sulfur at a space
velocity up around 5. At those conditions, the volumetric
heat release inside the reactor is somewhere between
20,000 and 40,000 BTUs/hr/ft3. That is several times the
heat release inside your refinery furnaces. It is great that
we are making advances in catalyst, and I do not want you
to slow down, but we have a real operator training problem
too. Hydrotreater operators are in a new ball game.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
LP):
I read this question as not an operational problem, but an
emotional problem. It is an interesting question. Mr.
McCoy, I will say there is a Chevron Plant in Wales that
runs 100% cycle oil at 4 space velocity, and 600 lbs pressure,
100% vapor phase operation with only 50% conversion in
the catalytic cracker.
This is the point that I would like to make. Fundamental
in understanding hydrotreating of FCC cycle oils is under-
standing what is going on in the catalytic cracker. Mr.
James Williams from Akzo brought this point out and I
totally agree with him. What he did not do is go further.
The catalytic cracker today is changing significantly. I
think it was three years ago, I stood in one of these meet-
ings and said a cycle oil is not a cycle oil is not a cycle oil.
Cycle oils are changing drastically as we go to different
catalyst and make maximum olefins, as we go to minimum
contact time risers.
Many changes are being done in catalytic crackers de-
signs which affect the quality of the product. We have seen
some significant changes in the hydrotreatability of some
of these products. In one case I can tell you of an operation,
over the first third of the catalyst bed, which is one bed and
then two-thirds of the second bed had 135 °F delta T at
106
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
conditions of 750 psi, 1.5 space velocity, but most impor-
tantly only 35% cycle oil. The material that is coming out of
your catalytic cracker is different. You can not sell hydro-
treating alone today, you had better understand the cata-
lytic cracker.
QUESTION 34:
Has any refiner successfully hydroprocessed FCC
slurry recycle oil to improve conversion of this mate-
rial? If so, what modifications were required to
handle the fines?
LAABS:
One of our refineries routinely hydroprocesses FCC
slurry oil in a Texaco-designed H-Oil unit. The process
allows for the addition or withdrawal of catalyst on-line, so
the reactor has no problem with fines in the feed stream.
The H-Oil charge drums and other unit vessels have shown
minor fines accumulation. These are cleaned during
shutdowns.
SLOAN:
Catalyst fines can be removed from FCC slurry oil by
either settling, filtration, or solvent deasphalting. Filters
are susceptible to plugging. Settling tanks may not be
economically or environmentally viable. Solvent de-
asphalting can be used to easily remove the fines. Kerr-
McGee tells us that this easy separation is attainable
because of the substantial density difference between the
liquid and solid phases. Solvent deasphalting provides
nearly complete rejection of the solid material, as well as
any asphaltenes that may be in the FCC slurry oil. The
asphaltenes plus catalyst fines can be handled as a hot
liquid slurry or as a solid product. The size distribution and
overall consistency of a solid asphaltene stream is deter-
mined by the cooling method employed in the product
handing system. Solid asphaltenes can vary from fine pow-
ders to large lumps, and from random particles to uniform
pellets. Any of these products may be suitable as fuel.
J. WILLIAMS:
Hydroprocessing slurry oil demands filtration such as
sintered metal filters to lower the catalyst fines to low
amounts to avoid plugging in the catalyst bed. We know of
one unit which has successfully used this technique. A
catalyst system with residual demetalization catalyst can
also be used to reduce asphaltenes.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company
L.F!):
Going back to the old, old days at the Cincinnati Gulf Oil
Plant. We had a 600 lb. hydrotreater, 2 space velocity diesel
unit. Periodically, we would process slurry oil and send the
product to a plant where they would use it for anode grade
coke. It was a profitable product.
We solved the fines problem very simply, by changing the
catalyst to 1/8 in. size. That meant all the fines went out with
the product to coke production. The nice part was that we
were able to come back to distillate in roughly four or five
days by taking the color bodies off the catalyst. It worked
well.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
QUESTION 35:
With a more severe desulfurization of diesel,
should we be concerned about ammonium bisulfide
condensing in the stripper tower overhead con-
denser system?
SLOAN:
Inevitably as refiners go to higher hydrodesulfurization
levels in distillate hydrotreaters, the level of denitrogena-
tion and resulting ammonia concentration and reactor
effluent will also increase. This is particularly true in units
which process significant quantities of cracked stock, such
as coke or gas oil which are derived from high nitrogen
crudes. Also, many new units and major revamps are util-
izing the hot high pressure separator configuration. This
separator design will result in higher levels of ammonia
reaching the stripper. Our simulations have indicated that
there are sufficiently high levels ofammonia in the stripper
overhead in many applications that result in salt formation
and possibly severe corrosion. We feel that it may be neces-
sary on a case by case basis to design for continuous water
wash upstream of the overhead condenser. The method-
ology and data published by Lyn and Crynes (Oil and Gas
Journal, November 28, 1983) can be used to estimate the
potential for salt formation in the overhead. However, even
in the absence of salt deposition, the potential for corrosion
caused by elevated ammonia bisulf’ide concentrations at
the water dewpoint should also be considered.
MURPHY:
The concern of ammonia bisulfide condensing in the
stripper tower overhead condenser system is always pres-
ent. However, an analysis of the stripper tower overhead
system for ammonia and sulfide will determine the sub-
limation temperature and whether there is a problem. As I
previously stated, more severe operating conditions can
move the sublimation point of the salts ahead of the water
wash. Please be extremely cautious when taking this par-
ticular sample due to the very high H2S levels which are
present in the stream.
QUESTION 36:
What are the pros and cons of scrubbing H2S out of
the recycle gas stream?
PAULES:
Scrubbing the H2 S out of a hydrotreater recycle gas
stream has advantages catalytically over systems that do
not. In a system without recycle gas scrubbing, H2S will
build up in the recycle loop such that the H2S generated in
the reactor will be equal to that leaving the unit in hydro-
gen purge, cold flash gas, and cold separator liquid. This
level can approach ten percent. These higher levels of H2S
concentration tend to inhibit the desulfurization reaction,
Also, excessive hydrogen purge may be necessary to hold
H2S in the recycle gas at a reasonable level, thus wasting
hydrogen available for other hydroprocessing. However,
installing a recycle gas scrubber in a hydrotreater is more
costly than combining all off gas streams to a single low
pressure scrubber.
107
PEDERSEN:
As a comment on the pros and cons, I can refer to a recent
study we did on a grass roots HDS unit for virgin gas oils,
with 97% desulfurization at 750 psig, and feed sulfur at
about 0.4 wt%. Space velocity could be increased by 40
percent with an H2S scrubber installed, but we are not able
to justify the cost of the scrubber and associated facilities
compared to the cost of additional reactor volume. As a
general rule of thumb, I think the H2S mole percent should
be higher than 3% before you start to think about H2S
scrubbing.
RAJGURU:
The pros and cons for us covering H2S out of the recycle
gas are case specific and are difficult to generalize. For a
typical low sulfur, light straight-run naphtha, it is more
economical to maintain the recycle gas purity while adjust-
ing the purge, rather than by considering the recycle gas
scrubber. However, for a typical high sulfur gas oil de-
sulfurizer, it is very economical to scrub the H2S out of the
recycle stream and to increase the recycle gas purity.
Without the scrubber, more purge and correspondingly
more makeup hydrogen is required to maintain the hydro-
gen partial of the reactor. Alternately, more catalyst is
required to compensate for the reduced hydrogen partial
pressure. Besides, the H2S generated by the HDS must be
scrubbed somewhere to meet the fuel gas or LPG speci-
fications anyway. Therefore, there are no savings in the
total amine circulation rates.
The only possible, if any, savings from not having the
recycled gas scrubber is to have a single low pressure amine
contactor instead of two contactors, a high pressure and low
pressure.
Unless it is a once through system, we strongly recom-
mend an H2S scrubber in the recycle gas for high sulfur
distillates and heavier feeds.
J. WILLIAMS:
High levels of H2S in the recycled gas stream act as a
temporary poison and tend to suppress the desulfurization
(HDS) and denitrogenation (HDN) reactions. The negative
to scrubbing H2S out of the recycled gas is the equipment
cost. Leaving H2S in the recycled gas even in low con-
centrations from 1 to 2% reduces the HDS and HDN ac-
tivities since the H2S is a temporary poison. Two percent
H2S can require an increase of around 10 ºF, seriously
reducing the cycle length. For the refiner that has plenty of
hydrogen from the reformer, giving a high purge rate in the
distillate or gas oil hydrotreator, the incentive will be lower.
JUNO:
I agree with most of the panels comments and will add
that, depending on the operating pressure, the effect of
having somewhere around 10% H2S in the recycle gas could
drop you to a point where your aromatic saturation reac-
tions will be also sharply diminished.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
This may also be the cheapest way of expanding an
existing HDS unit.
DAVID C. PARNELL (TPA):
In regards to the solvent circulation rate, if the H2S is
TOC/INDEX
removed at a higher pressure, the solvent circulation rate
can definitely be reduced. This is because the H2S absorp-
tion efficiency, whichever solvent is being used, is con-
siderably better at the higher pressures than treating at a
lower pressure. There are some potential advantages to
reducing the solvent circulation rate and simultaneously
removing the same amount of H2S by treating the Hz rich
stream at a high pressure. When the overall solvent cir-
culation rate to the regenerator is reduced, the equipment
cost for a new unit will be less; or an energy saving on an
existing unit can be realized because of a reduction in the
regeneration energy requirement at the lower solvent cir-
culation rate.
BRIERLEY:
I would like to add a couple of comments we have not
heard. If you are constructing a new unit and do not add
H2S scrubbing, you are going to have to increase the size of
your recycle gas loop and the compressor to increase the
circulation rate to keep the hydrogen partial pressure
where you want. If you have an existing unit with H2S in
the recycle gas, you have to run with higher reactor tem-
peratures, and therefore, higher deactivation rates. If you
want to scrub out the H2S, you will be able to run with
significantly lower reactor temperatures and possibly sig-
nificantly longer catalyst life as well.
QUESTION 37:
Low sulfur diesel is here, and lower aromatic diesel
is coming. What is the capability of a hydrotreater
producing 500 ppm diesel to reduce aromatics from
40 vol% to 25 vol%, to 20 vol%, to 10 vol%? What is
the minimum pressure required for marginal aro-
matics reduction? Please comment on any emerging
hydrotreating technologies for HDS/HDA.
J. WILLIAMS:
Most low sulfur diesel can be achieved at moderate pres-
sures, 650 to 1000 psig, and space velocities of about 1 to 2.
In this type of system, reduction of aromatic below 30% is
not possible. In order to reduce our aromatics from 40 to 10
or 20 vol%, either a high pressure, single stage over 1800
lbs of low space velocity (under 1) unit, or a two-stage low
pressure system is required. Two new emerging tech-
nologies are available for HDA: (1) the two-stage process
with a low to moderate pressure HDS reactor followed by a
low pressure HDA reactor, and (2) a single stage hydro-
cracking process at moderate to high pressures called MAK
Hydrocracking resulting from a recent technology alliance
between Mobil, Akzo, and Kellogg.
PEDERSEN:
In our pilot plant we have demonstrated that operating at
750 psig with a nickel molybdenum catalyst and a space
velocity of 1, the aromatic content can be reduced by up to
25 vol%. Decreasing the aromatic content further in a
single step will require a significant increase in operating
pressure. On the other hand, adopting a two stage concept,
aromatics can be reduced to about 10% even at lower pres-
sures by use of a noble metal catalyst in the second bed. You
should be aware that to use the noble metal catalyst, in the
108
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
second step, requires very low sulfur and nitrogen con-
centrations in the feed.
BRIERLEY:
There have been several excellent papers presented at
the NPRA Annual Meetings on this subject in recent years.
Overall, they would seem to indicate, you can get moderate
levels of aromatic saturation in the 40 to 50 percent range at
low space velocities and total pressures as low as 700 lbs.
Syncrude currently is planning pilot plant studies with
ABB Lummus Crest and Criterion Catalysts, joint li-
censers of the SynSat process.
JUNO:
Just giving some theoretical numbers, information from
a consultant indicated that I could achieve, with a nickel
tungsten catalyst, aromatics reduction from 40 to 25 vol%
at around 800 psi hydrogen partial pressure, 40 to 20 ~01%
at 1100 psi, and 40 to 10 vol% at 1600 psi. Using a nickel
molybdenum catalyst, the numbers would be more like
1200 psi for 40 to 25 vol%, 1600 psi for 40 to 20 vol%, and
2400 psi for a 40 to 10 vol% reduction. This suggests that if
you could get your sulfur down below 10 ppm by adding
reactor volume, you would be better off by adding a second
stage hydrotreater with noble metal catalyst operating at a
much lower pressure range, maybe in the 600 psi range.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company):
I would just like to mention that of the eight SynSat
licenses that we have, the first was started up on September
1, conceptualized on February 15th. The engineering work
was done through the summer, and the plant is now pro-
ducing ultralow aromatics.
PAUL W. VANCE (Acreon Catalysts):
For a two stage hydrotreater configuration, with the first
stage being a high severity desulfurization system, and the
second stage system for aromatic saturation, Acreon offers
a high surface area nickel catalyst for aromatic reduction.
This catalyst offers a high hydrogenation activity and
provides an alternative to precious metal hydrogenation
catalyst.
MARK RILEY WNOCAL Corporation):
The conditions required to reduce aromatics in diesel are
more severe than those required for desulfurization or
denitrogenation. A hydrotreater producing 500 ppm diesel
from a feedstock with 40 volume percent aromatics is un-
likely to exhibit appreciable aromatics reduction.
Aromatics reduction is strongly influenced by space ve-
locity and hydrogen partial pressure. For example, a diesel
with 1.22 wt% sulfur, 330 ppm nitrogen, and 42.9 vol%
aromatics displayed the following behavior. At 700 psi and
3 lhsv, almost no aromatices conversion was observed up to
a temperature of 720 °F. By reducing the space velocity to 1
hr-1, the aromatics were reduced to 35 volume percent at
720 ºF. At 1000 psi and 3 lhsv, the aromatics were also
reduced to 35 volume percent at 720 ºF. Decreasing the lhsv
to 1 hr -1 , at the same pressure reduces the aromatics
content to 20 volume percent at a temperature to 680 ºF
Further increasing the pressure to 1400 psi the aromatics
content can be reduced to 22 volume percent at a space
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
velocity of 3 hr-1 and a temperature of 720 °F A diesel with
10 volume percent aromatics can be produced by lowering
the space velocity to 1 hr-1 and reducing the temperature
to 700 ºF.
In order to produce lower aromatics diesel without re-
sorting to such severe conditions, Unocal and other li-
censors have developed integrated hydrotreating/aromatics
saturation processes. These processes use base metal
hydrotreating catalysts for HDS and HDN and a noble
metal catalyst for aromatics saturation. Unocal has used
Unisar technology for many years to reduce the aromatics
content of jet fuels and has extended this technology to
diesel fuels. Like other noble metal catalyst, aromatic satu-
ration catalysts are very sensitive to the nitrogen and
sulfur levels. Unocal is currently developing higher ac-
tivity Unisar catalysts which have enhanced tolerance to
nitrogen and sulfur poisoning.
PETER HANNENUP (Haldor Topsoe AS):
I agree with most of what has been said here today. In
1992, we published a study comparing different catalyst
systems exactly for this purpose. This was a paper given at
American Chemical Society Annual Meeting in April 1992
and the title was: “Diesel Aromatics Saturation: A Com-
parative Study of Four Catalyst Systems.”
The conclusion we reached was much the same as we
reached here today, that to achieve deep aromatics satu-
ration, it is necessary to operate a two stage system, one
with hydrodesulfurization, and the second stage using a
special noble metal catalyst. We have, in recent pilot test-
ing, proven that this system can operate as low as 350 psig
hydrogen partial pressure.
Catalysts
QUESTION 38:
In atmospheric resid HDS operation, what is the
maximum level of conversion actually achieved
while producing stable fuel oil?
RAJGURU:
The level of conversion, again depends upon the type of
feed that you are using. We know of one overseas refiner
who has achieved 16 to 17 liquid volume percent conversion
(680 ºF minus), while producing stable fuel oil. The feed to
the unit was atmospheric residuum from a Middle East
crude and hydrogen to hydrocarbon ratio was about 4000
scf/bbl. Hydrogen consumption, including the mechanical
losses, is in the order of 900 to 1000 scf/bbl.
J. WILLIAMS:
Sludge formation or asphaltene precipitation of fuel oil
limits the maximum conversion of commercial units. If the
1000 °F + conversion exceeds 45 to 50%, the unit can no
longer be operated. The dry sludge deposition which occurs
in flash drums, effluent heat exchangers and fractionators
causes a loss of heat transfer and pressure drop buildup.
The resid HDS units should be operated below the critical
conversion, 45 to 50%, at lower reactor temperatures. This
critical conversion level will vary depending on the resid
characteristics and the catalyst used.
109
ARNOLD S. FEINBERG (Exxon Research & Engineer-
ing Company):
We operated an atmospheric RESIDFINING unit for
several years at Baytown during the early eighties to max-
imize 1050 ºF boiling point conversion. We found that the
maximum conversion level possible was a function of cata-
lyst type, feed properties, and operating temperature.
Commercially, we successfully demonstrated conversion
levels greater than 50% and a one year cycle length was
achieved while maintaining this high conversion level.
QUESTION 39:
Do you have experience with regenerating atmo-
spheric resid hydrotreater catalyst? What spent
catalyst properties are critical to good quality
regenerated catalyst?
O’BRIEN:
We have regenerated a portion of the catalyst from the
last reactor of our residual hydrotreater on three occasions.
The spent catalyst specification was to contain less than 5
wt% nickel and vanadium. It needed to be fairly free flow-
ing with no large conglomerated clumps of coke and cata-
lyst. The regenerated catalyst specifications were on
length, a crush strength greater than 33.6, and less than
one weight percent carbon. We also specified maximum
heating rates and temperatures to be used in regeneration.
BRIERLEY:
While we do not operate an atmospheric resid hydro-
treater, we do regularly regenerate catalyst in naphtha,
atmospheric and vacuum gas oil service. We feel that
extraneous metals loading, surface area, sulfur, and carbon
levels all provide indication of catalyst future activity.
Particle size distribution, length distribution, attrition re-
sistance, and crush strength are all key factors affecting
reactor fouling and pressure drop.
J. WILLIAMS:
A critical parameter in regenerating residual hydro-
treating catalyst is the amount of metals, such as nickel
and vanadium, that have been deposited on the catalyst.
Catalyst from the front end of the reactor system is gen-
erally not considered for regeneration. Catalyst samples
from the back end could be considered candidates for gen-
eration depending on how the catalyst activity would re-
cover after regeneration. The activity of the spent catalyst
after a regenerating can be evaluated based on the spent
catalyst analysis of SA, PV, SCS, and abrasion resistance.
QUESTION 40:
Do you replace catalyst in diesel and gas oil
hydrotreaters based on pressure drop or activity
(temperature)?
BONELLI:
Our experience has been that our hydrotreating catalyst
replacement is most commonly done for recovery of activity,
especially as long as the unit operating cycle has been
reasonably normal. The proper design, and operation and
maintenance of feed filtration systems are critical, espe-
TOC/INDEX
cially when you are charging feeds from storage or feeds
from FCCU operations. Refer to the previous comments we
made about feed filtration.
BRIERLEY:
The factors controlling catalyst change out timing are
specific to each unit. In our case, the units were generally
pressure drop limited for the first 12 years of operation.
Improvements to the fluid cokers and tank blanketing
systems have reduced the level of contaminants in the
hydrotreater feeds. As a result, our naphtha and heavy gas
oil hydrotreaters are currently activity limited.
OSBORN:
Depending on the design or operating limitation of the
unit, the catalyst can be replaced either due to the pressure
drop limit of the reactor, or end-of-run reactor temperature
limit. It is important to select proper size (diameter) and
shape of the catalyst to balance either limit. Generally,
hydrotreating reactors and their internals are operable
with pressure drop increases of 30 to 50 psi from start of run
to end of run. The end of run for low sulfur diesel hydro-
treating is in the 700 to 720 ºF range as previously dis-
cussed. Beyond this temperature, color degradation may
occur. Once again this is dependent on catalyst selection,
feedstock, and design vaporization of the feedstock in the
reactor bed.
DILIP DAV6 (Criterion Catalyst):
Many refiners use the method of top bed skimming when
there is a pressure drop problem. This will allow the refiner
to prolong the cycle until end-of-run conditions are
reached.
To allow optimal catalyst utilization, we, as a supplier,
will try to understand the factors which limit cycle length.
If there are pressure drop limitations and the source of the
problem can be identified, then by correct size grading of
the bed, the pressure drop problem can sometimes be
alleviated.
GORDON LOW (UNOCAL Corporation):
I agree with the panel’s discussion. If high pressure drop
is limiting run length, you have to identify the cause of the
high pressure drop. If there are filterable particulates in
the feed, as a panelist points out, feed filtration will be
effective. You should also try to minimize the storage of the
feed or store the feed only in floating-roof or gas blanketed
tanks. If the pressure drop is caused by nonfilterable feed
contaminants, then you may need to alloy the upstream
units to remove soluble iron from the feed, or improve
desalter and vacuum tower operation to improve the feed
quality. In addition to these steps which are designed to
improve the feed quality, you can also extend run length by
loading a graded bed in the lead reactor or installing a
bypassable guard reactor.
QUESTION 41:
Do you use regenerated HDS catalyst? If so, in
what hydrotreating service?
J. WILLIAMS:
Regenerated HDS catalyst is used by most refiners in at
110
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
least some services. Catalysts from distillate hydrotreaters
and straight-run naphtha service are successfully re-
generated in almost all cases. Heavier feed units con-
taminated with metals or silicon at higher levels must be
evaluated on a case by case basis. ‘Typically refiners would
use regenerated HDS catalyst in units where the operation
is not so severe or critical such as straight-run naphtha or
kerosene hydrotreating.
PEDERSEN:
For most of our hydrotreaters, we have found it economi-
cal to regenerate the catalyst off site two or three times
before replacing the batch with new catalyst, even for our
LCO hydrotreater, which processes a blend of light cycle oil
and heavy coker gas oil. In our coker distillate hydro-
treater, however, we have to replace the catalyst after each
run due to silica poisoning.
BONELLI:
We cascade the hydrotreating catalyst from the guard
bed of our hydrocracking reactor into naphtha hydro-
treating service much as previously discussed.
BRIERLEY:
We have used regenerated HDS/HDN catalyst in coker
naphtha service, coker gas oil service, and for combined
hydroprocessor and virgin gas oil. We have traditionally
used second and third cycle catalysts in those units that
were pressure drop limited. Now that some of these units
are activity limited, the economics of using higher activity
catalyst, including fresh catalyst, are being evaluated.
O’BRIEN:
We have used regenerated HDS catalysts in naphtha,
kerosene light cycle oil, distillate, and residual service. In
our next residual hydrotreater catalyst load, we are going
to use some regenerated distillate HDS catalyst in the last
reactor.
OSBORN:
I generally agree with the cascading concept but I would
caution that if you are going to use it in a naphtha service,
you have an expensive platformer catalyst following that,
so you need to make sure you have good catalyst and good
activity. Selecting regenerated catalyst is, certainly, de-
pendent on it being free of contaminates and you need good
recovery of activity (80 to 85% minimum) of surface area
and pore volume versus fresh catalyst. We have purchased
regenerated catalyst for use in kerosene, coker cycle oil,
and coker naphtha service with good success.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company):
The Criterion family is made up of Criterion, CRI and
CRIMET, and we are committed to understanding the
applications of catalyst whether they be used for us to
regenerate or whatever. We are firmly committed to the
cradle to the grave concept and Syncrude is a perfect exam-
ple of the work we have been doing over the years. If we see
a place where a regenerated catalyst can be used, we will
tell you. If you ask that question, we will be honest with
you, but most of the time today, and it is very difficult to
recommend regenerated catalyst for the very high severity
operations. We consider that part of our service and part of
our commitment to the environment.
TOC/INDEX

HYDROGEN PROCESSING

QUESTION 42: it would be a lot easier than it is at ten space velocity. So

On HDS units processing cracked feedstocks, after common sense intervenes, nice stuff is easier for your cata-
start-up on new or regenerated catalyst, how critical lyst to start up on, tough stuff is not. Whatever you select,
is running 2 to 3 days on virgin stocks before intro- we will work with you.
ducing any cracked feed? Has anyone quantified
benefits, i.e. run length, by comparing actual runs
starting on virgin versus cracked feed? QUESTION 43:
What criteria are used to determine whether
PEDERSEN:
CoMo or NiMo catalysts are preferred for distillate
In the operating guidelines for our LCO hydrotreater, it
hydrotreating?
is recommended to run three days on virgin gas oil after
start-up. However, on the last two occasions, we started out
directly on light cycle oil and have not detected any sig- PAULES:
nificant difference in initial activity or stability. The unit Typically, cobalt molybdenum is the preferred catalyst
type when desulfurization is the primary objective. Nickel
operates at about 900 psig with an outlet hydrogen partial
molybdenum is the preferred type when denitrification or
pressure about 450 to 500 psig.
saturation are the primary objective. If 40 cetane, 0.05 wt%
sulfur diesel is the primary processing objective, then co-
BONELLI:
We believe that following the catalyst manufacturers balt molybdenum catalyst would be recommended for most
recommendations regarding the introduction of cracked refiners, since the 40 cetane number should not be difficult
to meet in a typical refinery. If your diesel pool has a
stocks at beginning of the cycle is a critical point in the
success of the cycle. In fact, we believe so strongly in it that disproportionate amount cracked stocks and cetane num-
we have no comparative data on starting up on cracked ber specs are tight, you might consider a nickel molyb-
denum catalyst as the increase in saturation will give some
feedstocks.
cetane number improvement. Bear in mind also, that a
OSBORN: nickel molybdenum catalyst will consume more hydrogen
It is certainly difficult to quantify the benefits, and I for a given feedstock and desulfurization level.
agree with Mr. Bonelli that basically you have to follow the
catalyst vendor recommendations. Most of them seem to BRIERLEY:
indicate an increase of 20 to 25% by using noncracked As one might expect, we would recommend CoMo cata-
feedstock to start-up. Also, as a reminder, the feedstock lyst for desulfurization, and NiMo catalyst for denitro-
genation or saturation. Some studies have shown there
used for the spiked sulfur sulfiding should also be a
straight-run middle distillate, if that is a point of concern. could be some synergy by using both catalyst types in a
stacked bed arrangement.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
J. WILLIAMS:
I have never been persuaded that virgin feed needs to be
Cobalt molybdenum catalyst is a catalyst of choice when
continued for two to three days. This can be expensive for
desulfurization is a primary target and the feed is straight-
some refiners. I do think it is important to start up on
straight-run feed for a few hours at least, so that you do not run. This issue becomes more complex with the intro-
duction of cracked stocks containing heterocyclic nitrogen
add the heat of saturating olefins in the cracked stock to the
compounds. Historically, nickel molybdenum catalyst has
excitement of a start-up.
been preferred for HDN.
However, the high activity cobalt molybdenum catalysts
BRIAN M. MOYSE (Haldor Topsoe, Inc.): have HDN capacities greater than their cobalt molyb-
I have to agree with what most of the panelists have denum predecessors. In fact, in KF-752, it is comparable to
stated. From a catalyst vendors point of view, the two to
three days required on the straight-run material is to
ensure you get the lowest possible start-of-run temperature
and thereby the greatest operating cycle on that charge of
catalyst.
With regard to part two, I can refer you all to NPRA
Paper AM-93-69, given in March this year, which gives you
some quantifications of those benefits from industrial
experience.

ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company

LI?):
Two to three days is an interesting number. You tell me if
there is a difference in two to three days at one space
velocity or ten space velocity. When you take material like
cycle oils and process them, they have more coke propensity
and therefore starting up on straight-run will give you less
coke possibility. If you are at one space velocity, I would say

111
TOC/INDEX
that of many nickel molybdenum catalysts. In some dis-
tillate hydrotreaters, it is beneficial to use a combination of
both high activity cobalt molybdenum and nickel molyb-
denum to gain the best of both worlds. Cobalt molybdenum
catalysts generally excel in HDS reaction, while nickel
molybdenum catalysts are generally better for olefm and
aromatic saturation and nitrogen removals.
Both types of catalyst will perform to varying levels,
although, both function with differences in cycle length
and operating temperatures. As there is some overlapping
the abilities of each catalyst, the market price of the metals
on the catalyst also has been a factor in purchasing
decisions.
JUNO:
I would like to add to the mentioned comments that at
low pressure the benefits of nickel molybdenum and cobalt
molybdenum become smaller. Above 700 lbs hydrogen par-
tial pressure, the advantage generally lies with the nickel
molybdenum, especially as you operate at higher and
higher pressures.
MARK RILEY (Unocal Corporation):
The preferred catalyst for distillate hydrotreating gen-
erally depends on both the operating pressure and the
process objectives. For high pressure distillate hydro-
treater, nickel molybdenum is almost always favored. Co-
balt molybdenum would be considered only in cases where
the HDS burden is unusually severe. In low and inter-
mediate pressure units, cobalt molybdenum is preferred for
HDS, and nickel molybdenum is selected for HDN and
aromatic saturation.
STEPHEN F. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.):
There may be a difference in hydrogen consumption
between the cobalt and nickel molybdenum, so if you are
running your reformer for hydrogen demand, you might
want to consider that. There are also some differences in
salt formation.
QUESTION 44:
Does anyone routinely send disulfide oil to their
hydrotreater? If so, what are the concerns, if any?
BONELLI:
In one refinery, we do charge disulfide oil from our Merox
process to a naphtha hydrotreater. Our chief concern is to
be sure that the disulfide oil is properly separated and free
of caustic which could foul the hydrotreater reactor bed.
MURPHY:
I am aware of one additional case where a refiner sends
disulfide oil to the hydrotreater. They have done this for
several years and they have reported no adverse effects.
HUMAYON Z. ZAFAR (Litwin Engineers & Constructors):
One of our clients has had a problem in the past with
caustic carryover with the disulfides. For disulfides from
new sources, a water wash has been provided. The plant is
starting up soon, and we hope that incorporating the water
wash will rectify the problem.
112
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
TIM HECKEL (Unocal Corporation):
One of our refineries also has processed disulfide oil in
their hydrotreater for many years. They only time that
they got into any problems was one time when the hydro-
treater shut down and they forgot to shut of the transfer of
the disulfide oil. It filled up the feed search drum, and when
they started running that feed things got a little exciting.
STEVE WEBER (Fina Oil & Chemical Co.):
We were also processing disulfide oil through a hydro-
treater and, as Mr. Bonelli commented, the separation of
the disulfide oil from caustic is very important. We found
that our feed effluent exchangers suffered severe cracking.
We no longer process that material in our hydrotreaters
and have found another home for it.
C. Hydrocracking
Mechanical
QUESTION 45:
In units with both hot and cold high pressure
separators, where are the primary reaction section
relief valves and emergency depressuring systems
located? Has anyone installed relief valves upstream
of the reactors? What was the reason? Was the relief
valvedischarge quenched before routing to the flare?
RAJGURU:
The most cost effective system is to locate the reaction
section relief and depressuring valves at the cold high
presssure separator. Several points need to be considered.
There should be no isolation valves in the system be-
tween the reactors and the relief valves at the separator.
The system-designed pressure profile must be consistent
with the pressure profile under all operating and con-
tingency cases. The system pressure and the temperature
profile at relieving or depressuring conditions should be
calculated to check for excessive catalyst bed support loads;
and high pressure and high temperature for the ex-
changers resulting from the loss of cold side flow.
We also recommend adding a high pressure alarm on the
reactor outlet and high reactor delta P alarm. We have no
knowledge of an installation where a relief valve is in-
stalled upstream of the reactor.
SLOAN:
The primary reaction section relief valves and emer-
gency depressuring system are normally located on the cold
high pressure separators as we have just heard. The main
complication arises when the design includes a recycled gas
hydrogen sulfide scrubber between the cold separator and
compressor. It is desirable to have a vent line downstream of
the scrubber, so that reaction section pressure can be re-
duced or recycled gas purged without flaring sour gas.
For primary relief protection and emergency de-
pressuring, however, we would still locate the valves on the
high pressure cold separator so that the potentially large
flows will not be restricted by the absorber tower.
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
The need for relief protection directly on the reactor
vessel should be determined by a thorough safety analysis.
Such protection is required, of course, if the vessels can be
isolated by valving during normal operation. The risk
associated with a reactor blockage caused by catalyst de-
gradation or reactor internals failure should be evaluated
on case by case basis. Most operators have determined that
this risk is negligible and have not specified relief valves on
reactor inlets.
JUNO:
On one of our units, we did have relief valves upstream of
the reactors, but it was modified to remove these valves.
The reason for removing these valves was that a properly
designed quench system to the flare was not a part of the
original design.
BRIERLEY:
The reaction section relief valves are located as far down-
stream as possible to take advantage of any effluent cooling
to minimize blowdown temperature, usually downstream
of the final effluent coolers. This also minimizes the design
pressure and therefore capital cost of some of the major
pieces of equipment. Relief valves would usually be in-
stalled on the reactor inlet only to protect feed exchangers
or furnaces, and only if the reactor inlet could be blocked in
(i.e., guard reactor bypass system).
STEPHEN F. HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.):
I do not know if this is what the question was asking, but
on our revamp of our distillate unit, we added redundant
pressure switches on the reactor heater and feed/effluent
bundles in addition to adding a larger relief valve on the
new hot separator. We significantly increased the charge
pump flow and head, and were concerned with over-
pressuring the bundles on shut-in by blockage. We also
added booster compressors to our recycle compressors
which could overpressure that system, so we again added
redundant pressure switches and differential pressure spill
backs to help protect that system from overpressuring.
RICHARD ERDMANN (Exxon Company, USA):
We have our units fairly well split. Several have indi-
vidual safety valves at the reactor inlets, and others are
safety valved off the high pressure separator.
There were two occasions, one where we collapsed a bed
in the lead reactor, and the second before we put in a
continuous water wash where we built up salt and pressure
drop in the effluent circuit where basically we could over-
pressure the reactor, and it would not have been protected
on the high pressure separator. So I think the risk is
minimal, but it is not zero.
QUESTION 46:
What techniques are used, and at what frequency,
to inspect carbon-½ molybdenum or chrome-
molybdenum reactors? Is ultrasonic inspection used?
How are the results used?
T. WILLIAMS:
In our facility we use a multitude of tests, including
cooldown of acoustical emissions, ultrasonic testing, replica
113
analysis, dye penetrant testing, and magnetic particle test-
ing. The acoustical emission on the cooldown is done when
we are taking the reactor off-line and cooling it down,
which is probably one of the highest stress periods of the
cycle. Transducers are positioned around various points on
the reactor and are used to triangulate frequency emissions
that correspond to anomalies that could produce fracture
propagation.
The replica analysis is a form of microcasting that is used
to detect discontinuities, cracks and flaws. The grain struc-
ture of the microcast is analyzed and related back to the
base metal. The current state of creep of the base metal is
then determined.
This testing is on a unit that was put in service in 1966.
We still have our original reactors. We are testing as often
as every three years, which corresponds to our turnaround
cycle.
BONELLI:
At each shutdown, which is approximately two years for
us, in our present cycle configuration, an acoustic emis-
sions test method is used during the vessel cooldown to
inspect the hydrocracking reactor. If there are relevant’
indications of inclusions or flaws, those areas are ultra-
sonically tested at each turnaround thereafter.
We have performed one complete ultrasonic check of all
the vessel weld seams in our hydrocracker during the
25-year life of the vessel. We also dye penetrant test all the
internal shell weldments in the vessel every shutdown.
BRIERLEY:
On every shutdown, the internal lining is visually in-
spected and randomly spot checked using liquid penetrant
techniques. All internal fillet welds and tray supports are
spot checked, also using LP techniques. Externally the
shell to skirt weld is inspected using magnetic particle
techniques, and the shell-to-head circumferential welds
are inspected using shear wave UT. Random spot UTs are
performed on the shell longitudinal welds and accessible
attachment welds. The nozzle to shell welds are also in-
spected using ultrasonics.
SLOAN:
In addition to the inspections that we have just heard
about, perhaps some of the most useful inspection data are
those acquired during the vessel fabrication. These inspec-
tions provide base line data which can be used to distin-
guish between fabrication defects and inservice cracking.
Ultrasonic inspection of 100% of the weld seams in new
reactor vessels is recommended.
JUNO:
A number of nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods
have been used. Among them are ultrasonic (UT), magnetic
particle (MT), wet fluorescence magnetic particle (WFMP),
dye penetrant (PT) and radiography CRT). UT and RT are
recommended for subsurface flaws, whereas, WFMP is
recommended for surface flaws. For vessels operated over
900 ºF, a Materials Properties Council (MPC) report to API
recommends that an inspection should be performed at the
next turnaround and every 5 years after that. For vessels
operated below 900 °F, API 510 recommends the re-
inspection period to be half of the remaining life, but, no
TOC/INDEX
more than 10 years. However, we recommend that for
vessels in cracking susceptible service, the reinspection
period should be no more than 5 years. For vessels con-
taining flaws which were identified in a previous inspec-
tion and left unrepaired, the reinspection period should be
every shutdown until the stability of the flaw can be as-
sured. The inspection results are used to estimate the
fitness for service and the remaining life of the vessel. MPC
is developing a very good expert system method, called
Prefis, which is an expansion of Pennzoil’s early effort,
called Prevlea. The MPC effort will be an addition to the
API 510 in the future.
Process
QUESTION 47:
Can light vacuum gas oil (VCO) feed cause jet fuel
freeze problems in a distillate hydrocracker designed
for middle-distillate maximization?
J. WILLIAMS:
There are numerous causes for LVGO causing freeze
problems with jet fuel from the distillate hydrocracker
including: poor quality crude supply; poor vacuum tower
operation, resulting in trace HVGO and LVGO; and unit
configuration.
Unit configuration has generally the biggest impact.
Light vacuum gas oil contains waxy normal paraffins that
boil in the same boiling range as jet fuel and diesel. Units
that predominantly have this problem are the units in
which the fractionation section is between the preheat
reactor and the cracking reactor.
As a result, these waxy normal paraffins are just hydro-
treated and then fractionate out in the jet stream, thus
bypassing the cracking reactor. Cracking catalyst is essen-
tial, in that it cracks and isomerizies normal paraffins,
resulting in highly-branched paraffins with low cloud and
freeze points.
SLOAN:
Incorporation of light vacuum gas oil into the hydro-
cracker feed may or may not impact jet fuel freeze point,
depending on the hydrocarbon composition of the LVGO
and other feed components. Feedstocks which are more
paraffinic will generally result in more parafbnic jet fuel
products and somewhat higher freeze points for a given cut
point, as Mr. James Williams just said.
The freeze point can always be adjusted to meet speci-
fications by lowering the final cut point at the expense of
some yield.
SAFA E. GEORGE (Criterion Catalyst Company):
One of our customers processes 100% vacuum gas oil in
the hydrocracker with a zeolitic hydrocracking catalyst
2703, designed to optimize jet fuel production and catalyst
cycle life. On-specification jet freeze point is achieved. I
agree with the panel that jet freeze problems have been
more pronounced when switching crude type from aromatic
to more paraffinic type crudes.
Zeolyst International and Criterion Catalyst Company
will be introducing newer hydrocracking catalysts with
114
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
even higher selectivity to middle distillates, that is either
jet and/or diesel, while retaining high cracking activity
and cycle life.
QUESTION 48:
What is the maximum cracked feed composition
(percent cycle oil, coker gas oil, etc.) in hydro-
crackers producing specification jet fuel as a
product?
J. WILLIAMS:
The maximum cracked feed composition (percent cycle
oil, coker gas oil, etc.) in hydrocrackers producing the jet
fuel product depends on the following conditions.
1) Reactor pressure is extremely important
- The higher the pressure, the more cracked stock
can be processed.
2) Catalyst system is crucial
- Different catalysts have different strengths. What
is important here are catalysts with strong hydro-
genation functions.
3) Unit configuration
- Two-stage hydrocrackers can handle cracked stock
better than a single stage hydrocracker.
4) LCO is harder than coker material with respect to jet
fuel.
We have seen numerous units successfully run 50 to 60%
cracked stock, (LCO + coker) to make specification jet fuel.
JUNO:
I know of one refinery that is processing approximately
20 to 25 percent cracked stock, which is coker gas oil with a
relatively light end point of approximately 850 ºF, on a
1,800-psi unit and making specification jet fuel.
QUESTION 49:
What is the maximum bed delta temperature and
overall reactor delta temperature in the second stage
reactor of a hydrocracker? Is the catalyst system a
noble metal or non-noble metal system?
BONELLI:
The maximum hydrocracker bed temperature rise that is
recommended by our hydrocracking unit licenser is 30 ºF
per bed, regardless of whether the unit is one or two stage
in this application. The catalyst in the cracking reactor of
our unit is a noble metal catalyst.
T. WILLIAMS:
As a point of reference, we have a single stage unit. Our
maximum guideline is 30 ºF per bed, with a 125 °F overall
reactor delta. We also run on noble metal catalyst.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
Each catalyst licensor has his own recommendation for
maximum bed delta T, which is critical to safe operation.
Overall delta T, that is the reactor outlet minus inlet, is less
critical to the stability of reactor operation. But a high
overall delta T puts a thermal leverage on the system,
TOC/INDEX
HYDROGEN PROCESSING
meaning that any little upset comes back as a heat wave to
the reactor inlet, It is harder for the operators to get out of
an upset. It is harder to keep a little temperature blurp
from becoming a runaway. An overall delta T above 150 °F
creates a real challenge for the operator.
QUESTION 50:
What hydrocracking strategies are refiners fol-
lowing in meeting upcoming reformulated gasoline
specifications?
SLOAN:
The reformulated gasoline environment will put pres-
sure on refiners to change hydrocracking operations. The
direction of these changes will be determined in large part
by the availability of hydrogen. Hydrogen production from
gasoline reforming is likely to decrease, in order to limit
aromatics. This will also potentially limit the amount of
hydrocracked naphtha required as reformer feed. Many
refiners will find that switching their hydrocracker oper-
ation to produce some middle distillates will both reduce
naphtha production and hydrogen demand.
Refiners that can make incremental hydrogen available
for consumption in the hydrocracker may find that in-
creased operating severity to produce more light hydro-
crackate for direct gasoline blending will be attractive.
Should T90 limits become a reality, a move to either in-
creased cracking severity or middle distillate will be a
necessity. As hydrocracking severity is increased, yields of
butane and lighter products are also substantially in-
creased. The butane stream will have a high iso/normal
ratio, and some refiners will find it attractive to recover the
isobutane for alkylation or dehydrogenation feed.
As RVP limits become tighter, incremental fractionation
capability will probably be required in some cases in order
to produce a suitable gasoline blending component directly
from the hydrocracker.
115
BONELLI:
Those are very good comments. We anticipate changes in
fractionation in the hydrocracker to shift the light and
heavy hydrocrackate cut points in order to reduce aromatic
precursors in the naphtha feed to the reforming units.
Catalysts
QUESTION 51:
What have been actual refinery experiences in
switching between single catalyst and dual catalyst
(separate pretreating and cracking) hydrocracking
systems?
BONELLI:
This question asks for actual refinery experience, which
we do not have. I will pass along that in practice our
hydrocracker cycle length is always defined by the per-
formance of the hydrotreating reactor, so that the dual
catalyst configuration in our case is preferable to a single
reactor system.
In single reactor systems, it is difficult or sometimes not
possible to measure the hydrotreating bed effluent nitro-
gen, and that would give you a difficult time in optimizing
the hydrotreating-hydrocracking process relationship.
SAFA E. GEORGE (Criterion Catalyst Company):
In our opinion, switching from a single catalyst to a dual
catalyst system provides the following benefits to a refiner:
1. processing higher nitrogen containing feedstocks;
and
2. lowering the operating temperature required to
achieve the target conversion, which will significantly
improve C5 + liquid yield and reduce LPG make
which will positively impact refinery margins; and
3. improved catalyst cycle life.
TOC/INDEX
IV. LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
A. Alkylation-Sulfuric Acid
Feed
QUESTION 1:
Within the past few years, it has been suggested
that a possible method for reducing volatile olefin
content of gasoline is to process refinery C5 olefin
streams in a TAME unit and then utilize the raffinate
as an alkylation feed. Have any refiners used this
scheme? If so, what are the results? If not, what are
the perceived drawbacks?
LAABS:
Our Louisiana plant has a TAME unit in operation, and
they have charged up to 25% C5 rafflnate to the alkylation
unit with no problems. The alkylate produced has a lower
RVP, but it results in a higher acid consumption and a lower
Research and Motor octane product. They plan to alkylate
the C5 rafflnate in the summer, when they can take advan-
tage of the lower RVP alkylate to blend low valued products
into the gasoline pool. They have no plans to operate this
way in the winter.
Our Delaware plant is in the process of building a TAME
unit. The project was designed with amylene alkylation in
mind, although we probably will be limited by isobutane
availability. They warn of the situation when there is a
significant amount of isobutylene in the TAME unit feed.
The MTBE that will be made is much lighter than the
TAME, so it will be carried into the C5 raffinate cut. MTBE
in alkylation feed will result in a large acid consumption
penalty.
They are also concerned about the economics of amylene
alkylation. C5 raffinate will have a low C5 olefin con-
centration, so a small alkylate gain can be expected. This
benefit could be balanced by the additional iso- and
normal-pentane that would tie up space in the effluent
treating and fractionation sections of the alkylation unit.
RAJGURU:
We are designing a C5 alkylation unit, as a part of the
reformulated gasoline project. There are no particular
drawbacks to C5 alkylation per se. Product quality and acid
consumption are similar to C3 alkylation. Using a TAME
raffinate as a feed causes no special problems. Generally,
amylene alkylate has higher T50 and T90 temperatures,
compared to butylene alkylate, but the distillation point
increases for alkylate from TAME raffinate are less than for
the straight amylenes.
116
THOMAS E KELLE’IT (CDTECH):
The perceived drawback could be carryover of oxygenates
to the alkylation unit, causing higher acid consumption.
The use of a distillation column to remove traces of DME,
water, and methanol from MTBE raffinate has been dem-
onstrated to produce less than 50 ppm oxygenates. With
TAME raffinate, the separation is even easier, due to the
larger difference in the boiling points between DME and
the G5s.
Proper design and operation of the C5-TAME fraction-
ation will minimize the ether content of the C5 raffinate.
The combination of these steps can produce a C5 raffinate
with less than 5 ppm oxygen. There is also an advantage to
producing TAME prior to C5 alkylation. STRATCO has
indicated that acid consumption is decreased significantly
by removing isoamylenes from the C5s.
QUESTION 2:
What are typical contaminant levels in LPC
streams from FCCU’s? Are guard beds used to protect
selective hydrogenation reactor catalyst?
PAULES: -
The maximum contaminant level permitted to one par-
ticular selective hydrogenation process is as follows:
- Total sulfur <40 ppmw
- H2 S < 5 ppmw
- Mercaptans <35 ppmw
- Carbonyl Sulfur < 2 ppmw
- Water Saturates @ 100 °F
- Arsenic < 5 ppbw
- Sodium < 1 ppmw
- Basic Nitrogen < 0.5 ppmw
- Existent Gum < l0 mg/lOO ml
- Oxygenates < 50 ppmw
We operate a selective hydrogenation unit on a FCCU C4
stream. This stream is first processed through a typical
amine scrubber and a mercaptan extraction unit. We do not
find that any contaminants are a problem in this con-
figuration and do not see a need for a guard bed.
ROY:
The following contaminants are normally found today in
alkylation units: mercaptans, hydrogen sulfide, dienes,
ethylene, and oxygenates like methanol, MTBE, or DME.
Upstream Merox type units normally reduce mercaptan
levels to very low values and eliminate hydrogen sulfide in
the olefin feed. Ethylene is a problem only when propylene
is alkylated. The amount of ethylene is a function of the
FCCU gas plant fractionation operation.
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
The level of diolefins is a function of the FCCU oper-
ations. Today, butadiene levels in the range of 3,000 to
5,000 ppm in the olefin feed are normal. If amylenes are
alkylated, C5 diolefins in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 ppm
are seen. Of course, dienes can be eliminated with an
upstream selective hydrogenation unit.
When the upstream MTBE unit is equipped with a water
wash cleanup system, total oxygenates are usually in the
range of 400 ppm. Contaminants of all descriptions can also
be introduced into the unit from the makeup isobutane,
particularly if it is imported into the refinery. Thus, it is
important to analyze the makeup isobutane on a routine
basis.
Based on information provided by IFP, guard beds to
protect selective hydrogenation reactor catalysts are rec-
ommended when the selective hydrogenation feed contains
arsenic compounds, such as arsines. Normally, this is only
necessary when treating feeds containing significant levels
of C3s. Arsine levels are also a function of the refinery’s
crude oil source.
LAABS:
Our existing ether unit selective hydrogenation reactor
has a guard bed for arsine. We are not sure how well it is
working, due to the difficulty of the analytical test. This
unit does have a water wash on the feed to remove caustic
and other basic compounds. Careful operation of this wash
is very important, as carryover of water will damage the
catalyst. The feed typically has a 1,3 - butadiene level of
2,000 to 4,500 weight ppm (ppmw), and a disulfide content
of 15 to 30 ppmw.
The unit that is being built will also have a feed with less
than 30 ppmw sulfur, which is suitable for selective hydro-
genation. It will not have a guard bed, although a sand
filter will be installed to remove caustic and free water. The
filter will reduce the caustic carryover from the Merox unit
to less than 1 ppmw, which is necessary as sodium is a
permanent poison on the catalyst.
THOMAS F. KELLETT (CDTECH):
Guard beds, as has been mentioned, can be used to
remove some of the contaminants, such as mercury and
arsine. One selective hydrogenation process has a distinct
advantage, with respect to mercaptans. This process is
called CDHydro’” and it combines selective hydrogenation
with fractionation. It does not require removal of mer-
captans from the feed, because the mercaptans are con-
verted to heavy sulfides which go out with the bottoms
product. The overhead product can contain less than 1 ppm
sulfur and less than 50 ppm diolefins. This approach can
reduce the capital cost of the feed preparation system by
over 50%.
PAUL W. VANCE (ACREON Catalysts):
In protecting selective hydrogenation catalyst with
guard beds, current catalysts are now relatively insensitive
to low levels of common sulfur contaminants, such as
hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans. However, feed con-
taminants such as carbonyl sulfide and arsine are tem-
porary poisons. Arsine is formed by the decomposition in
the FCC riser of organo-arsenic compounds in the high
boiling fractions of the FCC feed.
117
ACREON makes a guard bed material of specially pre-
pared lead oxide that is effective in removing arsine by
forming a stable lead-arsenic complex.
In a customer’s C3 selective hydrogenation unit, fol-
lowing installation of an upstream guard bed of ACREON’s
MEP191, the selective hydrogenation feed arsine content
was reduced from 150 ppb to below detectable limits, and
the selective hydrogenation catalyst cycle length increased
from 20% to 100% of prediction.
This guard bed material is equally effective in removing
carbonyl sulfide from 5 ppm to less than 0.1 ppm.
RICHARD GIALELLA (JFP Enterprises Inc.):
Based on IFP’s commercial applications, FCC LPG
streams can contain 1 to 2 ppm carbonyl sulfide, and de-
pending on the type of crude, a few ppb to a few ppm arsine.
Total sulfur can also vary, depending upon the crude proc-
essed, and on upstream processing, from a few ppm to
several hundred ppm.
Carbonyl sulfide and arsine reduce the operating life of
the selective hydrogenation catalyst. The use of an IFP
guard material can eliminate the problems primarily asso-
ciated with arsine. In addition, the adsorbent will trap
some carbonyl sulfide, without impacting arsenic ad-
sorption capacity, thus providing extra activity and life for
the catalyst.
In C5 streams, sulfur is the principal contaminant. Sul-
fur may be decreased by caustic washing, but this results in
additional capital expense and waste streams. IFP has a
commercially proven sulfur-tolerant catalyst that may
withstand several hundred ppm of sulfur, and thus avoid
the need for sulfur removal steps.
QUESTION 3:
Many refiners consider selective hydrogenation to
remove C 4 and C 5 diolefins from their alkylation
feedstocks in order to reduce acid consumption in
their alkylation unit. Will the removal of these C4 or
C5 diolefins affect alkylate octanes or the alkylate
distillation curve?
JUNO:
According to information provided by STRATCO, pilot
plant studies show the only effect of diolefins on alkylate
quality is the D86 end point. Removal of diolefins reduces
the end point, but does not affect the other distillation
points. The amount of end point reduction can be sig-
nificant when starting with high diolefin levels (above
5,000 ppm). Removal of diolefins does not affect the alkyl-
ate octane.
PAULES:
Processing a C4/C5 cut through a selective hydrogenation
unit will tend to decrease acid consumption, decrease al-
kylate end point, and increase alkylate octane. The alkyl-
ate octane is not only improved by the removal of dienes but
also by the isomerization of 1-butene to 2-butene.
T. WILLIAMS:
We have experience with selective hydrogenation to re-
move butadiene on our C4 feed to our HF alkylation unit.
TOC/INDEX
We have a butadiene concentration of 0.25 to 0.4 vol% in the
feed and no butadiene in the product. We achieve a 60 to
70% conversion of 1-butene to 2-butene. We believe this
gives us a 1.5 to 2 octane number increase on our alkylate
RON. We see very little effect on the distillation, due to the
small volume of butadiene.
RICHARD GIALELLA (IFP Enterprises Inc.):
Installation of a selective hydrogenation unit for pre-
treatment of sulfuric acid alkylation feedstock is generally
economic for acid savings at diolefin levels above 0.5%. The
removal of C4 and C5 diolefins from feed to both HF and
sulfuric acid alkylation units reduces the end point of the
alkylate. Significant octane improvements for HF units can
be obtained through pretreatment of the feedstock.
THOMAS F. KELLETT (CDTECH):
Dioleflns produce a heavier alkylate. Removal of di-
olefins from the feed should decrease the end point of the
alkylate. CDHydro™ can reduce diolefins to less than 50
ppm, while conventional fixed-bed technologies typically
achieve about 200 ppm. This technology can be built into
the MTBE debutanizer at little cost, while eliminating the
need for mercaptans removal or a separate selective hydro-
genation unit. Due to these cost savings, CDHydro™ can be
economical to pretreat alkylation unit feeds with as little as
0.1% dioleflns.
HIGGINS:
In a typical feed, do you have a feel for how much the end
point or the 90% point is reduced by removing dioleflns?
ROBERT W. MORSE (ACREON Catalysts):
The removal of diolefins in the feed significantly reduces
the product 90% point and the end point. For example, a C4
sulfuric plant reduced its alkyate 90% point from 360 °F to
330 °F and reduced its end point from 470 ºF to 410 °F. The
feed butadiene level was 0.6%. We have seen proportional
reductions with lower levels of butadiene in the feed.
I would like to make another comment concerning the
benefits of pretreating the feed. For plants that are re-
frigeration limited, saturating the butadienes can sig-
nificantly increase the capacity of the alkylation unit.
Removing the diolefins substantially reduces the total heat
load. In our units, the product butadiene is typically 10 ppm
to 50 ppm.
QUESTION 4:
What is your commercial experience with C 5
alkylation? Provide specific comments on alkylate
D86, feed pretreatment and/or feed preparation re-
quirements, acid consumption and any unusual op-
erating conditions/problems.
RAJGURU:
We do not have any commercial experience. However, we
are currently designing C5 alkylation units. As has been
said, the alkylate D86 distillation curve is typically higher
for C5 alkylate. Selective hydrogenation is desirable for the
feed to reduce acid consumption. Selective hydrogenation,
concurrent with desulfurization processing is available in
118
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
the market, and it looks very attractive. It has a side benefit
of reducing sulfur concentrations in the amylenes. A TAME
unit is also a useful feed pretreater, consequently lowering
the acid consumption.
There are no special operating considerations when proc-
essing C5 feeds except that, depending on the amount of
isopentane in the feed and the product specifications, it
may be necessary to provide a deisopentanizer in the frac-
tionation section to have a lower RVP alkylate.
LAABS:
In addition to the comments in Question 1, we have seen
more spikes in acid consumption when processing com-
bined butylene/amylene feed. While the exact cause has
not been identified, we expect the spikes are caused by
occasional water and oxygenate carryover into the C5 raf-
iinate, especially MTBE, DME, and methanol.
One of our sites performed a study on the impact of
amylene alkylation. The results did not show a significant
impact on the alkylate D86, but it did show an increased
acid consumption that was traced to the C5 diolefins in the
raffinate.
EDWARD G. ELLIS (Exxon Research & Engineering
Company):
We have considerable experience with amylene alkyla-
tion, using our stirred, auto-refrigerated, alkylation reac-
tor design. This experience includes both commercial and
pilot plant operations. It includes 100% amylene feeds and
amylene/butylene feed mixes. In comparison with butylene
alkylation, we find that amylene alkylation yields lower
octane, reduced from about 96 RON for butylene alkylate to
about 90 RON with amylene. We find increased heavy
alkylate production, with the amount in the Cl0+ range
going from about 3% with butylene alkylate, to about 10%
with amylene alkylation. We find increased acid con-
sumption, which can be double that for butylene alkylation
if it is not controlled. This increase in acid consumption
results from pentadiene and cyclopentene in the feed.
QUESTION 5:
When processing amylenes, what material in the
feed is responsible for the higher acid consumption,
i.e., diene content, sulfur compounds, other?
SLOAN:
M. W. Kellogg Company and Exxon have been per-
forming pilot plant work with real refinery feeds for over a
year, with one of the focus points being amylene alkylation.
We have data in which a normal refinery C5 cut, that had
been selectively hydrotreated to serve as TAME feed, was
processed in the alkylation pilot plant. This feed contained
residual, diolefin, and cyclic olefin impurities, but virtually
no sulfur. For comparison, a synthetic feed was prepared
that contained the same list of major components as the
refinery feed, but no impurities. It was found that the
difference in acid consumption between the two feeds was
highly significant and could be calculated from the im-
purity concentration.
The data will be presented in more complete form in a
joint paper on amylene alkylation that will be given by
TOC/INDEX

LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING

Kellogg and Exxon next March at the NPRA Annual Meet- LAABS:
ing in San Antonio. The alkylation of amylenes will inherently result in
higher acid consumption. However, contaminants in the
RAJGURU: feed will also have a significant effect. Oxygenates such as
The types of contaminants in C5 feeds that consume acid MTBE, DME, and methanol will all contribute to a higher
are basically the same as in C4 alkylation, but there are consumption. The water in the saturated raffinate will also
more species involved. There are oxygenates, dienes, sul- cause problems. Cyclopentene in the feed is expected to
fur, and the miscellaneous like acetonitrile, formaldehyde, consume three or four times more acid than other
acetaldehyde, and propionitrile. The oxygenates are meth- amylenes.
anol, ethanol, TBA, DME, diethyl ether, MTBE, ETBE, Finally, cutting deep into FCC gasoline can result in
TAME. The dienes are 1, 3 butadiene; 3M-1,2 butadiene; more volatile C6s being sent to the alkyIation unit, which
2M-1, 3 butadiene (isoprene); 1,3 pentadiene; 1,4 penta- would also increase acid consumption.
diene; and cyclopentadiene. The sulfur is mercaptans. The
miscellaneous are l-pentyne, acetonitrile, formaldehyde, STEPHEN S. MATHUR (Chevron Research and Tech-
acetaldehyde, and propionitrile. Cyclopentene also con- nology Co.):
sumes some acid (2.5 lb acid/lb cyclopentene). This list One of our refineries is experiencing off-test copper strip
comes from the STRATCO seminar. Obviously, the oxy- corrosion in the light alkylate (aviation gasoline). Has
genates present are a function of upstream processing, but anyone else experienced this?
the dienes are typically present in any FCC depentanizer
overhead. It is also important to limit C6 in the C5 feed LAABS:
because of dienes and benzene in the C6s. We also make aviation gasoline off the light alkylate cut.
For the two years I was at Port Arthur, I do not think we
JUNO: ever failed the copper strip corrosion test.
In most operations today, dienes are the highest con-
tributor to acid consumption from feed contaminants when ROBERT E:DAVIS (R. E. Davis Chemical Corporation):
there is not an upstream SHP or MTBE unit. If there is an I suggest that you go back to your reactor and take a look
MTBE unit, oxygenates can be the largest contributor. at the distribution of the feed nozzles. I do not know which
Sulfur is usually not a problem since most refiners Merox- type of reactor you have, but take a look and see if you still
treat their alkylation unit feed. Following are sulfuric acid have feed nozzles. Quite often this is the case with off-
dilution factors published by STRATCO for various alkyla- specification product. You may be circulating SO2 due to
tion feed contaminants. decomposition side reactions. The SO2 will track, usually,
SULFURIC ACID your refrigeration system, but on occasion you will form
Dilution Factors esters which break down in the rerun tower. I would guess
that you also are having problems with your deisobutanizer
Compound lb Acid/lb Contaminant* right now.
Water 10.6
Ethyl Mercaptan 17.0
Ethyl Disultide 12.8
H2S Approx. 31.8 Process
Methanol 28.3
Ethanol 21.0
QUESTION 6:
t-Butyl Alcohol 10.6
Diethanolamine 26.0 What is the latest experience with alkylation unit
Ethylene 30.6 additives to enhance reaction chemistry? Comment
Dimethyl ether 11.1 on what benefits/penalties you have experienced.
Diethyl ether 11.4
MTBE 17.3 LAABS:
ETBE 16.3 Star and affiliated sites that have tested these additives
1,3 Butadiene 13.4 have had mixed results. Two refineries have tested the Betz
3 Methyl 1,2 Butadiene 13.4 Alkat-XL product, and the results showed little or no ben-
2 Methyl 1,3 Butadiene (iosoprene) 12.3 efit from the additive. However, the test results were sus-
1,3 Pentadiene (piperylene) 13.4 pect in both additives for different reasons. One unit was
1,4 Pentadiene 8.8 running the contactor temperature at 60 °F, which is higher
1 Pentyne 18.9 than that recommended for the additive. On the other unit
there were concerns about the accuracy of the flow meters
*These factors are appropriate for an acid dilution range of involved, and about the process conditions that were used.
98.5-90.0 wt% sulfuric acid. To apply these values to other In the past, one of our refineries tested the ChemLink
acid dilution ranges, the following formula can be used: IPC 1800 product on an alkylation unit of older design, and
they found a significant reduction in acid use. They used
Acid Consumption = (Value from Table) (Discard wt%) the additive continuously for 3 years until they shut down
(10.6) (Fresh wt%-Discard wt%) the unit.

119
TOC/INDEX
MURPHY:
From what we have seen, alkylation units are among the
most challenging units in the refinery on which to measure
the impact of small performance changes. This is due to the
natural variation in the parameters measured, which tends
to hide real operational improvements. Pushing a unit hard
or operating outside normal parameters might give condi-
tions which could be addressed by an alkylation additive.
We have seen and have been able to prove operational
improvements, both in yield and octane improvement and
acid reduction on several units treated with alkylation unit
additives.
R. C. BARLOW (Betz Process Chemicals, Inc.):
I would support what has been said so far. We have seen
acid reduction in the range of 15 to 30%, as well as yield
improvement of 3 to 6% and octane improvement, but a lot
of that improvement can be masked by the variability in
operation. I would highly recommend that if you are evalu-
ating an additive, you try to operate at near test run
conditions in your evaluation of the additives. The longer
the trial period, the better the ability to document results.
Finally, feed quality control is very important.
One of the approaches that we are using right now is very,
very vigorous modeling to try to explain some of the differ-
ences in operation. We believe it is critical to understanding
variable interaction and will help to avoid long term con-
tinuous efficiency questions.
QUESTION 7:
It is considered that the appropriate olefin space
velocity for an alkylation unit is 0.25 to 0.5. Does
anyone operate with greater olefin space velocity?
What problems are encountered?
SLOAN:
Nothing magic happens at any given olefin space velocity.
As the olefin space velocity increases, the octane number of
the alkylate decreases, the acid consumption increases,
and more species are produced that could produce down-
stream corrosion.
An increased olefin feed rate also increases the heat of
reaction, which must be removed. This taxes the re-
frigeration system and increases the reaction temperature.
The increased reaction temperature produces more of the
above undesirable effects.
RAJGURU:
We believe that 0.5 is a very high olefin space velocity for
sulfuric acid alkylation. Operating at such high space ve-
locity results in poor alkylate quality. A side effect of the
high space velocity will be high contactor temperatures,
since there is a limited amount of bundle surface area in
the contactor. The higher the space velocity, the higher the
heat of reaction to be removed.
DAVID S. MCCAFFREY (Exxon Research & Engineer-
ing Company):
There are at least two problems at high space velocities
and both occur in the deisobutanizer. At high space ve-
locities, the level of esters in the alkylation acid and the
hydrocarbon product build up as increased amounts are
generated in the reactor. These esters are neutral and do
120
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSfNG
not decompose in the caustic wash ahead of the debu-
tanizer. Instead they decompose to sulfuric acid in the
tower itself.
As these descend to the reboiler, they oxidize the hydro-
carbons, and this causes reboiler fouling. The sulfur di-
oxide, formed from the reducing sulfuric acid when the
hydrocarbons oxidize, passes up the tower and dissolves in
the water in the condenser. This makes the water corrosive
and leads to condenser corrosion.
We design for relatively moderate space velocities below
about 0.15 and do not experience these problems. We do not
use corrosion inhibitors, or the expensive, awkward acid
wash that some are discussing.
QUESTION 8:
What is the RVP of amylene alkylate? Is this RVP
controlled more by feed composition or by product
fractionation?
SLOAN:
Fractionation plays an important role in determining the
RVP of amylene alkylate. The composition of the C5 stream
from an FCC is not the same for all units. However, in
general the saturated C5 s make up about half of this
stream, and most of the saturated C5s are isopentane. In
the alkylation reactor, some isopentane is reacted and some
is formed. However, the C5+ from the alkylate reactor is
still about half saturated C5s. Thus, a perfect C4/C5 split
will give an RVP of about 10 psi for the C5 portion of the
alkylate.
Controlling the RVP of amylene alkylate becomes a
matter of adequate deisopentanization, rather than debu-
tanization as in conventional C4 alkylation. The feed com-
position also plays an important role. An FCC C5 stream
may be half saturated C5s, and a TAME raffinate may be
two-thirds saturated C5s. The alkylate produced from an
FCC C5 side stream will have a lower RVP than the alkyl-
ate produced from a TAME raffinate. Amylene alkylation
does lower the RVP of the total gasoline pool by eliminating
the unsaturated C5s.
RAJGURU:
The RVP of amylene alkylate in our current designs is
between 3.5 to 4.5 including the isopentane produced in the
reaction. Obviously, product fractionation is not con-
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
trolling, although our deisopentanizer could be used to
further reduce the RVP if desired. The feed composition has
some effect, and the actual reaction conditions are impor-
tant because they can affect the amount of isopentane
produced.
For one of our recent projects, with a mixed C4/C5 feed,
product fractionation does control the RVP, but this is
because of the large amounts of NC4 and IC5 in the feed.
ROY:
Based on their pilot plant work, STRATCO has deter-
mined the RVP of the true alkylate produced in the reaction
zone from a mixed amylene feed at normal operating condi-
tions is approximately 3.5 psi. This true alkylate includes
approximately 7 to 9% isopentane produced by the alkyla-
tion reactions. They have also found that changes in the
composition of the C5 feedstock and operating conditions
affect the amount of isopentane generated, and thus would
affect the true alkylate RVP accordingly.
Probably a larger consideration in amylene alkylate
RVP is how the isopentane introduced into the unit with
the C5 olefin feed is handled. This isopentane will pass
through the reaction zone into the unit’s fractionating
system. Thus, the RVP of the rundown alkylate product,
the whole alkylate, will depend upon the design of the
fractionation system and where the isopentane is yielded
from the unit.
QUESTION 9:
Some refiners operate with acid level below 30
inches to avoid flat acid recycle. Is there a minimum
acid level below which we should not operate? We
understand that low acid levels can lead to a hydro-
carbon continuous emulsion in the reactor. Will this
cause acid carryover from the acid settler?
LAABS:
We have one unit whose acid level routinely runs in the
18 to 24 inch range without problems. We know that if the
level is too low, the emulsion will become too tight, and it
will not have time to separate. This will result in acid
carryover from the settler. The actual minimum level would
depend on the design of the unit.
DAVID R. WAGNER (STRATCO, Inc.):
The acid/hydrocarbon ratio in the contactor is the best
indicator of the emulsion quality in the contactor. This ratio
is monitored via the contactor ratio glass. The valves on the
emulsion inlet and outlet should be wide open for maxi-
mum acid circulation. The settler acid level should be
adjusted to maintain the acid/hydrocarbon ratio in the
contactor in the 50 to 60 vol% range.
With current designs, a settler level of 18 to 24 inches
would normally provide a good acid/hydrocarbon ratio.
General
QUESTION 10:
What is the status of solid catalyst alkylation re-
search? What is the possibility of the development of
a commercial process and what is the expected time
121
frame? Is the reactor a fix bed or some type of
continuous regeneration system?
JUNO:
Neste Oy, Catalytic Inc. of Mountainview, California,
and Conoco Inc. started up a 7 bbl/day pilot plant at Neste’s
Finland Technology Center to demonstrate solid catalyst
gasoline alkylation technology. Their proprietary process is
being developed to replace hydrofluoric and sulfuric acid
alkylation units used to produce high octane gasoline.
Licensing is to be available in 1994.
SLOAN:
Haldor Topsoe A/S and The M. W. Kellogg Company have
been collaborating to develop an alkylation process which is
a substitute for both the current HF and sulfuric acid
processes. The super acid catalyst is supported on a solid
medium in a unique manner. The reactor system can be
operated continuously without interruption for catalyst
regeneration.
Acid inventory is very low and acid management is
greatly enhanced since the catalyst can be recovered and
recycled on the refinery site. The catalyst also has a low
vapor pressure and there is no tendency to form an aerosol.
The technology has been successfully tested in a pilot plant
of ½ bbl/day for over 2 years, including a continuous run of
6 months. The technology is being commercialized and
discussions with potential operating partners are in
progress.
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
As the industry is aware, UOP has been working for a
number of years to develop a solid catalyst alkylation proc-
ess. At this point, UOP has developed a truly solid phase,
regenerable catalyst and is moving into long term stability
tests in our pilot plant facilities near Chicago. An initial
engineering package is being developed that will be com-
petitive with the capital and operating costs of current
technologies.
UOP will present the technology to potential licensees in
1994 and expects to have a complete commercial design
package by 1995. UOP will continue to support the current
HF technology with ongoing developments such as the
Texaco-UOP HF additive technology, as well as minimum
acid inventory designs, redundant acid storage designs,
and rapid acid dump systems.
LAWRENCE A. SMITH (Chemical Research & Licensing
Company):
Chemical Research and Licensing has announced a solid
acid alkylation process based on a “salt” of antimony penta-
fluoride. A 10 bbl/day test unit will be in operation at
Chevron Port Arthur before the end of 1993. A one-year
test program is planned on a variety of commercial
feedstocks.
B. Alkylation-Hydrofluoric Acid
Feed
QUESTION 11:
When operating a hydrofluoric alkylation unit
TOC/INDEX
downstream of an oxygenate unit, what processing
changes have been found helpful in reducing the light
acid soluble oil production due to contaminants gener-
ated in the oxygenate process?
T. WILLIAMS:
At one of our facilities, instead of worrying about the
oxygenates going to the alkylation unit, we decided to remove
them with molecular sieve technology. This has worked out
very well. We have, however, had two episodes where we
essentially flooded the molecular sieve and ended up sending
MTBE to our alkylation unit. This resulted in acid purity
dropping by 9%. The acid soluble oils (ASO) that formed could
only be removed and regenerated externally. The amount of
acid that had to be taken with this ASO, due to its light
nature, was fairly significant due to the similar boiling
ranges.
PAULES:
I agree with Mr. Williams. We have found the best ap-
proach is to eliminate the problem at the source, as there is
little you can do once the oxygenates are in the alkylation
unit. When AS0 is formed as a result of oxygenate con-
tamination, you have little recourse other than to drop the
temperatures in the rerun tower. This allows the light AS0
generated from the oxygenates to exit the unit, but causes
extremely high HF losses.
BONELLI:
At our Robinson, Illinois refinery, we have operated an HF
alkylation unit downstream of a MTBEf/TXME coproduction
unit since December of 1991. This unit has a molecular sieve
oxygenate recovery unit as part of its flow scheme. One
additional comment regarding the effects of oxygenate
breakthrough is that we feel that the oxygenate carry-
through might be destablizing the acid settling in the mixer
settler to some degree. However, we cannot quantify the effect
at this time.
O’BRIEN:
The only method we have used is a fractionation step to
remove DME and methanol from the alkylation unit. Our
goal is to limit oxygenates to 35 ppmw.
THOMAS E KELLE’IT (CDTECH):
DME, water, and methanol can be removed, as has been
mentioned, by fractionation or by molecular sieve operations.
MTBE, if present in significant quantities, is typically re-
moved by molecular sieves from HF alkylation feed because of
the required low levels. However, a well designed MTBE
debutanizer will produce ranate with MTBE levels below 1
ppm. Diolefins are removed by selective hydrogenation. We
have now integrated this step with the MTBE column using
CDHydro™.
QUESTION 12:
For C5 alkylation, please comment on feed con-
taminants, yield structures, mechanical or operating
problems related to this type of operation.
ROY:
At our Pasadena plant, along with our normal stream of
122
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
C3 and C4 olefins, we alkylate 1 to 3 vol% C5 olefins when
the FCC naphtha RVP is dropped seasonally. Increased
sulfur, diolefins, and C6 + contamination together with a
somewhat lower iso to olefin ratio results in excessive acid
soluble oil production and acid consumption. We observed
an octane drop of at least half of a point with no discernable
change in yield or isobutane consumption.
PAULES:
The contaminants of biggest concern are the penta-
dienes. These compounds dramatically increase acid con-
sumption and AS0 make. The sulfur compounds in the C5
cut are also more difficult for a mercaptan extraction unit
to handle. Unless your unit is specifically designed to do
this, sulfur may be a problem in the alkylation unit. The
yields for each amylene isomer are different, but generally
speaking, true amylene alkylate yield is 1.55 to 1.65 times
olefin charge with a RON of 90 to 92, and a MON of 88 to 90.
The isobutane consumption is 1.10 to 1.35 times olefin
charge. Synthetic pentane production is 0.20 to 0.50 times
olefin charge.
One mechanical concern is the ability of the unit to
handle isopentane. Not only is there isopentane in the C5
charge, but synthetic isopentane production can be be-
tween 20 to 30% of olefin charge. The fractionation section
of a unit must be capable of removing all the isopentane
while controlling alkylate RVP and preventing a buildup of
isopentane in the isobutane recycle.
O’BRIEN:
Feed contaminants for C5 alkylation become a problem
when refiners try to recover more and more of the C5
olefins. As you cut deeper into the C5s, you tend to drag
more of the C6s, dienes, and additional sulfur into the
alkylation feed. These materials will increase AS0 produc-
tion substantially. The amylene feed will likely include
some isopentane. The isopentane in the feed, along with
synthetic isopentane produced in the reaction, can load up
the recycle isobutane loop, and create problems with iso-
butane purity. As the isopentane builds up, it begins re-
acting somewhat as the isobutane does, but makes a C9
compound with an octane of only 80.
Process
QUESTION 13:
What is the experience with acid recontactors in a
hydrofluoric acid alkylation unit? What are the quan-
titative benefits?
O’BRIEN:
In Phillip’s experience recontactors have worked very
well in reducing fluorides in most of the product streams.
Our experience indicates a reduction in fluorides of 90% on
product streams, except for the alkylate. This results in less
frequent purchase of HF scavenger alumina.
PAULES:
I agree. There are claims of up to a 90% reduction in
fluorides and in some cases, companies have been able to
meet product specifications without additional treating.
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
However, many refineries shy away from recontactors be-
cause of safety concerns as they increase the amount of HF
handling equipment in the unit. Also, it is reported that
they are ineffective on high purity propane streams. We
have operated a recontactor on our main fractionator over-
head stream since the unit was built in 1979 and have no
real history of operating without it. We still treat the
propane product for trace HF removal.
QUESTION 14:
Has anyone experienced iron fluoride pre-
cipitation on coolers downstream of butane and
propane defluorinators? What has been done to alle-
viate this problem? Since iron fluoride is a corrosion
product, what is the mechanism for this corrosion,
and where does it occur? Are these corrosion prod-
ucts a result of two phase flow (acid-H2O/butane or
acid-H2O propane) that occurs at low hydrocarbon
temperatures?
O’BRIEN:
We believe that it is possible to have iron fluoride pre-
cipitation in coolers. The mechanism is iron fluoride scale
destruction caused by colder than normal product tempera-
tures. The cold temperatures cause the formation of a
corrosive acid/water phase that can destroy the protective
iron fluoride scale. To alleviate this problem, product tem-
peratures should be kept around 100 °F.
Another likely deposit on the coolers is alumina fines
after recharging a defluorinator. To prevent this, the re-
charged defluorinator should be placed in the lead position
for a period of 24 hours to allow any alumina fines to be
deposited on the top of the secondary bed. The defluorinator
can then be switched to the tail position.
T. WILLIAMS:
We run our defluorinators in series as mentioned in the
previous comment. We put the regenerated or reloaded
defluorinator back on-line as the second in the series and
we have experienced high corrosion rates in the low flow
areas of this second defluorinator.
QUESTION 15:
What are typical fluoride concentrations in normal
butane streams? What level can be accurately
measured?
O’BRIEN:
Typical fluoride levels for butane are 200 to 400 ppm. The
level of fluoride in the butane can vary for several reasons.
Acid strength, reaction conditions, and origin of the butane
stream are some of the factors affecting fluoride levels.
Organic fluorides can accurately be measured to 1 to 2 ppm.
OSBORN:
During the second half of 1992, in preparation for a
potential shipment on a pipeline, we did testing of our
normal butane stream. Results matched the ranges re-
ported by Ms. O’Brien, 200 to 400 ppm fluoride. The test
used to determine these results is an adaptation of the
123
Wickbold Apparatus. The same method is employed for the
determination of the fluorides in propane. We have estab-
lished that levels down to approximately 10 ppm can be
reasonably determined.
BONELLI:
In one of our operations, which is a UOP HF alkylation
design, our typical fluoride concentration in the normal
butane stream is 150 to 170 ppm by weight. The method
that we use for determining fluorides is the same modified
Wickbold method. For refinery operations, we consider 10
ppm to be the lower confidence level on which we take
action. We generally do not report values below 1 ppm; we
just report less than 1.
T. WILLIAMS:
Fluorides in our normal butane draw off the tower typi-
cally run in the 500 to 600 ppm range. After the alumina
and KOH treating, this is down to 1 ppm fluoride or less. We
use UOP 619 Oxy-hydrogen combustion method and can
detect down to 1 ppm.
RALPH HARRIS (CITGO Refining & Chemicals, Inc.):
Has anybody seen a dramatic increase in organic fluoride
content of the butanes and alkylate with addition of MTBE
or TAME in front of the alkylation unit?
BONELLI:
We have not. When we put our MTBE unit in service, we
did not know what to expect. Organic fluoride was one of
the parameters that we .monitored to see if our fluoride
balance was much disturbed. It has not been.
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
The concentration of combined fluorides in the butane
stream coming off of the alkylation unit is not the primary
consideration. What is also important is how much normal
is actually passing through the unit via the olefin and
saturate feeds to the unit. If the unit has feedstocks that are
very low in normal butane, the normal that comes off the
unit has a high concentration of combined fluorides since
the fluoride production rate is independent of the normal
butane flow. So you need to look at the total moles of
combined fluoride produced rather than just the con-
centration in the normal butane stream in order to evaluate
the fluoride production rates for a given unit.
QUESTION 16:
Velocity in the acid settler is directly related to the
separation zone (emulsion zone) width in the settler.
At some velocity, acid carryover will become exces-
sive causing high corrosion rates. This velocity cor-
responds to some distance between the hydrocarbon
draw and the hydrocarbon/separation zone inter-
face: What is an. acceptable distance for reliable
operation of the unit?
O’BRIEN:
Although the distance between the hydrocarbon draw
and the hydrocarbon separation zone interface may have
some effect, the overriding factor is the velocity. After
TOC/INDEX
exceeding a certain velocity through the acid settler, carry-
over will occur regardless of the height.
ROY:
The purpose of the HF acid settler is to provide disen-
gaging time between the HF acid and the hydrocarbon
phases and to reduce organic fluorides in the products.
There are proprietary internals in the settler that facilitate
these two functions. The hydrocarbon velocity in the settler
is about 1.5 fpm.
Mechanical
QUESTION 17:
Please discuss the types of emergency isolation
valves being used. Are valves/flanges fireproofed in
this service?
BONELLI:
At our Robinson, Illinois refinery we have recently com-
pleted a substantial addition to our HF alkylation remote
emergency system. The valves that we chose to use are
Durco 1/4 turn plug valves with teflon liners. They have
teflon seals, no packing. The flanges in this service are not
fireproofed.
O’BRIEN:
The majority of emergency isolation valves we have seen
in refineries are ¼ turn, teflon lined valves with pneumatic
operators. Some refiners prefer using electric-operated gate
valves- with a metal-to-metal seat to reduce the fear of
teflon melting in a fire situation.
Phillip’s licensing does not endorse, and the Phillip’s
plants do not practice, fireproofing of valves or flanges,
since by covering the bolted areas of a valve, you will limit
the ability to monitor for leaks in these areas. Actuators
and other associated equipment are fireproofed.
OSBORN:
We have installed tufline valves with HYTORK ac-
tuators on the outlets of the acid storage drums. The control
panel is operated from the field control room. They are not
fireproofed.
PAULES:
We have recently installed 18 air actuated, ¼ turn plug
valves for automatic isolation of HF systems. With these we
can isolate the acid settler, acid storage drum, acid feed
pumps, IC4 recycle, and main fractionator overhead. The
valves are flanged but not fireproofed. The valves are
pneumatically operated and fail to the last position.
ROY:
Isolation valves being currently used by our plant are
plug valves with pneumatic actuators. We do not currently
fireproof valves and flanges in HF acid service because we
believe the potential for leaks or corrosion to go undetected
is far greater if not completely visible.
T. WILLIAMS:
We have used Xomox valves with Matrix actuators in this
124
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
service. We also use some Durco plug valves. Again, we
currently do not fireproof, preferring to leave the flanges
exposed and painted with HF leak detecting paint.
General
QUESTION 18:
What is the most environmentally acceptable dis-
position for acid soluble oils? Where do most refiners
currently dispose of this stream?
PAULES:
We presently neutralize AS0 with caustic and include it
in the refinery residual oil pool. The decanted spent sodium
fluoride is then reacted with calcium chloride to produce a
solid calcium fluoride precipitate and a sodium chloride
brine. The solid calcium fluoride can then be disposed of in
a nonhazardous landfill and the sodium chloride brine is
totally harmless to the wastewater plant and the
environment.
T. WILLIAMS:
We reprocess our ASO, after neutralization, in our FCC
unit feed.
BONELLI:
Following neutralization to below 0.1 wt% HF, the acid
soluble oils are treated as hazardous waste at our facility
and transported to an approved incineration facility. At
Robinson, where we have delayed cokers, we are investi-
gating the suitability of including this neutralized AS0
into our Mobil Oil Sludge Coking injection.
O’BRIEN:
After caustic treating to remove entrained HF, the AS0
can be blended into fuel oil, used as FCC feedstock, or
burned in an alkylation unit furnace using a special burn-
er. In the United States, putting AS0 into fuel oil or the
FCC feed tank is the most common disposition. In Europe,
we find people prefer to burn the AS0 in their reboiler
furnaces.
OSBORN:
In addition to the methods previously mentioned, we are
currently injecting it into our coker charge. It has been
done in the past with no known detrimental effects. It is
important to assure the ASOs are adequately neutralized,
yet do not contain excessive amounts of entrained caustic.
HARRY GILL (Ultramar, Inc.):
We blend our acid soluble oil, after neutralization, with
slurry oil. Slurry oil eventually ends up in the fuel oil,
although we do not produce any fuel oil from this site. It has
occurred to me that we could consider blending it with
alkylate produced from the unit. The logic here is that
during internal regeneration, all those sulfur oils go to
alkylate anyway.
JOE P. CARSON (Mobil Oil Corporation):
We are currently considering blending AS0 with our
clarified slurry oil product stream. Some of our initial
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
laboratory results have shown that our AS0 Rash point is
below 100 °F. I was wondering if anyone else had experi-
ence with low boiling point ASO? Also, what is the typical
flash point for ASO?
BONELLI:
Because we do not blend it, it is not a parameter that we
measure. I cannot think of a reason that in our regular
operation it would really be a concern since we neutralize it
and dispose of it in an incinerator.
QUESTION 19:
Please comment on your experience in selling
spent fluorinated alumina and/or potassium fluoride
back to suppliers/reclaimers?
O’BRIEN:
Phillips refineries are looking into the option of selling
the spent fluorinated alumina, with no actual transactions
to date. Several Phillips licensees are sending their spent
alumina for reclaiming. We do not produce potassium fluo-
ride waste.
QUESTION 20:
Are there any refiners actively pursuing alkylation
additives to improve the safety aspects of their
hydrofluoric alkylation unit?
OSBORN:
I am aware of commercial testing being conducted by
UOP in concert with a refinery and have discussed the
results of that study. However, to date the information has
not been made public and therefore will need to be pre-
sented by the parties involved.
O’BRIEN:
Since our development of the first HF alkylation units in
1942, Phillips has engaged in a continuous research pro-
gram to enhance and optimize the process. Recent efforts
have focused on process and mechanical improvements to
enhance the already low risk and to minimize the pollution
impact of the HF technology. Such efforts have been very
successful in sustaining minimal risk. With our goal of
continuous improvement,’ these efforts have naturally in-
cluded catalyst modifications and additives to suppress the
volatility of release material. Efforts are continuing in
development of this process modification.
DALE WILLIAMS (Texaco, Inc.):
Texaco’s El Dorado plant has awarded a contract for the
engineering, fabrication, and installation of facilities for
continuous use of the Texaco-LJCP HF additive technology
beginning in July, 1994. Release tests of HF and HF ad-
ditive mixtures have confirmed that substantial reductions
in potential aerosol formation can be achieved.
A trial on the number 1 alkylation unit at El Dorado in
1992, confirmed that use of the additive did not require any
change in throughput or reaction conditions and did not
degrade the alkylate quality. This technology will be li-
censed by UOP and will also be available on a modular
basis from the UOP Process Plants and Systems group.
125
STEVE HUNKUS (MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc.):
Along the line of this question, has anyone had a successful
commercial installation of an alternative or replacement
for the time tank to significantly reduce the inventories of
acid and isobutane in that system?
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
We have done revamps of units for low acid inventory and
as part of that package, the time tanks have been
eliminated.
C. Reforming
Feed
QUESTION 21:
What is the impact of coker or visbreaker naphtha
on reformer cycle length? Is there anything that can
be done to improve run length?
PAULES:
The main problems with coker and visbreaker naphtha
are their high olefin and nitrogen content. The olefin con-
tent should not impose any problems to the reformer itself,
as all olefins will saturate in the naphtha hydrotreater.
However, if a large proportion of these naphthas are fed to a
naphtha hydrotreater, the unit must be equipped to handle
the high reactor exotherms of olefin saturation. After
hydrotreating, the saturated olefins should not affect re-
former cycle length. The nitrogen content will necessitate
hydrotreating at higher hydrogen partial pressure than the
typical naphtha hydrotreater with a nickel molybdenum
catalyst.
Some refiners include these naphthas as part of a dis-
tillate or FCC feed hydrotreater charge to allow saturation
and denitrification before routing to a typical naphtha
hydrotreater in front of a reformer. The ultimate effect on
reformer cycle length will be determined by the remaining
feed nitrogen and olefin content charged to the reformer.
PEDERSEN:
We have found that up to 20% visbreaker naphtha in the
feed does not influence reformer run length noticeably,
provided that you have good hydrotreatment upstream,
which means bromine number less than 1, sulfur and
nitrogen less than 0.5, and 1 ppm, respectively.
BONELLI:
We have only one facility in which we have a delayed
coker and that facility has two reformers and naphtha
hydrotreaters. We have made coker naphtha processing
trials in each of those naphtha hydrotreaters and experi-
enced fouling of the feed preheat exchanger train and
reactor bed.
We feel that when you are hydrotreatingcoker naphthas,
your reactor space velocities should be near 1, and the
reactor pressure needs to be 800 to 1,000 psig for 90%
hydrogen purity streams. In addition, a nickel molyb-
denum catalyst is required for that service. For an excellent
view of the impact ofreforming non straight-run naphthas,
TOC/INDEX
I recommend a paper on the subject that was published by
UOP.
OSBORN:
In addition to the comments by Mr. Bonelli, I think the
best precautions to take are to minimize the end point by
taking extra care during the switching process to minimize
fractionator upsets and keep the end point down. It is
certainly more difficult to reform coker naphtha versus
straight-run naphtha at the same end point. If it is not
possible to achieve the 800 or so psi hydrotreating, I would
strongly recommend that you consider blending coker
naphtha straight to the gasoline pool and offset the low
octane by higher reformer severity.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
The corrosion aspect of higher sulfur and higher nitrogen
feed to the naphtha hydrotreater usually results in migra-
tion of corrosion products into the reformer. As the iron
content goes up in any part of the reformer, like the first
catalyst bed, the ability to regenerate the catalyst gets
more difficult. Fouling of the feed effluent exchangers and
in the charge heater is also more common in units that run
straight-run and coker or visbreaker naphtha simul-
taneously in the same hydrotreater.
CEES SMIT (Akzo Catalysts):
Regarding the processing of FCC naphtha, is it common
in the United States to reform this stream or to reform the
heart cut? What is the influence on the reformer per-
formance, specifically hydrogen yield?
BONELLI:
We do not do that at our locations. The FCC naphtha is
generally blended as produced for sweetening.
LEWIS A. FREDERICKSON (Chevron Research and
Technology Co.):
I did not hear anybody mention silicon fouling of the
hydrotreater catalyst. Is anybody using a guard bed?
BONELLI:
We do not. I think that most people who operate cokers
today are very careful with their antifoam injections. I
know that most of the people, at other companies with
whom we have discussed coker operations, are con-
scientiously minimizing that. It has not been, in most
cases, a problem for them. Although I think we are all still
looking for a good nonsilicon antifoam for cokers.
THOMAS W. KELLY (ARCO):
We do not use silica guard beds but do analyze for silica
when replacing our desulfurization catalyst to help esti-
mate new catalyst life. We expect a 2 year life when run-
ning about 15 to 20 percent coker naphtha in the reformer
feed.
Coker naphtha affects our reformer performance because
hydrotreated coker naphtha properties are much worse
than our straight-run reformer feed properties. When
processing a blend of coker and straight-run feeds, we see
lower recycle gas purity and higher reactor temperature
requirements to make a given octane reformate than if
processing only straight-run. Cycle length is therefore
126
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
shortened by an increase in catalyst coking rate due to the
loss of hydrogen recycle rate and higher reactor tempera-
tures, and an operation closer to heater maximum
temperatures.
ROY:
We run coker naphtha, about 8 to 10%, in our CCR feed
and we use a silica-based antifoam at the coker. We have
typically seen runs of 1 to 1.5 years on our hydrotreater. We
monitor for silica breakthrough on the hydrotreated
catalyst.
BONELLI:
At our location, it is not economical to reform the coker
naphthas given the flow scheme we have, and therefore,
they go to the gasoline blend pool.
OSBORN:
In addition to controlling end point, if you feed the naph-
tha to the reformer, end point is important if you are
sending it directly to the gasoline pool. At about a 360 °F
end point, you have about a 70 octane, and if you go up to a
400 °F end point, the octane will drop to about a 60 for the
same coker charge quality. That is a significant deterioration.
QUESTION 22:
What are the pros and cons of using nickel catalyst
in a sulfur sorber rather than copper catalyst?
PAUL W. VANCE (ACREON Catalysts):
For liquid phase sulfur sorbers, ACREON offers both the
copper and nickel products. Copper provides the least ex-
pensive initial fill and provides pickup of hydrogen sulfide
and light mercaptans. However, the high surface .area
nickel sorber provides approximately 100% greater sulfur
pickup by weight, greater affinity for more of the types of
sulfur species common in reformer feed such as mercaptans
and thiophenes, and represents a more economical cost per
pound of sulfur removed for reformer feed pretreatment.
Both types of products are in use at several refineries.
This nickel product is stabilized with carbon dioxide and
overcomes historical difficulties with other types of non-
stabilized nickel products and can be easily prepared for
service. Nickel products, in general, require a thorough
understanding of associated handling requirements and
are commonly used by refiners.
Disposal of the spent nickel sorber material may also be
much easier than copper, since instead of disposing as a
waste, the high nickel sorber often has value to a metal
reclaimer.
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
I agree in general with the previous speaker. I would add
that UOP finds for the copper-based material at least, that
it is most effective only for the removal of H2S. The nickel
does a better job of removing H2S as well as mercaptans and
disulfides. So if you only have an H2S problem, I would lean
towards the cheaper copper-based material, but the dis-
posal costs in your area will impact your final decision. On
an equivalent disposal cost basis, the copper-based mate-
rial is cheaper on a cost per pound of sulfur removed basis.
TOC/INDEX

LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING

MARK S. DORAN (ICI Katalco): PAULES:

Nickel catalysts are more appropriate where the naph-
tha feed contains a high degree of complex sorber com-
pounds, such as thiophenes.
Copper catalysts are best suited to applications where
the dominant sulfur species are H2S and/or mercaptans.
Copper catalysts are much easier to use. They do not need
an activation step, do not need to be loaded under inert gas,
and they are not pyrophoric when discharged.
Nickel is classified as a potential carcinogen in some
countries, and so requires more stringent handling pro-
cedures. More importantly, if correctly designed, copper-
based systems have a longer life and are a better value to
the operator when considering cost of catalyst per pound of
sulfur removed. ICI Katalco’s PURASPEC™ range of ab-
sorbents includes both copper and nickel sulphur guards
and had been successfully used on catalytic reformers and
isomerization units. ICI Katalco will assist with disposal of
spent material as part of its Catalyst Care Programme.
Process
QUESTION 23: What gains in reformate and hydro-
gen yields do refiners typically achieve on semi-
regenerative reformers using bimetallic catalyst
when reactor pressure is reduced by 100 psi?
JUNO:
In 1992, we revamped our semiregenerative reformer
lowering the separator operating pressure from 300 to 170
psig. Based on pre-revamp and post-audit detailed test
runs, we achieved an increase in C5+ yields of 2.7 liquid
vol%, and an increase in hydrogen production of 210 scf/bb1.
Measured research and motor octanes were within 0.2 of
an octane number and the (R + M)/2 was within 0.1 of an
octane number between the two test runs.
Projected yields from UOP for the R62 catalyst for sep-
arator pressure reduction from 300 to 200 psig were a 2.1
liquid vol% C5+ yield increase and 164 scf/bbl hydrogen
production increase. Projections of catalyst cycle length
between regenerations were exceeded.
O’BRIEN:
Although somewhat the reverse of the question, in the
case of one of our motor fuel reformers, we increased the
reactor pressure by 140 psig. During the test period the
unit was processing feed with N + A of 60 to 66 vol%, and
operating with severities ranging from 91 to 99 C5+ oc-
tane. The following was observed: hydrogen yields de-
creased 0.19 wt% for the low severity case and 0.3 wt% for
the high severity case; the C5 + liquid yield decreased 1.0
vol% for the low severity case and 0.5 wt% for the high
severity case; and the catalyst stability was increased ap-
proximately 20%.
For a typical semiregenerative reformer operating at an
average reactor pressure of 300 psig and 95 RON severity, a
drop of 100 psi average reactor pressure will yield an
increase of approximately 1.0 vol% reformate and 100
scf/bbl of hydrogen on a rich 65 N + 2A feed, and an
increase of approximately 2.2 vol% reformate and 150
scf/bbl of hydrogen on a lean 40 N + 2A feed.
PEDERSEN:
From our pilot plant we have found that reducing the
reactor pressure from 375 to 275 psig increases C5 + yield
by as much as 5.0 wt%. The corresponding hydrogen yield
will increase by approximately 35%. Feed in our test were
naphtha from a 40160 mix of Stattjord and Gullfaks crudes.
Tests were carried out over a severity range from 96 to 102
RON clear, with a platinum/rhenium catalyst.
M. EDWARD MORRISON (IFP Enterprises Texas, Inc.):
With a semiregenerative reformer using bimetallic cata-
lyst and operating at 250 to 300 psig (mean reactors pres-
sure), the estimated yield improvement at constant octane
after reducing pressure by 100 psi is estimated to be 2.5
wt% for C5 liquid yields, and 250 scf/bbl for hydrogen
yields. This obviously reduces the cycle length of the semi-
regenerative catalyst.
IFP’s DUALFORMING technology solves the problem
of short cycle length and further increases gasoline and
hydrogen yields. In this particular process, the existing
fixed bed reactors operate at low severity so the cycle length
can be considerably increased. A new reactor and con-
tinuous regenerator operates at a higher severity. This
provides a low cost alternative to fully continuous oper-
ation. In this process the overall yield improvements are 3.5
wt% liquid yields, and a hydrogen yield increase of 350 to
400 scf/bbl.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
Ms. O’Brien, why did you increase pressure when every-
one else is trying to reduce pressure?
O’BRIEN:
This data came from several years ago and it was from
our Puerto Rico plant. I do not have any other details.

BONELLI:
At one of our refineries, when we lowered the pressure on
a semiregenerative unit by 80 psig, we realized a gain of 2
to 3 vol% in reformate yield, and an increase in hydrogen
production of 50 to 100 scf/bbl.

127
TOC/INDEX
LEE E. TURPIN (Profimatics, Inc.):
The changes in reformate and hydrogen yields as pres-
sure is changed vary significantly with feed composition.
The changes in C5 + and hydrogen yields decrease as the
quality (N + A) of the feed increases.
The following table was generated using Profimatics
kinetic reformer model. C5 + octane was held constant as
well as feed boiling range.
Naphthenes Aromatics Delta C5+ Delta H2
Feed vol% vol% vol%/PSI SCF/BBL/WPSI
1 30.0 8.0 2.25 167.
2 35.0 10.0 1.79 152.
3 40.0 12.0 1.69 148.
To answer Mr. McCoy’s question; one of the reasons I
have seen people raise pressure is because they are meeting
heater constraints and if they raise the pressure, they can
have a bigger heat sink with the hydrogen and reduce the
heater constraints on downstream heaters.
QUESTION 24:
We know that when pressure is reduced in a cata-
lytic reformer, the rate of cracking decreases. We
also know directionally that increasing chloride level
on the catalyst will not only increase cracking, but
will also increase isomerization and dehydro-
cyclization. Is there any advantage then to increasing
chloride level to increase paraffin isomerization and
dehydrocyclization in low pressure reformer units?
Is the delta C5 + yield per 0.1 wt% chloride the same
at 50 psig reactor pressure as 250 psig? What effect
will this have on the relative yields of methane,
ethane, propane and butane?
PAULES:
At any pressure level there is an optimum chloride level.
Any additional increase in chloride above this will do little
to promote isomerization and will tend to promote excessive
hydrocracking. Operating above this optimum amount will
hurt you more at 250 psig than at 50 psig due to the
increased tendency for hydrocracking at higher pressures.
PEDERSEN:
The catalyst chloride level is important both for the
initial yields and for the catalyst stability. Increasing the
acidity of the catalyst by adding more than 1.0 wt% chlo-
ride does not increase the selectivity to aromatics or iso-
parafins. The opposite effect is actually observed as the
degree of hydrocracking increases.
For a 250 psi unit using a platinum/rhenium type of
catalyst, the chloride level should be close to 1.0 wt%. If the
catalyst is 15% overchlorinated, the initial C5+ yield is
reduced by 1%. A corresponding 25% reduction of the cycle
length is also anticipated. On the other hand, if the catalyst
is 20% underchlorinated, we do not see any loss in initial
C5 + yield, but the cycle will be reduced by approximately
35%.
128
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
A semiregenerative type catalyst that has been through
a number of cycles is less yield sensitive to variations in the
chloride level than a recent loaded catalyst.
In a low pressure reformer using a platinum-tin type of
catalyst, we also find 1.0 wt% to be the optimum chloride
level. When comparing at constant RON level, the relative
yields of C1 and C2 versus C3 and C4 are approximately the
same at 250 and 50 psi. However, we found that the relative
yields are slightly dependent on the chloride level. Increas-
ing the chloride level on the catalyst from 0.08 to 1.2
increases the relative yield of LPG versus fuel gas by 10 to
15%.
J. WILLIAMS:
Under most circumstances the optimum chloride content
of reforming catalyst, both semiregenerative and CCR, is
0.9 to 1.1 wt% on catalyst. Higher chloride contents lead to
enhanced hydrocracking reactions and lower chloride con-
tents to lower activity. Within the range of 0.9 to 1.1 wt%
chloride, the effect of pressure on methane, ethane, pro-
pane and butane yields is much more pronounced than
variations in the chloride content of the catalyst, although
at higher chloride contents, the relative yields of propane
and butane are higher.
QUESTION 25:
There are several reforming catalysts on the mar-
ket, with loaded densities varying from 32 lbs/cu ft to
45 Ibs/cu ft. The manufacturers say the surface area
(area/mass, meter squared per gram) is roughly the
same from one catalyst to another. Why are low
density catalysts loaded into reformer units when a
refiner can get roughly 50% more surface area by
loading a high density catalyst?
J. WILLIAMS:
The lower density catalysts were developed in the past
when reformer pressures were high and severities low and
consequently deactivation low. Today, high density cata-
lysts are available which allow operation at relatively low
pressures and high severity, while maintaining acceptable
cycle lengths. In some cases, the yield structure, higher
reformate yields, has also improved for the high density
catalysts. A disadvantage, of course, is the higher platinum
inventory in the case of high density catalysts.
LAABS:
While there is a benefit to having high surface area in the
reactor, the platinum/rhenium dispersion in the catalyst
determines the activity and the run length. If the low
density catalyst provides a satisfactory throughput, ac-
tivity, and run length, then the price differential could
support its purchase. However, if the difference in price is
balanced by the need for a higher weight hourly space
velocity, or by the extra reformate yield that is possible
with the higher surface area, then the high density catalyst
is the better option.
Trying to save money by loading a smaller amount of
high density catalyst is not recommended. Shortloading of
a reactor should not be done without modifications to the
reactor internals.
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
WILLIAM J. NOVAK (ACREON Catalysts):
We make reforming catalyst with a range of densities as
described in the question. As was discussed, higher density
catalysts will frequently debottleneck a unit that is limited
in severity. However, if a unit is operating at relatively low
severity, a refiner may consider using a lower density
catalyst simply because it reduces the catalyst expense.
(The reactor available volume can be fully loaded with less
total pounds of catalyst.) Actually, with the trend toward
reformulated gasoline and the increased use of oxygenates,
we see reformer severity coming down a little bit. Therefore
it is very economical, in some cases, for people to actually
move to a lower density catalyst.
BONELLI:
Refiners should consider what Mr. Laabs said about not
shortloading reactors without attention to modifying the
internals of those reactors. There has probably been a great
deal more trouble resulting from shortloading than can
ever be recovered by the difference in what one pays for
catalyst.
QUESTION 26:
Is there a recommended maximum operating pres-
sure during the carbon burn stage of a semiregener-
ation reformer regeneration? Should the oxidation
step of a regeneration be carried out at the same
pressure as the carbon burn and if so, why?
PEDERSEN:
We recommend maximizing pressure, both during car-
bon bum and oxidation. The pressure will normally be
limited by the discharge pressure of the air compressor. By
maximizing pressure, you achieve a faster coke burn and
good contact during oxidation due to the higher recycle gas
flow.
JUNO:
There is no maximum operating pressure at which the
carbon burn stage of a semiregeneration reformer re-
generation should be performed. The horsepower of the
recycle compressor will limit the pressure that you can
achieve. On centrifugal recycle compressors, this is gen-
erally around 180 psig.
Although I do not have any experience at this pressure, I
am told that there are some units on which caustic carry-
over has been experienced at 400 psig on some of the
regenerations. The oxidation step is not sensitive to pres-
sure and is normally carried out at a pressure that is
convenient to the rest of the regeneration procedure.
O’BRIEN:
Over the years we have regenerated reforming catalyst at
pressures from 25 to over 300 psig. Obviously regenerating
at a higher pressure results in higher density of the re-
generation gases, thus leading to a shorter regeneration
time. For the high pressure regeneration, we use a high
pressure oil-free air compressor. We have checked the cata-
lyst properties following the regenerations and have seen
no detrimental effects on the catalyst from the regeneration
pressure.
129
In the past we have also used liquid oxygen for re-
generation. However, we see no incentive for oxygen in-
jection since using the high discharge pressure compressor.
We do the oxidation step at the same pressure as the
regeneration step. In this step the limit is the outlet pres-
sure of the air compressor. The higher pressure decreases
the time required for oxidation and results in regenerated
catalyst that performs well.
OSBORN:
I am not aware of any maximum limit on operating
pressure for a semiregenerative reformer regeneration,
except for those set by the compressor and plant mechan-
ical limits. The function of pressure during carbon burn is
well known; that is, it increases the coke burning rate and
increases the heat removal from the catalyst. Both of these
are due to the increased regeneration gas flow rate associ-
ated with the higher operating pressure.
Higher pressure also helps during the oxychlorination
step. One important aspect of the regeneration is the redis-
persion of the active metals. Increasing the oxygen partial
pressure favors the formation of Cl2. Chlorine is the chemi-
cal species responsible for metals redispersion.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
Mr. Juno commented about corrosion control. As you go
up in pressure all these good things happen that the pan-
elists have mentioned. It is generally profitable and at-
tractive. However, corrosion control becomes more difficult.
Various techniques are used for corrosion control; every one
of them is subject to changing chemistry of the reactions
involved as you go up in regeneration pressure.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
As you go up in pressure, my experience has been that
the carryover into the compressor becomes more sig-
nificant. In most regenerations, there is some small
amount of carryover of neutralizing solution into the com-
pressor. This occurs whether you have a centrifugal or a
reciprocating compressor. We recommend that you wash a
centrifugal compressor after or during regeneration in
order to remove these salts to avoid damages that can occur
when salts fly off of a wheel turning at 8,000 rpm. There
have been many examples of that where excessive com-
pressor damage has resulted because of this carryover. So I
caution all of you that there is more to be considered than
the time factor and the other benefits that have been men-
tioned by the panel. That is, carryover; it is a real
phenomena.
LAABS:
We have always included a step to wash the compressor
during regeneration of our semiregenerative platformers.
QUESTION 27:
The presence of iron on reformer catalyst suggests
corrosion somewhere. Where should we look? Is
sulfur the most likely corrosion agent?
JUNO:
The corrosion products that are present in a reformer are
TOC/INDEX
due to corrosion in upstream equipment. The most common
causes of corrosion can be traced to the desulfurizer strip-
per where water and hydrogen sulfide occur in the presence
of carbon steel vessels. An intermittent water wash in the
desulfurizer can be the culprit for washing scale and sludge
through the stripper and into the reformer. Another source
of scale can be the water interface controller on the stripper
overhead receiver. If the interface is lost, water is refluxed
down the stripper tower carrying scale and corrosion prod-
ucts into the reformer.
PAULES:
I agree with the previous comments. One other source of
the corrosion might be a high moisture content in the
recycle gas during regeneration.
J. WILLIAMS:
You should look in all parts of the reformer that are in
contact with H2S, water, or hydrogen chloride at elevated
temperatures, i.e., heat exchangers, furnaces, etc. Sulfur,
probably H2S, is the most likely corroding agent, forming
iron sulfide. In that way, sulfur is hidden in the system and
can migrate to the catalyst when the catalyst is re-
generated. Iron sulfide will decompose then into iron oxide
and SO2. The latter can react with the alumina from the
catalyst to form stable alumina sulfate.
T. WILLIAMS:
In addition to the previously mentioned possible cor-
rosion agents, one other to add is dissolved oxygen from
tankage if you do not have a good gas blanketing system.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
On the subject of iron and reforming catalyst, iron is also
a catalyst for the so-called demethylation reaction. I made a
dramatic experiment that illustrated this many years ago,
charging a 50-50 mix of ground-up platforming catalyst
and iron fines to a pilot plant. Naphtha was fed at about
950 °F; nothing but methane came out the back end. Why
we did not blow up the pilot plant and destroy the labora-
tory, I do not know.
THOMAS W. KELLY (ARCO):
Another source of iron in reactors is from the oxidation
and reduction steps during the catalyst reactivation
process.
QUESTION 28:
What is the effect of sulfate formation during the
regeneration of catalytic reformer catalyst? Can the
catalyst be restored to fresh catalyst activity and
stability conditions? What are the methods used to
correct the sulfate problem?
OSBORN:
The existence of sulfate, S04, on catalyst during a re-
generation has two serious effects. First, the sulfate pro-
motes platinum mobility. In turn, this leads to platinum
agglomeration and loss of catalyst stability. Second, the
sulfate hinders the ability of the catalyst to pick up chlo-
ride. This in turn leads to loss of catalyst activity. Both
130
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
effects also result in a loss of yields. As long as the sulfate is
present, the platinum crystals can not be properly
dispersed.
The catalyst performance can be restored to fresh cata-
lyst activity and stability through an effective sulfate re-
moval procedure. This involves removal of the sulfate in a
hydrogen atmosphere with a large presence of chloride.
Chloride competes with the sulfate for sites on the alumina,
thus driving the sulfate off the catalyst. The sulfate is
removed as H2S.
LAABS:
We agree. In addition, we recommend sulfate removal if
there is more than 0.05 to 0.1 wt% sulfate on the catalyst.
RAJGURU:
I agree with the previous comments on the first part. The
sulfate on the surface of a reforming catalyst prohibits, or
at least decreases, the rate of noble metal redispersion. Yes,
the catalyst can be restored to close to fresh activity when
carrying out a sulfate sweep during the hydrogen treat-
ment between the carbon burn and the oxychlorination
step.
Sulfate can be effectively stripped from the catalyst by
circulating relatively high purity hydrogen at elevated
temperature. Chloride addition will improve the rate of
sulfate removal.
J. WILLIAMS:
Sulfate formation will make the redispersion of the
platinum more difficult at the time of the oxychlorination
and can cause sintering at the time of reduction because of
the decomposition of the sulfates into water and H2S. The
result is a very low activity after regeneration.
We were able to restore catalyst performance by double
oxychlorination with intermediate H2S stripping. A caustic
wash circulation is necessary in the H2S stripping stage to
absorb the formed H2S from the recycle gas and prevent
recontamination of the system upstream of the catalyst.
T. WILLIAMS:
We saw evidence of sulfate formation during a re-
generation that followed a sulfur excursion. We did exten-
sive hot hydrogen stripping according to UOP procedures.
Typica1 start-of-run activity was achieved.
THOMAS W. KELLY (ARCO):
I agree that full catalyst activity can be restored if sulfur
is completely removed before the chloro-oxidation step.
High sulfur on catalyst during this step will cause plati-
num crystallite growth to such an extent as to make good
metal redistribution not possible. A study in our process
lab confirmed that nothing could restore catalyst to new
activity after it had seen a reactivation while contaminated
with 0.5 wt% sulfur. The catalyst had been through a 12
hour pre-regeneration hydrogen strip to remove sulfur
which was obviously not very effective.
HIMMAT SINGH (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
The Indian Institute of Petroleum (IIP) and Indian Petro-
chemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) have jointly de-
veloped a bimetallic reforming catalyst. The catalyst is in
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
commercial use in one of the reforming units in our country.
Due to some plant upsets in this unit, we did experience
sulfate formation which ranged between 0.32 and 1.65
wt%. The catalyst in this case was regenerated in two steps
following the procedures outlined by the panel. The ac-
tivity of the regenerated catalyst was close to its original
value.
TERRY TUCKER (MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc.):
We have had success with the sulfate stripping procedure
as recommended by UOP for R62 catalyst. As you are doing
a regeneration burn, the SO2 appears to accumulate in the
reactor bed until near the end of the burn. Therefore, you
need to test for SO2, via Draeger, just as oxygen break-
through occurs at the end of the burn.
QUESTION 29:
Reforming units produce from the continuous
catalytic reforming (CCR) section, a continuous
stream of offgas rich in chlorides. Normally, this
stream is routed to the fuel gas system to be burned
with other refinery fuel gas streams. Has anyone
recorded any plugging/fouling problems associated
with that type of operation? If yes, which solution has
been adopted (separate burning of offgases, chloride
absorption, etc.)? Has scrubbing or fixed bed absorp-
tion been used to solve this problem? Have booster
compressor fouling problems been experienced?
ROY:
At our Pasadena CCR unit, heater control valve and
burner plugging/fouling used to be a common occurrence
when we burned the hydrogen rich offgas without any
treatment. Antifouling additives were tried for a while, but
we finally solved the problem by installing a fixed, dry
alumina adsorbent bed with very satisfactory results.
We still have intermittent ammonium chloride plugging
of the booster compressor discharge line. The plan is to
remove the chlorides in the makeup hydrogen through an
alumina adsorbent bed.
PEDERSEN:
From start-up of our CCR unit at Mongstad in 1989 until
last year when we installed a chloride trap, we experienced
heavy corrosion and plugging in our fuel gas systems. The
trap is a fixed bed of activated alumina with a sodium
promotor. It has proven to be very efficient. We have also
experienced fouling of the booster compressors and short
time between failure of compressor suction valves, which
again may be related to chlorides in the offgas.
BONELLI:
At one of our refineries we have experienced chloride
fouling problems associated with chloride contamination of
the net produced hydrogen. The hydrogen, which is
pumped away by two reciprocating net hydrogen com-
pressors, is first scrubbed with a caustic solution in a wash
tower to remove the chlorides. However, we operate the unit
at throughput rates which result in hydrogen production
above that which the compressors can pump away. This has
resulted in some unscrubbed hydrogen being burned in the
131
plant fuel system. The fuel gas line and gas burner plug-
ging problems have been severe, limiting the firing rates to
the heaters in the reformer and the naphtha hydrotreater.
We are installing chloride-removing alumina guard beds.
Some chloride deposition was noted in the net gas machines
prior to modification of the wash tower internals. We also
experienced tray plugging in our platformer debutanizer
and corrosive attack on the platformer debutanizer over-
head line.
MURPHY:
The burning of offgases can lead to plugging and fouling
difficulties. When chlorides are involved, these further
complicate the problem by adding salts to the organic
deposits. These offgases can be treated with antifoulants
that will inhibit the deposition. Several antifoulants of this
type are available, some specifically for chloride laden
gases. The proper treatment will provide protection from
plugging and corrosion that results from a high chloride
environment. Compressor problems caused by offgas can be
serious. Chemically treated gas can be safely compressed
with minimal impacts on the compressor. These gases can
be segregated, but this will only serve to focus the problem
in a different location.
CORNELL SLADE (ACREON Catalysts):
ACREON Catalysts recently introduced to the North
American market SAS-357, which is a promoted alumina,
widely used in Europe and Asia. This product can pick up
between 10 to 15% of its weight in HCI. In the last few
months the product has been tested and sold to at least two
major refiners in the U.S. to solve problems such as this.
QUESTION 30:
What is the experience of converting semi-
regenerative catalytic reformers to low pressure?
What is the experience with low pressure drop plate
type exchangers? What modifications if any are re-
quired on the recycle compressor?
SLOAN:
First I would like to thank PACKINOX for their as-
sistance on this one. Lowering the operating pressure of a
catalytic reformer at constant capacity has several conse-
quences on the existing equipment. With the vapor den-
sities decreasing, the stream velocities will increase
throughout the process loop, thereby increasing total loop
pressure drop. Unfortunately, the process delta P delivered
by the recycle gas compressor will decrease, not increase,
when lowering the operating pressure. However, the com-
pressor can usually be saved, mostly by reducing the pres-
sure drop of the process loop.
The replacement of the existing feed-effluent shell and
tube exchanger train with a low pressure plate type ex-
changer is a very effective way to reduce the total loop
pressure drop. In one instance a single shell, plate type
exchanger was installed to replace a train of 12 shell and
tubes, with a net reduction in pressure drop of 52 psi.
A second consequence of lower operating pressure is a
decrease in overall heat transfer coefficient in the feed
effluent exchanger. Two solutions are available here: either
TOC/INDEX
modify the heat transfer train, or push the firing of the
charge heater. With the current low refining margins and
high environmental pressures of today, pushing the heater
is probably not a desirable option.
Plate type exchangers have been selected as the feed
effluent exchanger on over 50 catalytic reformers around
the world, about half of them as part of a revamp either to
lower the operating pressure, convert to CCR operation,
increase throughput capacity, lower operating cost, or a
combination of these. Seven of these revamps with a CFE
welded plate exchanger are located in North America.
T. WILLIAMS:
We converted a semiregeneration unit to low pressure
with a drop of 100 to 120 psi. Problems encountered were
due to high vibration in the vertical feed effluent exchanger
which resulted in reducing unit charge. No modifications
were needed to the recycle compressor. We did not install
any plate type exchangers and therefore have no experi-
ence with them.
RAJGURU:
We have converted two semiregeneration reformers to
medium pressure operation. In one of these we switched
reformer heaters due to a shift in the duty requirements.
The feed-effluent exchanger which was a conventional
multishell exchanger was replaced with a single shell, low
pressure drop, vertical shell and tube exchanger. The pres-
sure drop saved by this replacement and by the heater shift
compensated for the reduction in differential pressure of
the recycle compressor.
An additional major impact of reducing the pressure is
more hydrogen production at a lower pressure. Additional
compression is required by the net gas compressor or by the
hydrogen user. Low pressure drop, plate type exchangers
have had satisfactory operation in this application, and
some of our clients in the United States have started accept-
ing them.
BONELLI:
In our case, which we referenced in Question 23 for
lowering the pressure on our semiregenerative unit, we did
not require modifications to the recycle gas compressor. We
also did not require the use of plate type heat exchangers as
replacements for our shell and tubes.
JUNO:
As I stated in a previous question, we revamped a semi-
regenerative reformer from 300 psi separator pressure to
170 psi. In our situation, we had an idle reformer next to the
reformer we were operating. Both reformers had a 5,000
bbl/day nameplate capacity at 300 psi. Our design was to
revamp both units to process 3,500 bbl/day at the lower
operating pressure. Detailed test runs were performed on
both units prior to our revamp effort. Two feed versus
effluent exchangers were replaced in one unit, and two
were modified in the second unit. New separators were
installed as carryover problems were occurring at even the
300 psi operation.
The recycle compressors were a series of six reciprocating
compressors of which four were in operating condition at
the time of the revamp. All the compressors were over-
132
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
hauled and the cylinder size was increased from 7.5 to 10
inch diameter. These modifications allowed for a hydrogen-
to-hydrocarbon ratio of 4.5, with a spare compressor for
backup. Three other compressors were modified and over-
hauled for booster compressor service. Two condenser
shells were changed to allow cooling water service on the
tube side of the exchanger for maintenance reasons. Sep-
arator liquid pumps were installed to boost the liquid to the
operating pressure of a common stabilizer.
The successful operation of this revamp was described in
Question 23. The increase in C5 + yield was primarily at
the reduction of propanes and butanes. This fact was not
unnoticed considering that during the summer of 1992, the
RVP of finished gasoline was approximately 2 RVP lower
than the previous summer. The process engineering for this
revamp was performed by Pennzoil’s process engineering
personnel.
DAVID W. ABLIN (UOP):
UOP has been, or is currently, ,involved with the con-
version of 24 semiregenerative reformers to low pressure
CCR platforming units. Our experience is that the revamp
can be completed with less than 30 days of unit downtime,
as the unit is down to make only the final process tie-ins.
The recycle gas compressor is usually retained as the basis
for these revamps.
Generally speaking, most of the fired heaters, the net gas
section, and the fractionation section are all retained in
these revamps, although some equipment modifications
may be required. We agree with the comments made by Mr.
Sloan regarding the welded plate Packinox exchangers.
UOP would be happy to help refiners evaluate the poten-
tial benefits of revamping their existing semiregenerative
units to lower pressure CCR units. We now have an engi-
neering group dedicated to revamp work that can provide a
variety of site specific revamp services ranging from feasi-
bility studies to complete basic engineering designs.
FRANCOIS REVERDY (Packinox, S.A.):
Somebody on the panel talked about a vibration issue
after reducing pressure drop. One of the advantages of
switching to plate type exchangers is that you totally elim-
inate any possibility of vibration in your feed effluent
exchanger. This is for the very simple reason that the
unsupported span of any single element in the heat trans-
fer bundle is about 1 inch or less. So to get that element to
vibrate would be very difficult.
Another advantage of switching to plate type exchangers
is that you also eliminate the worry about two phase feed
maldistribution in the exchanger. Feed maldistribution is
a worry because it will lead to non performance and long
term mechanical problems.
There is no secret: a low pressure drop exchanger has
little process delta P available to force a uniform dis-
tribution of the two phase feed across the section of the heat
transfer bundle - and some of those bundle sections are
quite large today, with 5,000 or more tubes per bundle!
Plate type exchangers have eliminated this worry by
using a liquid naphtha injection system that relies on the
head of the naphtha pump, rather than on the process delta
P to force a uniform liquid distribution in the heat transfer
bundle.
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
QUESTION 31:
How long an interval are refiners able to run their
continuous catalytic reformer recycle compressors
between washings to remove NH4CI deposits? What
levels of nitrogen do they have in the reformer feed?
LAABS:
We typically wash our CCR recycle compressors during
scheduled maintenance shutdowns every two years. We
have used a combination of sodium bicarbonate solution
and water for these washes. We control the nitrogen levels
in our feed to less than 0.5 ppm.
BONELLI:
Our compressor typically achieves a 4 year run between
washings with solutions as Mr. Laabs indicated. Feed to our
reformer is treated to nitrogen contents of about 0.5 ppm by
weight or less.
PAULES:
Typically a continuous catalytic reformer operates on a 3
year cycle. If nitrogen content of the feed is kept less than
0.5 ppm, washing of the recycle compressor between turn-
arounds is not necessary.
PEDERSEN:
We have had our CCR recycle gas compressor in service
since start-up in 1989 without seeing a need to wash. The
nitrogen in the feed is less than 0.5 ppm.
RAYMOND A. STEPHENSON (Lyondell-CITGO Re-
lining Company Ltd.):
In our vintage xylene reformer, the compressor has
rarely maintained an acceptable efficiency level for 6
months. However, with a minimum reduction in the feed,
we can take one compressor off-line for chemical cleaning,
all within an 8 hour period. Our other two reformers do not
have the luxury of two compressors. However, these two
stage compressors typically maintain enough efficiency to
last until catalyst regeneration is necessary. They are al-
ways washed after the second reactivation period prior to
start-up.
With our Unifiner compressor, we rarely achieved a 4
month run before it had to be shutdown and chemically
cleaned for removing ammonium chloride deposition. In
133
1986, we instituted a chemical aid injected into the com-
pressor suction piping with an atomizing nozzle after a
knockout pot. Since that date we have not experienced
enough loss in compressor efficiency to require a shutdown
for cleaning.
MARK S. DORAN (ICI Katalco):
Fouling by ammonium chloride can be eliminated by
installation of a fixed bed of our chloride absorbent in the
compressor suction line. This results in longer cycle length
and reduced maintenance costs and times. One North
American operator using an ICI Katalco PURASPEC
guard has reduced compressor maintenance costs by over
$100,000 per year.
QUESTION 32:
Has anyone come up with a better way to promote
contacting of recycle gas and neutralizing solution
during regeneration? Is there something better than
full-cone spray nozzles?
PEDERSEN:
The answers are no and no. We have been working with
these problems over a long time, but have found that a
properly designed nozzle injection system together with
close followup during regeneration provides the best
protection.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
Improper mixing in the back end of the unit during
regeneration has caused serious corrosion problems in
many units. I get many calls from people with those prob-
lems. We have developed a technique of analyzing the
mixing capability for an installation and we have made a
number of modifications to solve the corrosion problems for
refiners.
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
UOP has designed regeneration circuits with a simple
slotted distributor to inject the dilute circulating.caustic for
more than 20 years. The key variables to watch are the
caustic circulation rate, which should be a minimum 50% of
the unit design charge rate, and the velocity of the injection
stream, which should be of 3 to 5 ft/sec exiting the slot in the
distributor. The location of the distributor is key, with
proper location being in the center of the process line in the
direction of the gas flow. Proper piping orientation of the
gas circuit is also critical to good gas contacting. It is also
important to monitor both the pH and the total alkalinity
which is a more cumbersome test but we believe it is key to
keeping track of the availability of buffer in the solution.
We think the simple slotted distributor can do the job and
has for a long time.
QUESTION 33:
Have there been any notable advances in reformer
catalyst technologies since the widespread use in the
mid-80’s of the high rhenium catalysts for higher
stability operation? What has been the experience
with the L-zeolite based catalyst systems?
TOC/INDEX
RAJGURU:
One of the overseas refiners that we talked to, uses a
catalyst containing tin as a second metal rather than rhe-
nium. Getting higher stability operation is a key to using
tin. This refiner has no experience with the L-Zeolite based
catalyst systems.
J. WILLIAMS:
The advances are more an evolution than a revolution.
Reformate yield improvements in the range of 1% have
been observed on the newest high density catalysts.
PAUL W. VANCE (ACREON Catalysts):
Advances in ACREON’s reformer catalyst include a
trimetallic catalyst for improved hydrogen and liquid
yields and high surface area stable catalyst for CCR and
cyclic reformers.
QUESTION 34:
Before regeneration, a bimetallic catalyst of a
semiregenerative reformer contained the expected
amount of (~ 0.03 wt%) sulfur. However, during
reduction H2S was measured in the recycle gas and
reactor outlets. After addition to the first reactor of
only 5% of the total required amount of DMDS,
breakthrough was observed on all reactors. Appar-
ently, aluminum sulfates have been formed during
coke burn. Where is the sulfur coming from? Is it
advisable to do another oxychlorination if H2S is
measured in the reduction step?
PAULES:
One of two things has happened. Either sulfur from the
feed has deposited on the catalyst or H2S has been gener-
ated from iron sulfides formed as the result of corrosion. If
the sulfur is from feed sulfur upsets, then a sulfur strip
prior to the regeneration and oxychlorination step is rec-
ommended. If the sulfur is from corrosion products, then
the feed piping, exchangers, and heaters should be chemi-
cally cleaned.
J. WILLIAMS:
The most likely source of the sulfur is from the sulfide
scale in the system released during oxychlorination. A
second oxychlorination step would be considered if the H2S
is observed above 5 ppm in the recycle gas during reduction
to insure proper metals dispersion. Caustic wash of the
recycle gas after the first oxychlorination will minimize
sulfur in the system. Refer back to Questions 27 and 28 for
more information on this phenomenon.
JUNO:
Premature evolution of H2S during the reduction stage of
regeneration indicates the presence of sulfates on the cata-
lyst. These sulfates on the catalyst form agglomeration on
the platinum. An oxychlorination step should be performed
to redistribute the platinum.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
Mr. Paules mentioned chemical cleaning. I do not know
how many people have wasted their time and money trying
134
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
redox procedures, multiple oxychlorination, etc., when in
fact the whole front end of the plant is full of iron sulfide
scale. This person needs to bite the bullet and acid clean the
whole feed section of the plant.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
Proper acid cleaning of the reformer heaters is not easy
and it is a very expensive procedure if done correctly. All
reformer heaters have paralleled passes. Insuring proper
flow through each of the passes is not possible unless
radical procedures are used on the heater. To properly
acidize the heater passes each pass must be acidized sep-
arately, one pass at the time. With normal design, this
requires cutting the tubes for acidizing and then welding
them back together after the acidizing is complete.
When proper procedures have not been used, my experi-
ence with acidizing of these heaters has not been good. On
several units where the heaters have been acidized, sub-
sequent start-up resulted in scale migration out of the
heater into the scallops or into the catalyst bed. The loose
scale causing the problem obviously was not removed by
the acidizing procedure used.
Iron sulfide scales cause serious problems but acidizing
may not be the most cost effective alternative.
QUESTION 35:
Has anyone experienced increased corrosion
problems at the inlets of the chloriding agent in-
jection points during oxychlorination? Was this due
to changing the chloriding agent?
T. WILLIAMS:
On one occasion, a reformer on regeneration experienced
significant corrosion when the chloriding agent was in-
jected directly into the transfer line between the.heater and
reactor. The problem was solved by installing an injection
quill and thus avoiding notable contact between the agent
and the pipe wall.
PAULES:
I agree. Corrosion can occur if you inject the chloride at
the wrong location or in the wrong manner. Changing the
chloriding agent itself cannot cause corrosion.
QUESTION 36:
At what catalyst surface area is a catalyst replace-
ment recommended? What is the basis for the
change? How, if at all, should the water-chloride
control policy for semiregenerative reformers
change as available surface area is reduced?
JUNO:
With each regeneration, there is a loss of surface area for
the catalyst. As surface area is reduced, the catalyst has
less ability to retain chloride on its surface. After a number
of regenerations on a semiregeneration unit, the chloride
injection level should be increased to carry a higher chlo-
ride level in the recycle gas to distribute the catalyst chlo-
ride to its best activity. If the original chloride level is
maintained as the catalyst regenerations increase, the
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
catalyst will be underchlorided and susceptible to greater
yield losses following sulfur upsets on the unit.
OSBORN:
Basically my comments are the same as Mr. Juno’s
BONELLI:
Typically for our semiregenerative reformer the start-of-
run yields are compared to end-of-run yields immediately
prior to the regeneration and an economic analysis of the
value of the yield shift gives you the justification point for
changeout.
In our CCR reformer we consider a few more factors,
including the chloride retention ability, platinum redis-
persion efficiency, and how the yield pattern economics are
being affected. Generally, our CCR catalyst changeout sur-
face area is somewhere between 100 to 120 square meters
per gram.
PAULES:
A reforming catalyst should be evaluated for replace-
ment at a surface area of 65% of its original value. The
surface area, however, is only one area for determining the
catalyst activity. If the platinum is properly dispersed, you
may be able to tolerate lower surface area levels. The basis
for a catalyst changeout should be a loss in activity re-
sulting in higher start-of-run temperatures and shorter
run lengths. The water-chloride balance should be main-
tained as the surface area of the catalyst declines to main-
tain the same offgas yield. This will necessitate injecting
more chloride as the catalyst ages as chloride retention will
diminish with decreasing surface area.
RAJGURU:
We have input from an overseas refiner. They say that
they replace catalyst with new catalyst having a surface
area of 210 when the surface area of the old catalyst is
reduced down to 120. However, we make a decision to
change the catalyst as we analyze the items listed below:
capacity of retaining chlorides,
dispersion efficiency of platinum,
phase change of support alumina,
coke sensitivity, and
extent of metal contamination.
We increase the chloride injection as a water-chloride
control as the surface area is reduced.
PAUL W. VANCE (ACREON Catalysts):
I agree that there are a lot of factors that should be
considered beyond surface area; but in our experience,
surface area on catalyst changeout has ranged from, typi-
cally, 120 to 150. Higher levels of contamination or other
factors and economics may allow justifying a changeout
outside of this range. ACREON’s correlations are used to
increase chloride addition rates with surface area loss.
QUESTION 37:
Have any refiners experienced the formation of a
coke donut ring in their semiregenerative reformer
reactors? If so, has the cause been established?
135
T. WILLIAMS:
During a past reformer regeneration and catalyst dump
and screen, the resulting catalyst level was insufficient to
cover the open area on the center screen of a radial flow
reactor. This created a low flow area where a substantial
accumulation of coke formed over the subsequent run cycle.
JUNO:
In a radial flow reactor, a coke donut ring has been
observed at the bottom of the reactor, generally attributed
to the scallops filling up from the bottom with trash and
scale. This plugs off the flow at the bottom of the reactor,
forming a dead area for formation of a coke donut. In
downflow reactors, an upside-down icicle sometimes has
been observed extending from the bottom of the reactor.
Improper dense loading of the catalyst or plugging of the
top of the elephant stool are possible sources of this coke
formation.
OSBORN:
We have experienced a donut type coke formation in one
of our semiregeneration reformer reactors. The coke
growth, in this instance, was attributed to channeling due
to deterioration of the top of the center pipe, and pluggage
of the scallops near the base of the reactor. The primary
potential causes include maldistributed hydrocarbon flow
from either plugged scallops or plugged reactor center pipe,
catalyst fines as a result of seal fluidization, or the com-
bination of the two.
CHARLES S. MCCOY (Consultant):
I have seen several of these including the examples the
panel cited. One of the most interesting ones happened
early in the age of dense loading. A refiner dense loaded a
radial flow reactor about 2/3 of the way up, and then soft
loaded the balance. Apparently he built this kind of a donut
ring of coke right at the interface between the dense and
soft loaded material. I say apparently because they never
saw the coke. They went with the burn and high oxygen/
oxychlorination. Later they discovered holes burned
through the screen on the center pipe in a neat circle where
this interface had been.
THOMAS W. KELLY (ARCO):
We have seen coke ball formation at the top of radial beds
when we have loaded catalyst so high above the holes in the
center pipe that we created a dead zone at the top of the
catalyst.
We have also seen coke buildup because of iron scale
plugging areas of the screen or catalyst bed. We felt sulfur
was our main cause of corrosion and scale buildup. To
improve catalyst performance and reduce corrosion, we put
sulfur guard beds in the recycle loop before the first heater
in all of our reformers. In this way, the effects of sulfur are
minimized.
RUSSELL WILLIAMS (MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc.):
We have also experienced a coke donut ring at the bottom
of the scallops on a radial flow reactor. Based on con-
versations with UOP we have come to the conclusion that it
was caused by a flow restriction from the retaining ring on
the bottom scallop. UOP recommended that we move that
TOC/INDEX
up about one half of a foot. We have not done that yet so I am
not sure if that will fix the problem or not. We did not find
our coke ring until after the oxidation step either when we
put catalyst from the third reactor into the fourth. We
would recommend testing via Draeger for CO or CO2 dur-
ing the regeneration step to determine if it is there because
it did not show up on the temperature profile.
D. lsomerization
QUESTION 38:
Have refiners experience with diverting straight-
run benzene and benzene precursors to isomeriza-
tion plants? How much benzene/benzene precursor
material can be included in C5/C6 isomerization feed
without problems? What problems are encountered
with higher levels of benzene/benzene precursors?
ROY:
At our Tyler plant, we routinely charge our UOP I-7
isomerization unit with a hydrotreated, light straight-run,
containing 3 to 5% benzene. The unit is a converted re-
former and has 3 reactors. We experience a significant
isotherm, 15 to 35 °F, after the first reactor and use recycled
hydrogen quench to limit excessive isotherms in both the
first and second reactors. Heater outlet temperature is
adjusted to compensate for the first reactor exotherm.
T. WILLIAMS:
Our isomerization unit is designed to handle approxi-
mately 2.0 wt% benzene. Since benzene hydrogenation will
occur within the first 10% of the bed and produces ap-
proximately 90,000 BTUs/lb mole, any volumes above this
would need a quench system to substantially control the
temperature. Due to the exothermic reaction and the ele-
vated temperature, some of the cyclic material will undergo
ring opening reactions and subsequent isomerization. This
will ultimately result in lower octane on this portion of the
feed.
PAULES:
Phibro operates two UOP once-through C5 /C6 Penex
units. Both units were designed to process all the normal
pentane and the majority of the C6 material present in the
refinery naphtha pool. This feed stream contains approxi-
mately 60% of the virgin benzene and 50% of the benzene
precursors. The two units were designed to utilize only
reactor feed to cool the reactor effluent. Therefore the units
can tolerate only about 5 to 6 vol% benzene in the feed.
Above that, it can become impossible to remove enough
heat to control reactor delta T. To date, this has been a
problem only when processing a few unusual crudes. As far
as cyclohexane and methyl cyclopentanc go, there is no
feed concentration limit as these compounds do not satu-
rate exothermically. However, as the concentration of cyclic
material in the feed increases, the attainable product oc-
tane is lower due to less favorable reaction kinetics.
JUNO:
During a test run at one of our refineries utilizing a
136
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
non-chlorided isomerization catalyst, we increased the di-
version of benzene and benzene precursors to the limit of
the naphtha prefractionator. Approximately 15 to 20% of
the benzene in the naphtha had been fractionated as feed to
the isomerization unit. At that time our isomerization
catalyst was deactivated and we did not see the benzene
saturation we were expecting. We later repeated the test
run and were able to saturate the benzene from a feed level
of 0.7 to 0.0 wt%. We experienced a 15 ºF temperature rise
on the first bed after which it is quenched with hydrogen.
Generally 5.0 vol% of benzene in the feed to an isomeriza-
tion unit is considered a maximum without implementing
more complex saturation and quenching schemes. The
problems that can occur with increased benzene are tem-
perature exotherms, which result in nonoptimum tempera-
ture profiles for isomerization, and cracking and coke
laydown from higher boiling range benzene precursors and
C7 material.
OSBORN:
Our isomerization unit is a TIP unit converted from prior
reformer service. We have been able to run between 3.0 to
5.0 vol% benzene without any problems. The biggest con-
cerns are the large heats of reaction to saturate the benzene
and the increased hydrogen consumption. If more than this
amount is expected to be in the feed, then some type of
benzene saturate unit may be required.
As far as C6 rings, I have heard of up to 20% in the feed.
The main problem with this is increased hydrogen con-
sumption and suppressed isomerization.
QUESTION 39:
When is the optimum time to change out the l-8
catalyst in Penex reactors? (When activity and delta T
across the beds are zero or before the zero point.)
PAULES:
In the typical Penex unit utilizing UOP I-8 catalyst, the
majority of the total delta T of the system will be in the first
reactor due to benzene saturation. Typically the catalyst
will deactivate from feed contaminants in a plug flow
manner. Therefore, the first reactor will completely deacti-
vate before the second reactor is affected at all. As the first
bed deactivates, the delta T will begin to shift to the second
reactor which will negatively impact reaction equilibrium
and lower product octane.
Therefore, the key to determining the optimum time to
change the first catalyst bed is to determine when the delta
T has migrated to the second bed to the extent product
octane is seriously affected. I would look for a 10 to 15 °F
increase in the second bed, on a sustained basis, as an
indicator of the proper time to replace the first bed. Also,
the second bed should be placed in the lead position after
catalyst changeout and the new catalyst bed be put in the
lag position.
BONELLI:
I would agree that you need to analyze the economics of
the yield pattern shift as the first bed deactivates. I would
say that the optimum time is certainly not when the delta T
across the beds is zero. We typically change the Penex
catalyst when the isopentane conversion in our lead reactor
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
falls below about 5.0 vol%. In one installation this gives a
run length of about 3 to 5 years. Even though the isomeriza-
tion activity is nil at this point, the benzene and naphthene
ring saturation is still occurring. Since this is an exo-
thermic reaction, your reactor delta T may not drop to zero,
depending on what your feed quality is.
QUESTION 40:
Are any refiners using the new skeletal isomeriza-
tion processes to produce isobutylene from normal
butenes, to feed an MTBE unit? If so, under what
conditions do these processes operate, and how re-
liable are they?
GARY EVERETT (Lyondell Petrochemical):
About a year ago, we did a test run of about 3 months
duration where we tested the isomerization catalyst that
had been developed by a cooperative effort between Zeolyst
International and Lyondell Petrochemical Company. We
took an existing unit and made some modifications to it to
allow us to run this test. The product was then sent to an
existing MTBE unit. We found that we actually had an
improved MTBE product due primarily to the fact that
during the isomerization process, we did remove some of the
C5 + materials from the feed stream to the MTBE unit so
that they did not carryover into the MTBE product.
We plan on making additional modifications to this unit
in the near future to allow us to process up to 8000 to 9000
bbl/day of Raffinate II to produce an additional 2000-3000
bbl/day MTBE. We are doing the engineering now which
will allow us to increase the MTBE capacity of this oper-
ation and test out our substantially improved third gener-
ation isomerization catalyst. This catalyst is based on a
proprietary zeolite formulation and the operating condi-
tions are near atmospheric pressure and temperatures are
between 750 ºF and 850 °F This process is being licensed by
CDTECH and Lyondell jointly under the trademark of
ISOMPLUS” .
E. Etherification
QUESTION 41:
With more methanol and oxygenates in refineries,
the potential for contamination of feeds to other
units through slop systems and process water systems
has increased. What problems have been en-
countered? What units are most affected? What pre-
cautions are being taken to avoid problems caused by
oxygenate contamination?
LAABS:
When our ether units were first brought on-line, we
inadvertently dumped too much methanol into the oily
water sewer and killed almost all of the bugs at the waste-
water treatment unit. With experience as a lesson, we are
now very careful to keep the methanol content of the
purged water from the methanol recovery tower below 100
ppm.
137
Our ether units that are under construction will have
TOC analyzers, some with multiple sample points, on all
the water streams leaving the ether unit plot edge. These
instruments will provide an alarm when water-soluble
organics are present. The affected streams include the
cooling water effluent, the steam condensate, and the oily
water and storm sewer effluents. During unit shutdowns,
all methanol or methanol/water mixtures will be stored in a
holding tank for later reprocessing. Any slop mixtures of
hydrocarbon, methanol, MTBE, or TAME will be distilled
and separated to minimize the slop volume.
While our third refinery does not have ether units, they
have had some problems with contamination of their slop
system. The contaminated material comes from the blend-
ing and shipping operations. Oil recovered from ballast
water, tank water bottoms, and tank cuff material some-
times contains MTBE. The slop oil is reprocessed at the
crude unit, and any MTBE in this off-test hydrocarbon is
fractionated into the light straight-run stream. They have
tried running contaminated slop oil to the FCC where the
ether is believed to be broken down to isobutylene, meth-
ane, and water. They have observed no problems using this
method.
BONELLI:
Certainly, wastewater treatment plants and HF alkyla-
tion units would be among the processes with potential
high sensitivity to oxygenate incursion. Mr. Laab’s com-
ments about methanol threat to the wastewater treatment
plant, I think, probably have happened to all of us when we
started these units up to begin with.
To date, we have not encountered significant problems
downstream of the MTBE units through our slops or proc-
ess water. Other than new analytical techniques and
equipment requirements for oxygenate determination at
the refinery laboratory, this problem is much the same as
many other cross-contamination problems that you en-
counter in refineries.
The proper point at which to address solutions to these
issues, such as dedicated sewers, process water supply, and
specific operating procedures to prevent the contamination,
is during the design phase of the units and the initial
training of the operating staff.
PAULES:
I agree with the other panelists’comments. Also, oxygen-
contaminated feeds should not be fed to an HCl catalyzed
isomerization unit unless they are hydrotreated to react
oxygenates to water. In the isomerization unit the oxy-
genates can react to water which will deactivate catalyst
and cause corrosion. There are etherification units that
contain closed oxygenate sewer systems where con-
taminated streams can be diverted to sour water systems
where the oxygenates can be stripped before reaching the
wastewater unit.
RAJGURU:
To our knowledge, none of our designed units have re-
ported any contamination of feeds to other units through
slop systems and process water systems due to methanol
and oxygenates. Such a contamination would seriously
affect the performance of several process units since oxy-
TOC/INDEX
genates are catalyst poisons for most of the refinery proc-
essing units.
All our recently designed and built units have a seg-
regated closed drain system to contain the methanol and
oxygenate. Typically the slops are recycled within the unit
to the methanol column, to the MTBE/TAME column, or it
can be transported off site. Systems are also provided to
preclude contamination via the raffinate streams, by
double blocks, and by selecting the right kind of oil seals.
In an older unit that we built which did not have a closed
drain system, the refiners have been very careful in han-
dling the drained liquids, and no contamination problems
have been reported.
We believe a potential major problem is associated with
the treatment of contaminated water runoff to a centralized
wastewater treatment during the rain.
T. WILLIAMS:
Other than the previously mentioned alkylation prob-
lems, we have had one upset to our wastewater system. This
was due to a relief valve on the methanol column in the
MTBE unit. Other than that we have had generally good
experience. We have a segregated sewer system for the
MTBE unit. All of these process waters are checked for
COD before they are released into the plant process sewer
system.
QUESTION 42:
Assuming adequate protection against feed con-
tamination, what are the typical catalyst lives ex-
pected for TAME and MTBE?
ROY:
The LPG olefin stream from our FCC unit is treated with
MDEA and caustic to remove sulfur compounds and then
water washed to remove caustic, amine and other con-
taminants like acetonitrile. The free water is further re-
moved in a coalescer and then the stream is depropanized
before going to the MTBE unit. Our MTBE unit catalyst
life expectancy, on the average, ranges between 10 and 12
months.
RAJGURU:
In the case of the FCC based units, with proper operation
of the feed water wash system, catalyst life cycles of over 2
years have been reported. Longer life can be expected with
the butane-based units. We have no experience with units
that have been in operation beyond two years.
BONELLI:
We, at our Robinson MTBE unit, are just coming up on
the 2 year operating point and our catalyst performance
still seems to be quite adequate. Originally, we had de-
signed for a 2 year catalyst run.
ROGER M. SINGER (The Purolite Company):
As a leading supplier of MTBE catalysts, we can share
some of our experience. Purolite has analyzed a substantial
number of spent catalysts from front fixed bed reactors to
determine the causes for MTBE catalysts to decay. Al-
though there are variations depending upon the technology
used and certainly the operating conditions, it is clear that
136
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
MTBE catalyst life is primarily affected by the feed con-
taminant level. Hence, there is really no adequate level of
protection short of no contamination. We strongly advise
clients that optimization of their feed pretreatment and
methanol recycle systems are certainly the best steps they
can take to protect the catalyst and enhance life.
We have, however, found that we can approximate cata-
lyst life knowing the level of feed contaminants, everything
else being equal. As a rule of thumb in recognizing that
there is overlap, the following generally apply: If the poison
level is greater than 30 ppm, catalyst life can typically be as
short as 3 to 4 months; for poison levels of 15 to 30 ppm,
catalyst life of 4 to 6 months; for 5 to 15 ppm, 6 to 8 months;
for 3 to 5 ppm, 8 to 12 months; for 1 to 3 ppm, 12 to 24
months; and less than 1 ppm, greater than 2 years. Beyond
the process enhancement, of course, then the use of a
catalyst which provides for longer life is recommended.
Our analyses indicate that certainly catalysts do differ in
their ability to withstand these poisons. Purolite does offer
CT-175 which provides more acid sites and maintains bet-
ter accessibility to these sites. This combination of proper-
ties has demonstrated enhanced catalyst performance and
life in commercial use.
PANKAJ P. SHAH (UOP):
First, let me talk about the removal of acetonitriles from
C4 streams used in the production of MTBE. In the past, a
buffered acid recirculation water wash tower was used to
remove basic nitrogen components. This system worked
well at removing the basic nitrogen compounds, but very
weak bases, such as ACNs, were not adequately removed.
ACNs can be removed in a clean, well designed “once-
through” water wash system.
If required, additional protection can be provided by
adding a guard bed after the once-through water wash. The
guard bed will remove any poisons present such as calcium,
magnesium, iron and manganese. The combined system of
water wash and guard bed provides the highest level of
protection to the resin in the reactor.
We would like to also note here that many producers of
the MTBE are finding propionitriles in the C4s. The pro-
pionitriles are in equilibrium with low levels of C5s coming
in with C4s. Water wash technology and resin guard beds
will not offer adequate protection for propionitriles. UOP
offers nitrogen removal technology for removal of both
ACNs and propionitriles from MTBE and TAME feeds.
As far as life goes, with adequate pretreatment, we ex-
pect UOP Ethermax unit lead reactor lives of 2 to 3 years
and an RWD Katamax packing life of at least 5 years.
TAME units could be more susceptible only because pro-
pionitriles are more difficult to remove than ACNs and the
unit is operated at higher temperature.
DAVID J. MILLER (ARC0 Chemical Company):
We have been running MTBE units since 1979, recogniz-
ing the poisoning problem from the beginning. I would
highly recommend that the pretreatment system for water
be designed to get the level down to 1 ppm. That is the only
level that is really acceptable to maximize catalyst life,
which can be greater than 2 years in a first stage reactor, in
excess of 3 years in a second stage reactor, and with cleaner
feeds, other than from the FCCU, can extend out as long as
3 to 5 years.
TOC/INDEX
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
THOMAS F. KELLETT (CDTECH):
Adequate protection is a relative term. Feeds from bu-
tane dehydrogenation units, and also feeds from steam
crackers have little or no poisons, and resins can last in
excess of 5 years with little or no protection. In refinery
FCC service, it is significantly different. The poisons re-
moval there totally dictates the life of the resin catalyst and
that is true both for fixed beds and for catalytic distillation
operations. The poisons of most concern in FCC feeds are
nitriles; typically ACN for MTBE and propionitrile for
TAME. These poisons, in contrast to basic compounds and
cations, are diffuse rather than plug flow poisons, and are
more difficult to remove.
In refinery MTBE service, the technology to remove
acetonitriles is thoroughly mature. Catalyst life in cata-
lytic distillation columns is in excess of 3 years. For TAME,
the propionitrile removal technology is less well developed
at this time. But as this technology matures, we expect
similar catalyst lives for TAME.
QUESTION 43:
Has premature loss of catalyst in a catalytic frac-
tionator caused significant loss of on stream time for
MTBE or TAME units? Is a TAME unit moresusceptible
than an MTBE unit? Why?
LAABS:
I do not think there is a whole lot more to add. I will
address physical leakage of the catalyst in a later question.
Poisoning of the catalyst is a problem that tends to be
more important for the TAME unit. TAME feed from the
FCCU or the coker will typically contain 10 to 100 ppmw
propionitrile (PRN), which will poison the TAME catalyst.
Premature loss of activity due to PRN poisoning is a sig-
nificant problem in the TAME catalytic fractionator. Keep-
ing a high water-to-hydrocarbon ratio in the feed water
wash is one way to guard against this contaminant. An-
other way is to maintain proper operating conditions in the
catalytic column, which will keep PRN out of the catalyst
zone. We have had some success with this.
MTBE unit feed has very little propionitrile, but it will
contain acetonitrile, which is also a poison. Fortunately,
acetonitrile is relatively easy to remove with a feed water
wash.
QUESTION 44:
Is DIPE still being considered as a significant fuel
oxygenate? will the process be economical if it is not
competing with petrochemical demand for
propylene?
LAABS:
We have excluded DIPE from our current plans for oxy-
genate manufacture. From a yield standpoint, DIPE uti-
lizes two olefin molecules to incorporate one oxygen atom in
gasoline, while MTBE and TAME only rob one olefin from
potential alkylation unit feed supplies. Logistically, neat
DIPE also presents storage and handling challenges due to
the tendency of uninhibited DIPE to form hazardous per-
oxides when exposed to air for prolonged periods.
139
QUESTION 45:
Has anyone produced TAME (tertiary amyl methyl
ether), ETBE (ethyl tertiary butyl ether), or TAEE
(tertiary amyl ethyl ether) commercially, either in a
unit designed for MTBE or in a unit specifically de-
signed for the purpose?
LAABS:
We are operating one TAME unit, and we plan to bring
another on-line later this year. Both use the CD Tech
process, and both are specifically designed to make TAME.
Our licenser has told us that it is possible to make one ether
in a unit that was designed to make another. The key thing
to keep in mind is the pressure ratings of the existing
towers and vessels. For example, it is possible to make
TAME in an MTBE unit, but not vice-versa.
BONELLI:
Our Robinson, Illinois MTBE unit is designed for copro-
duction of MTBE and TAME with which we have had
limited, but successful experience. It is also designed to
produce ETBE and TAEE with which we have no experi-
ence. Our unit does produce a high purity MTBE for sale or
for blending and a mixed MTBE in TAME for gasoline
blending.
RAJGURU:
TAME and MTBE have been coproduced in a unit de-
signed for MTBE by one of our clients. The mixed ether
product was blended directly into the gasoline pool. This
same client now operates separate TAME and MTBE syn-
‘thesis units. Note that the coproduction of ethers precludes
production of pure ether product due to separation prob-
lems. Consequently, these are best used as an ether blend
stock within the refinery.
It should be noted that the use of ethyl alcohol, instead of
methyl alcohol in the unit will require an additional ethyl
alcohol-water separation system since ethyl alcohol forms
an azeotrope with water. Also the pressure differences are
significant between the MTBE and the TAME.
SLOAN:
ARC0 Chemical published a paper at the 1993 DeWitt
Gasoline - Oxygenates Workshop, entitled “The ETBE
Option for RFG” which detailed their experiences. The
author was Craig Leaseburge.
DAVID J. MILLER (ARC0 Chemical Company):
I would like to expand on that. What we did was to use an
existing MTBE unit and made 100,000 bbl of ETBE to
prove the viability of the technology. There were no major
modifications that were necessary to do that.
THOMAS E KELLETT (CDTECH):
Two of our licensees, Amoco at Yorktown, Virginia, and
Elf at Feyzin, France, have both produced ETBE in their
MTBE units. Star Enterprise, Convent, Louisiana, and
CITGO, Lake Charles, Louisiana, both have produced
TAME in units that were specifically designed for high
conversion TAME production.
TOC/INDEX
QUESTION 46:
Is it possible to effectively coprocess both TAME
and MTBE in the same unit? What separation equip-
ment is necessary to successfully coprocess?
PAULES:
We have recently constructed two plants which can oper-
ate either in a high purity MTBE mode or a MTBE/TAME
coproduction mode. The units consist of a feed water wash,
two fixed bed reactors, debutanizer, depentanizer, and
methanol recovery. In the coproduction mode we have
achieved 93% conversion of isobutylene to MTBE and 55%
conversion of isoamylene to TAME. This mode can increase
the refinery yield of oxygenates 30% over the MTBE mode
alone.
No modifications were necessary in the FCC gas plant to
produce the feedstock, although complete recovery of iso-
amylene was not attempted. Debottlenecking of the LPG
Merox unit was necessary. The MTBE/TAME produced
from this operation has a slight yellow tint but in no way
hindered gasoline blending. It also had no excessive odor.
The separation between unreacted C5 s and oxygenate
product is carried out in a standard 70 tray fractionator.
The oxygenate product purity is above 90% and loss of
oxygenates to the unreacted C5 stream is less than 1%.
LAABS:
In the units that we have designed and built using CD
Tech technology, both TAME and MTBE units occupy the
same plot plan space and have the same methanol-type
facilities, but they are still independent units. Because of
the significantly different optimum reactor temperatures
required for MTBE and TAME production, coprocessing is
expected to yield significantly lower conversion than when
the C4 and C5 cuts are handled separately. Catalytic dis-
tillation would be complex since the C4 and C5 iso-olefins
will concentrate in different sections of the column. With
coprocessing the special catalyst poisoning problem with
propionitrile in the C5 fraction will also affect MTBE
conversion.
THOMAS F. KELLETT (CDTECH):
There has been quite a bit of work done on coproduction
and we have a lot of development in this area. We are now
offering a technology called CDEthers’” which simul-
taneously produces MTBE and TAME from a C4 and C5
feedstock. No additional equipment is required beyond the
normal versions of the separate technologies.
The process can achieve high conversion, and we are
talking there, in excess of 99% isobutylene conversion and
in excess of 90% isoamylene conversion. In addition, we
obtain low ether content in the raffinate of less than 1 ppm
MTBE and less than 10 ppm TAME. This technology will be
installed in a major refinery in 1994.
QUESTION 47:
Has anyone using catalytic distillation had prob-
lems with catalyst leakage from the packed section?
Specifically, has MTBE decomposition resulted in
isobutylene formation in the column reboiler and in
the MTBE product?
140
LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
LAABS:
Our MTBE catalytic distillation tower has had no prob-
lems with catalyst leakage. However, during shutdown we
found that many of the catalyst bales removed from the
TAME tower had split seams. Little catalyst was lost,
however, because of the bales’ design. The splitting was
apparently due to excessive swelling of the bales. The
catalyst bales will swell more in the TAME tower than in
the MTBE tower due to the higher methanol content of the
C5 stream. Our licensor addressed this concern by adjust-
ing the bale design to handle even greater swelling.
Prior to this shutdown, we did notice a small amount of
TAME decomposition to methanol and isoamylene. The
extent of the decomposition will be directly proportional to
the amount of catalyst leakage. This decomposition was
blamed on catalyst leaking around the support screen in
the guard reactor and into the catalytic distillation column.
PANKAJ P. SHAH (UOP):
UOP has experienced no catalyst leakage through the
RWD Katamax packing. This includes FCCU service as
well as other feed services.
THOMAS F. KELLETT (CDTECH):
There has not been a history of loss of catalyst in the
catalytic distillation column bales for the 28 commercial
units that are in operation. Some of these units have been in
operation for more than 10 years with no problems. There
has been experience with loss of catalyst from upstream
fixed bed reactors due to the failure or improper in-
stallation of the bottoms screens. This has happened on non
catalytic distillation processes as well as catalytic dis-
tillation processes.
QUESTION 48:
In the general experience of those using catalytic
distillation, has the reaction column operation been
stable? Our concern is that the large liquid hold-up in
the column might lead to operating instability. If
instability has been encountered, what has been the
cause?
LAABS:
While we have found several possible causes for occur-
rences of instability of the catalytic distillation column,
liquid hold-up is not one of them. Some of the causes of
instability include entrainment of excess hydrogen into the
TAME feed stream from the upstream selective hydro-
genation unit (SHU), erratic temperature control in the
primary reactor preheat system, and sudden changes in
weather (especially if air cooled condensers are used). Ex-
cessive hydrogen in the feed can collect in the guard reactor
or catalytic distillation column overhead system unless
designed properly. Tight control of hydrogen in the SHU is
also beneficial.
THOMAS F. KELLETT (CDTECH):
Catalytic distillation column operation is very stable.
The column is only subject to the same upsets as a con-
ventional distillation column.
TOC/INDEX
V .ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
A. Sulfur Plant Operations
Amine Plants
QUESTION 1:
What means are used to prevent or remove heat
stable salts from the different amine units? What
performance improvements or losses occur?
JUNO:
First of all I would like take this opportunity to thank the
many people who have helped prepare answers for these
responses in the NPRA sessions. In particular, I would like
to thank Al Keller from Conoco for the response on this
particular item.
Water washing of the streams to be treated upstream of
the amine contactor has been suggested by several refiners
and amine vendors to prevent heat stable salts. Reductions
of salt level incursion by 50% have been observed.
Actually three heat stable salt removal technologies are
currently available. They are vacuum distillation, modi-
tied electrodialysis, and ion exchange.
Vacuum distillation is effective for small size systems
with low salt incursion rates done on a batch basis. Low
residual salt levels are obtained on the product, but not
necessarily on the system. For every 100 lbs of amine fed to
the system, only about 80 to 85 lbs are recovered clean.
This, combined with limited throughput, can make it im-
practical for large volume high salt incursion units.
Modified electrodialysis separates the amine solution
into a brine waste containing the heat stable salt ions and
sodium added from caustic. The brine contains some of the
amine, and this amine can be at high enough con-
centrations to cause water treatment problems. It is not
known if a system has been cleaned to noncorrosive levels
with this technology. The technology appears to be limited
to low incursion rate systems.
Ion exchange uses anion and cation resins to replace the
heat stable salt ions and sodium with water. This tech-
nology has been demonstrated commercially over a wide
range of salt concentrations and incursion rates. The unit
throughput is not limited by amine losses going to the
wastewater treatment system. It is most effective on sys-
tems with low lean loadings. The ion exchange system can
quickly reduce salt levels down to noncorrosive levels. The
ion exchange technology does require substantial re-
generation chemicals, but the regeneration waste is easily
disposed of.
An improved continuous version using less chemicals
and water will be tested by the end of the year. Heat stable
141
salt removal is most beneficial when the salt anion level
can be reduced to below 0.5 wt%. Until these levels are
reached, the solution will be corrosive. Corrosion tests
indicate that above 0.8 wt% salt anions, there is little
change in solution corrosivity with concentration. That is,
if the system is being operated above 0.8 wt% anions, it is
not too much different than a system with 1, 2, 3 or more
wt%. When the solution is noncorrosive, throughput re-
strictions caused by plugged valves, packing, and trays are
reduced. Removal of the salt frees the amine, giving a
higher capacity system. Filter changes are much less fre-
quent. Shutdowns take less time and cost less because
there is less corrosion damage and because there is less iron
sulfide scale sludge to clean out to make repairs. Upsets
and foaming aggravated by particles are also reduced.
MURPHY:
In addition to Mr. Juno’s comments, oxygen scavengers
and metal passivators are used to reduce the formation of
heat stable salts. A reduction in the level of the heat stable
salts will allow the unit to run free from corrosion and also
lower the amount of amine that has to be purged to keep the
total heat stable salt level in a safe range.
DAVID BURNS (Union Carbide Corporation):
Our experience with amine units which use MDEA-
based solvents such as UCARSOL® has been that the incur-
sion of the various acidic precursors responsible for the heat
stable salts can be reduced considerably by water washing
the feed gas. In tail gas units, the quench tower already
serves this purpose, but good control of the sulfur plant is
equally important.
Once in the system, these acids are very difficult to
remove. Although, thiosulfates can be removed to some
extent by purging the reflux, the other anions do not re-
spond well to this treatment. Purging the amine itself and
making up with fresh material will reduce the heat stable
salt level, but it obviously is not a very cost effective solu-
tion with today’s high performance solvents. While the
addition of strong bases such as caustic or UCARSOL®
Component DHM does not remove anions, it does reduce
the heat stable salt level and effectively minimizes their
negative effects. However, at some point, with continued
incursion, a level is reached whereby they have to be re-
moved and technologies already mentioned by the panel -
electrodialysis, ion exchange, and vacuum distillation -
have been used to do this.
In deciding upon the most cost effective removal option,
the user should consider a number of factors, including
whether they need on-line treatment, what type of waste is
generated, what the overall recovery of the amine is, and
the frequency of treatment recommended by the supplier.
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
All three technologies have their advantages as well as
their disadvantages, but we have found the UCARSEP®
electrodialysis technology to be a very cost effective and
practical solution when all of these factors are taken into
account. The UCARSEP® technology is applicable to both
high and low incursion rate systems and can reduce con-
tamination levels to those consistent with smooth oper-
ation and low corrosion.
ARTHUR L. CUMMINGS (MPR Services, Inc.):
As a licensee of Conoco’s patented technology, we have
been removing heat stable salts from alkanol amines for
about the last two years. MPR has cleaned over 30 amine
systems, containing a total of about 1.5 million gallons of
amine. The process works on all types of amines: MEA,
DEA, MDEA, DIPA, Sultinol, Flexsorb, etc. The HSSX
process (MPR Services, Inc.’s patented heat stable salts
removal process) removes heat stable salts and chlorides
and removes sodium from amines. It is an environmentally
friendly operation, produces no solid waste, wastes no
amine. All waste is compatible with the sewer systems.
Refineries and gas plants that have used this process have
discovered that removing the heat stable salts to low levels,
below 0.5 wt%, not only increases the amine systems ca-
pacity, but also reduces corrosion and other problems, such
as foaming, filter changeout, amine losses, flaring and
sludge buildup. It has also eliminated many operational
headaches that before has really had no consistent answer.
And there is no need to purge amine. An amine plant can
now be a “zero discharge” facility.
We do not recommend caustic addition because caustic
does not eliminate heat stable salts, nor reduce the heat
stable salt concentration. It simply changes them from
amine heat stable salts to sodium heat stable salts. They
are still in the solution. Pumping costs, the heating costs,
and cooling costs are still present. The corrosion rate often
is slightly reduced by caustic addition, but nowhere near
completely reduced. If you remove the heat stable salts, the
corrosion rates are reduced much lower than caustic ad-
dition will reduce them.
Beyond heat stable salt removal, our analytical efforts
have discovered that common methods, some very common
methods, of analyzing for the amine strength are mis-
leading in that they will count some heat stable salts as free
amine (free amine is amine available for sulfur recovery).
This is misleading, and in that respect could lead to incor-
rect conclusions about the condition of the amine system
and the remedies that are needed.
QUESTION 2:
At what concentration does ammonia affect the
ability of the amine to achieve the treatment specifi-
cation? What is done to minimize ammonia?
PAULES:
The amount of ammonia in an amine stream does not
affect its ability to absorb H2S. However, the ammonia will
be stripped overhead in the amine regenerator, will buildup
to saturation in the regenerator reflux, and then will cause
ammonium sulfide fouling of acid gas lines and the front
end sulfur plant burner. Proper water washing of the up-
142
stream units for ammonia removal is the best way to
prevent ammonia from entering the amine system. If am-
monia does get into the amine system, it is best handled by
exporting water off the amine regenerator reflux drum to
sour water to try to prevent it from building up to
saturation.
SLOAN:
Accumulation of ammonia or ammonium salts can be
avoided by increasing the condenser outlet temperature.
However, this will adversely affect the sulfur recovery unit.
The rest of my comments pretty much agree with what has
already been said.
TODD BEASLEY (Canadian Chemical Reclaiming Ltd.):
As a service company, we are frequently asked to remove
heat stable salts from a wide variety of gas-treating chemi-
cals, containing levels in some cases as high as 15 wt%. Our
approach is to neutralize the bonded acids through a NaOH
pretreatment step. We subsequently distill the solution,
under vacuum, to remove the converted salts. In this way,
regardless of the heat stable salt levels in the feed solution,
we have been able to generate a product containing less
than .Ol wt%. As well, distillation also allows for the near
absolute removal of the other three major groups of con-
taminants simultaneously.
Processing can be completed on-site while the process
facility remains on line. Recovery is in excess of 95% and a
high throughput allows for the rapid decontamination of
even the largest systems. I certainly agree with the ex-
pressed opinion, with respect to dosing an operating system
with NaOH. The masking tendencies associated with
analytical methods and the poor solubility associated with
the converted salts usually results in some form of oper-
ational difficulty.
ROBERT HLOZEK (Union Carbide):
We have noted ammonia contaminants from about 500 to
5,000 ppm in several amine applications that caused per-
formance problems. The level of ammonia that can cause
these problems are thought to be a function of the partial
pressure of the acid gas in the feed gas, the desired treat-
ment specifications, and the units’ operating conditions.
The ammonia contaminants have been found in both the
primary and in the tail gas units. In the primary units,
most of the ammonia is believed to have come from the
FCCUs while the hydrogenator reactor in the tail gas plant
can contribute to ammonia ingress, although there have
been reports that ammonia has entered the tail gas from
the upstream Claus plants.
As far as minimizing ammonia, I agree with what the
panel mentioned earlier, that the best way to minimize
ammonia is to have a well-designed water wash system
ahead of the amine unit. However, if ammonia does get into
the amines, purging the reflux water from the stripper can
eliminate most of this ammonia. Again, one major concern
with ammonia in the amine is the buildup of ammonia
bisulfide which can lead to both plugging and corrosion
problems. Ammonia found in the acid gas fed to the sulfur
recovery units can be mostly destroyed by keeping the
reaction furnace above 2200 ºF, assuming you have ade-
quate residence time in the furnace.
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
QUESTION 3:
Where do you recommend to install filters, in the
rich or lean amine flow? What percentage of the
amine flow do you recommend be filtered? What are
the significant design considerations that determine
recommended residence times in the different drums
and tower bottoms of the amine plants?
ROY:
It is recommended to provide full flow particulate fil-
tration of the rich amine and slipstream particulate and
activated carbon filtration of the lean amine.
Slipstream filtration should be for 30% minimum flow
and up to full flow for small units which are less than 200
gpm circulation. It is recommended to use 30 to 50 pounds
of activated carbon per gpm of circulating amine. Alterna-
tively, 2 to 4 gpm per square foot of filter bed with 30
minutes residence time can be used.
Regarding particulate filtration, 10 square feet of filter
area/gpm is recommended for full flow filtration. Sock
filters are becoming widely used in MDEA filtration. About
35 gpm of circulating amine per sock with 5 micron size is
recommended.
RAJGURU:
For reasons of safety, filters are usually installed on the
lean amine stream. However, installation of filters in the
rich amine stream prevents the contaminants from reach-
ing the amine regenerator where it causes foaming, fouling
and degradation. Special precautions are required for
changing the filter elements in the case when the filters are
located in the rich stream.
Using 100% filtration through both the filter and the
carbon bed gives the cleanest amine solution and mini-
mizes corrosion and foaming in the system. In a relatively
clean natural gas system, slipstream filtration is accept-
able. In refinery services which include FCC and coker
gases, filtration rates of up to 100% may prove to be the
most economical arrangement to prevent corrosion and
foaming.
The main vessel for residence time consideration is the
rich amine flash drum. A residence time of 15 to 30 minutes
liquid holdup should be used in sizing this drum to separate
the free oil from amine and to flash off the acid gases.
BONELLI:
Our recommendation for filters in MDEA systems is to
install 100% of flow particulate filters on the rich amine
system. We also filtered the lean amine system in our latest
installation. We have also added a flash drum to the rich
amine going to the regenerator to eliminate the hydro-
carbon from the system. With a recommended residence
time of around 30 minutes, these vessels work quite well.
We have also installed carbon filters on the lean amine
from the regenerator and it is also a full flow filter. The
recommendation from Union Carbide to us was that at least
50% of the flow be filtered. We chose the 100% option.
BRIERLEY:
Due to corrosion, environmental and safety concerns
associated with hot, rich amine, we recommend filtering
cooler lean amine. We try to filter a minimum of 10% of the
143
total circulating solution. The lean DEA is taken from the
bottom of the DEA surge tank. The main design con-
sideration for residence time in the bottom of the amine
towers and flash drums is gas disengaging to avoid gas
undercarry to the regenerator tower.
MURPHY:
We have seen excellent results with full flow filters on
the rich amine. Filters in this location give the advantage
of reducing the levels of particulates going to the stripper
tower, thereby reducing foaming tendencies. Our recent
experience has shown good results with this approach. We
suggest testing the filters to determine the composition of
the removed particles. The largest volume is often FeS,
indicating a need to address a corrosion problem in the
amine unit or upstream.
JUNO:
The ideal place is upstream of the rich amine flash drum
for particle filtration and downstream of the rich amine
flash drum for carbon filtration. The reasons are for
particles:
1. The bulk of the iron sulfide particles are formed in the
high H2S content part of the contactor. Filtering before the
rich flash drum keeps the particles from settling in the
flash drum as a sludge. It also prevents plugging in the
regenerator. It is good regenerator operation that dictates
good treated product quality. Keeping the exchangers and
trays clean helps maintain quality treatment.
2. The full stream should be filtered for particles simply
to capture and eliminate them from the stream before they
settle in the system and plug something up.
For carbon:
1. Putting the carbon on the rich amine downstream of
the flash drum protects the carbon from a slug of hydro-
carbon which the flash drum can eliminate. It puts the
carbon in the best place to remove residual hydrocarbon
before the regenerator. Putting the carbon on the lean
stream is not too effective in preventing contactor foaming,
since the foam is usually generated by hydrocarbon con-
tamination brought in by the stream being treated due to
poor temperature control, not by the amine. Also, putting
the carbon filter here prevents it from being a particle filter.
2 . Ideally, the full stream should be filtered. Un-
fortunately, recommended residence times for adsorption
makes this impractical above a total 200 gpm circulation.
For circulation rates, 0-200 gpm, filter full stream; 200-
2000 gpm, 200 gpm; above 2000 gpm, ten percent of the
stream should be filtered.
Filter design considerations:
1. Particles - usually vendor proprietary information.
2. Carbon - 4 gpm/ft2 superficial velocity, 20 minutes
contact time.
QUESTION 4:
What areas of the unit have the most problems
with foaming in amine units? Where are the best
locations to inject antifoam into the system? How is it
injected into the system and how frequently is it
required?
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
LAABS:
Foaming in the amine units at one of our sites occurs
primarily in the amine regenerator. They control the prob-
lem by injecting antifoam into the reflux line in both their
MEA and DEA units. The MEA injection is continuous,
while the DEA injection is intermittent. Both points are
equipped with an injection quill.
An affiliated refinery has had a drastic reduction in
foaming problems in their amine unit ever since they
installed a carbon filter on the lean amine stream. It is an
activated, charcoal type carbon filter. They still inject a
continuous stream of antifoam into the system, but at the
rich amine charge pumps.
Antifoams should be used as sparingly as possible, as
over-dosing can cause foaming and “gunking” in the amine
system. Concentrations of the antifoam should be kept
below 50 ppm to avoid these problems. Concentrations of 1
to 10 ppm have normally proven effective.
MURPHY:
The worst problem is typically seen in the upper section
of the absorber tower. Amine carryover into the overhead
system can create significant problems in the operation of
the control valves and downstream processes. For the ma-
jority of cases, these can be cured by getting to the root
cause of the problem, which is oil carryover or corrosion
products. Antifoams are often band-aids to the real problem.
The best injection location is ahead of the foaming tower,
into the suction of the amine pump. Please remember that
antifoams will be removed by the charcoal filters. Injection
can be either batch or continuous.
BRIERLEY:
In our unit, the regenerator experiences more foaming
than any other area of the unit. Antifoam is injected up-
stream of the lean DEA supply pumps and thus must go
through the flash drum holdup volume before reaching the
regenerator. This delay does not seem to adversely affect
the problem as foaming incidents are quickly alleviated.
RAJGURU:
The only thing we have to add here is that the foaming is
caused by the light hydrocarbons that get dissolved at high
pressures. When this amine solution pressure drops into
the rich amine flash drum the light hydrocarbons flash,
causing foaming. This type of foaming and others can be
reduced by antifoam materials, but to begin with, if you
choose the right kind of amine solution with less solubility
of hydrocarbons, it helps.
Also, again as in the previous answer, if you provide
enough residence time to separate the hydrocarbons from
the amine, that also helps.
ROY:
The only additional comments I have are that sometimes
the solvent itself can cause foaming, such as in the case of
MDEA in concentrations below 30%. This is because of a
significant reduction in surface tension of the solvent as
MDEA concentrations decrease below 30%. Antifoam
should be injected downstream of the carbon filters.
Silicone-based antifoams are not recommended, since sili-
cone can aggravate plugging tendencies. Furthermore, sil-
144
icon can foul ion exchange resins during ion exchange
reclaiming.
We are having a good experience with the glycol-based
antifoam manufactured by the Dow Chemical Company
under the name, EP530.
QUESTION 5:
When activated carbon adsorbers are used in
amine treatment units for the purification of
contaminated amine solution, what are the recom-
mended tests to evaluate the carbon efficiency in
performing this job?
PAULES:
A visual comparison of the amine entering the carbon
filter and the amine leaving the carbon filter will indicate
whether the filter is performing. Outlet should be clearer
than the inlet. If the inlet amine is clear, a standard foam
test on the filter inlet and outlet should help gauge filter
performance.
RAJGURU:
I agree with Mr. Paules that carbon bed activity can be
tested by viewing the color of the amine into and out of the
carbon filter. If there is no color change across the carbon
bed, and the solution is colored, then the carbon is spent.
Shaking a sample of lean amine solution can be used to
determine the foaming characteristics of the amine. Com-
paring the foaming characteristics of fresh amine with
circulating lean amine will provide a measure of the dirti-
ness of the circulating amine.
A third indirect method of determining the carbon bed
changeout is by measuring the pressure drop. When the
pressure drop exceeds the allowable value, then the beds
must be replaced, regardless of the outcome of the other two
tests.
BONELLI:
We use both of those methods. The color change across
the filter is always watched. Obviously, the pressure drop
across the filter is an important indicator of what is going
on. In addition Union Carbide recommends a foaming test.
We recommend you contact Union Carbide for the details of
this test. We generally rely mostly on the foaming tendency
test.
BRIERLEY:
We currently have our lean DEA analyzed for oil and
grease twice a week. Occasionally, foaming tests have been
done when troubleshooting problems. Samples should be
taken upstream and downstream of the carbon filters. They
should be visually checked as well as analyzed in the lab for
oil and grease.
HARRY GILL (Ultramar, Inc.):
Amine system foaming monitoring is very critical. We
monitor the foaming tendency every day in the lab, and
based on some certain foaming height, add the antifoaming
chemical (about 8 ounces) in the circulating system, and
that is plenty. We have not had any foaming in the system
for the last 10 months or so. This has worked very well and
has reduced the amine losses considerably.
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
On the filtration of amine, our industry used to use
cartridge type filters. We have recently, about two years
ago, gone to the back flushable filters. I would like to ask
the panel or anyone from the audience, is anyone using the
back flushable type filters, and how well are they working
for them?
BONELLI:
No. We still have good success with just the cartridge
type particulate removal filter ahead of our carbon filter, no
backwash.
DAVID C. PARNELL (TPA, Inc.):
Another very effective test, to determine whether the
activated carbon has been saturated to the point where it is
no longer performing successfully, is to test the hydro-
carbon content on the carbon treater inlet. and the outlet
streams. This is a very simple test which is much more
reliable than the color test. The hydrocarbon test is also
generally more reliable than the foaming tendency test. If
the hydrocarbon content tests essentially the same on the
outlet and inlet streams, this generally indicates the car-
bon has reached its saturated (spent) state. At that time the
carbon should be changed out and/or regenerated for more
effective amine unit operations. Thus, in addition to the
color and foam checks, measurement of the hydrocarbon
content (in ,and out) of the bed is an additional, very reliable
carbon efficiency test procedure.
QUESTION 6:
What is the experience with H2S loading in LPG
amine contactors processing mixed C 3/C 4's from
FCCUs or cokers? What design criteria are used?
What methods have been successful for reducing
amine losses?
SLOAN:
H2S loadings may vary from 0.1 to 0.25 or higher. How-
ever, more than loading must be considered when designing
a liquid-liquid contactor, since the amine circulated must
give both good mixing and contacting. This is often more
amine than is required by the rich loadings.
A number of design criteria are used. These cover super-
ficial liquid velocities in the absorber, interface location,
separation area, and distributor hole velocities that yield
good mixing and treatment. Distributor design is critical,
since too large droplet sizes result in poor treating and too
small droplet sizes result in separation difficulties.
Methods to reduce amine losses, in addition to the velocity
criteria, include control of lean amine temperature, ade-
quate residence time for settling at the top of the con-
tactors, avoiding upsets, and keeping pressures and flows
stabilized (particularly on the reflux drum feeding the
liquid contactors), and downstream water washes to re-
cover amine carried over with the treated LPG.
RAJGURU:
H2S loading in LPG amine contactors processing mixed
C3-C4s from FCCUs or delayed coker depends on: amine
circulation rate, type of amine, lean amine quality, system
pressure and temperature, and other acid gases like carbon
145
dioxide and carbonyl sulfide. Typical loadings vary be-
tween 0.2 and 0.4 mole of acid gas to mole of amine.
Some of the design guidelines for countercurrent multi-
ple bed contactors, using a continuous amine phase and a
dispersed hydrocarbon phase are:
hydrocarbon superficial velocity between 3 to 15 gpm/
sq ft,
LPG/amine ratio of about 15 to 20 to ensure proper
wetting of the packing,
2 to 4 theoretical stages, and
selection of the amine having lowest hydrocarbon solu-
bility concurrent with proper applicability.
To reduce the amine loss we recommend to:
consider reduction of the amine concentration to less
than 40%, especially for MDEA and DGA for lowering
the solubility losses,
consider maintaining the lean amine viscosity to less
than 2 cps by increasing the lean amine temperature
for improved separation between amine and
hydrocarbon,
increase the effective phase separation retention time,
and
add an LPG water wash system consisting of an in-line
static mixer, followed by a separator with coalescer.
BONELLI:
We have only one installation in which we do process-
mixed FCCU and coker C3-C4 olefins together, and the
mole/mole loading of H2S/MEA is 0.23. Our MEA con-
centration is approximately 16.5 wt%. The lean loading is
generally about 0.03 moles of H2S per mole of MEA.
We use a lean amine circulation rate of about 23 gal/min.
for approximately 11,000 bbl/day of olefin feed.
RICK BIRNBAUM (Union Carbide Corporation):
In MDEA services we concur with the panel that the rich
loadings, dictated by approach to equilibrium and hydrau-
lic considerations, can run between about 0.15 to 0.4 moles/
mole.
In terms of amine losses, there are two things we would
like to add. The first is that the viscosity of the amine is a
variable which will influence how much mechanical loss
occurs. Increased lean amine temperature, rather than
reduced lean amine temperature, will improve amine re-
covery by reducing amine entrainment. We also think that
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
coalescing the aqueous phase downstream of the liquid
treater is important. In order to insure that losses are
reduced to solubility effects, a 20 minutes residence time is
desirable in the coalescer.
JESSE SANTOS (The Dow Chemical Company):
The following papers have been presented by The Dow
Chemical Company on LPG treatment using amine solu-
tions. All papers deal with the design and operation of these
units to minimize losses and maintain smooth operations.
“Natural Liquid Treating Options and Experiences”,
M.S. DuPart and B.D. Marchant, Proceedings of the
1989 Gas Conditioning Conference.
“A Systematic Technical Approach to Reducing Amine
Plant Solvent Losses”, E.J. Stewart and R.A. Lanning,
Proceedings of the 1991 Gas Conditioning Conference.
“The Evaluation and Design of LPG Treaters”, J.P.
Seagraves and J. Santos, Proceedings of the 1993 Gas
Conditioning Conference.
JAMES A. ROGERS (Koch Engineering Company Inc.)
We agree with Mr. Rajguru and Mr. Sloan regarding the
general guidelines for sizing these columns if either sieve
trays or random packings are utilized to perform the mass
transfer. Recently, we have been very successful in re-
vamping existing columns with a new structured extrac-
tion packing in order to increase the capacity of the column.
This structured extraction packing can achieve capaci-
ties of 30 gpm/ft2 in an amine continuous operation. These
capacities are achieved with greater efficiency than with
either sieve trays or random packing and have been proven
in numerous installations around the world over the last
ten years.
The structured nature of this packing produces a narrow
droplet size distribution. This has either eliminated or
greatly reduced the amount of amine carryover in these
liquid treaters after the revamp with the SMVP structured
extraction packing.
QUESTION 7:
Assuming that you have an amine sump operating
at a few inches of water column, how do your dispose
of the vent gas? If you vent the gas to an incinerator,
how do you handle this gas when the incinerator is
down?
LAABS:
In those units that have this type of sump arrangement,
we typically dispose of the vent gas by routing it through an
activated carbon canister, and then to the atmosphere.
PAULES:
We vent our amine sump vent gas directly to the inlet of
the tail gas incinerator. This gas does not have a high
enough quantity of H2S to present a problem. When we
shut down the incinerator, this vent gas is routed to a
second incinerator on another sulfur train.
QUESTION 8:
Has anyone changed solvents from secondary
amine to tertiary amine at the amine plant? What is
146
the effect of replacement to tertiary amine on energy
savings and corrosion?
PAULES:
We changed one amine system from a primary amine
(MEA) to a tertiary mine (MDEA) on the run. The incen-
tives to switch from a secondary amine to a tertiary amine
are similar, but to a lesser degree. In any case a 30 to 40%
decrease in energy consumption, or a 30 to 40% increase in
capacity is feasible. Tertiary amine is more stable and less
reactive than the lower order amines which result in a
lower susceptibility to degrade and form heat stable salts.
If tertiary amine is well stripped, maintained low in heat
stable salts, and not excessively loaded with H2S, corrosion
is not excessive. Tertiary amine is more sensitive to foam-
ing, so it is imperative to keep the amine solution clean by
mechanical filtration and by carbon absorption of
hydrocarbons.
JAMES L. DAUGHTRY (Dow Chemical Company):
Dow has converted several refinery main amine systems
from DEA to MDEA, and during the 80’s, energy was the
main reason for that conversion. Presently, the conversion
decision has been influenced by the need to increase H2S
removal capacity. Our rule of thumb for a reduction in
energy savings when converting from DEA to MDEA is 35
to 45% Energy savings can be achieved through increased
amine concentration, lower circulation rates, and a re-
duction in steam usage, as well as CO2 slippage in some
case. Increased H2S treating capacity is determined on a
case by case evaluation. The corrosion potential of DEA is
reduced when switching to a 40 to 50 wt% MDEA because
of lower rich loadings, as well as lean loadings. This reduc-
tion is accomplished without the use ofcorrosion inhibitors.
ALFRED E. KELLER (CONOCO Inc.):
We have replaced MEA and DEA in three units. The
primary focus was to get additional capacity and not get
energy savings. Basically, what we find is that the MEA or
DEA systems that are usually more corrosive than MDEA
systems because of the higher lean loadings, as was men-
tioned. However in the increased capacity case, we also had
feedstock changes that caused formation of more heat
stable salts in the system, and so these improved cor-
rosivity benefits went away as the heat stable salts in-
creased. What we found is that the MDEA is much better on
corrosion, if the salts are not a part of the corrosion equa-
tion, than MEA or DEA, but only if the salts are removed.
MARK SHORTT (Union Carbide Corporation):
Union Carbide has converted over 60 refineries world-
wide to tertiary amine-based UCARSOL® solvents from a
secondary or primary amines. Many of these conversions
involve replacement of DEA or MEA. We have also con-
verted many tail gas units from the secondary amine,
DIPA, to a UCARSOL® solvent.
I agree with the other speakers in that reductions in
circulation rates with a tertiary amine based solvent result
in reductions in regenerator sensible heat requirements, In
addition, the high CO2 slip of tertiary amine reduce rich
amine loadings, further reducing energy requirements for
regeneration. Both reductions in sensible heat and heat of
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
regeneration result in lower regenerator steam re-
quirements and therefore, cost savings to the client.
What should also be mentioned is that the CO 2 slip
inherent with tertiary amines provides a higher con-
centration of H2S to be sent to the sulfur recovery unit
(SRU) from tail gas or main amine systems. This increases
the efficiency of the SRU, creating energy savings as well as
increasing the unit’s capacity.
With regards to corrosion, unlike primary and secondary
amines, tertiary amines are not as susceptible to chemical
and thermal degradation to potentially corrosive
byproducts.
BRUCE SCOTT (Bruce Scott, Inc.):
I have seen a lot of very profitable conversions. They can
make you a lot of money if you go into them with your eyes
open. I have seen a couple of them that did not work out at
all. One comes to mind where the operator calculated a
large steam savings, and therefore, energy saving, just to
find that the steam vent across the street was blowing a
little bit harder than it used to be.
I think of another one where a liquid-liquid treater got
into separations problems because of the higher viscosity of
the amine. They were having a really bad carryunder
problem on hydrocarbon. So you do need to go into these
with your eyes open.
THOMAS KENNEY (Texaco Chemical Company):
While we do support the previous statements that
MDEA-based solvents, such as our TEXTREAT® solvents,
can increase overall capacity with minimal increase in
energy requirements, the switch to MDEA-based solvents
has not always reduced corrosion as may have been
anticipated.
We strongly recommend the investigation of the use of
DGA® agent when corrosion and/or capacity problems are
being experienced. DGA agent offers specific advantages to
reduce refinery corrosion problems and increase capacity.
DGA agent is easily reclaimed, so solution purity can be
maintained to minimize heat stable salt buildup and losses
due to contaminants can be minimized.
QUESTION 9:
What kind of designs have people used for inlet gas
distributors to packed amine absorbers? What are
the critical parameters?
SLOAN:
In general, inlet gas distributors are not necessary if the
absorber is packed with random packing. The pressure
drop through the bed is sufficient to distribute incoming
gas below the bed. For an absorber packed with structured
packing, an inlet distributer may be required if the inlet
gas kinetic energy is high, relative to the pressure drop
through the packed bed above.
The type of distributor, then, will be either bayonet type
or branch or ladder type located some distance below the
bed. The critical parameters are the pressure drop through
the packed bed above the gas inlet and the incoming gas
velocity or kinetic energy.
147
PEDERSEN:
We operate amine processing units where the absorption
unit treats FCCU and coker offgases, in addition to LPG.
The absorbers are random packed columns equipped with
Norton gas distributors. In the distributor design, it is
important to get good distribution and contact between the
amine and hydrocarbons, both at high and low throughput,
which means the distributor must have good turndown
characteristics.
BONELLI:
I agree with Mr. Sloan’s comments. We would not gen-
erally use those in a randomly packed tower. However, if
your design is otherwise and you fit a distributor for the
inlet gas, the critical parameter that I would observe would
be that the velocity gradient of the incoming gas across the
tower diameter be as uniform as possible, and that, in order
to preserve some sort of flexibility that gradient be reason-
ably constant over the range of velocities and range of gas
rates that you intend to treat in the tower. Otherwise, you
get some maldistribution of the gas flows.
KEN GRAF (Norton Chemical Process Products
Corporation):
Norton has used an orifice pipe with expansion shroud
design in several packed amine absorbers. Critical param-
eters are the vapor kinetic energy compared to the packing
pressure drop.
WILLIAM KENNARD (Koch Engineering Company):
The need for an inlet gas distributor is a function of
several parameters, including inlet gas velocity, type of
packing, and the vertical space from the gas inlet to the
packed bed.
Generally, the superficial F factor defined as vapor veloc-
ity in fps times the square root of the vapor density (lbs/ft3)
of the incoming vapor should be «15-20. In addition, the
vertical space from the top of the inlet nozzle to the packed
bed above should be ½ tower diameter minimum for towers
up to 6 feet diameter, and 3 feet minimum for towers 6-12
feet diameter.
If these criteria are met, it is our experience that no
special inlet devices are required. Various type inlet devices
such as V-baffles or spargers may be used if the above
criteria are not met. Chimney tray type vapor distributors
with reduced open area are very effective when inlet gas
velocity is high and/or where vertical space is limited.
These types of vapor distributors must be carefully de-
signed to avoid entrainment of amine back into the pack-
ing, and they include downcomers to direct rich amine
safely past the high velocity inlet gas streams.
Sulfur Plants
QUESTION 10:
If a sulfur plant is operated with low purity acid gas
(50% H2S and 50% CO2 compared to design 85%
H2S and 15% CO2), what is the impact on recovery
efficiency, catalyst life, etc.? How can ammonia be
handled in either case?
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
PAULES:
Recovery efficiency will decrease slightly, around 0.5%,
at the lower H2S concentrations. Catalyst life should not be
affected. Capacity based on sulfur tonnage will decrease,
due to the higher volumetric flow of the acid gas. Ammonia
handling might be affected by a lower reaction furnace
temperature, since a relatively high temperature is needed
to destroy the ammonia.
Some refiners use fuel gas spiking to increase the furnace
temperature and promote better ammonia destruction.
This, however, will further reduce capacity, as fuel gas
spiking will increase volumetric flow even more. Some
units specifically designed for processing low purity acid
gas bypass some acid gas feed directly to the first catalyst
bed and preheat either the acid gas, the combustion air, or
both. This allows the reaction furnace temperature to be
increased without sacrificing unit capacity.
SLOAN:
Operating with a leaner acid gas feed than design will
lower sulfur recovery efficiency. The design sulfur capacity
will also be reduced, with the capacity reduction dependent
on hydraulic limitations. Catalyst bed life will be largely
unaffected by the change in richness of the acid gas, but
may be indirectly affected by changes other than the H2S
fraction in the gas feed.
Operationally, multiplying factors will require adjust-
ment to the new acid gas composition, and some of the bed
inlet temperatures can be altered slightly to optimize
recovery.
For the second part of the question, I am assuming that
the ammonia is present in a sour water stripper acid gas
stream that is segregated from the amine acid gases. A
water wash can be used to remove ammonia from amine
acid gases. For the design case, ammonia can be handled
either by proprietary high intensity burners that are capa-
ble of virtually total destruction of all of the ammonia, or by
a two-stage reaction furnace.
When operating with a leaner than design acid gas, the
residual or undestroyed ammonia from the reaction fur-
nace when using high intensity burners will increase and
could cause ammonium salt plugging at downstream cold
spots, if furnace temperatures do not exceed 2,400 ºF, pref-
erably 2,500 °F
If the SRU uses a two-stage reaction furnace, adjust-
ments to the percentage of the amine acid gas sent to the
burner (alongside all the sour water stripper acid gas) will
be required when the amine acid gas is leaner than design.
VICTOR E. ARNOLD (Raytheon Engineers):
Destruction of ammonia in Claus plant feed gas requires
a combination of furnace temperature, mixing/turbulence,
and residence time. When lower H2S in feed gas leads to
marginal temperatures, your options are divided into two
groups - those which you may be able to use without a
major reconfiguration of the Claus plant, and the rest.
Assuming the existing Claus plant has a single zone
furnace, any significant lowering of H2S content in feed gas
will start to adversely affect ammonia destruction. At 50%
H2S in feed, most operators report serious problems in
dealing with ammonia. The best solution to these problems
is to get the temperature back to a level achieved with a
richer gas. Options for that are:
148
Use oxygen enrichment - if this option is available
and economic, it is great because you recover a good
temperature while reducing throughput and lowering
emissions.
Use fuel gas assist - this will get you a temperature
gain but, at the expense of added gas traffic and in-
creased emissions.
“Split Flow” - bypass some feed round the furnace to
the first reactor. This is starting on the road to recon-
figuring the Claus plant, but is one of the simplest
reconfigurations if any of your feed is clean enough to
be split out in this manner.
Preheat the feed gas or the air-these may look simple
on sketch, but can quickly become major modifications.
A possible alternative to higher temperature is more
mixing/turbulence. Better burners can give you this. How-
ever, the question is whether they can do well enough to
destroy ammonia, given your plant’s particular tempera-
ture constraints. Make sure there is some good comparable
experience from a similar plant.
If the above options don’t provide the answer for you, and
if some of your acid gas is free of ammonia, you should
consider a two-zone furnace modification. Two-zone fur-
naces can give excellent ammonia destruction in a hot Zone
1, while the ammonia-free gas fraction continues the Claus
reaction in the cooler Zone 2. Good control instrumentation
— which has to include good on-line analyses —- is a must.
Don’t consider changing to two-zone operation unless you
are prepared to:
invest in good instrumentation,
keep it in good order, and
train your operators in the new methods.
Options upstream of the Claus plant
We haven’t mentioned any process changes upstream of
the Claus plant, because that wasn’t the thrust of the
question. Often, however, good improvement options may
lie upstream, for example:
modifying the sour water stripper or its operation,
using a more selective solvent in the main amine unit,
or
adding an acid-gas enrichment step between the amine
unit and Claus plant.
QUESTION 11:
An increase in operating pressure has been inves-
tigated as a possible alternative to debottlenecking a
Claus unit. What modifications are needed? What is
the experience with compressors in H2S service?
What limits the maximum operating pressure of a
Claus unit, provided that the liquid seals have been
modified to withstand higher pressure?
LAABS:
Recently, one of our affiliated plants modified its SRU
trains to operate at a higher pressure. The modifications
required them to increase the length of the seal leg by 5
feet, giving it the ability to withstand a pressure of 12 psig.
The need to keep the amine unit regenerator bottoms
temperature below its corrosion limit of 260 ºF required the
replacement of the acid gas line. This new line provided a
lower pressure drop. The waste heat reboilers were
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
changed from 600 psig to 250 psig steam production to
avoid problems with temperature constraints. An ad-
ditional quench cooler was installed in the TGTU to further
cool the feed to the booster blower. The lower temperature
resulted in a lower actual volume of gas.
The modifications to these units were made so that they
could be run at 8 psig, but the closest approach since
start-up has been 7.2 psig, due to problems at the waste-
water stripper. The problem is being successfully mini-
mized by using pressure control at the stripper, so the
limiting factor is expected to be the combustion air dis-
charge pressure.
OSBORN:
Assuming properly designed diplegs, probably the only
thing stopping us from running at higher pressure is that
our blower capacity is limited, and in fact we are using
oxygen enrichment. Also, the temperature of the reboiler
vapor line on the still increases to a point that corrosion in
the amine unit is a problem. It is important to keep this
below 265 °F, above which corrosion starts to increase sig-
nificantly. Our seal legs allow us to operate up to roughly 15
psig. The condenser capacity would probably be the next
bottleneck. I do know there are totally steam jacketed
blowers, and we do use a blower in our tail gas unit.
SLOAN:
Operating the Claus unit at higher pressures enables the
product water, as well as the sulfur, to be condensed,
thereby driving the Claus reaction further to completion.
Equipment sizes within the SRU and downstream tail gas
treating unit are also reduced. The increase in recovery
exists despite the fact that higher pressure adversely af-
fects the reaction furnace and the catalytic beds. The
reasons why high pressure operation is still being inves-
tigated and is not yet commercialized are that reaction
furnace temperatures tend to be at or above the maximum
allowable for existing refractory materials, the catalyst
modifications, either in design or in use to address the
problem of increased sulfur vapor pressures are still being
explored, and issues related to corrosion, safety, and the use
of enriched air or oxygen in high pressure operation are
still being researched.
Acid gas compressors have been used in sulfur recovery
unit revamps to increase capacity, and when a tail gas unit
has been added. The service is difficult because of potential
problems with wet acid gas corrosion, sour water con-
densation, and sealing requirements. The performance of
these compressors has been mixed, and if high pressure
Claus operation is to be successful, it will help if the re-
liability of the acid gas compressors can be improved.
The maximum pressure in the Claus unit is limited by
the design temperatures of refractory materials and the
need to maximize the use of carbon steel equipment. At a
given pressure, operating temperatures depend on acid gas
feed composition. Present research indicates that plants
employing both oxygen enrichment and high pressure
Claus operation at pressures as low as 70 psig can result in
dramatic increases in recovery and reduction in equipment
sizes. From an economic standpoint, we are probably look-
ing at pressures of less than 100 psig to realize the benefits
of high pressure Claus operation.
149
QUESTION 12:
How does an increase in the CO2 content of the
sulfur recovery unit feed affect the H2S/SO2 ratio
analyzer and scanner performance?
BRIERLEY:
We use the Western Research Model 700 ultraviolet-
based H2S/SO2 analyzer for monitoring our tail gas. So far,
we can find no trend between CO2 concentration and the
analyzer response. There is an analyzer available from
AMETEK which measures the H2S and combustibles in a
feed forward fashion and is placed upstream of the reaction
furnace. This analyzer may be the solution to those who
have a CO2 effect problem.
ROY:
Increased CO2 in the acid gas should have no effect on the
performance of our Western Research air demand analyzer.
However, significant dilution of flammable acid gases with
CO2 could have an effect on the flame scanners when the
color or position of the flame changes, and the scanner can
no longer detect it.
GEORGE W. TAGGERT (TPA, Inc.):
Our experience certainly has been that CO2 content has
very little impact on the use of a tail gas analyzer. In fact, if
CO2 content is sufficiently high that it does have some
impact, that could be easily accommodated by relocating
the analyzer in the system to a point where concentrations
are high enough to be within the sensitive range of the
analyzer.
We have looked very carefully at feed forward options
and have a very strong conviction that they are of real
value, only in combination with tail gas analyzer feedback.
The ultimate goal of maximum efficiency in the system is
critically dependent on the H2S/SO2 ratio, and the tail gas
analyzer is the only way to adequately measure and control
that variable.
QUESTION 13:
What methods are safely used in unplugging (car-
bon, ammonia salts) molten sulfur seals in a sulfur
recovery unit? Are there any new, improved seal
designs?
O’BRIEN:
The method used to unplug sulfur seals is to use nitrogen
pressure to unplug the seal without exposing personnel to
sulfur. If this method is unsuccessful, the seal will be
mechanically cleared by personnel outfitted in the proper
protective equipment. This rodding may be done manually
or using a drill type device if the plug is extremely hard.
Some cases require a shutdown. In this case, high pressure
water is used to clear the plug.
A new sulfur seal valve is on the market and is in service
at several locations outside of Phillips. This new type seal
valve will be installed on a trial basis at our Borger
refinery.
PAULES:
All types of seals are generally difficult to unplug. The
TOC/INDEX

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION

real answer is to prevent carbon and ammonia salts from

occurring by installing a properly designed burner which
will completely burn all hydrocarbons and by making sure
that ammonia is destroyed in the furnace. Also, mini-
mizing hydrocarbon slugs in the acid gas will help.

QUESTION 14:
Are refiners monitoring COS formation in Claus
trains? Are different catalyst formulations effective in
minimizing COS?

ROY:
Carbon sulfur compounds such as COS and CS 2 are
formed in the thermal reactor by reaction of carbon dioxide,
water, hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur vapor.
Destruction of COS and CS2 takes place in the first cata-
lytic reactor. The higher the temperature, the more effec-
tive the destruction of these compounds. The preferred
temperature range is 580 to 600 ºF. at the outlet of the first
catalytic reactor.
We do not monitor COS formation in our Claus unit,
since this has not been a problem for us. We maintain a 560
to 580 °F temperature range at the outlet of the first reac-
tor. Specially promoted alumina catalysts could be used
where COS and CS2 are a problem. These catalysts func-
tion the best in the lower third of the first converter, where
they can capitalize on the highest temperature available.

PAULES:
COS usually is checked during a performance test, but
not on a routine basis. A titanium dioxide based catalyst is
the best for COS removal, but it is also the most expensive.
Promoted alumina also improves COS removal over stan-
dard alumina-based catalysts. A reactor temperature of
600 °F or more is suggested for good COS removal, espe-
cially with a standard alumina catalyst. We have observed
a reduction of COS from 1% to 0.03%, using promoted
alumina with a 570 ºF reactor outlet.
QUESTION 15:
Flue gas rich in CO2 is often used to acidify and
strip spent caustic to remove H2S. What is done with
this gas, since it is typically very sour and at low
pressure?
LAABS:
We have developed a new process that uses carbon di-
oxide in this manner, but it does not use flue gas for the
stripping stream. Instead, we will use COP that has been
recovered from our hydrogen plant. The resulting sour CO2
stream has no nitrogen or oxygen, so it can be sent to a
Claus sulfur plant or to a sulfuric acid plant for processing.
This new stripping method has been very successful in pilot
plant testing, and we have plans to build an operating unit
soon.
ALFRED KELLER (CONOCO Inc.):
Caution should be used if you have a flue gas containing
SO2 because the H2S will not get stripped out. It will be
either converted to thiosulfates or to elemental sulfur. Any
S02-bearing flue gases that are used in this service are
going to cause you plugging problems, and you may not get
the expected results.
QUESTION 16:
Is caustic injection used in your sour water strip-
per? What is the injection strategy and how is it
determined?
ROY:
Our Tyler plant sour water stripper has used caustic
injection for several years in order to enhance ammonia
removal. We originally used fresh caustic, but now use
spent caustic from the LPG treating unit. Caustic is in-
jected to control pH of stripped water product at 9.5 to 10
pH. We have experienced tight emulsion problems at the
desalter (where the stripped sour water goes) when over-
injecting spent caustic.
RAJGURU:
Fluor Daniel has provided caustic injection points in sour
water stripper designs where ammonia must be stripped to
low levels (typically less than 20 ppmw). Both weak and
strong acids in the sour water can fix ammonia in a chemi-
cal form which is difficult to strip out. Presence ofchlorides,
cyanides, and CO2 in the feed results in fixation of am-

150
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
monia to corresponding salts. Injection of caustic unfixes or
springs back the ammonia.
For operational flexibility, two injection points can be
specified, one at the column midpoint, and one a few trays
below the midpoint. The reason is that since H2S is much
easier to strip out than ammonia, the upper trays will
remove almost all of the H2S and caustic addition to the
bottom trays will enhance ammonia removal without inter-
fering with the H2S stripping and without sodium sulfide
formation.
It must, however, be noted that the location of the effec-
tive caustic injection point is best determined during the
actual operation.
BONELLI:
I agree with Mr. Rajguru’s comments. I would note,
however, that in one location where we do have coking units
in the plant, we do not use caustic injection to the sour
water stripper due to its reuse as desalter water. Our desire
is to guarantee that we are not able to get sodium freighted
through the crude unit and into the coker heaters.
Tail Gas Plants
QUESTION 17:
What experiences do refiners have with increasing
the tail gas treating unit capacity? (i.e., solvent
changes, booster blowers, etc.)
ROY:
At our Pasadena plant, we switched from DEA to MDEA,
and thus were able to operate at 40% MDEA con-
centrations, compared to 25% with DEA. This has effec-
tively increased capacity of the unit by approximately 15%.
PAULES:
One method of increasing the capacity of a tail gas unit is
to utilize oxygen enrichment in the upstream SRU. Since
the nitrogen associated with some of the air is removed,
there is less total gas flow to the tail gas unit. This method
basically debottlenecks the SRU and the tail gas unit. The
only part of the tail gas unit which still might need to be
made larger is the quench water system to make sure there
is enough pumping and heat removal capacity.
SLOAN:
The experience refiners have in increasing capacity is
very limited. Most of these units are SCOT or MSRMDEA
type and have two distinct process functions. The first
process function is to hydrogenate/hydrolyze all the sulfur
compounds to H2S. The second process function is to selec-
tively absorb the H2S in an amine and to recycle the H2S
with minimum CO2 from amine regeneration back to the
SRU.
The tail gas unit may take up to about 10% more flow
without modifications. Most refineries now have the capa-
bility of increasing the capacity of the SRU by oxygen
enrichment. This does not increase the flow to the tail gas
unit, but does increase the H2S load to the amine section. In
such cases, the hydrogenation section is not limiting, but
the amine section must handle the increased H2S flow.
151
Circulation, reboiler duty and cooling loads are what
limit the amine section capacity. Some refineries have been
able to switch from generic MDEA to high performance
solvents. In some cases, the increase in H2S loading has
been accompanied by a lowering of the H2S in the treated
gas but this may require a revamp to the amine cooling
system as well as a solvent switchover.
Booster blowers can help in cases where the existing
SRU has seal legs that are limiting. In such cases, a booster
blower on the overhead of the quench tower has been
installed to push the gases through the process equipment
downstream of the quench tower. All or part of the hydro-
genation system may work under vacuum in such cases.
When vacuum occurs, problems with air leakage can
result.
In general, increases in capacity of 15 to 20% are pos-
sible, but if additional capacity is needed, a new tail gas
unit will usually be necessary.
LAABS:
We have had one experience where changing the solvent
has improved unit capacity. One of our refineries changed
from DIPA to formulated MDEA. The new solvent can be
used at higher strengths, so the circulation rates were able
to be reduced. The selectivity of this solvent also allows it to
reject a larger portion of the carbon dioxide, so the gas
going back to the SRU is of higher quality.
An affiliated site has improved the throughput of the
booster blower by installing a new quench water cooler. The
amine feed to the blower has a lower temperature, and
therefore, a lower volume. They are in the process of up-
grading their booster blower, as it is the current bottleneck
in their system.
Another of our sites has completed a process design for
one of their tail gas treating units that will increase the
capacity of that unit by 50%. The design involves a number
of hardware changes, including replacing the current
direct-fired heater with two indirect heaters, replacing the
quench and absorber tower internals, and installing a new
booster blower after the cooler.
VANESSA A. HODGE (Dow Chemical):
Several refiners have chosen to use the SulFerox Tech-
nology, which is a technology jointly being marketed by
Dow Chemical and Shell Oil, to increase the recovery of
sulfur compounds such as H2s. This process is applicable to
amine tail gas streams, as subscribed in Question 10, as
well as Claus tail gas streams. The process can also be used
to treat sour gas stripper streams as well as fuel gas
streams normally handled by the main amine systems of a
refinery. CO2 at any levels can be handled by the technology
as well as various levels of ammonia. The process is most
economical; at levels of 1 to 20 long tons per day of sulfur
removal.
THOMAS KENNY (Texaco Chemical Company):
Field testing of our TEXTREAT® formulated solvents in
several tail gas units does indicate that careful attention
paid to equipment design is extremely important in tail gas
units.
MARK O. WIMBERLY (Union Carbide Corporation):
Union Carbide Corporation offers high performance
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
UCARSOL® solvents designed to increase tail gas treating
unit capacity. A solvent upgrade from DIPA to our HS-103
formulated solvent increases capacity significantly in two
ways. The ability to operate at higher concentrations with-
out corrosion allows for the circulation of more amine per
unit of pumping capacity. A CO2 slippage of 95% is achiev-
able with HS-103. This improvement in CO2 slippage re-
duces the quantity of CO2 that must be recycled back to the
SRU.
A second significant means ofincreasing tail gas treating
unit capacity is to operate the main amine system with a
formulated UCARSOL® solvent. Using a high CO2 slip
solvent in the main amine system reduces the CO2 content
of the SRU feed gas. This improves SRU efficiency and
reduces the load on the tail gas unit.
Also, retrofitting high efficiency packing in the absorber
column to reduce pressure drop can increase the capacity of
the unit, but it has the disadvantage of reducing the oper-
ating flexibility afforded by multiple feed point trayed
designs. This can negatively impact CO2 slippage.
Rich solvent loadings can be increased by installing a
blower in the tail gas unit. Operating at higher pressures
will increase the capacity of the tail gas unit. However, the
disadvantages of the blowers are their maintenance costs
and the possibility of introducing air into the tail gas
stream. These blowers often require tandem seals with a
continuous purge. Secondary cooling should be considered,
especially if 10 ppm H2S specification is required down-
stream of the amine absorber.
QUESTION 18:
For converting SO2 to H2S ahead of the SCOT
process, what are refiners’ experiences with the vari-
ous options for the tail gas treatment catalysts? What
kind of surface area losses have been observed over a
run with the various catalyst options?
O’BRIEN:
We have used three different tail gas hydrogenation
catalysts in this service, all with good results. The main
problem with these beds has been pressure drop due to fines
deposited in the bed.
Experience with surface area loss varies by catalyst and
by length and severity of service. On a recent changeout,
the surface area of the catalyst had decreased by 25% after
3 years of service.
PAULES:
There are basically two types of cobalt-molybdenum tail
gas unit catalysts available. One is a 1/6 inch spherical
catalyst and the other is a 1/8 inch extrudate. Cost per pound
is essentially the same, but the extrudate is 40% less dense
and therefore costs 40% less to fill a particular unit. The
start of run activity and surface area of the extrudates is
comparable to that of the spherical, but it is not as rugged
as its crush strength and rate of surface area decline is not
as good. If you have an extremely stable operation, such as a
gas plant, the spherical catalyst may make more sense as it
will produce a longer run length. If your catalyst life is
dictated by many upsets, as is common in many refinery
applications, then the extrudates may be a more economical
choice.
152
ALLAN M. EDELMAN (Exxon Research and Engineer-
ing Company):
We have debottlenecked tail gas units which had limited
H2S removal capacity due to the solvent or the solvent
regenerator. This was done by switching to Flexsorb SE
Solvents. Flexsorb SE nearly doubles the H2S removal
capacity of a unit. Flexsorb SE PLUS achieves some de-
bottleneck while treating the tail gas to less than 10 vppm
of H2 S. The debottlenecks required only minor modi-
fications of the tail gas absorber, in most cases. Right now,
there are about 25 Flexsorb SE and SE PLUS commercial
scrubbing operations. Over half are in tail gas service and
five are tail gas retrofit-debottlenecks.
GEORGE W. TAGGART (TPA, Inc.):
Certainly, changes in solvent can result in some im-
provement in capacity. Typically, I would suggest that these
would be marginal improvements. We have licensed 12
plants to date with our oxygen injection technology, which
introduces oxygen directly into the thermal reaction zone
rather than into the air stream. We have had the occasion to
re-rate the 12 tail gas treaters involved. In every case, we
have found that by careful analysis and some careful engi-
neering vis-a-vis the existing apparatus, we have been able
to achieve increases in tail gas treater capacity on the order
of 40% above nameplate.
The only necessary change was in the quench system,
which is routinely required to be increased by several
percent. We have accomplished this in general, without
changing the quench tower itself, but simply by making
changes in the circulating water system. We found this to
be cost effective and successful.
B. Environment
Air Emissions
QUESTION 19:
What experience is there in retrofitting older heat-
ers with low NOx burners? How do post combustion
NOx control technologies fit these units?
LAABS:
One of our sites has retrofitted four older vertical cylin-
drical heaters with ultra-low NO, burners. These retrofits
have definitely reduced the amount of this pollutant; a
typical example was a reduction from 0.09 to 0.02 lbs per
MMBTU. The burners have also proven to be more fuel
efficient and easier to control. However, the change in the
heaters has required more work than just replacing the
burners. Each of the four heaters required having its floor
cut out and replaced. Also, as the old burners were able to
be replaced with fewer burners of the new design, the fuel
gas piping had to be rearranged. They have used both
Callidus LE-CSG and John Zink PSMR low NOx burners
for this application.
An affiliated plant on the West Coast has retrofitted its
older heaters with low NO, burners and selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) units. These modifications have allowed
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
the heaters to be in compliance for NOx The SCR units
have had some problems with plugging and exceeding the
maximum inlet temperature. This refinery has assigned an
engineer full-time to the task of furnace monitoring and
troubleshooting.
MURPHY:
I have one example that I can share. Two refinery gas-
fired crude heaters were retrofitted with low NOx burners.
The burners reduced the NOx emissions to approximately
100 ppm. This refiner needed to generate additional NOx
reduction for an offset for a new crude heater. After con-
version to low NOx burners, the crude heaters were treated
with Nalco Fuel Tech’s NOxOUT process. Using this com-
bination, the NOx was further reduced to 30 ppm in one
unit, and 40 ppm in the other. The combination of the two
technologies has worked well and the resultant NOx re-
duction is similar to that which can be achieved in SCR.
O’BRIEN:
Phillips currently is looking at methods to reduce NOx
emissions on furnaces other than the ones they have
already worked on. We have been looking to see which
option is the best. While work is still ongoing, post com-
bustion NOx control technologies appear to be a more
expensive option when compared to a burner changeout for
the NOx levels we must meet.
OSBORN:
Farmland is just completing a retrofit of two packaged
Babcock and Wilcox boilers with burners designed by Hol-
man Boiler Works and supplied by John Zink. Our experi-
ence has indicated that the combustion air temperature is
critical to the amount of NOx produced. We had to remove
the air preheaters that were on the boilers in order to lower
the flame temperature. Boiler feed water economizers were
installed to maintain the boiler efficiency. The burners
must also be designed to operate at low excess oxygen rates
without producing excess carbon monoxide and the excess
O2 must be closely controlled. We have been able to use
these burners to meet our NOx limitations without flue gas
recirculation. I believe they have also been used in Cal-
ifornia with flue gas recirculation to meet California
standards.
BONELLI:
Combustion air temperature control can frequently
make the difference between whether or not you are able to
achieve your targeted NOx reductions.
JUNO:
Internal circulation floor-fired, ultra low NOx burners
have been successfully retrofitted to existing heaters.
These burners require fuel gas pressure of approximately
25 psi, but exhibit excellent turndown. From what I under-
stand, their turndown is better than conventional raw gas
burners. Flame pattern is longer, approximately 2 feet per
million BTU fired duty as compared to approximately 1 foot
per million BTU for a conventional raw gas burner.
Internal circulation burners are best used in floor-fired
furnaces for optimum NOx reduction. The NOx production
from these burners (0.03 lb per million BTU at 10% excess
153
air, without air preheat) rival post combustion control
technologies. The more expensive SCR technology can be
designed for 0.02 to 0.05 lb NOx per million BTUs.
PEDERSEN:
At Kalundborg refinery in Denmark, we are running a
program to retrofit 30 year old heaters with low NOx, low
noise burners. The heaters are cabin furnaces, both end and
side-fired, and VC furnaces, but all on natural draft. The
purpose of the program is two fold; first of all, to reduce
noise, and secondly, to reduce NOx emission. So far, we
consider the program to be a success. Noise has been re-
duced by more than 15 decibels, and NOx emission reduced
by more than 60%. In some cases we see improved ef-
ficiency. Depending on the actual furnace construction,
piping layout, etc., the modification can, in some cases, be
rather expensive. Cost have been between 10 and 35 thou-
sand dollars per burner.
GEORGE SMITH (Exxon Research and Engineering
Company):
Responding to the second part of the question, Selective
Noncatalytic Reduction Processes, such as our Thermal
De-NOx process, have primarily been applied to heaters
where retrofitting low NOx burners has not been feasible.
NO, reductions of up to about 70% have been achieved with
the Thermal De-NOx process in these applications.
We also have examples, however, where we have applied
Thermal De-NOx to heaters already fitted with low NOx
burners. These applications were in areas where ultra low
NO x targets needed to be met. One application was a
gas-fired heater and the other an oil-fired heater. Our
experience has been that for these applications, about 35 to
40% NOx reduction is achieved, compared with the higher
removal efficiencies that I mentioned earlier for appli-
cations without low NOx burners.
LARRY G. BAYER (Union Texas Petrochemicals):
Mr. Juno, have you used air preheat on any of the ultra
low NOx burners?
JUNO:
No.
RONALD BREDEHOFT (KTI):
KTI has retrofitted several older heaters with low NOx
burners for two major refineries in the Los Angeles basin.
These installations were to comply with the local AQMD
Rule 1146 for 40 ppm maximum NOx. These burners are of
the staged fuel type with internal flue gas recirculation.
Most of the units have been in operation a little over 3 years
now and actual operating data has shown a trend of around
30 to 40 ppm. These burners are sensitive to fuel changes
and oxygen trim.
While the need for post combustion technologies, speci-
fically SCRs, in a retrofit situation remains a site-specific
issue, we have several units currently in operation, some
approaching 10 years. While typical NOx reduction on
these units has been consistently above design, our survey
shows performance is dependent on fuel gas quality, flue
gas temperature, ammonia injection rate, and type of cata-
lyst used.
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
JONAH SMITH (Mobil Oil Corp.):
Does anyone have experience with retrofitting a CO
boiler with low NOx burners? And if so, what is that
experience?
LAABS:
We have CO boilers, but we have not had to retrofit any of
them yet.
ERNEST LEUENBERGER (ARCO Products Co.):
We recently retrofitted low NOx burners on our FCC CO
boiler at our Los Angeles refinery. At last report, we were
unable to get the NOx reduction we expected.
QUESTION 20:
What have refiners done to reduce benzene
emissions to come into compliance with benzene
NESHAP? What are the recovery costs per barrel of
benzene?
SLOAN:
Kellogg has completed several steadies evaluating
different approaches to complying with benzene NESHAP.
Benzene emissions can be reduced by recycling, waste
minimization, source treatment, and end of pipe treatment.
Cost of controls varies depending on the size and age of the
refinery, the nature of existing controls, and concentration.
Costs can range from just a few dollars/bbl of benzene for
easy fixes, such as vent controlling a slop tank, to a few
hundred thousand dollars/bbl for small difficult to control
sources. Control of typical wastewater streams at a large
.retinery can easily fall within the range of $50,000 to
$100,000 per barrel.
Details of our experience with specific compliance ap-
proaches are as follows:
1. Recycling and Waste Minimization
a) Maintenance Waste Streams. Maintenance
streams that are routed to a slop oil system will
come in contact with water and, therefore, be sub-
ject to the benzene NESHAP regulations. Directly
piping these streams to a vent controlled slop oil
tank will meet the control requirements of ben-
zene NESHAP.
b) Selection of Cleaning Materials. In cleaning
tanks, a cutter stock or gas oil is often used. To
minimize benzene waste generation, gas oils con-
taining benzene should not be introduced into
tanks whose contents do not contain benzene.
c) Sample Purges. Closed loop sampling systems can
be used to return the purged material back to the
tank or vessel. Only the amount required to till the
sample container is drained. Dopak type samplers
can be used in many applications; they can be
completely closed loop, where the bottle is filled by
syringe, or partially closed loop where only a small
sample tap is purged and not a long line.
d) Tank Cleaning and Sludge Management. Closed
systems can be used to deinventory tanks, and also
for initial flushes of tanks. Monitoring of the tank
atmosphere can indicate when most of the benzene
materials have been flushed. After the benzene in
154
the tank atmosphere is less than a target value, for
example, 1 ppm, the tank manways can be opened.
When desludging is required and the tank atmo-
sphere does not reach an acceptable concentration
by flushing, a tank vent system can be used. A
blower is used to ventilate the tank and blower
discharge is vented to carbon canisters. A viscosity
modifier may be added prior to purging the sludge
to a vent controlled dewatering system.
e) Monitoring and Recordkeeping during Main-
tenance and Turnarounds. Procedures can be set in
place that require monitoring of benzene con-
centrations and waste quantities. For example, in
the tank cleaning case above, the tank atmosphere
is monitored. Similar practices can be imple-
mented during turnaround of process vessels. The
benzene concentration can be monitored after
steaming a vessel has begun. Until benzene in the
atmosphere, or the condensate, is less than control
level, all wastes will go to a closed system. Once
benzene falls below the target, wastes can be
routed through a lowpoint drain to the sewer.
2 . Source Treatment
Source treatment can be applied in process units.
Examples include: gas, steam or vacuum stripping,
adsorption, and solvent extraction. Some technologies
can be used to recover solvents or products from the
extracted adsorbed, or stripped materials.
3 . End of Pipe Treatment
Where end of pipe treatment is continued, refineries
have used segregation and vent control to reduce
emissions. Segregated treatment systems typically
utilize closed, above ground headers for high benzene
content waste streams while maintaining existing
open sewers from storm drainage and low benzene
streams. Treatment equipment must be covered. CPI
separators and induced gas flotation units are easier
to operate as covered vent controlled units than their
counterparts, API separators and DAFs, although
those have also been covered. Vents from this equip-
ment can be routed to a flare, furnace, incinerator, or
carbon adsorption system. If existing sewers are to be
controlled, self sealing sewer hubs are available for
retrofit.
T. WILLIAMS
Based on original API numbers of $1 billion for NESHAP
control, we are looking at about $6 million spent per re-
finery. However, some refineries are using the benzene
NESHAP as the thrust to totally revamp their sewer sys-
tems. In these cases these refineries are spending a $100 to
$200 million. Taking for example a 100,000 barrel refinery
with 30 to 40 metric tons of benzene that needs to be
controlled down to 6 tons, this would come out to about
$400/lb of benzene ($124,00O/bbl).
Smaller refiners, who had the potential to get under 10
metric tons per year of benzene and avoid the benzene
NESHAP regulations prior to the effective date of the
regulations, used various source control techniques to get
under and stay under the 10 metric ton limit.
Since desalters generally contribute the largest single
source of benzene to the wastewater system, refiners at-
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
tempting to get under the 10 metric ton limit began to look
at better ways to control desalters to prevent the discharge
of free oil, in particular to decrease the benzene discharged.
Better management of the desalting operation through the
use of improved instrumentation, chemical treatment,
residence time or other operating variables could be used in
preventing a large discharge of benzene from the desalters.
Another area where smaller refiners have concentrated
to get below the 10 metric ton trigger level is to reduce the
amount of pure hydrocarbon released to the wastewater
sewer system during water draws from tanks, vessels, and
drums. In particular, taking water from tank draws has
historically generated a fair amount of free phase hydro-
carbon to the sewer which must be counted in the 10 metric
ton limit. Refiners have looked hard at modifying their
procedures for tank draws to reduce the amount of hydro-
carbons to the sewer, including the addition of instrumen-
tation to detect the free hydrocarbon and automatically
shut off the tank draw.
Refiners who were not able to get under the 10 metric ton
trigger level have had to reduce emissions to come into
compliance by a variety of ways. Of course, some amount of
controls on waste streams are necessary. The benzene
NESHAP regulation laid out as a primary alternative
piping waste streams greater than 10 ppm benzene to a
stripper or some other device. While this approach in some
cases has been used, in many refineries it is very difficult to
define all of the streams that average 10 ppm or greater
benzene. Therefore, many refiners have looked at an ap-
proach which is defined in the regulations which includes
an enclosed sewer system. This basically takes all benzene
containing wastewaters and controls the vapors from the
sewer system as well as the downstream treatment sys-
tems. In a few cases this even included the biological treat-
ment step. An alternative put forth by the EPA called the
BQ or benzene quality option limits the amount of exposed
streams total waste streams to 6 metric tons. This means
that 6 metric tons of benzene of all waste streams would not
have to have controls. Many other innovative approaches
are being used to come up with benzene emission control for
these refineries that exceeded the 10 metric ton limit.
BONELLI:
I think Mr. Williams has covered most of the important
parts. In several instances that we are aware of, people
actually have been selecting crude oils on the basis of the
155
benzene that is extracted into the desalter water phase,
which ultimately gets to their API separators or waste-
water treatment facilities. So it has made a little bit of a
directional change in crude oil economics in some instances
as well.
JUNO:
We have installed a desalter effluent water stripper to
reduce the benzene in our effluent. We are not making any
attempt to recover the benzene from our desalter water
stripper.
PAULES:
The major focus of our program to come in compliance for
the benzene NESHAP regulations has come in two areas:
reducing or eliminating oil from entering sewer systems
and the API separator, and reducing or eliminating drain-
ing of benzene bearing water streams to the sewer system.
To reduce oil from entering the sewers, hydrocyclones were
added to the desalter water effluent. Closed sampling sys-
tems were installed for routine samples and elaborate steps
are being taken to flush oil to slop systems before taking a
piece of equipment out of service.
To reduce benzene bearing water from entering the
sewer system, locations were found to reuse some water as
process water and many sources which qualified as sour
water were routed to sour water strippers.
Assuming depreciation of capital over fifteen years, the
cost of implementing our benzene NESHAP program is
approximately $3000/bbl of benzene recovered.
ROY:
Projects at our Pasadena plant were designed to reduce a
total annual benzene, TAB, below 10 metric tons. This may
have had very little effect on reducing the emission of
benzene in the air, because it was small in the first place.
The key to reducing the TAB was to remove benzene
containing hydrocarbons from sewers. Installing closed
sampling systems and modifying our water draws made
dramatic difference in nondissolved hydrocarbons in our
sewers. In addition, we installed a laboratory waste col-
lection system for benzene carrying samples. Waste from
maintenance operations is also much more closely
controlled.
One project to reduce dissolved benzene was to reduce
desalter wash water by recycling. The initial test work
showed that this would make a significant difference. How-
ever, more recent testing makes the reduction look mod-
erate. It is very difficult to measure the reduction precisely
without extensive sampling and testing because of a varied
crude slate. Our cost per barrel of benzene recovered is
much lower than numbers we hear of in industry.
JO AGAR (Agar Corporation, Inc.):
We have experience in eliminating the benzene right at
the source. This is a case where the EPA verified the
numbers before and after the installation of the equipment.
The nice thing about it is that by doing it, the equipment
paid back for itself in 100 days due to the saving of the oil in
the wastewater. By doing this we eliminate it at its source.
And in this particular refinery, we reduced benzene emis-
sions from 17 tons a year down to 3 tons a year merely by
cutting down the oil undercarry from the desalters, slop
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
tanks, storage tanks and other units which dump into the
wastewater. There is an article about it in the Hydrocarbon
Processing, August issue.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining and Chemical):
I would like to find out from the panel members who are
taking their desalter effluent water to a benzene NESHAP
stripper: what kind of operating problems are you ex-
periencing, if any?
BONELLI:
What I would say is that the people with whom we have
talked who are operating those strippers have indicated
that overhead temperature control is a critical item to keep
from fouling in the upper section of the strippers.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining and Chemical):
Any pluggage problem in the packing or in the trays.
BONELLI:
I cannot give you any personal knowledge, no.
JUNO:
As I understand, we have not been having any problems
as of yet with pluggage. We have operated the unit for
approximately a year and continue to optimize steam rates
for the required benzene removal. We have had some prob-
lems with the filtration ahead of the stripper. The filter
medium has unraveled and has been found in downstream
equipment.
J. WILLIAMS:
I also know of a couple of refineries who are using these
strippers and have had plugging problems, and I know one
of them attributed it to possibly putting too much steam in
the tower. I do not know if that eliminated the plugging yet,
it has been an off and on problem.
QUESTION 21:
What progress is being made in control of fugitive
emissions?
PEDERSEN:
In order to improve control of fugitive emissions, we need
better tools and methods, not only to identify emission
sources, but also to quantify emissions. One such tool,
which has been developed by BP and made commercially
available through services from Spectrasyne in the UK, is
based on laser technology.
This year at Mongstad, we had Spectrasyne to perform a
complete survey over a period of two weeks. The results,
using this technique, are quantitatively much more accu-
rate compared to the results you get when, for instance,
applying isotopes. With this method, you scan and measure
in vertical areas as small as 7.5 x 7.5 meters. The detec-
tion limit is 10 to 20 ppb, at a distance of 20 to 30 meters.
The method is fast and flexible, and therefore, it is fairly
easy to measure the effect on emissions of changing oper-
ating conditions.
SLOAN:
Comprehensive evaluation of a facility can identify many
156
sources where emissions can be reduced. In design of a new
facility, it is important to consider fugitive emissions and
we look at five main areas:
1) Seals. Dual mechanical seals can be used on pumps
and compressors. If the service warrants it, sealless
pumps can also be installed. Double seals are also an
option for floating roof tanks. Liquid-mounted seals
control emissions better than vapor-mounted seals.
2) Valves, Leakless valves can be considered. Relief
valves vent into a flare or other control device and
open-ended valves should be capped.
3) Flanges. Threaded and welded connections can be
used for small diameter piping to minimize the num-
ber of flanges and their associated emissions.
4) Covers. Covering open equipment such as API sep-
arators and drains can also reduce emissions. Emis-
sions from drains can be reduced by installing p-traps
or self-sealing sewer covers.
5) Inspection and maintenance. In addition to designing
a system for low emissions, routine maintenance,
inspection and monitoring can insure that the system
meets performance criteria and leaks are detected
and repaired quickly.
Let us not forget, also, nonprocess sources such waste-
water treatment units, tanks, feedstocks, product, and by-
product loading facilities.
BONELLI:
Fugitive emissions from compressor seals, in at least one
of our facilities, are being reduced through a two-step
program of using dry gas seals in place of the traditional
seals and magnetic bearings on the rotating elements so
that the rotating element stability is much greater. It runs
much closer to the design center line, so we have much less
leakage about which to worry. Some of the other systems
that we have adopted are also described in 40 CFR 60482-4.
Fugitive emissions from pump seals also have several
means of control, some of which have been discussed. Seal-
less pumps are sometimes the only resort, although, they
are certainly our last choice. Improved sealed technologies
have been effective in helping us comply.
And lastly, the fugitive emissions from valves are being
controlled through a combination of improved packing,
service specific, and quite an aggressive repair program
when our monitoring program indicates we found leakage.
Overall our facility attains a rate of noncompliance of much
less than 1% of the total inventory.
BRIERLEY:
Canada is currently developing a nationwide code of
practice for the reduction of fugitive VOC emissions. We
are required by our operating license to conduct a yearly
leak detection and repair survey based on EPA method 21.
Syncrude is currently only in the second year of that pro-
gram. So far there have been very few pump or compressor
seals found to be leaking. Most of the leaks are, as you
would suspect, from valve packings. If the packings cannot
be pulled down, they are usually repaired by injecting a
sealant.
O’BRIEN:
Every new permit requires fugitive emissions monitor-
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
ing. In Texas, the Natural Resource Conservation Com-
mittee has defined three different leak detection and repair
programs, LDAR’s. They differ in leak level definition from
500 to 10,000 ppm and in elapsed time before repairing
from 5 to 15 days. So the days of getting by without having
to implement an LDAR program are gone and the amount
of sampling is going up. So the biggest improvements must
be made in the efficiency of program management.
The biggest breakthrough in LDAR is the com-
puterization of monitoring data. Organic vapor analyzers,
OVA’s, used in fugitive emissions are now attached to data
loggers. Sample components are tagged with bar codes. The
component location is scanned, and leak rates are auto-
matically logged into data loggers and dumped into a data
base to manage the program. This enables the plant to
provide precise reports to an agency inspector. The latest
development that I know of is an OVA and a data logger in
one housing.
QUESTION 22:
What technology has been used to help reduce the
vapor and odor emissions from sour water storage
tanks other than floating roofs (i.e., closed vent sys-
tems, tank vapor scrubbing, etc.)?
BRIERLEY:
We initially attempted to use a vapor recovery system on
our sour water tanks. We encountered never-ending prob-
lems with the system. The piping and single stage liquid
ring compressor would continually plug with ammonium
salts and iron sulfide. We have since replaced the original
tanks with floating roof tanks and demolished both the old
tanks and the vapor recovery system.
LAABS:
We have used several different strategies for control of
sour water tankage emissions. One refinery has covered its
floating roof sour water tanks with geodesic domes for odor
control, and then vents the vapor through caustic-
impregnated carbon to the atmosphere. Any tanks that
might release an explosive vapor have dome spaces that are
blanketed with inert gas. Another of our sites installed a
sour water degassing drum that vents at atmospheric pres-
sure to a closed vacuum vapor collection system. This
vacuum system is also connected to the downstream sour
water tank.
MURPHY:
We have used hydrogen sulfide abatement chemistries
successfully to mitigate emissions and odor impact of sour
process water. The hydrogen sulfide is converted to a more
stable sulfur compound that remains stable at elevated
temperatures, thus preventing formation and release of the
acid gas.
BONELLI:
Due to safety and operational concerns with some of the
control devices mentioned in the question, our latest design
sour water tank, which has just been commissioned this
summer, was designed as a floating roof tank. We have had
vapor recovery systems on sour water tanks in which the
157
accumulation of material on the charcoal canister has led
us to burn the tank down. Some of the tanks have been
vented to control flare systems or to heater fire boxes. In the
case that we just cited with the floating roof tank, we do not
have odor control problems in our location, so it is an
effective solution there.
PAULES:
We use a cone roof tank with a nitrogen purged vapor
space. This system vents to the tail gas unit incinerator. We
do not experience any significant problems.
RAJGURU:
On one of our Gulf Coast projects, we installed a sour
water storage tank with vapor recovery compressors. The
compressors are of the liquid ring type and they discharge
into the plant flare. The sour water is depressurized ahead
of the tanks, and the gas from the degassing vessel is
compressed by a reciprocating compressor into the sour fuel
gas header.
The sour water storage tanks are designed for about 8
inch water column pressure and are constructed with an
umbrella roof. A fuel gas pad is provided on the tanks. As a
backup in case the liquid ring compressor and its spare
should both fail, an alternative atmospheric vent system is
provided, in which the vent gas passes through activated
carbon of sufficient quantity to last about one day at the
maximum venting rate.
The liquid ring compressors have been in service for over
a year and have operated well. Alternately, we have de-
signed a floating roof tank with double mechanical seals
and about 2 to 3 feet of oil layer.
DAVID C. PARNELL (TPA, Inc.):
One of the most effective ways to reduce the odor evolu-
tion from sour water storage tanks is to treat the effluent
vapors with activated carbon. But, as Mr. Bonelli pointed
out, the activated carbon vessel cannot be left in place
forever (without attention) or a problem can result. So the
need to be able to either replace and/or regenerate the
carbon is important and must be periodically done. For the
purpose of regeneration, steam is usually very effective. To
emphasize, activated carbon is very effective in reducing
odor emissions from the sour water storage tank.
However, the nitrogen purge to the incinerator is prob-
ably the most effective of all methods. It is not even neces-
sary to use nitrogen; instead a hydrocarbon purge can be
used, such as refinery fuel gas. These gases will purge the
tank and by venting the purge to the incinerator where all
the H2S or other odor-producing compounds are oxidized
(H2S to SO2, etc). Also, the hydrocarbon is certainly a
valuable fuel for the incinerator. These oxidized gases are
then emitted from the stack at an elevated level.
QUESTION 23:
What are the substitute refrigerants - in place of
chlorofluorocarbon compounds - for refinery and
gas liquefaction plants refrigeration systems? What
modifications are needed? How do the systems per-
form with the new chemicals?
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
BONELLI:
In some instances, in our refineries, where we have a
problem with chlorofluorocarbons, we have used ammonia
refrigeration, specifically where we have refrigerated LPG
storage. We have however, no substantive experience with
replacement fluorocarbons in our refineries.
J. WILLIAMS:
Replacement in R-12 based systems will generally use
HFC134a which is successfully used to - 20 °F R-12 will
be discontinued by DuPont at the end of 1994. It is expected
to be hard to obtain soon. Retrofits require lube oil change
from mineral-based oils to polyester ester oils as mineral-
based oils are incompatible with any HFC regenerants.
Other systems have similar replacements. Sometimes a
complete system replacement is required.
QUESTION 24:
What are the substitute chemicals for Halon sys-
tems? Are there any advantages and disadvantages?
PEDERSEN:
The alternatives for fixed Halon systems, we normally
would consider, are water spray or INERGEN, which is a
mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and argon. Also, in
many cases, replacement of fixed systems with portable
CO2 extinquishers is a good and cheap alternative. The
idea behind the INERGEN system is to reduce the oxygen
content to less than 15% and by the CO2 content, increase
the human inhalation rate to compensate for the lower
oxygen concentration.
In many installations, you can simply replace Halon
with INERGEN. Pro’s and con’s depends on the actual
application, but you have to consider issues like whether
the facility to be protected is manned or unmanned, conse-
quences of a fire, costs, etc. In Kalundborg, for example, the
decision has been to convert all fixed Halon systems to
portable extinquishers.
RAJGURU:
Some of the substitutes for Halon 1301 in today’s mar-
kets are: 3M’s PFC-614, consisting of a C6F14 and the
PFC-410 consisting of C4FlO, and as Mr. Pedersen said,
Inergine’s inert gas system. Another is Figgie Inter-
national FM-200 and that consists of hepta-fluoro propane.
Another is Chemtron’s CO2 system.
We do not have any knowledge of their commercial expe-
rience per se because most of them are new. Also, only
Inergine has the hardware that is available to support their
system. All the above systems operate at much higher
pressure than the Halon system and require special hard-
ware. Chemtrons CO2 system can only be used in a un-
occupied area.
Since FM-200 has been UL approved, Fluor Daniel would
consider it seriously for IO and controls. For the control
room, we would use what is called the Pre-action type water
sprinkler system. It is a dry system that has pressurized air
as a surveillance against leaks. When the smoke detector
goes off, the main control valve opens and fills the system
with water. The sprinkler heads release the water only
when the fusible link melts.
158
J. WILLIAMS:
We know of two substitutes for Halon. One is FM200
which is relatively new. It is a liquid stored at 300 psig and
has the same flow characteristics as does Halon. In fact,
with minor modifications, the existing Halon system would
be capable of handling FM200.
Another option to Halon is Inergene. This material is
stored as high pressure gas, 3000 psig. Obviously, a major
retrofit would probably be required. Furthermore, Inergene
coverage is not nearly as good as FM200. The material is
Argon-based with CO2.
Both options above are zero ozone depleters, which is a
distinct advantage over Halon. Halon will incur a $ .40/lb
tax beginning on January 1, 1994 because it is an ozone
depleter. Furthermore, a known Halon producer will be
shutting down operation by the end of 1993. Both above
products are nontoxic.
BRIERLEY:
As we have heard, there seems to be numerous products
that are being advertised as direct replacements for Halon.
We believe, though, that even those that claim to be drop in
replacements would seem to be inadequate since they re-
quire more agent, need higher concentrations, or remove
oxygen to dangerously low levels. Some of the major chemi-
cal manufacturers to whom we have talked stated to us,
privately, that the alternatives they are working on are not
yet ready to market and may not be ready for years to come.
QUESTION 25:.
What factors, operating variables, or additives
improve electrostatic precipitator (ESP) efficiency?
Can an ESP lower particulate emissions to below 15
3
mg/Nm ? Does anyone experience periodic spikes in
stack opacity? Are these related to ESP operation,
and can they be avoided?
BRIERLEY:
Our ESP efficiency is primarily controlled by the col-
lection area in service and applied voltage. It is further
influenced by gas loading and solids loading. We have found
that the presence of ammonia and sulfur trioxide in the flue
gas aid in the collection of the coke dust. Momentary
opacity spikes can be attributed to either the rapper/
vibrator sequencing or soot blowing. Some of these can be
reduced or eliminated by changing the rapper/vibrator
sequence or altering the rapper magnitude or duration. We
have been able to control this through the installation of
PLC-based control program. Opacity spikes of one to five
minutes are often caused by transformer or rectifier trips,
or slugs of solids sent into the ESP’s.
Water Issues
QUESTION 26:
In an effort to reduce wastewater discharge, what
are reuses for stripped sour water, cooling tower
blowdown and filtered-treated wastewater?
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
MURPHY:
Stripped sour water is one of the primary sources of water
to the desalter. It is also used extensively as process wash
water in hydrotreaters and FCCUs. In limited cases, it
could also provide value as cooling water make-up. How-
ever, as cooling water make-up, contaminants such as sul-
fide, cyanide, and phenol would have to be considered.
If operation of the cooling water system has been opti-
mized, in other words, the cycles of concentration, then
untreated cooling water blowdown most likely cannot be
reused. The cooling water system operating conditions
should be scrutinized to ensure that cycles are maximized
which minimizes the blowdown waste stream. If cycles of
concentration are limited by hardness, side-stream soften-
ing may help to minimize blowdown. If limited by silica,
silica stabilizers can be used in the recirculating water.
Filtered treated wastewater can be considered as partial
make-up to the cooling water system. Tight control of the
cooling water system’s operating parameters (i.e. pH, con-
ductivity, and treatment chemicals) is required to handle
the potentially higher total dissolved solids (TDS) hard-
ness, and organic levels. Higher dispersant levels may also
be required. We have successfully done this at a number of
industrial facilities including refineries.
Prior to using any unconventional streams as cooling
water make-up, these streams should be tested for their
impact. This can be done using mobile cooling tower pilot
plants such as Nalco’s Advanced Recycle Center.
OSBORN:
In an effort to reduce wastewater discharge as well as
loading of the wastewater treatment plant facility itself, we
preferentially use stripped sour water as the wash water for
the desalters. We have also begun using boiler blowdown as
make-up water to our cooling towers as long as cooling
tower capacity is available. Vigilant monitoring of the
cooling tower water for solids and conductivity have shown
us not to have any problems. Care should be taken to assure
that the chemical treatment of the boilers and the cooling
tower are compatible. Our raw water supply comes from the
river, During periods of severe draught, we have gone to
total recycle, bringing our treated effluent back to our raw
water cold pond. This does require increased chemical
usage and monitoring, but has been done for periods up to 6
weeks. We estimate that we could recycle 35 to 40 percent
on an ongoing basis, if necessary.
BONELLI:
In at least one of our locations the utility water and fire
water systems are comprised of filtered wastewater, plant
effluent water. This filtration takes the total suspended
solids down to about 10 milligrams per liter. The desalter
water is made up principally of the stripped sour water. The
rest of the applications for process wash water are typically
restricted to make-up water or other similar fresh water
streams.
SLOAN:
An additional benefit of using stripped sour water as
desalter make-up is that the phenol content of the stripped
sour water, a major source of waste phenol, can be sig-
nificantly reduced through absorption in the crude.
159
T. WILLIAMS:
The only thing to add to this is that if a segregated sewer
system exists where storm water could be segregated from
process water, the rain water or storm water could be used
for many more purposes than if the streams were
commingled.
ROY:
Other measures that have been successfully tested are
side stream softening to reduce or eliminate cooling tower
blowdown via direct recirculation and re-use of effluent as
coker cutting water make-up.
At our Pasadena plant, we use stripped sour water both
in the FCCU and as well as the desalter and have reduced
desalter brine water discharge significantly via a recir-
culation system.
QUESTION 27:
What experience have refiners had with reverse
osmosis or electrodialysis reversal (EDR) technology
for the treatment of make-up water to reduce water
treatment cost? What impact has this had on de-
mineralization plant operations downstream?
MURPHY:
The installation of reverse osmosis ahead of the existing
demineralizer can usually be cost justified if the raw water
conductivity exceeds 500 micromhos on a conventional
strong cation-strong anion demineralizer train. If a differ-
ent demineralizer configuration is used, such as including
a weak acid cation or a weak base anion, the cutoff for
economic justification will be slightly higher because there
will be less use of acid and caustic.
Normally, the cost justification for a reverse osmosis unit
is the reduction in caustic use, which is the most expensive
component of demineralizer operation. Installation of a
reverse osmosis unit will normally increase demineralizer
run lengths by a factor of 10 to 15 due to the 90 to 95 percent
reduction in dissolved solids going to the demineralizer.
EDR has not been used as much because it is currently
more expensive than reverse osmosis, uses more energy,
and does not remove silica, which tends to be a limit for
anion operation on a demineralizer.
SLOAN:
Reverse osmosis is a process for reducing total dissolved
solids in high TDS waters such as sea waters, and is com-
monly used by refiners who have no other source of water
for this purpose. Under these conditions, it is cost effective.
We know of only one refiner using EDR, and this is part
of a train which consists of a lime-soda softening clarifier,
filters, EDR, and demineralization. This is to produce 1250
psi boiler feed water from fresh water with a TDS of about
600 ppm and a sodium content of about 200 ppm. Benefits
claimed include decreased chemical usage for the de-
mineralization system and lower operating costs. The EDR
unit is a three stage unit which removes about 75% of the
TDS at about 84% efficiency.
QUESTION 28:
How do you control cyanide levels in wastewater
effluent and plant sludge?
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
MURPHY:
Cyanide is generated in refinery FCC and coking units as
the organic nitrogen content of the feed is converted to
ammonia and cyanide. These contaminants are carried
overhead in the distillation columns and the cyanide be-
comes a constituent of sour water. The free cyanide will
form many stable metal cyanide complexes with the soluble
metals in the wastewater. Typically, a large portion of the
free cyanide is stripped from the water in the sour water
stripper, where the hydrogen cyanide goes overhead and is
destroyed in the sulfur recovery unit.
Since the stripper is typically operated for maximum
sulfide removal, some of the free cyanide and all of the
complexed cyanide goes out via the bottoms. This stream
typically goes to the wastewater treatment plant, or a
portion goes to the desalter to wash the crude but then goes
to the treatment plant. Some oxidation of the cyanide
occurs as a result of aeration of the wastewater, while some
bacteria can be added to destroy some of the cyanide.
Cyanide levels in refinery wastewaters are typically
controlled via steam stripping in the sour water stripper,
aeration in holding ponds, biological oxidation in the
wastewater treatment plant, and to a lesser extent, via the
oxidation processes such as catalytic/hydrogen peroxide,
ozonolysis or chlorine dioxide.
Recently, more stringent discharge limits for both free
and metal-complexed cyanide are driving industry to
identify and install appropriate treatment technologies. In
160
many cases, the new discharge permit levels are an order of
magnitude lower than previous limits. The problem is that
typically, the cyanide-bearing streams are large volume,
150 to 300 gpm, but have low levels of cyanide. For exam-
ple, the bottoms from a sour stripper may contain between
0.5 to 1 ppm free cyanide and 0.5 to 4 ppm total cyanide.
LAABS:
The treatment equipment in the effluent plant at an
affiliated refinery includes a trickling filter and aerator/
clarifiers. These devices biodegrade cyanide in the waste-
water stream. Cyanide levels typically are lowered from
2000 ppb to 10 ppb.
RAYMOND A. STEPHENSON (LYONDELL-CITGO
Refining Co.):
We currently use a proprietary ammonium polysulfide in
our FCC wash water to control cyanides by converting
them to a noncorrosive thiocyanate. These thiocyanates
ultimately end up in our effluent water and minimize
cyanide release. Previously our cyanide test methods have
not been very reliable in finding out exactly what we have.
However, our laboratory developed a reliable and a veriti-
able cyanide determination procedure. This procedure will
be part of a NACE paper that is currently scheduled for
presentation at the Corrosion, 1994, in Baltimore, next
February.
QUESTION 29:
What process technology is presently used in the
treatment and disposal of highly basic foul water
containing high levels (>lO,OOO ppm) of phenols?
PAULES:
A well-operated wastewater plant can handle phenolic
streams as long as the levels are maintained relatively
constant up to a level of 60 to 80 ppm at the inlet, which in
turn can be reduced to less than 0.1 ppm at the outfall. If
phenolic streams are segregated and blended into the
wastewater plant inlet rateably, most refiners can handle
their produced quantities. The basic nature of these
streams does not present a problem since most biological
systems have a normal inlet pH of at least 9.0. If quantities
are excessive, this material can be injected into the crude
unit desalter where phenolic material will extract into the
crude oil and the basic portion will leave with the desalter
effluent water. This has been accomplished at one of our
refineries without any adverse effects on the desalter oper-
ation. The pH can be adjusted with acid at the wastewater
inlet if necessary.
SLOAN:
Waste phenolic caustics are generally either sent off-site
for product recovery or, if the quantity is not excessive, bled
at a controlled rate into the end of pipe wastewater treat-
ment plant. Phenolic recovery by means of solvent
extraction or destruction by means of wet air oxidation are
available proven treatment techniques, but their costs gen-
erally preclude wide application.
BONELLI:
Although our highest phenolic level streams are some-
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
what under the 10,000 ppm level, we do dispose of ours as
well in the wastewater treatment plant. We have found it
necessary at times to add some nonrepresentative biologi-
cal populations that you can purchase commercially that
are specific for phenol oxidations.
MURPHY:
We have also had a lot of experience or seen treatment of
wastewater containing up to 10,000 ppm phenol, and have
had no problem generally in getting rid of those by biologi-
cal degradation in the normal waste treatment system.
As was previously mentioned, highly phenolic waste-
waters have been used as desalter makeup. The primary
concern in these instances is with high pHs in the wash
water, which can cause problems with rag layer stabiliza-
tion in the desalter. The desalter problems can be quite
severe in these cases and the use of water containing
phenols should be approached cautiously following
thorough bench testing.
O’BRIEN:
Most of our highly basic high phenol foul water is shipped
off and used by a company as one of their raw materials.
They have set a maximum of 1% organic acids on that
material. If the amount of high strength water is small, our
new wastewater treater can handle it. The new system can
handle up to 200 ppm of phenols, as long as it is gradually
added to the system and the biosystem is allowed to accli-
mate to it. This is 200 ppm in the approximate 3,000 gpm of
total flow.
P. M. STEPHEN (Chevron Canada Limited):
With injecting a high concentration phenolic water col-
lected from gasoline tanks into desalters, the limitation
that we have found is pH. This is not only for the rag layer,
but if the pH gets too high, then the H2S tends to be carried
out in the bottom with the water, which gives you even more
of a problem. In terms of the concentrations, a 20,000 ppm
phenol water to the desalters comes out at almost zero ppm.
QUESTION 30:
Relative to your normal operation, what changes
in concentration of chloride, H2S and NH3 do you try
to avoid to prevent “shocking” a downstream bio-
logical treatment unit?
OSBORN:
Farmland has never had a chloride excursion high
enough to cause any problem in our wastewater facility.
Our problems have been with H2S and ammonia and they
normally occur at the same time as a result of unstripped
sour water entering the system. Ammonia reducing bac-
teria are easy to lose if the shock results in the system pH
going below 6.5 or above 9.5 or if the H2S is high enough to
deplete the dissolved oxygen level in the biotreatment
basin. In the absence of either of these conditions, ‘most
systems could probably be hit with ammonia levels two to
three times their normal level for several hours without
damaging the biosludge. Although you may exceed your
permit levels, the biological activity can survive.
161
BONELLI:
We believe from the results of our operation that chloride
levels very seldom, in wastewater treatment plants, ap-
proach toxic level to the microbes. We believe 10,000 ppm or
so of chlorides is still not toxic to the microbial population.
Our experience indicates that certainly H2S levels less than
50 ppm are tolerable to the waste treatment facility. I do not
believe we have ever seen levels near that.
With ammonia, our basic operating rule for our plants is
that if the ammonia influent is above 20 ppm, we advise the
operators to avoid allowing the ammonia to double. If it
goes to 40 ppm, we bypass to our storage tank until we can
get it under control. Another way that you can overload the
system with ammonia is to have an amine spill. If you are
running monoethanol amine or whatever, you can cleave
the molecule and produce ammonia in your plant.
MURPHY:
A basic rule of thumb is to never change anything in a
secondary treatment unit over 10% in any one given day
without anticipating problems. The exact amount of
change, therefore, will depend on the “normal” level of
exposure the bacteria have to each of these chemistries.
NH3-Nitrogen is required by the carbon degrading bac-
teria for production of amino acids. It is then stabilized by
autotrophic bacteria or nitriflers as an energy source.
Normally, most refineries appear to run with an average
intluent ammonia level somewhere in the 15 to 30 ppm
range with additional loading caused by the breakdown of
amine chemistries in the wastewater treatment aeration
basin, usually another 10 to 30 ppm. Shock load problems
with nitrifiers, (additional loading of say up to another 50
ppm) include insufficient dissolved oxygen, insufficient M-
alkalinity, or insufficient orthophosphate for ATP the en-
ergy transfer mechanism for the bacteria. Actually, a shock
load of highly soluble carbon chemistry is more likely to
have a negative impact on nitrification than a shock load of
NH3-Nitrogen would have. This is because the nitrifiers
can not work in high BOD waters.
Chloride shock loads can cause problems with settling of
the biological floc due to density differences and its effect on
the electrical particle charge. Beyond that, chlorides are
not particularly toxic as such. Please note however that
chloride values over 2000 mg/l may cause interference with
COD tests.
Sulfides are found in water in one of two forms depending
on the pH, as either a hydrosulfide or as hydrogen sulfide,
the more toxic form. At a pH of 9 or above, 99% of the H2S is
in the hydrosulfide form. At pH of 7, the two forms are
evenly split, and at a pH of <5 the hydrogen sulfide domi-
nates, up to 99%. The main problem with sulfides, and/or
sulfites, is that they are extremely reactive oxygen scav-
engers which will deplete the dissolved oxygen in the
aeration basin. This is a very common problem at re-
fineries, although it is often not recognized when it hits.
This problem can be easily identified by the wastewater
treatment plant operators by use of an instantaneous oxy-
gen demand test using a dissolved oxygen meter, BOD
bottle and probe to do a simple oxygen uptake rate on the
untreated influent wastewater without bacteria added. The
usual solution when the problem occurs is to pretreat the
influent wastewater with hydrogen peroxide to satisfy the
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
COD demand at a 1:l ratio H2O2 to H2S at pH of 7.0,
4.25:l.O ratio H2O2 to H2S at a pH of say 8.5.
Actually, the H2S is not all that toxic to the bacteria
(beyond the oxygen depletion capacity), but it is highly
corrosive (to concrete and iron), flammable, and of course
toxic to humans and fish.
PAULES:
Chloride is not a parameter which is normally controlled
or regulated. We observe an average chloride concentration
of 700 ppm and spikes up to 1600 ppm in our wastewater
plant inlet with no effect on biological performance. H2S or
sulfides are not normally present at the wastewater plant
inlet due to the ease of H2S stripping in sour water strip-
pers. If any soluble sulfides make it to the inlet of the
wastewater unit, much of it will be removed by oxidation in
the DAF unit. If some still make it to the biological system,
it is readily oxidized before any damage can occur.
Ammonia is much more problematic as it does not strip
as readily in sour water strippers and the biological system
is much less tolerant to spikes. Inlet levels up to 80 ppm can
be successfully treated to levels below 0.1 ppm. Inlet levels
of 80 to 100 ppm usually cause ammonia breakthrough to
the outfall, but biological activity will not be affected. Inlet
levels above 100 ppm will have toxic effects on the biological
system causing slow recovery after the source has been
brought back under control.
T. WILLIAMS:
We agree with the statements of Mr. Murphy. We do
however, recommend strongly that the H2S be kept under
50 ppm. It is not much of an operational problem for the
bugs, if they are acclimated to it, but it is a safety concern to
the operators. We agree that smooth operations are the key.
As long as these constituents are fed at a smooth steady
rate, the bugs are very adaptable. We recommend, however
from our experience, that when a 10 to 20 ppm increase in
any of these compounds is encountered, the source be im-
mediately located. Small increases tend to snowball and
cause toxic effects.
MARY RICHARDSON (Conoco Inc.):
For nitrification/denitrification, municipalities have re-
ported success treating ammonia to less than 1 ppm by
providing alternating aerobic and anaerobic periods in the
aeration tank of an activated sludge unit. Are any refiners
using this technique to treat ammonia?
BONELLI:
The only comment I have to that is if we have significant
anaerobic periods in our wastewater treatment system, we
have seen the filamentous micro-organisms get out of con-
trol, causing us difficulty in the final clarifier. In addition, if
you want to alternate aerobic and anaerobic systems, you
need some facultative organisms that can preferentially
survive the aerobic periods. Sometimes with the phenol
concentrations, that is difficult in a refinery waste treat-
ment system. There are other toxic compounds that inhibit
those facultative organisms much more than the obligatory
aerobes.
QUESTION 31:
Are there any reliable instruments which can be
162
fitted to water drains on storage tanks to permit the
flow of water from the tanks, but close the drain
valves on the appearance of oil or emulsion?
SLOAN:
Kellogg has performed several studies for clients regard-
ing means of controlling water draws on storage tanks.
Tank interface detection can be used to limit the amount of
organics drawn and thereby reduce VOC emissions. A
variety of automatic interface detection devices are avail-
able. Analytical systems include capacitance, turbidity,
conductivity, viscosity, energy, and densitometer. Mechan-
ical systems include displacer and water drain valve.
The reliability of these instruments is strongly tied to
the nature of the material and the operating conditions.
Reliability is generally best with clean services, such as
gasoline, rather than crude oil. Another concern with
automatic interface detection instruments relates to sys-
tems where very little water can be tolerated and the entire
emulsion layer must be drained. The trip point is typically
adjustable between 5 and 15% oil in water. If drier hydro-
carbons are required, then these instruments may not be
appropriate.
PAULES:
We have installed several AGAR water-in-oil monitors in
conjunction with pumps, control valves, and other instru-
mentation to create an automatic tank draw system. These
instruments measure the percent water in hydrocarbon
based on the absorption of microwave energy and are effec-
tive regardless of hydrocarbon viscosity or temperature.
We have been very happy with these systems.
ROY:
Our Pasadena plant recently started using an AGAR
interface detector for water draws on two of our gasoline
storage tanks. We have had good success with them. This
has significantly reduced the amount of hydrocarbon exit-
ing the tank through the water draw.
OSBORN:
I am aware of a system designed primarily for floating
roof drain systems called the HMT Check Mate Hydro-
carbon Sensing Valve. It has been designed to detect the
presence of hydrocarbon liquids in a drain system and to
automatically and positively shut off the flow. It has a
spring-loaded sensing canister that loses its compressive
strength allowing the mechanical action of a check valve to
occur. The mechanical actuator is reset by replacing the
hydrocarbon sensing element.
This application has also been applied to drain valves on
water draws in some facilities. However, this usually re-
quires some excavation below the surface due to the height
of the valve and requires replacing the sensing element
each time after it actuates due to the presence of hydro-
carbons. We have not used this system as of this time and
require continuous personal monitoring of water draws.
JULIE VALENTINE (Micro Motion, Inc.):
The Micro Motion Coriolis meter can be used to detect the
presence of oil in water draining from a storage tank by
monitoring the density of the fluid in the drain. The ac-
curacy of the meter can be as high as ± .0005 g/cc, which
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
would mean the meter could easily detect less than 1%
hydrocarbon in the water. The meter would, therefore, be
able to detect the oil/water emulsion present at the inter-
face, and send a signal to the drain valve to close.
If there is concern about the fluid remaining in the pipe
after the valve is shut, the refiner has the option of pump-
ing this fluid back to the storage tank before the next drain.
Also, the same sensor is used to monitor flow and density, so
an additional output from the meter could be the mass or
volume of water drained from the storage tank, which can
be totalized.
JO AGAR (Agar Corporation):
Our equipment can also be used, of course, outside the
tank in drain pipe. However, this is most unsatisfactory
because by the time the instrument detects the oil, the
whole pipe is full of oil. So if you shut the valve, how do you
start operation again, especially if you have an elbow inside
the tank drain which is pointing downwards? Once oil is
trapped there, it does not get out unless you wash it. The
only way to do proper dewatering is to put the instrument
inside the tank and prevent any oil coming out.
QUESTION 32:
Biodesulfurization converts organically bound sul-
fur to a sulfate. Can refiners release sodium sulfate
(or other sulfate) in their water discharge? What are
the limitations?
PAULES:
Presently we have no permit restrictions on the release of
sodium sulfate or any other sulfates from our refineries.
Sulfates have no effect on the biological performance of a
wastewater plant when present in reasonable quantities. A
current refinery with a sulfuric acid alkylation unit will
likely have up to 1,000 ppm sulfates in its effluent water.
SLOAN:
Biodesulfurization converts organically bound sulfur in
oil or intermediates, with biological enzymes, to sulfates
and produces a wastewater containing sodium sulfate. So-
dium sulfate is toxic to fresh water organisms used in the
biotoxicity test at concentrations above about 2000 ppm.
The actual concentration will depend on what other ions
and compounds are in the water.
Sodium sulfate must be present at very high levels to be
toxic to the salt water organisms used in the biotoxicity
test, above about 7.5 gm/L. Thus, if a refinery discharges its
wastewater to a fresh water stream or river and wishes to
employ biodesulfurization, it would be prudent to check the
impact of the added sodium sulfate on the wastewater and
the biotoxicity test. If the refinery is discharging its waste-
water to a salt water receptor, then it is highly probable
that the added sodium sulfate will have no impact on the
biotoxicity test.
MURPHY:
Our experience has been that most sulfate comes out
with the solids, with soluble discharge in the final effluent
well below the typical National Pollution Discharge Elim-
ination System limit of 2.0 pounds per day.
163
Sulfates are degraded in the receiving stream at a pH of 7
to 9, by sulfate reducing bacteria to H2S. At a pH of 3 to 4,
these bacteria can convert H2S to H2S04. These reactions
can also occur with simple aeration.
Solid & Chemical Waste
QUESTION 33:
How have refineries improved their tank cleaning
operations and what methods are used to evaluate
effectiveness?
MURPHY:
With restrictions on hazardous waste classifications, re-
fineries have looked to waste minimization and resource
recovery opportunities in new methods of cleaning crude
tanks. We have used an improved chemical cleaning
method which recovers 98 to 100% of the hydrocarbon in
the sludge on nearly 100 tanks in North America and
Europe. The cleaning is done in situ and, therefore, can be
accomplished more quickly and with less handling and
safety risks than traditional mechanical cleaning pro-
grams. The recovered hydrocarbon value is high due to
trace contents of BS&W.
The effectiveness of tank cleaning methods is typically
measured by the amount of hazardous waste generated
versus the original sludge volume, benzene levels in the
tank atmosphere after cleaning, cleanliness of metal sur-
faces, days of unplanned or unscheduled downtime, clean-
ing program safety and exposure risks, and cleaning costs
verses the value of recovered hydrocarbon.
BONELLI:
From a refinery operating standpoint, tank cleaning is
an extremely unpopular activity because it does not get you
anything new. It just gives you something that people
presumed you had all along which was an operating storage
tank. Let me divide this into five sections.
(1) We have successfully used centrifuging technology to
reduce and reclassify the wastes that we removed from
storage tanks. We have especially been successful in diffi-
cult areas such as FCC slurry storage tanks where we have
tines and slurry oil in the bottom of the tank. We have also
cleaned slops storage tanks that way in our waste treat-
ment plant slops oil recovery unit.
(2) We have learned that using abrasive hydroblasting to
prepare the floor for inspection is a great deal better than
some of the other ways that we used to do it. We have wired
brushed those and done some chemical cleaning. This turns
out to generate less waste than some of the other methods
we have applied.
(3) Just from an operating standpoint, we have learned
that if you provide the proper tank ventilation equipment,
you can generate less down time and, therefore, less oppor-
tunity for waste to get out of hand while it is being handled
and cause you a problem you did not know you were going
to have.
(4) We have also learned to remove foam seals from the
tanks during the initial cleaning operation rather, than
getting the tank cleaned and then having the bag rupture
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
or having this material get loose in the tank and cause us to
reclean. We have replaced most of our foam seals with
shoe-type seals and they also last longer.
(5) We have had some success in using the remote ex-
ploring hydraulic motor-driven tools to get into the tank, so
that we do not have to put people into the tank in fresh air or
other washing techniques.
BRIERLEY:
We take tanks off-line to clean them to facilitate tank
inspections. Therefore, we measure our efficiency solely by
the time out of service and the cost. We have reduced the
cost and time required for cleaning by using a dedicated
tank cleaning crew, and by cutting large holes in the side of
the tank to give scoop trams and man baskets access to the
tank interior. Time saved in scaffolding and cleanup time is
significant.
LAWRENCE KREMER (ChemLink):
Some of our customers have found that they can effec-
tively reduce the rates of tank bottom sludge accumulation
and even remove existing sludge by chemically treating the
crude oil coming into the tanks. These refiners were pre-
treating off-loaded crude oil with emulsion breaking sur-
factants in order to improve crude unit desalter operation.
One refiner documented a reduction in tank sludge level
from 1-3 feet to 3-6 inches in two crude storage tanks after
only seven months of chemical treating. This refiner re-
gained use of its storage tank bottom drains, and increased
its usable crude oil storage capacity. Longer-term experi-
ence with these pretreatment programs indicates that stor-
age tanks can be used for many years without experiencing
significant sludge accumulations, even when processing
crude types that previously caused storage tank sludge
buildup.
BONELLI:
Just one comment I would like to make to that is there
are some regulatory issues surrounding how often tanks
must be inspected. You do not have the luxury of time in
every case before you can get into the tank and look.
QUESTION 34:
What methods are used for treating API separator
and tank bottom sludge?
PAULES:
The objective in treating API separator and tank bottom
sludges is generally volume reduction to reduce waste
disposal costs. Typically, these sludges when collected di-
rectly off the refinery contain 3 to 5% solids. Most refiners
today process this material through a filter to a level of 20 to
25% solids.
Many refiners have invested in thermal dryers which can
further concentrate the solids content of the filter cake to
80%. Newer technology can dry this material with molten
salt to a solids content of 90%. At this level of volatile
material reduction, it may be possible to obtain a delisting
of this waste from Class I hazardous to Class II non-
hazardous. If this delisting can be achieved, a savings of
95% over original disposal costs may be possible.
164
PEDERSEN:
In Kalundborg, we have used land farming to destruct
oily sludges with great success for many years. The prin-
ciples, control requirements, and the results are well de-
scribed in the literature, and many questions related to
land or sludge farming have been raised before in Question
& Answer Sessions.
In Norway during the last two years, we have been
working together with a Norwegian inventor to develop
what is now called the TermTech Process. This is a thermal,
mechanical process in which the sludge is heated from 570
to 750 °F in a reactor with a rotor, densely fitted with steel
blades. In the presence of steam, the hydrocarbons are
separated from inorganic materials in complex, combined
hydration and cracking reactions.
The evaporated hydrocarbons are condensed in a down-
stream cooler. The hydrocarbon content of the remaining
dry inorganic matter is less than 500 ppm. The process has
up to now only been demonstrated in a pilot plant, but the
work to scale up to a commercial size unit is now in prog-
ress. The cost of processing 1 ton of sludge is expected to be
between $300 and $400, including capital costs.
BONELLI:
The methods that we have used successfully to date, have
been to centrifuge tank bottom sludges to dehydrate them. I
would echo Mr. Paules’ observations on the thermal drying
and its effectiveness. The method of choice turns out to be a
question of economics and which particular tank appli-
cation is being used. To date, we have not invested in
thermal drying. There are several people that will bring
the portable application to your plant and do it as a
contractor.
LAABS:
Several Star and affiliated sites are using their coker
unit for disposal of API separator and tank bottom sludges.
The material is usually treated with demulsification
chemicals to reduce volume. In one instance, it is water
washed to lower the salt content. Two sites have installed
sludge removal systems in their API separators to take full
advantage of this method.
Oil, waxy sludges from crude tanks can be run to the
Vacuum Pipe Still with the rest of the crude for reprocess-
ing, but only after the liquid has been filtered. Filter cakes
and other solids are landfilled when possible. At some
locations, solids and sludges that cannot be processed in a
coker are sent as fuel to permitted cement kilns. Difficult
materials can also be treated with thermal desorption
processes. One of our refineries currently has a contractor
on-site for this treatment, while another is considering the
installation of a thermal screw unit of its own. Finally,
some hazardous sludges are sent off-site for incineration.
MURPHY:
Much of what I have is similar to what has already been
mentioned. However, I will add when you use chemical
emulsion breakers to separate the oil, water and solids in
the sludge, it is very important that the selection process is
based on the characterization of the sludge. The proper
selection of chemicals is very critical to the success of the
program.
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
OSBORN:
We use the Mobil Oil Sludge Coking (MOSC) process to
treat API separator sludge. Basically, it involves injection
of the sludge into a delayed coker as a quench medium to
cool hot coke prior to decoking. Water in the sludge is
returned to the coker unit for reuse as cutting and quench
water. Hydrocarbons are recycled back to the process units.
Heavy hydrocarbons are coked and/or dispersed with the
solids within the pores of the coke. The sludge is introduced
during the first stage of water quenching of the coke after
the coke has been steamed to remove light hydrocarbons. In
our case, the sludge is blended with water quench. We have
not experienced significant degradation of our anode grade
coke.
STANLEY CARP (The UNO-VEN Company):
When you are MOSCing your sludges, particularly from
the tanks, do you do any additional monitoring at the top
head for the operators, or do you just assume that all
hydrocarbons will be taken out in the overhead?
OSBORN:
In our process, there has been a lot of toxicity studies
done of both the water effluent during the decoking process
and then the overhead system, with a lot of support by
Mobil. Everything is okay with the EPA and with the
toxicity limits.
QUESTION 35:
Can ammonia recovered from the sour water
stripper be used as fuel?
BRIERLEY:
We incinerate the ammonia from the sour water strip-
pers in our CO boilers to produce steam. The heating value
is similar to natural gas, and the ammonia’s contribution to
our overall NOx emissions is insignificant.
MURPHY:
One other example, the Chevron Waste Water Treater
Process, recovers ammonia as saleable fertilizer. Also, as
was previously stated, sour water stripper overhead gas has
been incinerated, with some fuel value, in CO boilers and
sulfur recovery units.
DAVID C. PARNELL (TPA, Inc.):
What appears to be asked in this question is, do refiners
use the stripped ammonia as a fuel? One of the difficulties
with using ammonia as a fuel, although one of the panelists
indicated they do not have a problem with it, is the produc-
tion of NO2. Nitrogen dioxide frequently produces a brown,
unsightly plume emitting from the stack. So one should be
very careful in using ammonia as a fuel, particularly if the
effluent gases from the combustion will be sent directly to
the atmosphere.
The panelists mentioned feeding the ammonia to the
sulfur plant and/or CO boiler, both of which are viable
mechanisms to use the ammonia as a fuel. But to use
ammonia directly as a fuel in a fired heater or feeding it
directly to the incinerator generally results in NO2 produc-
tion, which can be an environmental problem not to be
overlooked.
165
Another serious problem created when the typical (con-
taining H2S and NH3) sour water stripper overhead gas is
burned as a fuel is the production of SO2. This is a toxic gas
and can also be very corrosive if liquid water is present in
the system downstream of the combustion. The potential to
produce NO2 and SO2 from sour water stripper overhead
gas streams are two major reasons why this stream is
usually fed to the sulfur recovery unit, where its fuel value
is realized by production of steam. In the sulfur plant, the
NO2 is not a problem, and the SO2 is used to produce
elemental sulfur via the Claus reaction.
QUESTION 36:
How are refiners disposing of spent caustic?
BONELLI:
At most of our locations, the spent caustic is injected into
the wastewater treatment plant for pH control to the extent
that is practical. Generally, cresylic caustics are sold and
there is a disposal cost incurred for off-site disposal of
sulfidic caustics that cannot be used for pH control in other
applications.
MURPHY:
Although the use of caustic can be a cost effective means
of controlling overhead chloride levels, injection of spent
caustic into the crude charge is an option which we do not
recommend due to the broad range of contaminants which
can be present and which can affect corrosion and fouling
rates. For the control of corrosion, we would recommend a
cleaner source of caustic.
PAULES:
We categorize all spent caustic streams as nonphenolic,
or phenolic if greater than 500 ppm. Phenolic spent caustic
and other streams are segregated to a separate tank and
drained rateably to the inlet of the wastewater plant. If the
quantity becomes too great to process entirely through the
wastewater plant, the remainder is injected into the crude
unit charge upstream of the desalter.
Nonphenolic spent caustics are gathered and drained
rateably to the wastewater plant inlet to control the pH. If
the inlet pH exceeds 10.0, in the effort to consume all spent
caustic, sulfuric acid is injected to control the pH.
ROY:
We have a Merichem FCC gasoline treater. The cresylic
caustic is recovered and sold back to Merichem. The other
caustic streams are used to neutralize acidic water streams,
which then go to the waste treating plant. We are investi-
gating the possibility of selling one of our sulfidic caustic
streams to a nearby paper plant.
SLOAN:
Refinery processes generate two types of spent caustic
wastes, sulfidic and phenolic spent caustic solutions. The
two sources of spent caustic solutions should be segregated
to facilitate treatment and disposal.
Spent caustic rich in sulfides and containing no phenols,
can be subsequently treated through oxidation with air
using low pressure or high pressure wet air oxidation
processes. Oxidized effluent from this treatment step nor-
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
mally is subjected to biological treatment for the oxidation
of residual organics.
Spent caustic rich in phenols must be neutralized with
acid to release and remove the phenols. Either mineral
acids (Hz, J04, HCL, etc.) or flue gases containing CO2 and
SO2 could be used to neutralize phenolic spent caustics. The
neutralized effluent (commonly called sprung) will contain
two layers. The lower aqueous layer will contain the so-
dium slat of neutralized acid (Na2, SO4, NaCL, Na2CO3,
etc.) and is called sprung water. The upper oily layer will
contain the phenolic compounds and is referred to as “acid
oil”, “cresylic acid”, “sprung acid”, or simply “phenols”. The
aqueous effluent from the neutralization step is normally
treated through the refinery bio-unit for the destruction of
residual phenols, while the organic phenols are usually
recovered as byproduct.
PEDERSEN:
In Scandinavia for many years, we have been able to
dispose our nonphenolic spent caustic through the paper
mills. However, environmental concerns regarding emis-
sions and odor from the mills have gradually reduced that
option. This leaves us with two alternative routes:
neutralization and treatment in the wastewater
treatment plants, or
wet oxidation.
For phenolic caustics, you can use one of these alterna-
tives. In addition, companies like Merichem have facilities
to treat the caustic and reclaim phenols, mercaptans, and
other compounds.
In Europe, Merichem operates a sort of milk-route col-
lecting spent caustic from different facilities for treatment
here in the States.
COREY DREYFUSS (Merichem Company):
Sodium cresylate and sodium naphthenate solutions
(often misconstrued as “spent caustics”) are co-products
and are not disposed, but are used directly as feedstocks in
Merichem’s chemical plants in Houston, Texas and Tusca-
loosa, Alabama. Sodium cresylate results from the caustic
washing of cracked gasolines and cracked distillates. So-
dium naphthenate results from the caustic washing of
kerosenes, jet fuels, and diesels produced from a naph-
thenic crude slate. Merichem can handle large quantities of
either type of the above caustics; thus these caustics can be
shipped in tank trucks, tank cars, barges or parcel tankers.
Both plants produce chemicals that are marketed world-
wide to chemical companies that employ our products to
make yet other industrial chemical products.
Sulfidic caustics are also co-products and are used di-
rectly as a substitute for other commercial chemicals by the
paper industry as an ingredient in the pulping process.
Alternatively, Merichem can design an effluent oxidation
and/or neutralization system to handle the sulfidic caustic
on-site.
The latest confirmation of the co-product status of so-
dium cresylate and sulfidic caustics was the NESHAPS
Benzene Waste Regulations where these products are out-
side of NESHAPS as long as they are sent to Merichem. We
ask for the refiners’ assistance in confirming the co-product
status of the three types of caustics sent to Merichem when
filling out the RCRA 3007 survey.
166
QUESTION 37:
What steps are refineries taking to reduce caustic
consumption?
BONELLI:
Basically, when caustic prices were predicted to rise
dramatically several years ago and availability was going
to be constrained, most refineries embarked on some sort of
caustic use minimization program. One such common
technique still in use is the pH control in the waste treat-
ment plants and other things you have heard discussed
here. There are also new processes on the market that are
being investigated by our site. That is UOP’s caustic free
MEROX and other similar advances.
PEDERSEN:
The first step we would look for is replacing caustic wash
with amine scrubbing, for example in LPG treating. Sec-
ondly, we would try to redesign our systems to allow the
caustic to be used more than once in a stepwise or cascading
approach, utilizing the fact that in one process you can use
a more concentrated solution than in another process. UOP,
for example, has guidelines for this approach.
SLOAN:
Upgrading older nonregenerable treating processes to
new processes are offered by UOP and Merichem.
MICHAEL SABERS (Star Enterprise):
We are currently disposing of our spent caustic by send-
ing it through our Chevron sour water stripper, where it is
cleaned up and sent out with stripped sour water. We are
investigating a new process that will use CO2 to strip spent
caustic. As opposed to flue gas, the CO2 will come as a pure
stream from the hydrogen plant.
QUESTION 38:
What alternatives to waste disposal have you tried
for recovered FCCU catalyst/fines? Have the
methods been successful and was there any eco-
nomic pay back?
LAABS:
The only alternative to landfilling that we have used is
sending the fines to commercial cement manufacturers.
While this form of recycling saves disposal space, it has
consistently proven to be more expensive than landfilling,
due to brokerage fees and transportation costs. We have
heard of other options, including silicon extraction for use
in semiconductors and other products, but these alterna-
tives have not yet been proven to be economical.
PEDERSEN:
Until recently, we had no other solution than to store
spent RCC-catalyst on-site as landfill, but we are not al-
lowed to continue this practice. Various alternatives, like
blending the catalyst into road asphalts or concrete have
been tested, but we found the best solution, environmental
and economical, is to utilize the catalyst as a raw material
in the fabrication of white Portland cement, partly replac-
ing lime. Vanadium content in the spent catalyst, in our
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
case, is about 3,500 ppm, and nickel 2,700 ppm. We have to
pay transportation costs, and as such, there is no return or
payback, just an additional operating cost.
J. WILLIAMS:
The alternative to waste disposal is sale of catalyst as
equilibrium catalyst and fines in cement manufacturing.
The largest economic benefit is not the proceeds of the sale,
but the lack of long term liability as with a landfill. ECAT
sales are easier in winter than summer and those with
marginal ECAT should consider storage until winter. Ce-
ment manufacturers buy for alumina content. Consistent
and known alumina content is essential. We at Akzo main-
tain a list of purchasers for equilibrium use and cement
users.
T. WILLIAMS:
We use spent catalyst from one of our low severity FCCUs
as an equilibrium catalyst for a higher severity unit. The
higher severity unit spent catalyst in turn is sent to cement
manufacturers. On the second phase of this, there is no
economic payout.
STEPHEN K. PAVEL (Coastal Catalyst Technology,
Inc.):
The environmentally preferred alternatives to waste
incineration or disposal are source reduction and recycling.
The DEMET® process removes and recovers metal con-
taminants from spent FCCU catalyst. The on-site DEMET
unit at Wichita, Kansas, demonstrated the ability to proc-
ess spent FCCU catalyst on-site and return demetallized
spent FCCU catalyst to the FCCU regenerator. Although
off-site processing involves transportation, recycling is pre-
ferred to waste disposal or incineration. The Coastal Re-
fining and Marketing, Inc., Westville, New Jersey refinery
has used the off-site DEMET unit in Meraux, Louisiana, to
demetallize and recycle over 7,500 tons of spent FCCU
catalyst (to date), thus reducing solid waste for disposal in
landfills or cement kilns commensurately. As the de-
metallized spent FCCU catalyst is used for the same pur-
pose, catalysis, it is true recycling.
Equilibrium catalyst sales are another form of true re-
cycling as it is used for FCCU catalysis. As noted by a
previous respondent, the liabilities of metal contaminants
are apparently passed to the buyer of the material. These
transactions are not trouble free, as catalyst can contain
many contaminants which are not listed on equilibrium
catalyst sheets. The API reported 193,000 tons of spent
FCCU catalyst were generated in 1988; equilibrium cata-
lyst. sales do very little to reduce the quantity of spent
FCCU catalyst going to waste disposal or incineration in
cement kilns.
The long term liabilities associated with disposal in
landfills or dilution in cement could be termed unknown.
Previous NPRA Q&A transcripts contain some discussion
on these issues. It is clear that material which fails a RCRA
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) would
not be considered suitable for land disposal without prior
treatment. Cement kilns receive many waste products with
metal contaminants for use as fuels or substitution for
traditional raw materials. Just as dilution of wastewater
167
metals is not considered an acceptable procedure to be
below universal treatment standards, 1000 to 1 or 100 to 1
dilution of spent FCCU catalyst in nonhazardous matrix to
pass a TCLP on the total does not appear to be favored
under recently proposed RCRA rules. In this case, the
solution to reduce metals in refinery waste streams is not
dilution.
The DEMET unit is a pyrometallurgical/hydro-
metallurgical process. The Meraux, Louisiana, DEMET
unit produces demetallized catalyst whose TCLP leachate
metals do not exceed the universal treatment standards as
proposed in the Federal Register, September 14, 1993.
Following DEMET treatment of spent FCCU catalyst,
whose leachate exceeds the proposed universal treatment
standards, it appears that the refiner would have the option
for disposal or recycling as a replacement for fresh catalyst.
Although DEMET can be utilized to pre-treat spent FCCU
catalyst prior to disposal, recycling demetallized spent
FCCU catalyst has more economic and environmental ad-
vantages. Environmentally, recycling on-site is preferred
to off-site, and operating costs of an on-site DEMET are
lower than an equivalently-sized off-site unit.
Demetallized spent FCCU catalyst from an off-site
DEMET has reduced the requirements for fresh catalyst
additions and reduced generation of catalyst fines from the
attrition of fresh catalyst asperities. For the 7,500 tons
recycled, approximately 2,000 tons of fines were not gener-
ated. DEMET processing has removed contaminants
known to be detrimental to conversion, product selec-
tivities, and mechanical performance of the FCCU. With
DEMET capacity sized to reduce metals levels on cir-
culating catalyst, yields would be further improved due to
lower metals on circulating catalyst. The 7,500 tons of
DEMET processing experience, to-date and continuing,
shows there are substantial benefits provided by solid
waste reduction through demetallizing and recycling spent
FCCU catalyst rather than landfill disposal or cement kiln
incineration of base fresh catalyst and deposited con-
taminant metals.
KATHRYN HARBISON (Marathon Oil Company):
When you sell the fines to cement manufacturers, what
kind of process do you have to go through to dry the fines
from a wet scrubber system?
LAABS:
In our case, they are not coming from a wet system, so
they are already dry.
PEDERSEN:
In our case, the problem is that the catalyst and the fines
are too dry. The cement manufacturer wants the cement to
be a little wet due to dust. So actually we wet it before
shipment.
BONELLI:
I might add that in our case, we have sold fines that we
have mined out of the slurry storage tank which are, to
some extent, still oil wet. They are reasonably tolerant of
those things. I think they have a little bit of individual
give-and-take.
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Miscellaneous
QUESTION 39:
What proactive steps are refiners taking in their
communities to help build good will and calm fears
about plant safety and environmental emissions?
BONELLI:
The proactive steps that refiners are taking probably are
as varied as there are numbers of refiners in communities.
In Marathon’s locations, it is a common practice, an en-
couraged practice, to include the local emergency services,
disaster agencies, and local emergency planning com-
mittees in the planning and execution of regular emer-
gency drills. I think also, they generally participate as
observers in our emergency control centers or emergency
operation centers during the drills.
In addition, in at least one location, we have purchased,
installed and commissioned a community alerting, emer-
gency response system that we have later given to the city
for them to operate and use as, not just warnings for
refinery emergencies, but also for weather and other un-
usual events.
In addition, I think all of us should take all the open
house opportunities we can to get the community into the
plant and see what really goes on inside the facility. Any-
time we get a chance to be sales people for our business, I
think we all should take advantage of it.
BRIERLEY:
Syncrude makes every effort to maintain open com-
munication with the surrounding communities with re-
spect to both safety and environmental issues. We were a
founding member of the Regional Air Quality Coordi-
nating Committee, which is a forum where industry,
government, and public representatives can exchange in-
formation on air quality issues in the region. Interested
environmental groups in the immediate area are supplied
with operating and emission information they request on a
regular basis. We have also hosted an “Open House” and
participated in environmental trade fairs in order to meet
with the public and discuss environmental issues.
JUNO:
We have addressed the new expectations of the com-
munity in a variety of ways. We recognized we needed a
more responsive and proactive response to community in-
quiries and concerns. Whether this is a request by a local
group for a tour of the plant, or a neighbor’s inquiry as to
why the flare is high, we realize that a courteous, timely,
and positive response is the first step to breaking down the
barriers of distrust and concern.
We have trained and encouraged local plant manage-
ment to respond appropriately to news media, since this is
another key step. Community perception is often derived
through the media. Joint drills and planning sessions with
local emergency response personnel also pay dividends in
our community relations. At the neighborhood level, a
refinery open house, employee involvement, and adopt a
school program have led to better communications and
understanding of the refiners commitment to safety, the
168
environment, and understanding of the neighborhood’s
needs.
As we began to view ourselves as residents of the neigh-
borhood, we also saw the need to clean up our plants by
eliminating unsightly scrap, laydown areas, and demolish-
ing shutdown units that no longer warranted maintenance
dollars. The community does not know if this equipment is
running or not so the impression of the integrity of the
entire refinery can be drawn from an obsolete process unit
or tank.
We have also invested in green belt and landscaping to
form sound and sight barriers between the refinery and the
neighbors. These investments have paid off in community
goodwill by showing and not just talking a concern for the
environment and the neighborhood. They are very visible
investments by the refinery back into the neighborhood
where it is located. We have received positive recognition by
neighbors, community leaders, regulatory agencies, and
environmentalists for these efforts.
OSBORN:
In addition to the comments by Mr. Juno and Mr. Bonelli,
we also installed two alert sirens in the community several
years ago for toxic release notification. We actually pro-
duced a video tape named “Safety First” which is shown at
area grade schools and civic groups to explain our warning
sirens and plant safety. We also held our monthly plant
safety meeting last fall in front of the entire junior high
student body. We have underwritten educational advance-
ment of the employees through skills training at the local
vocational school and junior college and hospitals. We now
have 15 certified EMTs within our workforce. In summary,
we attempt to go to the community to educate and explain.
We believe our employees’ integrity and reputations in that
community enhance local trust that we can operate our
facility safely complying with environmental best man-
agement practices.
PEDERSEN:
At our Mongstad refinery, which is located in a sparsely
populated area, but close to a parish, we have formed a
coordinating committee where representatives from our
neighbors meet with refinery management four to five
times per year. In these meetings, the members are in-
formed of various matters of general interest, in particular
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
environmental issues, and most important, they are given
the opportunity to raise any question and get the answers
immediately and directly from the management. Further,
we have established an open, outgoing telephone line con-
nected to a tape recorder on which we inform on upsets, why
the flare is high, why the noise, etc.
In addition, we issue a small publication four to five times
per year giving information and background on topics
relevant to the community. This publication is mailed to all
households in the neighborhood.
Finally, we try to be proactive and open towards local
media and keep them informed on activities on a con-
tinuous basis.
ROY:
We work with all local industrial organizations to keep
the local citizens’ council, news media, schools and Cham-
ber of Commerce aware of all our activities with regards to
safety and environmental emissions of our plants. We
inform the general public of any emergency through the
local CAER communication system. We conduct seminars
and plant tours for the above groups as well as our employ-
ees. Our industrial association, East Harris County Manu-
facturers Assoc., comprised of sixteen local plants, are
funding the installation of an emergency siren system
covering the major highways passing through the indus-
trial and residential area of Pasadena, Texas.
J. WILLIAMS:
Akzo participates in many local organizations to promote
good relations between industry and the citizens of the
area. For instance, Akzo Pasadena is a member of the
Laporte Emergency Planning Commission. Akzo Pasadena
participates in the Planned Risk Reduction and Emergency
Situation Response subcommittees. Examples of the work
done by this organization are: sirens for early warning for
the Laporte community, shelter in place plan, and organi-
zation for hurricane planning and preparedness.
Akzo also participates in the Laporte Plant Manager’s
Network. Included in this organizations’ roles are Respon-
sible CARE workshops and the Citizen’s Advisory
Councils.
Akzo Pasadena is an active member of the Chamber of
Commerce. The company is on the transportation sub-
committee and is involved in reviewing the hazards associ-
ated with the new bridge.
Other organizations with which Akzo Chemicals Inc.
Pasadena is involved include the Texas Safety Association
and the Texas Chemical Council.
Akzo is committed to and participates in the drug aware-
ness campaign and recycling program.
T. WILLIAMS:
Our facilities have plans very similar to those already
mentioned. At one location, however, we have the oppor-
tunity to be in a very small rural community. We have
installed an automated, computerized Quickcall system
with 18 dedicated lines. If we have an in-plant emergency
we can call every citizen in town propagating from the
refinery outward in a matter of less than 45 minutes, with
actual instruction whether to shelter in place or to evacu-
ate. This gives the citizens a little bit more information of
what is going on. This is in addition to a siren system. The
169
key to this is, we always keep an ongoing communication
with the public. We do periodic testing to let the public
know that we are keeping the system updated.
BRUCE SCOTT (Bruce Scott, Inc.):
If you do not think you have enough incentive already to
do this, I was just looking at the EPA report on HF alkyla-
tion safety which came out a few days ago. They make a
comment in the conclusions, “contact with a limited num-
ber of facilities indicates that few facilities have attempted
to communicate risk to surrounding residents.” Then in the
recommendations they use words like “should actively con-
duct outreach efforts” and “take protective measures”
etcetera. So they are still checking on us.
MICHAEL SABERS (Star Enterprise):
The promotion of local science education is a very re-
warding way to increase community awareness. Organized
programs such as the Chemicals, Health, Environment and
Me Project being used at our Port Arthur plant and in-
volvement in the Science Alliance at our Delaware plant
provide resources to local science teachers at all grade
levels. While monetary support is valuable, often a refinery
can best help local schools by making engineers available
to them as information resources, special helpers, and role
models. This sort of aid cannot be bought, and is very
satisfying for the employees who volunteer their services.
BRIERLEY:
I agree with that last comment. Syncrude actually sup-
ports a couple of programs, one I think is called the Minerva
Program where female engineers go into the high schools
trying to encourage female students to enter engineering,
telling them what the role of the engineer is in the industry,
Secondly, we support science and math awards for various
teachers in the community and actually go into the schools
and set up a tutoring program for those students who need
it. I think you are right, it pays a lot of dividends in the long
run.
LAABS:
I think it would be interesting to know if this question
was asked 10 years ago, what the response would have been
as compared to now. My answer to this question was rather
lengthy. I think everyone that runs a plant would have a
lengthy answer. Some of us did not respond because of time
limitations, but I think that is just the mark of our society,
or the way we have to work today. We have to be always
cognizant of the people around us, and we have to begin
educating them early. It is not good enough just to tell them
not to worry anymore, that a gas is harmless, or that is only
steam coming out of the stack. We just cannot do that
anymore. I think as evidenced by this panel, every single
one of us running a plant had a lengthy answer to this
question, and I think that is probably true of the entire oil
industry at this time.
C. Energy Conservation .
QUESTION 40:
What experience is there with plugging and cor-
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
rosion in air preheaters or furnaces? How are they
being treated?
BONELLI:
Chloride present in the refinery fuel gas in our operation
caused corrosive atmospheres in the furnaces. One method
to reduce corrosion in the furnace preheaters, burners,
process tube exteriors, and the hangers in the fires boxes is
to eliminate the chloride in the hydrogen from the re-
forming units. We intend to install solid bed activated
alumina scrubbers.
A significant problem, for us is corrosion that occurs in
the stacks, preheater elements, and duct work assemblies,
especially in our largest duty heaters. Usually, it is a
condensation of sulfur compounds in the flue gas. We have
tried various coatings in the refractory appliances and have
not been successful in achieving a full run length without
some corrosive attack. We have considered operating the
furnace inefficiently to keep the stack temperature high
enough to prevent condensation, but that obviously is an
uneconomical thing to do.
LAABS:
All of our refineries have had some sort of pluggage
problems in one or more of their combustion air preheaters.
Fouling and corrosion is typically controlled by main-
taining an outlet flue gas temperature above a certain
target. The target varies from site to site, anywhere from
275 °F to 350 ºF.
The air preheater on the atmospheric furnace at one of
our refineries uses finned cast iron tubes and pyrex tubes
near the flue gas outlet. Recently, the tube sheets for the
glass tubes were changed to titanium to avoid corrosion
problems. Sour waste gas is burned in the heater, and they
have had bowling-ball-sized chunks of corrosion products
falling off the cast iron tubes and breaking large numbers
of glass tubes. Careful monitoring of the flue gas outlet
temperature and metallurgy changes have successfully
minimized this problem.
Another site has not had plugging problems with their
regenerative preheaters. They have seen fouling in their
recuperative preheaters when they have had tube failures.
They monitor the outlet flue gas temperature to avoid
fouling problems and, for existing fouling, they recommend
putting the heater into natural draft, blinding the pre-
heater, and washing the flue gas side with hot water. They
have also installed a light in the bottom of one preheater to
allow visual inspection for plugging. Our third refinery has
experienced preheater fouling due to corrosion products in
both their regenerative and their recuperative air pre-
heaters. They burn sour waste gas as one of their fuels.
They also depend on maintaining the outlet flue gas tem-
perature to avoid plugging.
OSBORN:
Farmland has a variety of air preheaters in its furnaces
and boilers. We have used a Ljungstrom regenerative pre-
heater with a rotating heat wheel, the DEKA gas ex-
changer containing glass tubes, and more recently the
OCAP unit supplied by North Atlantic Technologies, which
is a plate type exchanger.
We have had minimal fouling in recent years while
operating with a cleaner fuel gas. Before that, we did have
170
some fouling problems because of sulfur in the fuel gas. The
preheaters are usually equipped with a water or steam
washing devise. We prefer steam cleaning since it does not
make deposits as wet and as corrosive.
The key to good results is to do the washing on a regular
basis instead ofwaiting until there is an excessive pressure
drop or heat loss. Once again, stack temperatures are
important to be maintained above dew point levels.
PEDERSEN:
We have air preheaters, both rotary and static, on fur-
naces which primarily are gas fired and have not experi-
enced severe plugging problems. We control corrosion by
preheating the air upstream of the air preheater to 175 to
180 °F by other heat sources than flue gas, for example hot
oil, steam condensate, or hot water.
QUESTION 41:
Has anyone specified electric motors using fre-
quency converters in recent designs? For what kind
of service? Which is the most-used type of converter,
analog or digital? In which power range are they
utilized? What has been the operating and reliability
experience?
BRIERLEY:
Syncrude uses a large number of VFDs in services like
truck unloading pumps, coke slurry pumps, reactor ebulat-
ing pumps and sand tailings pumps. Most of the VFDs are
used on 600 volt drives in the range of 25 to 600 hp. We have
six 4,160 volt VFDs controlling 4,950 HP pumps. Most of
the 600 volt VFDs use digital converters, but the 4,160 volt
drives are completely analog control.
The reliability of the smaller VFDs has been excellent.
Our technicians are somewhat uncomfortable with them
because they do not get enough hands-on experience. We
have had some problems with the high-powered drives that
have resulted from our own efforts to minimize their impact
on the overall power system, i.e., the installation of trans-
formers and harmonic filters.
JUNO:
On a recent design of a 300 HP variable speed motor, we
had reliability problems, especially during electrical
storms. There was a small panel installed which essen-
tially enabled the motor to restart itself on a power blip.
This has provided more reliable service during inclement
weather.
O’BRIEN:
The Sweeny Complex has recently installed this type of
motor on ID fans for ethylene-cracking furnaces, waste-
water charge pumps, and some air-fin exchangers. The
installations on the cracking heaters were for energy con-
servation, while the other installations were for specific
process reasons. All of the motors use a digital converter,
specifically pulse wave modulated. All of the motors are in
the 20 to 100 hp range. In general, the reliability has been
good for the major components.
There have been problems switching the speed control
from the local manual controller to a remote controller,
such as a TDC system. Some of our motor controllers, as
TOC/INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
purchased, required the motor to be shut down before the
swap could be made. This was not attractive from the
process point of view particularly on the cracking furnaces.
There have also been problems with voltage spikes and dips
causing the motor to trip. This again, was a problem on the
cracking furnaces. Ride-through protection was installed
to alleviate this problem.
RAJGURU:
Yes. Fluor Daniel has specified electric motors using
frequency converters to modulate the rpm, for several
years, in air fin-fan, motors, pumps, compressors, agita-
tors, etc. Most of the converters use current source, rather
than a voltage source, since it has a wider range, and to our
knowledge the digital is the preferred converter over an
analog converter. Fluor Daniel has specified these con-
verters from 5 to 5000 hp in process plants. Reliability has
been excellent and it matches the normal turnaround
period of a typical refinery process unit.
SLOAN:
This technology is proven in a wide range of power and
speeds that encompassed most of the applications expected
in a refinery, and up to 10,000 hp is not uncommon.
Reliability is high, provided that the system is properly
engineered for the application and such items as torque
pulsations inherent in VFD systems are analyzed to be
certain that resonances are avoided and fatigue limits are
not exceeded.
Payout on such systems can be short when the driven
machine is required to operate at turndown for a significant
part of the life cycle. In evaluating VFD systems, the
economics are very site-specific and depend on the avail-
ability of power for starting large loads and the cost of the
power. The VFDs tend to be relatively efficient when com-
pared to steam turbines, especially when turn down condi-
tions are involved.
QUESTION 42:
What have refineries/petrochemical plants been
doing in the area of lighting efficiencies?
171
JUNO:
,The EPA’s division of Global Change has initiated a
voluntary program named Green Lights to encourage
businesses to increase their lighting efficiency and save
money at the same time. Green Lights members have
reportedly reduced their lighting costs as much as 60 to
70%. The more typical numbers are in the 30 to 50% range.
The program covers both office and warehouse type light-
ing as well as outdoor unit lighting. Office lighting up-
grades typically consist of switching to high efficiency
fluorescent light, replacing magnetic ballast with elec-
tronic ballast, replacing light sensors with occupancy sen-
sors, and optimizing the lighting level through the use of
task lighting. Outdoor lighting upgrades may be beneficial
where older incandescent or mercury vapor lamps could be
replaced with metal halide, high pressure sodium, or low
pressure sodium lighting.
BONELLI:
In addition to those comments which I believe are boiler
plate, in retrofitting our process units under the Green
Lights program which Marathon also participates in, we
have chosen the metal Halide lighting. We have tried some
high pressure sodium lighting, and people working mid-
night shifts find that aggressively unsatisfactory as a
working environment over a long term.
BRIERLEY:
The main area of improvement at Syncrude has been
through use of high pressure sodium discharge lighting in
place of the old mercury vapor. These lights produce 150%
more illumination per watt. All new process units built
since the mid 80’s have been equipped with high pressure
sodium lights and we have started replacing the existing
mercury vapor fixtures as they fail.
There was some initial resistance to the sodium lights
from our operating crew because the orange colored light
can easily be mistaken for a fire when surrounded by either
steam leaks or ice fog that you can get in northern climates.
At one point, they had all the high pressure sodium light-
ing taken back out because of the operators’ concerns.
TOC/INDEX

MEMORANDUM
Carlos A. Cabrera UOP
L. Wayne Chambers W. Chambers Refining Technology Inc.
Thomas E Daniels ARCO Products Company
Robert E. Davis R. E. Davis Chemical Corporation
Francis N. Dawson, Jr. California Synfuels Research Corp.
Edward Demmel INTERCAT Inc.
Edward C. Ellis Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
The comments contained in the transcript for the 1993 B. W. Feltrop Petrolite Corporation
NPRA Question and Answer Session on Refining and A. Bruce Gilliam Betz Process Chemicals, Inc.
Petrochemical Technology, which was held October 13-15, Tony S. Go Amoco Oil Company
in Dallas, Texas, have been edited by the panelists and Martin P Grosboll Lyondell Petrochemical Company
Dan Hartley D. H. Associates
conferees who commented during the Session. William E. Heck Energy BioSystems Corporation
The Question and Answer Session on Refining and Charles E LeRoy Champlin Refining and Chemicals Co.
Petrochemical Technology is under the cognizance of the L. E. Lew Phillips Petroleum Company
Glenn C. Liolios STRATCO. INC.
NPRA Manufacturing Committee listed as follows: Stephen Long Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Charles S. McCoy McCoy Consultants, Inc.
NPRA MANUFACTURING COMMITTEE Christina McDowell
William D. Meyer
Pacific Refining Cdmpany
Amoco Oil Company
J. A. Ross. Charrman Phillips 66 Company John E. Miller Tosco Refining Company
Jeff K Utley, Vice Chairman Flying J Incorporated David R. Morris Chevron Research and Technology Co.
Richard A. Arthur Clark Oil & Refining Corporation Brian M. Moyse Haldor Topsoe
Allen M. Burns Ethyl Corporation Kenneth A. Peccatiello Grace Davison
Alan J. Cabodi U. S. Oil & Refining Co Roger O. Pelham Profimatics, Inc.
Lawrence G. Diehl MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. J. B. Roddey Roddey Engineering Services
Howard Digel Witco Corporation Robert M. Smith UOP (retired)
Robert H. Douglass Farmland Industries, Inc. Charles W. Stanger Akzo Catalysts
Fred D. Foster CITGO Petroleum Corporation Gary A. Stephens IFP Enterprises Texas, Inc.
R. J. Frazier Union Texas Petrochemrcals Russell C. Strong Nalco Chemical Company
Paul D. Fritz Pennzoil Products Company Arthur J. Suchanek Criterion Catalyst Company L.P.
James A. Gesick Murphy Oil USA, Inc. A. Witoshkin Engelhard Corporation - S.C. Div.
W. E. Haynes Lyondell-CITGO Refining Company Ltd.
Ronnie D. Jackson Lion Oil Company
R. E. Kerns Diamond Shamrock, Inc. Attendance at the 1993 Q&A Session totaled 1,303 con-
Gerald L. Kohlenberger Mobil Oil Corporation ferees representing the petroleum refining and petro-
Virgil R. Langford Navajo Refintng Company chemical industries, supply and service organizations,
Ronald W. Lewis Phibro Energy USA, Inc.
J. J. Lipinski Coastal Refining & Marketing Inc.
government and members of the press who came from 37
John D. Mackey Ultramar Inc. states and the District of Columbia. Two hundred and
Arun Mandlekar Unocal Corporation eleven conferees came from the following 25 countries:
Carl E. Marhaver Koch Refining Company
James H. McCoy Total Petroleum, Inc.
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France, Ger-
Charles B. Miller Ashland Petroleum Company many, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Mex-
David R. Morris Chevron Research and Technology Co. ico, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Saudi Ara-
Jean E. Neuberger Hunt Refining Company bia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad, United Kingdom,
Ronald Pletcher CENEX
Donald R. Unruh Conoco Inc. and Venezuela.
David L. Uzzell Tosco Refining Company The 14 member panel was joined by 155 conferees in
J. E. Warn Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation commenting on the 246 questions during the 2½ day ex-
Maurice H. McBride National Petroleum Refiners Association
Terrence S. Higgins National Petroleum Refiners Association change of technical information on modern petroleum re-
fining and petrochemical technology. The following table is
Each year the Manufacturing Committee selects the comparison of the attendance for the past five years:
panelists and appoints a Screening Committee to select the
New Phila-
questions submitted by individuals and companies regard- Orleans delphla Denver Anaheim Dallas
less of membership in the Association. The Screening 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Committee consolidates questions, eliminates duplicates 164
No. of Member Companies 187 219 220 185
and arranges the questions in the correct category and No. of Member Locations 328 347 387 465 481
sequence so that the maximum number of questions can be
considered in the 2½ days of sessions. This year, from some Members Conferees 1168 1125 1226 1245 1191
679 questions submitted, 246 questions were selected by Others 124 152 163 127 112
the following Screening Committee Members: TOTAL 1292 1277 1389 1372 1303

SCREENING COMMITTEE No. of Conferees Commenting 183 165 206 172 169
Peter G. Andrews Conoco Inc. (retired)
R. C. Barlow Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. Terrence S. Higgins
David B. Bartholic BAR-CO Processes Joint Venture Technical Director

172
TOC/INDEX
PANEL BIOGRAPHIES
RICHARD BONELLI — Tech-
nical Services Manager of Mara-
thon Oil Company’s refinery at
Robinson, Illinois. He has held
positions at Marathon as Re-
fining Operations Manager in
Findlay, Ohio; Products Control
Manager in Garyville, Louisiana;
Operations Supervisor, Super-
visor of Operations Systems,
and Process Engineer in Robinson, Illinois. He received a B.S.
degree in Chemical Engineering from Rose Polytechnic Insti-
tute and is a member of ASTM Committee D-2, Fuels and
Lubricants, and of SAE.
173
GARY R. BRIERLEY — Staff
Process Engineer at Syncrude
Canada Limited in Fort Mc-
Murray, Alberta, Canada. He is
responsible for future product
quality initiatives and various
expansion studies. Prior to his
present position, he spent nine
years in various operations
roles, all dealing with hydrogen
manufacture and hydrotreating and two years in the Technical
Service Group. He earned a B.S. degree in Chemical Engi-
neering from the University of Toronto.
EDWARD F. JUNO —— Engineer-
ing Advisor at Pennzoil Products
Company in Houston, Texas.
Since joining Pennzoil Products
in 1988, he has coordinated the
process design functions on
numerous projects, including
crude/vacuum, catalytic re-
forming, catalytic dewaxing/
desulfurization, and lube oil
hydrocracking/hydrotreating units. Prior to his current posi-
tion, he was part owner of Juno, Grimm & Associates per-
forming process consulting services for the refining industry,
Senior Process Engineer and manager of Technical Services
at Champlin Petroleum Company, and process engineer on
the corporate engineering staff at Conoco Inc. in Ponca City,
Oklahoma He received his B.S. degree in Chemical Engineer-
ing from Kansas State University.
TOC/INDEX
PATRICK M. LAABS — Re-
finery Manager of Star Enter-
prise’s Delaware City, Delaware
refinery. Prior to his current as-
signment, he was Manager-
Fuels at Port Arthur, Texas,
responsible for the operation
and maintenance of the fuels
processing units in this refinery
complex. He has held positions
as Superintendent of Operations at the Louisiana refinery and
Manager of Technical Services at the Port Arthur refinery. He
also worked in ARAMCO’s Master Gas Program in oper-
ations, maintenance, and engineering at the Ras Tanura
refinery, and for Amerada Hess Corporation, .Tesoro Petro-
leum and ARC0 Products Company. He is a chemical engi-
neering graduate of Texas A&l University.
CHRISTOPHER J. MURPHY —-
Technical Director of the RPC
Chemicals Research Group,
Petroleum Division, of Nalco
Chemical Company of Sugar
Land, Texas. He directs re-
search in process chemicals
product development and appli-
cation. He has held positions as
Research Group Leader in this
group and in a Product Development Group where he de-
veloped polymers for use in water treatment application. He
joined Nalco as a Senior Chemist in Corporate Research in
Naperville, Illinois after a postdoctoral position at the Univer-
sity of Texas in Austin. He received a B.S. degree in Chemistry
from Boston College and a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from
Tufts University.
174
SHARON O’BRIEN — Process
Engineering Supervisor, Re-
finery Area, for Phillips 66 Com-
pany in Sweeny, Texas. She is
responsible for the crude units,
atmospheric residual HDS, dis-
tillate HDS, catalytic cracking
units, MTBE, HF alkylation, sul-
fur plant, and hydrogen puri-
fication plant. She has worked in
the economics and planning group in crude selection and
refinery planning and optimization. She began her career as a
process engineer and has been assigned to several process
units and has worked as an operations engineer on the FCC,
HOC, ARDS and hydrogen purification units. She received
her B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Purdue Uni-
versity through a cooperative engineering program.
KEITH D. OSBORN — Super-
intendent, Technical Service for
Farmland Industries, Inc. in Cof-
feyville, Kansas. He is responsi-
ble for the entire technical service
function, including process en-
gineers, economics and plan-
ning engineers and laboratory.
He has held a variety of posi-
tions at Farmland’s Corporate
Headquarters including Manager, Refined Fuels Admin-
istration; Coordinator, Manufacturing, Engineering and Eco-
nomic Analysis; Coordinator, Petroleum Engineering and
Economic Analysis, and Manager, Operations Planning. Be-
fore this, he was Process/Project Engineer at the Coffeyville
and Phillipsburg refineries with responsibilities in process
design, unit startups, and process troubleshooting. He holds a
B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Missouri
at Rolla and a M.B.A. from Rockhurst College.
TOC/INDEX
JEFFREY W. PAULES — Man-
ager of Technical Services at
Phibro Energy U.S.A., in Texas
City, Texas. He is responsible for
operations and environmental
support along with process de-
sign. He has led the effort to
upgrade the Texas City Refinery
to produce MTBE and low sulfur
diesel fuel, as well as process
higher sulfur crude. Before joining Phibro as a project man-
ager, he had held various positions in engineering, operations,
and planning at Fina Oil and Chemical Company, as project
manager at Southwestern Oil & Chemical Company and as
project engineer at Independent Refining Corporation. He
received his B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Lamar
University.
JORGEN PEDERSEN — Vice
President, Technical Director of
Statoil at Mongstad Refinery in
Mongstad, Norway. He is re-
sponsible for technical services,
project developments, supply
and production planning, engi-
neering and laboratory oper-
ations. He has held positions as
Marketing Operations Manager,
Operations Manager and Maintenance Manager in Statoil in
Denmark. He started his career as a process engineer at the
Kalundborg Refinery in Denmark and worked with the Exxon
Research and Engineering Company in Florham Park, New
Jersey, in planning and process design for the Kalundborg
Visbreaker Project. He holds a MS. degree in Chemical
Engineering from the Technical University in Copenhagen,
Denmark.
175
ANIL RAJGURU — Senior Di-
rector, Process Engineering of
Fluor Daniel, Inc. in Sugar Land,
Texas. He has been responsible
for directing process studies,
process design and engineer-
ing, startup and coordination of
petroleum and petrochemical
projects which have included
five major U.S. refinery expan-
sions and several other refinery modernizations/additions. He
has worked with various engineering and construction com-
panies in India and in Britain in various capacities on refinery
units, ammonia and petrochemical plants. He received his
BTech degree in Chemical Engineering from Indian Institute of
Technology in Bombay, India, and a M.B.A. degree from Sam
Houston State University. He is a registered Professional
Engineer in Texas.
KAJAL ROY — Refinery Man-
ager of Crown Central Petro-
leum’s Pasadena Refinery,
Houston, Texas. He joined
Crown Central Petroleum as a
Process Engineer and has held
positions as Senior Process En-
gineer, Energy Coordinator, Op-
erations Superintendent, and
Manager of Operations. He co-
authored an AlChE and Chemical Engineering Progress
paper on a coker heater antifoulant study. He received his B.S.
degree in Chemical Engineering from Jadavpur University in
Calcutta, India and his MS. degree in Chemical Engineering
from University of Houston.
TOC/INDEX

H. DAVID SLOAN — Senior

Product Technology Consultant,
Refining for The M. W. Kellogg
Company in Houston, Texas. He
provides consulting and support
services to Kellogg’s efforts in
refining and fluid catalytic crack-
ing on a worldwide basis. He has
over 16 years of experience with
fluid catalytic cracking tech-
nology with Kellogg and 3 years as Manager, FCC Technical TERREL D. WILLIAMS —
Service (North America) with a major FCC catalyst vendor. He Manager, Refining Engineering
has a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Texas Tech for Kerr-McGee Refining Cor-
University and is a member of the American Institute of poration in Houston, Texas. He
Chemical Engineers and a past president of the Sam Houston is responsible for coordinating
Chapter of The Texas Society of Professional Engineers. He capital projects and conducting
has authored several papers on the application of bottom-of- technical evaluations of refining
the-barrel upgrading technology. operations. Prior to this position
he has held a variety of technical
service and managerial posi-
tions dealing with crude, vacuum, ROSE, FCC, alkylation,
hydrocracker, Reformer and blending units and environmental
JAMES WILLIAMS — Tech- waste facilities at the Wynnewood Oklahoma refinery. He was
nical Service Associate in the also a refinery process engineer at Conoco’s Ponca City,
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Cata- Oklahoma refinery. He received his B.S. degree in Chemical
lyst Group for Akzo Chemicals Engineering from Oklahoma State University.
Inc. in Houston, Texas. He has
held various positions in the
marketing group for FCC Cata-
lyst including Sales and Tech-
nical Service. Prior to joining
Akzo, he served as Refinery
Manager at Oklahoma Refining Company. He also held posi-
tions of Operations Manager, and Chief Process Engineer at
Oklahoma Refining Company and Process Engineer at Vick-
ers Petroleum in Ardmore, Oklahoma. He received a B.S.
degree in Chemical Engineering from Oklahoma University.

176
TOC/INDEX
PARTICIPATION INDEX
Ablin, David W., 132
Abrahams, Kenneth N., 13, 30
Agar, Jo, 10, 14, 32, 155, 163
Albert, Brian, 29
Al-Shamma, Nasser M.,25, 98
Andrews, Peter G., 51, 56, 71
Arnold, Victor E., 148
Arora, A. K., 9, 95
Bailes, Robert, 29
Barlow, R. C., 120
Bartholic, David B., 61
Bayer, Larry G., 153 . Herrmann, Claudio, 61
Beasley, Todd, 142
Bieber, Scott, 13, 24
Birnbaum, Rick, 145
Bonelli, Richard, 8, 9, 10, 19, 21, 24, 26,
27,29,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,
40,43,44,45,46,48,57,60,61,62,65,
70,74,75,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,
94, 95, 96, 100, 101, 102, 109, 110,
111,112,113,114,115,122,123,124,
125,126,127,129,131,132,133,135,
136,137,138,139,143,144,145,147,
151,153,155,156,157,158,159,160,
161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,
170,171
Bredehoft, Ronald, 88, 153
Bremner, Ian, 26
Brierley, Gary R., 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, 30,
31,35,37,39,41,43,45,46,47,50,51,
76,79,85,86,89,91,93,95,96,97,98,
99,100, 101, 103,105, 108, 109,110,
111,113,143,144,149,156,157,158,
164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171
Burns, David, 141
Cabrera, Carlos A., 63
Carp, Stanley, 11, 12, 80, 165
Carson, Joe P., 124
Cavanaugh,T. A.,89, 104
Chlapik, Ken, 86, 88, 89, 91
Citarella, Vicente A., 63, 66
Cummings, Arthur, 142
Daughtry, James L., 146
Dave, Dilip, 110
Davis, Robert E., 119
Dreyfuss, Corey, 166
Dougan, Timothy J., 53
Doran, Mark S., 95, 127, 133
Doss, L. Richard, 66, 69
Edelman, Allan M., 57, 152
Ellis, Edward G., 118
Ellis, Paul J., 79
Erdmann, Richard, 113
Everett, Gary, 137
Fahey, William, F, 25
Feinberg, Arnold S., 109
Flanders,RobertL.,51,54,55,60,68,70,
72
Fleming, Brad, 22, 23, 25
Forero, Patricia, 10, 12
Frederickson, Lewis A., 126
Furfaro, Angelo, 126, 133
George, Safa E., 114, 115
Gialella, Richard, 117, 118
Gill, Harry, 124, 144
Graf, Ken, 16, 22, 147
Handza,Thomas, 31
Hannenup, Peter, 109
Harbison, Kathryn, 167
Harrell, Jack, 14
Harris, Ralph, 123
Hartley, Dan, 36, 38
Heckel, Tim L., 96, 98, 112
Higgins, Terrence, 14, 20, 90, 103, 104,
118
Hlozek, Robert, 142
Hodge,VanessaA., 151
Holbrook, David, 9, 12
Holden, David, 37
Hooper, Charles, 89
Hraban, Thomas L., 78, 80, 83, 84
Huggins, John, 67
Hunkus, Stephen T., 14, 30, 49, 57, 64,
67,112,113,125
Johnson, Brian, 121,123, 125
Johnson, Tiffin, E., 66
Jones, Henry, 86, 89, 90
Juno, Edward F.,9,11,12, 14,15,16, 17,
19,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,32,36,
37,38,39,40,41,42,46,50,52,58,60,
62,66,71,79,85,87,89,90,91,93,94,
97, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 117,
119,121,127,129,132,134,135,136,
141,143,153,155,156,168,170,171
Keller, Alfred E., 146, 150
Kellett, Thomas F, 116, 117, 118, 122,
139,140
Kelly, Thomas W., 95, 126, 130, 135
Kelly, William A., 57, 72
Kennard, William, 147
Kenney,Thomas,147, 151
Kleemeier, Karl, 98, 100, 102
Kleinschrodt, Frank J.,27, 33,37,40,41,
42,82,105
Kliesch, H. C., 41
Kremer, Lawrence, 164
Krikorian, Krik V., 23, 28, 77
Laabs,PatrickM.,8,11,12,14,15,16,17,
23,243 27,28,32,33,34,35,40,43,44,
50,51,52,54,66,68,69,73,76,77,78,
79, 81, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96,
101,102,105,106,116,117,118,119,
121,128,129,130,133,137,139,140,
144,146,148,150,151,152,154,157,
160,164,166,167,169,170
Lacatena, Jerome J., 22, 75, 76, 79, 80,
81,83
Lathrop, Ron M., 49
Letzsch, Warren, 52, 55
Leuenberger, Ernest, 64, 67, 154
Linington, David, 49
Low, Gordon, 110
Malik, Tariq, 84, 156
177
Marquez, Luis E., 77
Mathur, Stephen S., 119
McCaffrey, David S., 120
McCoy, Charles S., 89, 91, 92, 97, 98,
102,106,107,111,114,127,129,130,
134,135
McLean, Joseph B.,53,59
Menon, Sudhir, 15, 77, 102
Miller, David J., 138, 139
Moore, Ebb, 15, 16
Morris, David R., 20
Morrison, M. Edward, 127
Morse, Robert W., 118
Moyse, Brian M., 111
Mukherjee, S. K., 15, 16, 28
Murcia, Alvaro A., 55, 60, 66
Murphy, Christopher J., 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14,17,18,20,24,25,26,28,30,31,36,
44,47,49,51,56,74,76,77,84,92,94,
96, 99, 100, 101, 107, 112, 120, 131,
141,143,144,153,157,159,160,161,
163,164,165
Nelson, Bradly, 10, 11
Nielsen, Anders, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91
Nielsen, James, 34
Novak, William J., 129
O'Brien, Sharon, 17, 31, 34, 37, 48, 50,
53,543 55,56,58,60,68,69,72,73,85,
87, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 109, 110,
122,123,124,125,127,129,149,152,
153,156,161, 170
Osborn, Keith D., 13, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28,
29,30,32,39,47,48,69,73,76,77,80,
81, 83, 94, 104, 110, 111, 123, 124,
125,126,129,130,135,136,149,153,
159,161,162,165,168,170
Parnell, David C., 107, 145, 157, 165
Patel, Nitin, 86, 89
Patel, Raj, 104
Paules,JeffreyW.,8,9,10,11,12,13,17,
21,23,25,29,31,38,46,47,48,51,56,
60,65,67,68,71,73,74,84,85,87,88,
90, 93, 94, 97, 99, 102, 104, 106, 107,
111,116,117,122,124,125,127,128,
130,133,134,135, 136,137,140,142,
144,146,148,149,150,151,152,155,
157,160,162,163,164,165
Pavel, Stephen K., 53, 167
Peccatiello, Kenneth A., 48
Pedersen, Jergen, 11, 12, 19,20,30,31,
32,34,36,37,39,43,47,49,68,73,76,
77, 81, 82, 83, 99, 103, 105, 107, 108,
~110,111,125,127,128,129,131,133,
147,153,156,158,164,166,167,168,
170
Pelham, Roger O., 41, 42
Proops, Kevin R., 60, 74
Rajguru, Anil, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 35,
44,51,52,70,74,78,79,85,87,88,90,
93,94,95,97,103,107,109,112,116,
118,119,120,130,132,134,135,137,
138,139,143,144,145,150,157,158,
TOC/INDEX

171 Sloan, H. David, 16, 17,27,40,45,49,50, Uthman, Muhammad T., 13

Reverdy, Francois, 132
Richardson, Mary, 162
Riley, Mark, 102, 108, 112
Roddey, J. B., 102, 126, 129, 133, 134
Rogers, James A., 146
Roy, Kajal, 8,10,19,21,26,29,31,35,43,
46,47,49,50,51,54,60,61,62,65,68,
69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 100,
101, 116, 121,122,124, 126, 131, 136,
138,143,144,149,150,151,155,159,
162, 165, 169
Sabers, Michael, 166, 169
Sadeghbeigi, Reza, 49
Santos, Jesse, 146
Sappington, James, 22
Scott, Bruce, 147, 169
Scruggs, Darrell, 85, 87, 88, 89
Shah, Pankaj F!, 138, 140
Shortt, Mark, 146
Silverman, Michael A., 59, 64
Singer, Roger M., 138
Singh, Himmat, 24, 68, 130
Slade, Cornell, 131
51,54,56,58,59,61,62,65,66,67,69,
72,73,75,76,78,79,82,83,84,86,87,
90,96,98,99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105,
106, 107, 112,113, 114,115, 118,120,
121, 131, 139,142, 145,147, 148,149,
151,154, 156,159, 160,162, 163,165,
166,171
Sloley, Andrew, 20, 70
Smit, Cees, 126
Smith, G. Andrew, 53, 57, 59
Smith, George, 153
Smith, Jonah, 154
Smith, Lawrence A., 121
Stephen, P M., 161
Stephenson, Raymond A., 133, 160
Suchanek, Arthur J., 95, 96, 97, 98, 101,
103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111
Taggert, George W., 149, 152
Tailer, Victor, 14, 20, 22, 26, 28
Tolen, Delbert F, 71, 73
Tran, Hieu, 77
Tucker, Terry, 46, 131
Turpin, Lee E., 33, 36, 92, 128
Vadekar, MO, 11, 25
Valentine, Julie, 16, 162
Vance, Paul W., 108, 117, 126, 134, 135
Wagner, David R., 121
Wear, Charles C., 55
Weber, Steve, 112
Williams, Dale, 125
Williams, James, 30, 35, 36, 45, 46, 48,
53,54,55,56,58,59,60,61,63,67,69,
71, 72, 74,98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106,
107, 108,109,110, 111,114, 128,130,
134, 156, 158, 167, 169
Williams, Russell, 31, 135
Williams, Terre1 D., 9, 12, 14, 16, 27, 30,
32,333 38,463 49,53,56,59,60,70,72,
74,86,89,90,92,95,96,99, 101, 113,
114, 117, 122, 123, 124, 130, 132, 134,
135,136,138,154,159,162,167,169
Wilson, Joseph W., 48, 49, 52, 55, 59, 71
Wimberly, Mark O., 151
Witoshkin, A., 55, 70, 71
Zafar, Humayon Z., 112
Zetlmeisl, Michael, 12, 21

178
TOC/INDEX
Index to Topics Discussed at
NPRA
Q&A Sessions on Technology
The next several pages comprise an
index of the transcripts of the 1992
NPRA question-and-answer sessions
on refining and petrochemical tech-
nology.
Availability. Readers who do not
have access to this volume may obtain
it by writing: Mr. Terrence S. Higgins,
Technical Director, NPRA, Suite 1000,
1899 L Street N.W., Washington, DC
20036. Price is $25.00 plus postage.
Using the Index. The index follows
a hierarchal format, which is broken
down into:
1. Subjects
2. Subheadings
3. Words
Two general guides should be kept
in mind by the searcher for making
the index easier to use:
l The index is oriented primarily
(but not entirely) toward specific re-
fining processes. Under each process
the entries tend to be clumped into
such areas as “charge stocks,” “equip-
ment” and “operation.”
a Equipment which is not uniquely
associated with a specific process is
entered by name under the major sub-
ject heading “equipment.” This major
subject heading also has some sub-
headings such as “maintenance” and
“standby.”
1992
Subjects. As noted, included in the
broad subject category are all major
processing activities, such as “crack-
ing” and “reforming.” With a question
involving hydrocracking, for example,
the searcher should skip the temp-
tation to go directly to the body of the
index and try to find “hydrocracking”
in alphabetical order. “Hydrocrack-
ing” is a subheading of “cracking,”
which governs the alphabetical loca-
tion of the material.
Four large all-purpose subjects are
“additives, ” “chemicals” (which can
cover feedstock materials, contami-
nants, or reagents, etc.), “analysis”
(testing and analytical methods), and
“instrumentation” (metering, moni-
toring, and control).
Subheadings. Only the broadest
subjects have subheadings. They are
given under their governing subject
headings on the next page and are
preceded there and in the body of the
index by a dash.
An example, “sulfur and mercap-
tans” is the subhead under the subject
“chemicals and chemical elements and
metals.”
Words. The words, which are the
highest degree of specificity before the
actual information entry, are listed
alphabetically under the subjects and/
179
or subheadings. For example, “riser”
is a word under the subheading “cat
cracking” which is under the subject
heading “cracking.”
When the index user is at the word
stage, it is advisable that several
“word” entries be scanned. For exam-
ple, when searching for information
concerning a riser, the words “cat”
(catalyst) and “charge stock” may also,
depending on the nature of the infor-
mation needed, deserve scrutiny. On
the other hand, the words “cat re-
generation” and “pollution control,”
also under the subheading “cat crack-
ing” can, with a high degree of con-
fidence, be ruled out as pointing to
appropriate information.
The information entry associated
with the words is, of course, the final
criterion for turning to the NPRA
book.
The Entry. The word and entry de-
scribe as briefly as possible the con-
tent of the information available.
Page. The right-hand column of the
index gives the page where the infor-
mation described in the entry can be
found.
Compilers. The index is the work of
Gerald L. Farrar & Associates, Inc.,
publisher of the annual Q&A volumes.
END
TOC/INDEX

SUBJECT HEADINGS FOR THE INDEX

Absorption & Adsorption Emergencies
Additives Employees
- Antifoam - See Also - Foaming Emulsions
Afterburning Energy Recovery & Conservation
Air Pollution Control - See Also - Environmental Control Environmental Control
Alkylation Equipment
- HF Alkylation - Failure
- Sulfuric Acid Alkylation - Maintenance
Analysis - Operation
Asphalt - Revamp
- Safety
Bio-Oxidation - Standby
Biological Treating - Testing
Blending Etherification
Extraction
Calculator Programs
Filters & Filtration
Catalysts - See Also - Specific Processes Fire
- Fines Flares & Flaring - See Also - Environmental Control
- Bimetallic Cat
Foaming - See Also - Additives, Antifoam
- Cobalt-Moly Cat Fouling & Deposits - See Also - Specific Processes
- Combustion Promoters - See Also - Coking (Fouling)
- Metals Fractionation - See Also - Distillation
- Mol Sieve of Zeolyte Cat
Freezing & Freeze Protection
- Nickel-Moly Cat
Fuels
- Passivators
- Platinum - See Also - Reforming Gas Plant
- Poisons & Poisoning Gases & Vapors - See Also - Environmental Control
Charge Stocks - See Also - Specific Processes Gasoline - See Also - Octane Improvement
Chemicals Government Agencies & Regulations
Coal
Coke (Coke Production) Hydraulic Fluids
- Delayed Coking Hydrocracking - See Also - Cracking - Hydrocracking
- Fluid Coking Hydrodesulfurization - See - Hydrotreating
Coking (Fouling) - See Also - Catalysts Hydrogen Production
Combustion Promoters - See Also - Catalysts Hydrotreating
Computer Control - See Also - Instrumentation
Corrosion & Equipment Problems Incineration
Cracking Inspection
- Cat Cracking (FCC) Instrumentation - See Also - Computer Control
- Hydrocracking Isomerization
- Thermal Cracking
Crude Oils Jet Fuel - See - Kerosine
- Syncrude
Crude Oil Processing Kerosine

Deasphalting Land Farming - See - Biological Treatment

Delayed Coking - See Also - Coke, Delayed Coking Lightning
Deposits - See - Fouling & Deposits Lube Extracts
Desulfurization - See - Hydrotreating Lube Oils (As Lubricants)
Dewaxing Lubricants (For Refinery Use)
Diesel Oils
Distillates Maintenance - See - Equipment - Maintenance
Distillation Materials
Drying Mathematical Models - See Also - Computer Control
Metals & Alloys
Economics - See - Refining Economics Mixing
Electricity Mol Sieves & Zeolytes (Not Catalysts)

180
TOC/INDEX

Naphtha - See Also - Gasoline Storage - See Also - Tankage

Noise Stripping
Sulfur
Octane Improvement - See Also - Gasoline Sweetening - See - Treating
Oils
Oil Spills Tankage
Olefins Tankers (Ships)
Terminals
Pilot Plant Training - See - Employees
Polymerization Treating
Purging Turnaround

Recovered Oil Utilities

Refining Economics
Refinery Operation Vacuum
Reformate - See - Reforming Vents & Venting
Reforming Vibration
Resids Visbreaking

Safety & Industrial Hygiene Washing

Scrubbing - See - Washing Waste Disposal
- See - Treating Incineration - See Also - Incineration Section
Separators - See - Equipment - Operation Land Farming - See - Waste Recovery & Reuse
Shutdown Waste Oils - See - Oils
Simulation - See - Mathematical Models Waste Recovery & Reuse
Solvents Waste Water - See - Environmental Control
Specifications Water Washing & Reuse - See - Washing Section
Stack Gases - See - Environmental Control Water Pollution Control - See Environmental Control
Startup Wax
Steam Welds & Welding

181
TOC/INDEX

INDEX
1993 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology

ALKYLATION COKE (COKE PRODUCTION)

–HF ALKYLATION -DELAYED COKING
ASO Disposal ASO blended with coker charge, slurry oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Additives Factors affecting selection of antifoulant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78-93
ASO Disposal ASO disposed of in an incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-93 Additives Rating of additives to prevent fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77-93
ASO disposal ASO neutralized and sent to refinery residual oil pool . . . . . . 124-93 Additives Use of additives to control furnace fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77-93
ASO disposal Most common US practice, fuel oil FCC feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Alonizing Advantages of alonizing tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70-93
ASO disposal Most environmentally accepted disposal of ASO . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Alonizing Maximum skin temperature, alonized tubes . . . . . . . . . . . 79-93
Feed Ability of the alkylation unit to handle isopentane . . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Block Valves Remote-operated block valves in delayed coking units 74-93
Feed Excessive acid consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Coke Drum Limitations on coke drum throughput ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . 82-93
Feed Excessive acid soluble oil production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Coke Drum Limitations on coke drum operating pressure . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Feed Fractionation to remove DME and methanol from unit . . . . . . 122-93 Coke Drums Operator safety concerns preclude reducing cycle times 75-93
Feed Operating factors with C5 alkylation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Coke Drums Reducing time spent in drum switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-93
Feed Oxygen contaminants with HF operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Fractionator Risks and pressure drop comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-93
Feed Pentadienes are worst contaminants for alkylation . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Fractionator Use of packing and spray nozzles in coker fractionator 75-93
Feed Removal of oxygenates going to the alkylation unit . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Process Advanced control systems applied to coking operations . 81-93
Feed Removal of oxygenates from alkylation unit feed stream . . . . 122-93 Process Discharging from drum directly to conveyor not good 78-93
Mechanical Actuators and associated equipment are fireproofed . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Process Drilling directly to crushers or conveyors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78-93
Mechanical Automatic isolation of HF systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Process Experience in water injection in furnace tubes . . . . . . . . . 79-93
Mechanical Emergency isolation valves, types and locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Process Feedstock analyses to predict delayed coke quality . . . . . 80-93
Mechanical Fireproof of valves, flanges, not practiced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Process Improvements to the coking quench procedure . . . . . . . . . 60-93
Mechanical Listings of HF-protected valves, systems in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Process Processing changes to improve coke quality . . . . . . . . . . . 80-93
Mechanical Teflon and teflon-lined valves in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Process Reducing iron in product coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81-93
Process Alumina tines can deposit on downstream coolers . . . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Process Reducing top head vapors during the unheading cycle . 60-93
Process Carryover in acid settler function of velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-93 Process Rules of thumb for delayed cokers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-93
Process Effect of oxygenates on organic fluoride production . . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Process Steam or water commonly injected into radiant coils . . . 79-93
Process Experience with acid recontactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Process Variables that affect coke quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81-93
Process Fluoride precipitation on downstream coolers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Product Quality Effect of low temperature on product quality . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Process Hydrocarbon Velocity in the settler is about 1.5 fpm . . . . . . . . 124-93 Product Quality Effect of low throughput ratio on product quality . . . . . . 82-93
Process Measuring fluoride concentrations accurately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Product Quality Preventing formation of shot coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83-93
Process Mechanism for iron fluoride corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Product Quality Slurry oil can help prevent shot coke formation . . . . . . . . 83-93
Process Operating defluorinators in series can cause corrosion . . . . . . . 123-93 Run Length Most operators do full steam/air decoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76-93
Process Product propane treated for trace HF removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Run Length Need to spall versus full decoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-93
Process Recontactors remove most of fluorides present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-93 Run Length On-line spalling recommended with three criteria . . . . . 77-93
Process Tpica1 fluoride concentrations in n-butane streams . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Run Length Typical run lengths between outages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-93
Process Velocity in settler related to separation zone width . . . . . . . . . . 123-93 Run Length Typical run lengths are 9 to 12 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76-93
Safety Alkylation additives to improve safety aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-93
Safety Catalyst modifications, additives to improve safety . . . . . . . . . . 125-93 COMPUTER CONTROL
Safety Texaco-UOP additive technology is being commercialized . . . . 125-93 Crude Oil Performance monitoring of crude units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-93
Solids Disposal Selling spent fluorinated alumina, potassium fluoride . . . . . . . 125-93 Operations Analysis of various clean fuel options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41-93
Time Tank Time tank eliminated during revamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-93 Operations Analyzing various clean fuel options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41-93
Operations Benefits to upgrading to multivariable advanced scheme 36-93
—SULFURIC ACID ALKYLATION Operations Both on-line and off-line SPC analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-93
Catalyst New solid alkylation catalyst under development . . . . . . . . . . . 121-93 Operations Control room operator at panel 50% of the time . . . . . . . . . 38-93
Catalyst Status of solid catalyst alkylation research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121-93 Operations Control room operator needs technical education . . . . . . . . 39-93
Feed Amylene alkylation, higher acid consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119-93 Operations Converting from closed proprietary systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-93
Feed Carryover of oxygenates to the alkylation unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Operations Data reconciliation package needed for model building . . 40-93
Feed Concentration factors in sulfuric acid alkylation . . . . . . . . . . . . 119-93 Operations Defining refinery control board operating position . . . . . . 38-93
Feed Contaminant levels in LPG feed to hydrogenation . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Operations Definitions of computer control terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-93
Feed Diolefins level is a function of FCCU operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 117-93 Onerations Distributed control systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-93
Feed Distribution of feed nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119-93 Operations Experience with integrated refinery scheduling . . . . . . . . 38-93
Feed Drawbacks to use of TAME raffinate as alkylation feed . . . . . . 116-93 Operations Experience with refinery scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-93
Feed Economics of amylene alkylation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Operations Incremental benefit for different process units . . . . . . . . . 36-93
Feed Effect of olefins removal on octanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117-93 Operations Key benefit areas 39-93
Feed Feed material responsible for higher acid consumption . . . . . . 118-93 Operations Local process control engineers handle maintenance .... 42-93
Feed Guard beds remove sulfur from the feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117-93 Operations Maintenance breakdown for advanced applications . . . . . . 41-93
Feed Impurities in alkylation feed very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118-93 Operations Maintenance of multivariable control applications . . . . . . 41-93
Feed Processing amylene/butylene feed mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118-93 Operations Middle distillate blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-93
Feed Roper design and operation of amylene unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Operations Model standardization for on-line and off-line . . . . . . . . . . . 41-93
Feed Reducing isoamylenes from the C5s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Onerations Monitoring advanced control applications after startup . 36-93
Feed Reducing volatile olefin content of gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Operations More sophisticated advance controls & computerization 38-93
Feed Reduction of 90% point by removing dienes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118-93 Operations Most beneficial process control schemes . . 39-93
Feed Selective hydrogenation reactor removes arsine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117-93 Operations New control technology purchased; consultants used . 42-93
Feed Sulfur-tolerant catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117-93 Operations On-line statistical process control. . . . . . . . 36-93
Feed TAME ratlinate as alkylation feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Operations Opening up of distributed control systems . . . . . . . . 37-93
Feed Total oxygenates level in feed, about 400 ppm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117-93 Operations Outside maintenance minimized for sophisticated systems 42-93
Feed mica1 contaminant levels in LPG from FCCUs . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-93 Operations Reducing investment by installing better control system 38-93
Feed What is commercial experience with C5 alkylation . . . . . . . . . . 118-93 Operations Required simulation model rigor for optimization . . 39-93
Process Acid level below 30 inches to avoid flat acid recycle . . . . . . . . . 121-93 Operations Success of optimization programs . . . . . . . 39-93
Process Acid level of 18 to 24 inches gives good reaction rate . . . . . . . . 121-93 Operations Three options for T90 reduction , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-93
Process Actual reaction conditions affect isopentane production . . . . . 121-93 Operations Use of statistical process control (SPC) . . . . . . 35-93
Process Alkylation unit additives to enhance reaction chemistry . . . . . 119-93 Operations Very rigorous ROM required for real time optimization 40-93
Process Amylene alkylate RVP 3.5 to 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120-93
Process Carrvover from the acid settler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121-93 CORROSION & EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS
Process Fractionation affects RVP of amylene alkylate . . . 120-93 Crude Oil Corrosion protection in crude overhead systems .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-93
Process Increased olefin feed means higher reactor temperature . 120-93 Crude Oil Corrosion protection at less than pH of 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-93
Process Low acid levels lead to continuous emulsion in reactor . . . 121-93 Crude Oil Dewpoint pH important in corrosion of crude overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-93
Process Measuring impact of small performance changes . . . . . . . 120-93 Crude Oil Filming corrosion inhibitors good for corrosion control . . . 25-93
Process Moderate olefin space velocity of 0.15, good operation . . . . 120-93 Crude Oil Minimizing underdeposit corrosion in crude towers . . . . . . 24-93
Process Olefine space velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120-93 Crude blending Control of naphthenic acid corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-93
Process Oleiin space velocity of 0.50 is very high . 120-93 Distillation Determining types of corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-93
Process Problems at high space velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . 120-93 Distillation Methods of identifying corrosion types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-93
Process RVP of amylene alkylate . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . 120-93 Distillation Naphthenic acid and high temperature sulfur attack . . . . . 20-93
Process RVP of amylene alkylate function of deisopentanization . . . 120-93 Distillation Three ways to determine types of corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-93

182
TOC/INDEX

Mechanical Inspection techniques to monitor effluent for corrosion 96-93 Process For revamp, check pressure valve and flaring systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52-93
Naphthenic acid Change to 316 stainless steel 11-93 Process For revamp, higher catalyst circulation, higher steam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52-93
Naphthenic acid Chemical injection could cause problems 11-93 Process For revamp, upgrade to closed cyclones for FCCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52-93
Problem solving Controlling high temperature naphthenic acid corrosion. 11-93 Process For revamp, use latest feed injection devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52-93
Process For revamp, use latest reactor disengaging devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52-93
CRACKING Process Fractionator design changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68-93
-CAT CRACKING ( F C C ) Process Higher dry gas production with more etlicient stripper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-93
Catalyst Additive ZSM-5 increased gasoline yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58-93 Process Identifying catalyst stripper damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59-93
Catalyst Additives best method for reducing sulfur levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-93 Process Improved operations after feed nozzle revamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65-93
Catalyst Carbon on catalyst not necessary for catalyst flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-93 Process Increased stripper steam vs. stripper revamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-93
Catalyst Catalyst circulation, flow problems without ample fines . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-93 Process Increasing coke burning capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71-93
Catalyst Catalyst options for increasing light olefin yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58-93 Process Increasing light cycle oil yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69-93
Catalyst Catalyst options for producing higher light olefln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58-93 Process Length of extended tube design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Catalyst Catalyst traps as additives or in catalyst matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Levels of oxygen, carbonyl sulfide in FCC dry gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70-93
Catalyst Catalysts, additives, operating conditions for olelins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-93 Process Licensing closed cyclone systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Catalyst Conditions for sulfur removal (Table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-93 Process Listing of maintenance problems, electrostatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-93
Catalyst Controlling sulhir and particulate emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-93 Process Maintenance problems with electrostatic precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-93
Catalyst Costs of additives and gas scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-93 Process More efficient stripping after FCC revamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Catalyst DEMET process removes metals from FCC catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process NO2 emissions related to platinum promoter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72-93
Catalyst Design variables affecting light oletin yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58-93 Process Oil particle size on exiting nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65-93
Catalyst Effective lines level 4% or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-93 Process Oil side pressure drop in nozzles, about 50 psi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66-93
Catalyst Equation developed which relates catalyst flow factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-93 Process Operating conditions, results with mixing nozzle change . . . . . . . . . . . . 65-93
Catalyst Evolution of gas in stripper and standpipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55-93 Process Operating problems with electrostatic precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-93
Catalyst Feed hydrotreating is appealing at low sulfur contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-93 Process Operating problems, start-up, upsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Catalyst High silica alumina ratio zeolite good for light olefin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59-93 Process Pigtails, slotted nozzles tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65-93
Catalyst Limits of catalyst physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Practical limits of distillation points, LCO, crude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69-93
Catalyst Listing of catalyst contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Pressure taps on all four quadrants of stripper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-93
Catalyst Lower density catalyst improves catalyst flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55-93 Process Preventing fouling of hot gas expander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-93
Catalyst Mechanical problems with wet gas scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-93 Process Preventive maintenance, electrostatic precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-93
Catalyst Metals passivation for nickel, vanadium contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Process improvements at shorter residence time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-93
Catalyst Minimize catalyst carryover on startup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-93 Process Radioactive tracer identify catalyst stripper damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59-93
Catalyst New deep catalytic cracking technology available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59-93 Process Recycle of catalyst fines to riser for disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69-93
Catalyst New generation of ZSM-5 to increase light olefin yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59-93 Process Recycling straight run diesel results :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67-93
Catalyst Options for increasing light olefin yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-93 Process Reducing FCC naphtha sulfur level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67-93
Catalyst Purge treatment unit handles scrubbing system purge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-93 Process Reduction in amount of entrained hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-93
Catalyst &bent technology for reducing sulfur is effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-93 Process Reduction of dry gas make on conversion to high temp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Catalyst Success of catalysts with vanadium traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Reduction of dry gas make, with closed cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Catalyst Sulfur reduction in gasoline by changing catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55-93 Process Reduction of post-riser residence time important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64-93
Catalyst Sulfur reduction in gasoline by changing additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55-93 Process Remove hydrocarbons from catalyst before stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-93
Catalyst Sulfur reduction technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-93 Process Removing fines from catalyst slurry stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68-93
Catalyst Test factors to rate a catalyst’s flowability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-93 Process Results (Table) of changing injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65-93
Catalyst Three factors affect catalyst Flow ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-93 Process Riser residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61-93
Catalyst Three scenarios set sulfur removal direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-93 Process Short riser time unit replaces bubbling bed (Data! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61-93
Catalyst Three ways to lower sulfur emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-93 Process Short riser time unit has higher return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93
Catalyst Vanadium trap technology is good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Simplified approach to residual oil cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61-93
Catalyst Vanadium mobility important for trap success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Slurry recycle has effect on SO 2 emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72-93
Catalyst Vanadium trap with nickel passivator good combination . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-93 Process Staged stripping is more efficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61-93
Catalyst Vapor in standpipe must be correctly fluidized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55-93 Process Stream analyzers to monitor oxygen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73-93
Catalyst Wet gas scrubber has demanding operating conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-93 Process Stripper steam displaces interstitial hydrocarbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61-93
Catalyst ZSM-5 is good catalyst for light olefins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58-93 Process Stripping problems with high surface area catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-93
Coking Maintain high processing rates on startup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-93 Process Sulfur reduced by four variable changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67-93
Coking Minimizing coking by reducing high temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-93 Process Three-step approach to increase light cycle oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70-93
Deposits Deposits on FCC wet gas compressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-93 Process Upgrading clarified oil/heavy cycle oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68-93
Deposits Deposits on centrifugal compressor impellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-93 Separator Ceramic filter reliability when used as separator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93
Deposits Intermittentwash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-93 Separator Sintered metal or ceramic filter as separator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93
Deposits Bacommended wash liquid for centrifugalellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-93 Separator Sintered metal separator reliability .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93
Deposits Spray wet gas compressor wash by liquid injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-93
Deposits Wash liquid injection for centrifugal compressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-93 DEASPHALTING
Etherilication Poisons for the etheriflcation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70-93 Solvent Antifoam agents to solve foaming problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Expansion joint Latest thinking about expansion joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Solvent Dissolved or entrained solvent in asphalt product pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-93
Expansion joint Material of construction, number of plies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Solvent Foaming severity is related to temperature and pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Expansion joint Packed joints for flue gas, reactor overhead systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Solvent Gear pumps for asphalt product usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Expansion joint Replacing purged expansion joints with packed joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Solvent Low stripper operating temperature can promote foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Fouling Bypass heat exchangers and clean on-line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-93 Solvent Positive displacement pumps for asphalt product service . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Fouling Corrosion upstream can cause debutanizer fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-93 Solvent Reducing asphaltene carryover to solvent condenser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Fouling Eliminating fouling and coking, FCCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-93 Solvent Silicon-based antifoam to control foaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Fouling Feed leakage through feed diversion valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-93 Solvent Solving foaming problems with cutter,stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-93
Fouling Fouling of debutanizer reboiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-93 Solvent Specifyingasphalt product pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-93
Fouling Fouling of heat exchangers, FCC fractionators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-93
Fouling Keeping bottoms exchangers clean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-93 DISTILLATION
Fouling Listing of factors causing fouling and coking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-93 Crude Oil Antifoulants in crude preheat exchanger trains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-93
.Fouling Monitoring fouling on-line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-93 Crude Oil Automation of conventional monitoring techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-93
Fouling Operating at erosion conditions to remove fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Crude Oil Boat trays replace gauge decks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-93
Fouling Plan to control fouling in heavy oil exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-93 Crude Oil Coke formation in vacuum towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-93
Fouling Preventing fouling of hot gas expander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73-93 Crude Oil Coking rates function of time, temperature, and fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-93
Gas turbine How is thermal shocking done; how fast and how long . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Crude Oil Collecting corrosion rate data with ER probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-93
Gas turbine Removal of catalyst attached to stator blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Crude Oil Continuous real-time feedback for corrosion monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-93
Gas turbine Thermal shocking of gas turbine blades to remove lines . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-93 Crude Oil Control of chlorides in crude overhead system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-93
Maintenance Electrostatic precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-93 Crude Oil Corrosion protection in crude overhead systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-93
Maintenance Electrostatic precipitators, catalyst buildup, hoppers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-93 Crude Oil Corrosion protection at less than pH of 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-93
Maintenance Electrostatic precipitators, bypass operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-93 Crude Oil Crude type most important on column revamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-93
Process Axial cyclone system shows no coking problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64-93 Crude Oil Current specifications for vacuum tower wash system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-93
Process Catalyst losses avoided at high riser velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-93 Crude Oil Deep draw pan to control overllash withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-93
Process Changing feed injector style and location in the riser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64-93 Crude Oil Designs for stripping zones in crude towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-93
Process Close coupled cyclone design shows improvements (List) . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-93 Crude Oil Dew-point pH important in corrosion of crude overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-93
Process Coke formation in disengager avoided by closed cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . 63-93 Crude Oil Double fired heaters have fewer tubes, higher fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-93
Process Coking problems with resid feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93 Crude Oil Economic limit to cut point for deep cut vacuum units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-93
Process Comparison of nozzle atomization qualities (Table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66-93 Crude Oil Estimating crude composition from crude measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-93
Process Controlling stack emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71-93 Crude Oil Excessive vacuum can cause flooding in the tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-93
Process Corrosion upstream can cause debutanizer fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-93 Crude Oil Factors in reducing entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-93
Process Decreasing dilute phase cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-93 Crude Oil Factors which influence rate of fired heater coking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-93
Process Dependence of other variables on stack emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71-93 Crude Oil Filming corrosion inhibitors good for corrosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-93
Process Difficulty with upper feed nozzles ................................................ 65-93 Crude Oil Five criteria for vacuum tower wash systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-93
Process Directional trends following revamp ........................................ 63-93 Crude Oil Flame impingement one cause of excessive heater coking . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-93
Process Effects of recycling hydrotreated light cycle oil .............................. 67-93 Crude Oil Good pH control essential for corrosion mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-93
Process Elimination of post-riser non-selective reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-93 Crude Oil Heat flux for vacuum furnaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-93
Process Enrichment of catalyst regeneration air ....................................... 71-93 Crude Oil High coking rates in crude furnaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-93
Process Erosion problems caused by feed nozzle changes ............................ 65-93 Crude Oil Increased design uplift pressure on stripping trays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-93
Process Excess oxygen most important factor in CO, NO2 levels .................... 72-93 Crude Oil Injecting antifoulants into vacuum heater feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-93
Process Extension of rough cut cyclone outlet tubes ................................... 64-93 Crude Oil Limiting the cut point for deep vacuum distillation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-93
Process FCCU revamp to operate at 1025 deg F, instead of 970 ..................... 51-93 Crude Oil Listing of vacuum column overflash withdrawal systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-93
Process Factors related to catalyst stripper damage (Listing) ..................... 60-93 Crude Oil Minimizing underdeposit corrosion in crude towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-93
Process First step in FCCU revamp is good simulation of unit ..................... 51-93 Crude Oil Monitoring corrosion in a crude overhead system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-93
Process For revamp 970 to 1025, listings of considerations ........................... 52-93 Crude Oil Monitoring underdeposit corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-93
Process For revamp, 970 to 1025, consider stainless, low chrome .... . . . . . ....... 52-93 Crude Oil On-line tests for underdeposit corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-93

183
TOC/INDEX

Crude Oil Overflash contains significant entrainment . . . . . . . . . . 20-93 Amine Plant Lean amine analyzed for oil and grease twice a week . . . . . . . . . 144-93
Crude Oil Performance monitoring of crude units . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-93 Amine Plant Location of foaming in amine units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93
Crude Oil Practically achievable cut points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-93 Amine Plant Measuring pressure drop determines carbon bed changeout . . . . . . . 144-93
Crude Oil Prevent excessive overflashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20-93 Amine Plant Metal passivators reduce salt formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Crude Oil Pump addition for metering overflash withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . 19-93 Amine Plant Modified electrodialysis for salt removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Crude Oil Reducing high coking rates in crude furnaces . . . . . . . . 27-93 Amine Plant NaOH treatment neutralizes bonded acids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142-93
Crude Oil Reduction of entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 25-93 Amine Plant Need for inlet gas distributor in the amine contactor . . . . . . . . . . . . 147-93
Crude Oil Stripping design depends on tower diameter, flow passes . . . . . . 29-93 Amine Plant No special inlet device needed for amine contactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147-93
Crude Oil Structured packing in vacuum tower wash zone . . . . . . 22-93 Amine Plant Operating tests to evaluate carbon adsorber cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144-93
Crude Oil Type of crude most important issue on vacuum tower . . . . . . 22-93 Amine Plant Operational quantities for amine filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93
Crude Oil Underdeposit corrosion monitored by ultrasonics . . . . . . . . 19-93 Amine Plant Orifice pipe with expansion shroud as amine absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147-93
Crude Oil Underdeposit corrosion monitored by radiography . . . . . 19-93 Amine Plant Oxygen scavengers reduce salts formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Crude Oil Use of double tired heaters in crude or vacuum service . . . . . . . . 29-93 Amine Plant Papers presented by Dow Chemical on LPG amine contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93
Crude Oil Vacuum column overflash withdrawal systems . . . . . . . . . . 19-93 Amine Plant Performance improvement or losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Crude Oil Vacuum overflash measured by two methods . . . . . . . . . 19-93 Amine Plant Preventing or removing heat stable salts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Crude Oil Vacuum towers revamped to deep cut operation . . . . . . . . 21-93 Amine Plant Purge amine and replace with fresh reduces salt. . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Crude Oil Very few problems in coking of vacuum towers . . . . . . . . . 22-93 Amine Plant Recommended residence times. amine containing drums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93
Crude Oil Wash oil distribution, filtering, bed wetting are prime . . . . . . . . . . . 22-93 Amine Plant Recommended residence times, tower bottoms . . . . . . . 143-93
Heat Exchange Antifoulants in crude preheat exchanger trams . . . . . . . . . . . 26-93 Amine Plant Reducing amine loss, LPG amine contactors . . . . . . . . . . 145-93
Amine Plant Removal of salts will reduce corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142-93
ENERGY RECOVERY & CONSERVATION Amine Plant Removing salts from alkanol amine solution . . .. . . . . . 142-93
Electric Motors Electric motors using frequency converters . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Rich amine flash drum residence time, 15 to 30 minutes . . . . . . . . . 143-93
Electric Motors Installation, cracking heaters for energy conservation . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Salt removal most beneficial when anion below 0.5 wt% . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Electric Motors Reliability has been excellent, matches unit turnaround . . . . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Shaking lean amine to determine foaming characteristics . . . 144-93
Electric Motors Specific reasons for process installations . . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Sieve trays or random packing, contactor mass transfer . . . . 146-93
Lighting Green Lights program saves money, increases efficiency . . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Slipstream filtration 100% for lean amine . . . . . . . . 143-93
Lighting Listings of types of lighting upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . 171-93 Amine Plant Standard foam test to evaluate filter performance . . . . . . 144-93
Lighting Mercury vapor upgraded to high pressure sodium . . . . . . . . . 171-93 Amine Plant Sulfur Plant Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Lighting Outdoor lighting upgrades can be beneficial . . . . . . . . 171-93 Amine Plant Tertiary amines not as susceptible to corrosion . . . . . . . . 147-93
Process Heaters Chloride in refinery fuel gas leads to corrosion . . . . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Treatment to minimize ammonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142-93
Process Heaters Plugging and corrosion of air heaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Vacuum distillation to remove heat stable salts . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Process Heaters Plugging and fouling in air preheaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Venting from amine sump to an incinerator . . . . . . 146-93
Process Heaters Rotary and static . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Visual comparison, amine in and out of filter . . . . . . . . . . 144-93
Process Heaters Tube sheets, pyrex tubes changed out, due to corrosion . . . . . . . . 170-93 Amine Plant Water wash feed gas to reduce salt formation . . . . . . . . . 141-93
Amine Plant Water washing upstream cuts formation of salts . . . . . . . . . 141-93
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Amine Plant Well designed water wash system will minimize ammonia . . . . . 142-93
Air Emission Control of sour water tankage emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 157-93 Amine Plant What percentage of amine flow should be filtered . . . . . 143-93
Air Emission Eliminating benzene right at the source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155-93 Amine Plant When solution noncorrosive, throughput restrictions cut. . . 141-93
Air Emission Halon replacements may not yet be ready . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158-93 Amine Plant Worst amine carrvover in unner section of absorber. . . . . . . 144-93
Air Emission Halon substitutes (Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 158-93 Sulfur Plants COS usually checked during performance test . . . . . . . 150-93
Air Emission INERGEN, substitute for Halon system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158-93 Sulfur Plants Carbon sulfur compounds formed in thermal reactor . . . . . 150-93
Air Emission Improving efficiency of electrostatic precipitator. . . . . . . 158-93 Sulfur Plants Caustic injection point selected during operation . . . . 151-93
Air Emission Reducing vapor and odor emissions from sour water store . . . . . . 157-93 Sulfur Plants Effect on operating parameters, low purity acid gas . . . . 147-93
Air Emission Sour water storage in purged vapor space cone roof tank . . . . . . . . 157-93 Sulfur Plants Experience with compressors in H2S service . . . . . . . 148-93
Air Emission Sour water tank designed as floating roof tank . . . . . . . . . . 157-93 Sulfur Plants Flue gas used to acidify and strip spent caustic . .. . . . . . 150-93
Air Emission Steaming to regenerate activated carbon filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157-93 Sulfur Plants Fuel gas spiking to increase furnace temperature . . . . . . 148-93
Air Emission Substitute chemicals for fixed Halon systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 158-93 Sulfur Plants Handling ammonia in sulfur plant operations . . . . . . . . 148-93
Air Emission Substitute refrigerants for refrigeration systems . . . . . . . . . 157-93 Sulfur Plants High temperature needed to destroy ammonia . . . . . . 148-93
Air Emission Treating sour water storage tank effluent with carbon . . . . . . 157-93 Sulfur Plants Improvements in molten sulfur seal design . . . . . . . . 149-93
Air Emission Vapor recovery system sour water tanks failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157-93 Sulfur Plants Increase in CO2 content of SRU feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149-93
Air Emissions Better control of desalting could reduce benzene loss . . . . . . . . 155-93 Sulfur Plants Increase in operating pressure, Claus unit option ..... 148-93
Air Emissions Burners reduce NOx emissions to about 100 ppm . . . . . . . . . . 153-93 Sulfur Plants Injection strategy for caustic in sour water strippers . . . . 150-93
Air Emissions Control of wastewater cuts benzene losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155-93 Sulfur Plants Leaner acid gas means lower sulfur recovery efficiency . .. .. . . . . 148-93
Air Emissions Cost of benzene recovered from emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154-93 Sulfur Plants More mixing turbulence, alternative, higher temperature 148-93
Air Emissions Crude selection can cut benzene entering a refinery . . . . . . . . . . 155-93 Sulfur Plants Operating parameters with low acid gas feed . . . . . . . . . . . 148-93
Air Emissions Desalter effluent water to benzene NESHAP stripper . . . . . . . . . . . 156-93 Sulfur Plants Options to raise reactor temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148-93
Air Emissions Desalter effluent water stripper reduces benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155-93 Sulfur Plants Options upstream of Claus plant may be attractive . . . . . 148-93
Air Emissions End of pipe treatment for recovery of benzene emissions . . . . . . . . . 154-93 Sulfur Plants Pressure control at waste-water stripper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149-93
Air Emissions Fugitive emissions, five main areas (tabulation) . . . . . . . . . . . 156-93 Sulfur Plants Prevent caustic flow through crude unit to coker heater 151-93
Air Emissions Low NOx burners sensitive to fuel changes and 02 trim . . . . 153-93 Sulfur Plants Reactor temperature of 600 ºF suggested for COS . . . . 150-93
Air Emissions NOx greatly reduced with new burners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153-93 Sulfur Plants Sour SO2 streams used as stripping streams . . . . . . . . . . . 150-93
Air Emissions Noise greatly reduced with new burners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153-93 Sulfur Plants Three different tail gas catalysts run successfully . . . . . . . 152-93
Air Emissions Nonprocess sources of fugitive emissions 156-93 Sulfur Plants Two-zone furnace modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148-93
Air Emissions Operating problems, benzene NESHAP stripper . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156-93 Sulfur Plants Unplugging molten sulfur seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149-93
Air Emissions Post combustion NOx control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152-93 Sulfur Plants Use of caustic in sour water strippers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-93
Air Emissions Post combustion NOx appears to be expensive option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153-93 Sulfur Plants Various options for tail gas treatment catalysts . . . . . . . 152-93
Air Emissions Progress in control of fugitive emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156-93 Tail Gas Plants Changing the solvent to-increase unit capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151-93
Air Emissions Recovery costs per barrel of benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154-93 Tail Gas Plants Hardware changes to boost plant capacity by 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151-93
Air Emissions Recycling and waste minimization for benzene recovery . . . . . . . . . . 154-93 Tail Gas Plants Increasing tail gas unit capacity 151-93
Air Emissions Reducing benzene emissions to come into compliance . . . . . . . . . . . 154-93 Tail Gas Plants Increasing the capacity of the SRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151-93
Air Emissions Reducing oil from sewer systems and API separator . . .. . . . . . . . 155-93 Tail Gas Plants Main problem for catalyst is pressure drop due to tines . . . . . . 152-93
Air Emissions Reduction of pure hydrocarbon to wastewater cuts loss . . . . . . . . 155-93 Tail Gas Plants New technology increases recovery of sulfur compounds . . . . . 151-93
Air Emissions Retrofitting 30 year old heaters with new burners . . . . . . . . . . . . 153-93 Tail Gas Plants Process parameters that limit amine section capacity . .. . . . . 151-93
Air Emissions Retrofitting older heaters with low NOx burners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152-93 Tail Gas Plants Surface area catalyst losses during operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152-93
Air Emissions Source treatment for reduction of benzene emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154-93 Tail Gas Plants Unit capacity increased by 15% by increasing tail gas . . . . . . 151-93
Amine Plant Absorber with structured packing may need distributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147-93 Tail Gas Plants Various options for tail gas treatment catalysts . . . . . . . 152-93
Amine Plant Ammonia buildup reduced by increasing condenser outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . 142-93 Wastes Alternatives to waste disposal for FCC catalyst fines . . . . . . . . . 166-93
Amine Plant Ammonia concentration to affect removal specification . . . . . . . . . 142-93 Wastes Centrifuge tank bottom sludges to dehydrate them . . . . . . . . . . . 164-93
Amine Plant Best locations for antifoam injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93 Wastes Chemical emulsion breakers to break up oily sludge . . . . . . . . 164-93
Amine Plant Carbon filter in lean amine stream cuts foaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144-93 Wastes Chemical treating of crude to reduce sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164-93
Amine Plant Cartridge filter still used for amine filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145-93 Wastes Chevron process recovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165-93
Amine Plant Caustic addition to remove salt not recommended . . . . . . . . . . . . 142-93 Wastes DEMET process removes metals from spent FCC catalyst . . . . . . . . . 167-93
Amine Plant Changing amine systems on the run . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93 Wastes Disposing of spent caustic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165-93
Amine Plant Changing solvents from secondary to tertiary amine . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93 Wastes Five sections on tank cleaning operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163-93
Amine Plant Chimney tray type vapor distributors are very effective . . . . . . . 147-93 Wastes High severity spent catalyst fines sent to cement . . . . . . . . . . . . 167-93
Amine Plant Converting refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93 Wastes Improving tank cleaning operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163-93
Amine Plant Critical design parameters for amine absorbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147-93 Wastes In situ tank cleaning successful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 163-93
Amine Plant DGA agent recommended if corrosion or capacity problems . . . . . . . 147-93 Wastes Land farming to destruct oily sludges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164-93
Amine Plant Design criteria for LPG amine contactors (Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145-93 Wastes Mandatory inspection frequency for tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164-93
Amine Plant Design criteria, LPG amine contactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145-93 Wastes Methods for treating separator and tank bottom sludge . . . . . . 164-93
Amine Plant Design, operating conditions for amine filters (List) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93 Wastes Paper mills candidates for spent caustic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166-93
Amine Plant Designs for inlet gas distributors in amine absorbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147-93 Wastes Recovered ammonia used as-fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165-93
Amine Plant Disposing of vent gas from an amine sump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93 Wastes Segregate phenolic caustic and feed to wastewater . . . . . . . 165-93
Amine Plant Effect of replacement to tertiary amine on corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93 Wastes Sludge coking meets EPA requirements and toxicity limit . . . ... 165-93
Amine Plant Effect of replacement to tertiary amine on energy usage . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93 Wastes Sludge coking process is successful ....... 165-93
Amine Plant Energy, capacity, main reasons for amine system revamp . . . . . . . . 146-93 Wastes Spent caustic injected into wastewater treating plant. . . . . . . . . . . . 165-93
Amine Plant Filter installation recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93 Wastes Spent caustic sent through sour water stripper . . . . . . . . . . . 166-93
Amine Plant Foaming in amine regenerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144-93 Wastes Steps taken to build community good will . . . . . . . . . . . 168-93
Amine Plant Frequency of antifoam injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144-93 Wastes Steps to reduce caustic consumption ...... 166-93
Amine Plant Full activated carbon filtration of lean amine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93 Wastes Tanks cleaned off line to facilitate inspections 164-93
Amine Plant Full flow particulate filtration of rich amine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-93 Wastes Two European methods for spent caustic disposal 166-93
Amine Plant H2S loading in LPG amine contactors on mixed C3/C4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 145-93 Wastes Use coker to dispose of oily sludges . . . . . . . . . 164-93
Amine Plant Handling vent gas when incinerator is down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146-93 Water Issues AGAR water-in-oil monitors have worked well 162-93
Amine Plant How antifoam is injected into systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144-93 Water Issues BOD shock levels (Listing and discussion) . . . 161-93
Amine Plant Ion exchange for salt removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141-93 Water Issues Biodegrading cyanide in trickling filter . . . . . 160-93

184
TOC/INDEX

Water Issues Biodegrading cyanide in aerator/clarifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160-93 HYDROCBACKING

Water Issues Chloride levels seldom reach microbe toxic point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161-93 Catalyst Inspection techniques for carbon-1/2 moly catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . 113-93
Water Issues Controlled concentrations, chloride, H2S and NH3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161-93 Catalyst Listing--single vs. dual catalyst system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115-93
Water Issues Controlling cyanide levels in wastewater and sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Catalyst Single catalyst vs. dual catalyst systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115-93
Water Issues Controlling water draws on storage tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162-93 Catalyst Ultrasonic inspection for carbon-1/2 moly catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113-93
Water Issues Cyanides in wastewater controlled by steam stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160-93 Catalyst Visual inspection for carbon-l/2 moly catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113-93
Water Issues Effect of reverse osmosis on later demineralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Mechanical Installing relief valves upstream of the reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112-93
Water Issues Filtered wastewater, utility and firewater sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Mechanical Locating emergency depressuring systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112-93
Water Issues Filtered wastewater, make-up cooling water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Mechanical Belief valve discharge quenched before flaring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112-93
Water Issues Free cyanide stripped from water in sour water stripper . . . . . . . . . . . . 160-93 Process Causing jet fuel freeze problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114-93
Water Issues Instruments to indicate oil/water interfaces., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162-93 Process Conditions for making jet fuel (Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114-93
Water Issues Keep H2S concentration below 50 ppm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162-93 Process Hydrocracking strategies, making reformulated gasoline . . . . . . 115-93
Water Issues Keep H2S under 50 ppm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162-93 Process Maximum cracked feed composition for jet fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114-93
Water Issues Limitations on sulfate releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163-93 Process Maximum delta temperatures for hydrocracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114-93
Water Issues Phenolicwater injected into desalters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161-93 Process One refinery producing jet fuel from 25% cracked stock . . . . . . . 114-93
Water Issues Refinery wastewater uses (summary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Process Units have run 60% cracked stock in feed, making jet . . . . . . . . . 114-93
Water Issues F&leasing sulfates in water discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163-93
Water Issues Reverse osmosis for treatment of make-up water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 HYDROGEN PROCESSI N G
Water Issues Shocking biological unit downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161-93 Adsorbent Actual life of PSA adsorbent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85-93
Water Issues Stripped sour water is a primary source for desalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Adsorbent Free water and heavy hydrocarbon will deactivate PSA . . . . . 85-93
Water Issues Stripped sour water used in desalters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Adsorbent Less than expected life of PSA material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85-93
Water Issues Treating ammonia to less than 1 ppm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162-93 Adsorbent PSA expected to last the life of the plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85-93
Water Issues Treating and disposal of highly foul water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160-93 Catalyst Effect of heavier feed on reformer catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87-93
Water Issues Treatment of wastewater containing 10,000 ppm phenol . . . . . . . . . . . . 161-93 Catalyst Heavier feed leads to increased coking and cracking . . . . . . . . 87-93
Water Issues What are reuses for wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159-93 Catalyst Predicting remaining catalyst life in hydrogen units . . . . . . . . 91-93
Catalyst Special catalyst for feed containing aromatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87-93
ETHEBIFICATION Catalyst Sulfur contaminated catalyst regenerated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90-93
Catalyst MTBE catalyst life expectancy averages 10 to 12 months . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Catalyst Sulfur contamination removed during normal operation . . . . . 90-93
Catalyst MTBE catalyst life mainly affected by feed contaminant . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Operation Causes of PSA valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93-93
Catalyst MTBE unit meeting design catalyst life of 2 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Operation Coking problems and hydrocarbon slip with aromatic feed . . . 87-93
Catalyst Premature loss of catalyst in catalytic fractionator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation Configuring reactor for maximum benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89-93
Catalyst Stability of reaction section, catalytic distillation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140-93 Operation Design thickness for reformer tubes is 0.25 to 0.3 in . . . . . . . . 86-93
Catalyst Typica1 catalyst lives for TAME and MTBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Operation Effect of heavier feed on reformer catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87-93
Feed Guard bed offers protection after water wash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Operation Expected life of steam methane reformer tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85-93
Feed Bernoval of acetonitriles, propionitriles important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Operation Factors affecting hydrogen purity, adsorbent life . . . . . . . . . . . . 93-93
Feed Water level of 1 ppm or less desirable for MTBE feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Operation Handling hydrogen plant process condensate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91-93
Process Catalytic distillation column operation very stable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140-93 Operation Heavier feed leads to increased coking and cracking . . . . . . . . 87-93
Process Commercial ethers for etherification (Listings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation Improved solvents and additives for Benfield systems . . . . . . . 89-93
Process Contamination of slop system by blending and shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . 137-93 Operation Improving hydrogen recovery at low throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . 93-93
Process Coprocessing TAME and MTBE in same unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140-93 Operation In-situ regeneration of sulfur contaminated catalyst . . . . . . . . 90-93
Process DIPE as significant fuel oxygenate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation Limits for processing heavier hydrocarbon feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87-93
Process DIPE has high olefin demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation Little success in regenerating sulfur-contaminated cat . . . . . . 90-93
Process DIPE presents storage and handling challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation Maximum recommended design pressure for reformer tubes 85-93
Process Feed contamination due to methanol and oxygenates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137-93 Operation Maximum reformer tube thickness about 0.5 inches . . . . . . . . . 86-93
Process Methanol content of purged water below 100 ppm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137-93 Operation Maximum sulfur content for hydrogen plant feeds . . . . . . . . . . 90-93
Process Precautions to avoid oxygenate contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137-93 Operation Methanol causes problems in export steam system . . . . . . . . . . 88-93
Process Pressure ratings in etherification units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation Methanol formed in low temperature shift converter . . . . . . . . 88-93
Process Production of TAME, ETBE, TAEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation Methanol from shift converters vented for removal . . . . . . . . . . 88-93
Process Belief valve failure caused methanol contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138-93 Operation Naphtha containing aromatics as feedstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87-93
Process Separation equipment needed to coprocess TAME, MTBE . . . . . . . . . . . 140-93 Operation No clear limit on sulfur removal by zinc oxide beds . . . . . . . . . 90-93
Process The ETBE option for BFG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139-93 Operation No methanol problem with proper stripping of condensate . . . 88-93
Operation Operating and start-up experience with shift reactor . . . . . . . . 89-93
FOULING & DEPOSITS Operation Operating conditions for reformer tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86-93
Cracking Coking and fouling in fractionator heat exchangers . . . . 48-93 Operation Plants designed for 20% aromatics in reformer feed . . . . . . . . . 88-93
Cracking Fouling of heat exchangers, FCC fractionators . . . . . . . . . 48-93 Operation Predicting remaining catalyst life in hydrogen units . . . . . . . . 91-93
Cracking Monitoring fouling on-line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-93 Operation Referred metallurgy of steam methane reformer tubes . . . . . 85-93
Hydrotreating Chloride foulant can be placed into bed of absorbent . . . 95-93 Operation Put deaerator in the hydrogen plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-93
Reforming Antifoulant can cause reactor pressure drop . . . . . . . . . . . 94-93 Operation Recycling process condensate to other use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-93
Reforming Coker naphtha processing causes fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-93 Operation Beformer tube life dependent on operating conditions . . . . . . . 86-93
Reforming Silicon fouling of hydrotreater catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126-93 Operation Reformer tubes designed to last 100,000 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86-93
Stripping Good control and maintenance reduce fouling . . . . . . . . . 44-93 Operation Reusing tube that has been pinched off not recommended . . . 89-93
Stripping Monitoring water feeds will reduce fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-93 Operation Solenoid and positioners, major causes of valve failure . . . . . . 94-93
Stripping Beducing fouling in process water strippers . . . . . . . . . . . 44-93 Operation Steaming alkalized, nonalkalized reforming catalysts . . . . . . . 91-93
Visbreaking Antifoulant effective against asphaltene deposits . . . . . . 84-93 Operation Steaming will cause some catalyst sintering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91-93
Operation Sulfur contaminated catalyst regenerated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90-93
Operation Sulfur contamination removed during normal operation . . . . . 90-93
FUELS Operation Sulfur removal system upstream of reformer pays off. . . . . . . .
Blending to sulfur levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90-93
Formulation 32-93 Tests to determine water quality of process condensate . . . . . .
Operation 91-93
Formulation Meeting 0.05 wt% sulfur in diesel fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-93
Operation Tube reuse after repairing pinched pigtail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88-93
Formulation Refiners have little trouble meeting diesel sulfur spec 32-93
Purification Factors affecting hydrogen purity, adsorbent life . . . . . . . . . . . . 93-93
Formulation Sulfur level in final diesel product, 0.045-0.05 wt % 32-93
Purification Improving hydrogen recovery at low throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . 93-93
Hydrotreating Maximum temperature for diesel, kerosene . . . . . . . . . . 104-93 Purification Most cryogenic operating problems in driers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-93
Hydrotreating Leakage problems with low sulfur diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . 104-93
Purification Nearly 100% of 96% hydrogen is recoverable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-93
Hydrotreating Ammonium bisulfide condensation in the stripper . . . 107-93
Purification Operating and maintaining cryogenic separators . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-93
Hydrotreating Diesel lubricity is function of viscosity and front end . 103-93
Hydrotreating Improving stability after hydrotreating . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104-93 HYDROTREATING
Hydrotreating Lubricity, other problems, low sulfur fuels . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93 Catalyst grading to help handle particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Catalyst 101-93
Hydrotreating Mechanisms that cause the formation of color bodies 104-93 Cobalt molybdenum catalysts preferred, desulfurization . . . .
Catalyst 111-93
Hydrotreating Producing ultra low sulfur diesel fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93 Catalyst Factors controlling catalyst changeout timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110-93
Process Low sulfur diesel and lower aromatic diesel . . . . . . . . . 108-93 Maximum level of conversion, atmospheric resid HDS . . . . . .
Catalyst 108-93
Sulfur Measuring sulfur content of diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105-93 Catalyst Maximum level of conversion for stable fuel oil . . . . . . . . . . . . 109-93
Sulfur More severe desulfurization of diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107-93 Catalyst Referred catalyst depends on operating pressure . . . . . . . . . . 112-93
Sulfur New sulfur analyzers on the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105-93 Catalyst Referred catalyst depends on primary objectives . . . . . . . . . . 112-93
Sulfur Operating problems with low sulfur diesel . . . . . . . . . . 105-93 Referred catalysts for distillate hydrotreating . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Catalyst 111-93
Sulfur Operating problems with low sulfur diesel . . . . . . . . . . 105-93 Catalyst Quantifying results when breaking in on virgin stock . . . . . . 111-93
Catalyst Regenerating atmospheric resid hydrotreater catalyst . . . . . . 109-93
GASOLINE Catalyst Replacing catalyst in diesel and gas oil hydrotreaters . . . . . . 109-93
Blending Ashland Infratane system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-93 Catalyst Replacing hydrotreater catalyst based on activity . . . . . . . . . . 109-93
Blending Listing of available on-line analyzers . . . . . 34-93 Catalyst Running on virgin stocks before introduce cracked feed . . . . 111-93
Blending On-line analyzers available for gasoline blending . . 34-93 Catalyst Specific recommendations for hydrotreating catalysts . . . . . . 111-93
Blending On-line octane comparators for octane determination . 34-93 Catalyst Spent catalyst properties critical to good regeneration . . . . . . 109-93
Blending Shipping gasoline based on analyzer read-out . . . . 34-93 Catalyst Using regenerated catalyst in hydrotreating service . . . . . . . . 110-93
Formulation Extra costs, yield reductions due to reformulation test 33-93 Fuels Ammonium bisulfide condensation in the stripper . . . . . . . . . 107-93
Formulation More blend streams needed to meet reformulated fuels 33-93 Fuels Improving stability after hydrotreating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104-93
Formulation More grades of gasoline and less fungibility . . . . 33-93 Fuels Leakage problems with low sulfur diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104-93
Formulation New blending and scheduling models needed . . . . . 33-93 Gasoline Effect of sulfur level on FCC gasoline octane loss . . . ... . . .. 103-93
Formulation Problems with gasoline-water hazes . . . . . ............ 32-93 Gasoline Octane loss in reformulating gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93
Formulation Reformulated gasoline requires more complicated tests 33-93 Gasoline Octane loss in reformulating gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93
Formulation Testing MTBE to stay clear of water hazes . . . . . 32-93 Mechanical Antifoulant can cause reactor pressure drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94-93
Hydrotreating Controlling gasoline pool sulfur . . . . . . . . . . 102-93 Mechanical Bypassing the guard reactors in hydrotreating . . . . . . . . . . . . 97-93
Hydrotreating Effect of sulfur level on FCC gasoline octane loss . . 103-93 Mechanical Chloride foulant can be placed into bed of absorbent . . . . . . . 95-93
Hydrotreating Octane loss in hydrotreating FCC gasoline . . . . . . . 102-93 Mechanical Feed-effluent fouling problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94-93
Hydrotreating Octane loss in reformulating gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93 Mechanical How effective is soaking gas usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96-93
Hydrotreating Octane losses for FCC gasoline . . . . 103-93 Mechanical How guard reactors are used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97-93

185
TOC/INDEX

Mechanical How often effluent cooler inspections performed . . . . . . . . . . . . 96-93 Manufacturing Sealing with Grafoil-backed packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93
Mechanical Improvement in HDS performance by retrofitting . . . . . . . . . . 98-93 Manufacturing Solvent Dehydration in MEK dewaxers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93
Mechanical Inspection techniques to monitor effluent for corrosion . . . . . 96-93 Manufacturing Success in using dewaxing aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93
Mechanical Listing of inspection techniques for effluent systems . . . . . . . 96-93 Manufacturing Target meters give better control of hot wash cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-93
Mechanical Magnetic filters on naphtha pretreaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94-93 Manufacturing Upgrading MEK dewaxing unit instrumentation, controls . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93
Mechanical Metallurgy of choice for high pressure effluent coolers . . . . . . 95-93
Mechanical Oletin polymerization can cause major buildups . . . . . . . . . . . 95-93 REFORMING
Mechanical Pressure-temperature limits lowered for carbon 114 moly . . . 98-93 Catalyst Coke ball formation at the top of radial beds . . . . . . . . . . . . 135-93
Mechanical Procedure for bypassing the guard chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98-93 Catalyst Copper-based catalyst most effective for H2S removal . . . . 126-93
Mechanical Quench equates to longer runs, better bed life . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98-93 Catalyst Nickel catalyst more appropriate for complex sorbers . . . . . 127-93
Mechanical Valves on guard reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97-93 Catalyst Nickel catalyst provides for greater sulfur pickup . . . . . . . . 126-93
Process Acceptable chloride concentration in hydrotreater feed . . . . . 99-93 Catalyst Nickel catalyst rather than copper for sulfur sorber . . . . . . 126-93
Process Addition of product recycle increases mass flux . . . . . . . . . . . . 102-93 Catalyst Nickel catalyst stabilized by carbon dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126-93
Process Catalyst grading good for handling particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . 101-93 Feed Coker naphtha processing causes fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-93
Process Catalyst grading to help handle particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101-93 Feed Impact of coker, visbreaker naphthas on cycle length . . . . 125-93
Process Controlling chlorides in hydrotreater feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99-93 Feed Improving run length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-93
Process Controlling gasoline pool sulfur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102-93 Feed Minimize fractionator end point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126-93
Process Deaerated steam condensate, reactor effluent wash water . . . 100-93 Feed Recessing FCC naphtha, stream or heart cut . . . . . . . . . . . 126-93
Process Deaerated treated boiler feed used as water wash . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Feed Runs of 1 to 1.5 years with 10% coker naphtha . . . . . . . . . . 126-93
Process Deposition of salts in reactor effluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101-93 Feed Runs of 2 years with 20% coker naphtha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126-93
Process Diesel color due to passing through reactor dry point . . . . . . 10293 Feed Silicon fouling of hydrotreater catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126-93
Process Diesel color is function of three operating parameters . . . . . . 102-93 Feed Up to 20% visbreaker naphtha in feed ok for run length . 125-93
Process Diesel lubricity is function of viscosity and front end . . . . . . . 103-93 Process Above optimum chloride, increased hydrocracking . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Effectiveness of feed filter systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process Acid cleaning of reformer heaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Effectiveness of feed filters in removing solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process Advances in-reformer catalvst technoloeies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Effectiveness of feed filters, minimizing pressure drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process ‘At any pressure level there-is optimum chloride level . 128-93
Process Effectiveness of product recycle, solving color problem . . . 102-93 Process Carbon bum pressure limited by recycle compressor hp 129-93
Process Eliminating color problems in diesel product . . . . . . . . . . . 102-93 Process Carryover to compressor goes up with pressure . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129-93
Process Emerging hydrotreating technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108-93 Process Catalyst chloride important for catalyst stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Feed filter systems effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process Catalyst chloride level important for initial yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Feed filters good down to about 10 microns . . . . . . . . . . . . 101-93 Process Catalyst less yield sensitive after many cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Feed filters remove about 70% solids above nominal rate 100-93 Process Catalyst surface area at replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Filters good for gas oil hydrotreating service . . . . . . . . . . 101-93 Process Catalysts vary from 32 to 45 lbs/cu ft loaded density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Filters on gas oil/deasphalted oil hydrotreater service 101-93 Process Chloride addition will improve rate of sulfur removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-93
Process Increasing catalyst bed temperature mitigates color . . . . 102-93 Process Contacting recycle gas and neutralizing solution . . . . . . . 133-93
Process Intermittent wash really does nothing for you . . . . . . . . . 102-93 Process Converting reformer to low pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131-93
Process Intermittent washing for reactor effluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101-93 Process Corrosion control more difficult at higher pressures . . . . 129-93
Process Intermittent water wash causes scale migration . . . . . . . 102-93 Process Corrosion of upstream equipment in reforming . . . . . . . . 130-93
Process Low sulfur diesel and lower aromatic diesel . . . . . . . . . . . 108-93 Process Corrosion problems at inlets of chloriding agent . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Lower rates can cause channeling, color problems . . . . . . 102-93 Process Criteria for selecting process variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Lower rates mean lower reactor temperature, color . . . . 102-93 Process Decrease in severity is current trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129-93
Process Lubricity, other problems, low sulfur fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93 Process Deposition of feed sulfur on reformer catalyst . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Maximum level of conversion, atmospheric resid HDS . 108-93 Process Effect of sulfate formation during regeneration . . . . . . . . 130-93
Process Maximum level of conversion for stable fuel oil . . . . . . . . 109-93 Process Effects of semi-regenerative revamp (Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127-93
Process Maximum temperature for diesel, kerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . 104-93 Process Experiences with L-zeolite based catalyst systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Monitoring chlorides in effluent wash water . . . . . . . . . . . 99-93 Process Fixed dry alumina adsorbent bed is successful treatment . . . . . . . . . . . 131-93
Process Monitoring will not pick up pockets of chlorides . . . . . . . 100-93 Process Fouling by ammonium chloride reduced by washing recycle . . . . . . . . 133-93
Process Most popular filter systems in use today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process Gains in yield on semi-regenerative reformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127-93
Process Not all catalyst bed pluggers are filterable . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process High surface area stable catalysts for CCR and cyclic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Octane loss in hydrotreating FCC gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102-93 Process How long can recycle compressors be run between washing . . . . . 133-93
Process Octane losses for FCC gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93 Process Hydrogen sulfide generated from iron sulfides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Operation of diesel hydrotreater causes color problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102-93 Process Hydrogen sulfide is most likely corroding agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-93
Process Producing ultra low sulfur diesel fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103-93 Process Inability of catalyst to pick up chlorides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-93
Process Quantities of wash water to add to refinery effluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101-93 Process Iron sulfide causes serious corrosion problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
Process Routinely sending disulfide oil to the hydrotreater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112-93 Process Listing of changes occurring in low pressure operation . . . . . . . . . 132-93
Process Rules of thumb for water wash are 3 m5 vol% . . . . 101-93 Process Low pressure drop plate type exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131-93
Process Scrubbing H2S out of the recycle gas stream . . . . 107-93 Process Low pressure drop plate type exchangers ok in reforming . . . . . . 132-93
Process Specifications imposed on reactor feed . . 100-93 Process Lower pressure means a decrease in heat transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131-93
Process Steam condensate for hydrotreater wash . . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process Maximizing pressure during carbon bum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129-93
Process Stripped sour water for reactor effluent water wash . 100-93 Process More hydrogen production at lower pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132-93
Process Two-stage hydrotreater configuration 108-93 Process Operating pressure during carbon burn regeneration step . . . . . . . . . . 129-93
Process Types of filter systems most commonly used . . . . . . . . . . 100-93 Process Optimum chloride content about 0.9 to 1.1 wt% catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Wash water added to reactor effluent at 12-18 ft/sec 101-93 Process Raising reformer pressure eases heater constraints .. . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Process Water wash rate is that required to give laminar flow . 101-93 Process Recycle compressors operate 2 years between washings . . . . . . . 133-93
Slurry Recycle Hydroprocessing slurry recycle oil 105-93 Process Reducing reactor pressure yields processing gains . . . . . . . . . . . . 127-93
Slurry Recycle Loss of cloud point sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . 106-93 Process Reducing unit charge result of lowering pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132-93
Slurry Recycle Modification to improve mixing of slurry up conversion 106-93 Process Reformer compressors operate 2 years between washings . . . . . . 133-93
Sulfur New sulfur analyzers on the market . . . . . . . . . . . 105-93 Process Reformer feed kept below 0.5 ppm nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133-93
Process Reformer revamps completed in less than 30 days . . . . . . . . . . . . 132-93
INSTBUMENTATION Process Reformer yields vary significantly with feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
Certification Experience with ISO 9002 Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . 43-93 Process Regeneration after catalyst excursion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-93
Corrosion Detecting and measuring under insulation corrosion . 46-93 Process Restoring catalyst to fresh catalyst conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-93
Crude Oil Performance monitoring of crude units 27-93 Process Sources of reformer corrosion (Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-93
Dehydration Inert gas dehydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46-93 Process Success with sulfate stripping procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131-93
Flares Measurement for flow and composition of flare gas 43-93 Process Sulfate during regeneration, causing platinum movement . . . . . . 130-93
Flares Smoke detection to monitor flares 43-93 Process Sulfate removal desirable if more than 0.1 wt% on cat . . . . . . . . 130-93
Gamma scanning Gamma scanning to solve plant operating problems . . 45-93 Process Sulfur can be stripped from the catalyst by hydrogen . . . . . . . . . 130-93
Microwave Microwave device is versatile . . . . . . 32-93 Process Trimetallic catalyst for improved yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
On-line units Experience with NIR analyzers 30-93 Process ‘Iwo methods to correct the sulfate problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-93
On-line units Listings of systems being used for pH control 30-93 Process Variables in contacting recycle gas with neutralizer . . . . . . . . . . 133-93
On-line units NIR instrument shows low drift and high precision 30-93 Process Variations in process variables with catalyst density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-93
On-line units Systems on pH measurement in crude overhead water 30-93 Process Vibration problem with vertical heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132-93
On-line units pH measurement in crude overhead water . 30-93 Process Vibration problems eliminated with plate type exchanger . . . . . . . . . . 132-93
Process Water-chloride control policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-93
ISOMERIZATION
Benzene Diverting benzene and benzene precursors to isom . . . . . . . . . 136-93 SAFETY & INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
Benzene Handling benzene in hydrotreated light straight-run . . . . . . . 136-93 Programs Contractor safety training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-93
Benzene Increased hydrogen consumption, suppressed isom . . . . . . . . . 136-93 Programs Listing of topics for contractor safety training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-93
Benzene Problems with higher benzene levels in feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136-93 Programs Process safety management guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45-93
Catalyst Increasing MTBE capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137-93
Catalyst Majority of total delta T in first reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136-93 SULFUR
Catalyst New skeletal isomerization process to feed MTBE unit . . . . . 137-93 Desalting Treating exchanger train to prevent laydown 14-93
Catalyst Optimum time to change out I-8 catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136-93 Fuels Measuring sulfur content of diesel 105-93
Fuels Operating problems with low sulfur diesel 105-93
LUBE OILS (AS LUBRICANTS)
Manufacturing Choice of interface location depends, continuous phase . . . 16-93 TREATING
Manufacturing Demonstration mechanical seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93 Desalting Blending crudes by neutralization number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-93
Manufacturing Dewaxing aids on MEK dewaxing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93 Desalting Crude settling after desalting successful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-93
Manufacturing Ice formation in solvent dehydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93 Desalting Demulsifier used in tankage on crudes hard to desalt . . . . . . . . 12-93
Manufacturing Improved dewaxing with dewaxing aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93 Desalting Effect of crude blending on fouling and corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-93
Manufacturing Liquid-liquid interface in solvent extraction units . . . . . . . . 16-93 Desalting Effective program for tank dehydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-93
Manufacturing List of methods to upgrade instrumentation, control . . . . . 16-93 Desalting Elimination of oil undercarry in desalting heavy crudes . . . . . . 10-93
Manufacturing Location of interface in solvent extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-93 Desalting Emulsion polymer for maintaining oil-free undercarry . . . . . . . 10-93
Manufacturing Mechanical seals in dewaxing filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-93 Desalting Handling desalter water ratably . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-93
Manufacturing NMP extraction solvent losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-93 Desalting Hydrocyclones on desalter effluent water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-93

186
TOC/INDEX

Desalting Hydrocycloning separates emulsions very well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-93 Jet fuel Fixed carbon bed for jet fuel treating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-93
Desalting Identifying crudes that cause desalting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-93 Jet fuel List of important factors for good fixed-bed operation 12-93
Desalting Impact of blending crudes on fouling and corrosion . . . . . . . . . 13-93 Separation Kerosene water reaction separation rating . . . . . . . . . . . 8-93
Desalting Oil undercarry in desalting heavy crudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-93 Separation Laboratory test method for kerosene-water separation 8-93
Desalting Pilot plants predict corrosion, fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-93 Separation Passing the D-1094test 9-93
Desalting Recycled desalter brine as wash water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-93 Separation Sepammeter method uses high speed pump 9-93
Desalting Reducing desalter heavy oil carryunder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-93 Separation Simple test useful in separation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 9-93
Desalting Some crudes contain elemental sulfur, cause corrosion . . . . . . 14-93 Separation Tests for petroleum products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-93
Desalting Sources of desalter wash water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-93 Separation Use of D-3948 test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-93
Desalting Tank dehydration when feed sources vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-93 Separation Water reaction of aviation fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-93
Desalting Tank-farm dehydration to solve desalting problems . . . . . . . . . 12-93 Sweetening Amine solutions for impregnating sweetening catalyst 10-93
Desalting Treating crude tank to remove entrained water is costly . . . . . 13-93 Sweetening Caustic-free Merox installed on FCC gasoline . . . . 10-93
Desalting Treating crude tanks to improve desalter operation . . . . . . . . . 12-93 Sweetening Dilute ammonia for impregnating sweetening catalyst 9-93
Desalting Treating exchanger train to prevent laydown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-93 Sweetening Gasoline sweetening with regenerative caustic . . . . 9-93
Desalting Vacuum ejector condensate as desalter wash water makeup . 8-93 Sweetening Impregnating sweetening catalyst with methanol . 9-93
Desalting Vacuum ejector steam jet condensate as desalter wash . . . . . . 8-93 Sweetening Merox sweetening without alkali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-93
Desalting Vacuum tower condensate as desalter wash water . . . . . . . . . . . 8-93
Desalting Water from underground aquifer as desalter wash water . . . . 8-93
Desalting Water mixed with crude oil using mechanical mixers . . . . . . . 13-93 VISBREAKING
Desalting Weathered crude has special problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-93 Antifoulant Antifoulant effective against asphaltene deposits 83-93
Jet fuel Caustic prewash for jet fuel treat in fixed carbon bed . . . . . . . 12-93 Distillation Visbreaking material from deep cut vacuum operation 84-93

187
TOC/INDEX
REFERENCES
I. ALKYLATION
Whittle, David K., Lorenzo, Donald K., and Kirkman,
John Q., “Results of alkylation unit hazard, operability
study are analyzed and summarized,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 10, 1989, p. 96.
Novalany, S. and McClung, R.G., “Better alky from
treated olefins,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09,
Sept. 1989, p. 66.
McDonald, G.W.G., “FCC charge-stock value depends on
operational response,” The Oil and Gas Journal, July 31,
1989, p. 80.
Unzelman, George H., “ETHERS IN GASOLINE-1:
Ethers have good gasoline-blending attributes,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Apr. 10, 1989, p. 33.
Unzelman, George H., “ETHERS IN GASOLINE-
Conclusion: Ethers will play larger role in octane, envi-
ronmental spec for gasoline blends,” The Oil and Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 17, 1989, p. 44.
Davis, Brian C., “Supplying high-octane gasoline will
further challenge U.S. refiners,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
May 15, 1989, p. 35.
Desai, Pankaj H., and Haseltine, Robert P, “Advanced
FCC catalyst formulations can be used to boost motor
octane number of gasoline,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Oct.
23, 1989, p. 68.
Ramsey, John R., and Truesdale, Patrick B., “Blend
optimization integrated into refinery-wide strategy,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 19, 1990, p. 49.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Conversion gains reflect healthy margins,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Mar. 26, 1990, p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual Relining Survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar.
26, 1990, p. 77.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-1:
Reformulated gasolines will challenge product-quality
maintenance,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 9, 1990,
p. 43.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-
Conclusion: Options to meet 1990s fuel composition rules
limited,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990, p. 91.
Corbett, Richard A.,“FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Tough
air-quality goals spur quest for transportation fuel
changes,” The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Fuel
reformulations, alternatives cover broad spectrum,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 42.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-New
and modified processes and catalysts needed for new fuels,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p, 52.
Corbett, Richard A., “Proposed OSHA safety regs target
process plant procedures,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug.
20, 1990, p. 80.
Parkinson, Gerald, “HF’s future is up in the air,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, May 1990, p. 39.
188
Gilman, Robert H., “Capital outlays for gasoline re-
formulation can be minimized,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Sept. 3, 1990, p. 44.
Hoffman, H. L., “Catalyst market estimated,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 53.
“Refining Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Albright, L.F., “MODERN ALKYLATION - 1: Alkyla-
tion will be key process in reformulated gasoline era,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Nov. 12, 1990, p. 79.
Albright, L.F., “MODERN ALKYLATION - Conclusion:
H2 S0 4 , HF processes compared, and new technologies
revealed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 26, 1990, p. 70.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gus Jour-
nal, Dec. 31,1990, p. 84.
“NPRA Q&A - 2: HF alkylation drawn process, safety
questions,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1991, p. 48.
“Alkylation unit scheduled for Ufa refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 2, 1991, p. 24.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
Hoffman, H. L., “Refining catalyst market ‘91,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Lerner, H. and Citarella, V. A., “Improve alkylation
efficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov.
1991, p. 89.
Lemer, H. and Citarella, V. A., “Improve alkylation
efficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 89.
“Alkylation of MTBE raffinate increases octane, un-
loads alky unit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 99.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Group pursuing new alkylation process,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 40.
“HzS04 alkylation shows promise for upgrading gaso-
line pentenes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 72.
“Refiners discuss HF alkylation process and issues,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 67.
“Refiners look at H 2 SO 4 alkylation, catalytic re-
forming,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p, 45.
Chang, E. J. and Lelby, S. M., “Ethers help gasoline
quality,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p. 41
Nierlich, E, “Oligomerize for better gasoline,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p. 45.
Abraham, 0. C. and Prescott, G. F., “Make isobutylene
from TBA,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p. 51.
Chaput, G., et al, “Pretreat alkylation feed,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Sept., 1992, p. 51.
Scott, B., “Identify alkylation hazards,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 77.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
TOC/INDEX
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
“New processes and catalysts solve problems of feed
contaminants,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 51.
Sloley, Andrew W. and Golden, Scott W., “Analysis key
to correcting debutanizer design flaws,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 8, 1993, p. 50.
“New HF alky unit key to Navajo’s $50-million expan-
sion,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 14, 1993, p. 42.
II. HYDROCRACKING
Powell, Robert T., “Kinetic hydrocracker model helps
engineers predict yields, targets, operations,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 9, 1989, p. 61.
Corbett, Richard A., “Modern hydrocracking is the key
to upgrading processes,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 26,1989,
p. 42.
Court, A.L. and Smith, W.H., “Canada’s first heavy oil
upgrader complex on stream,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 26,
1989, p. 46.
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Adams, C.T., et al, “Hydroprocess catalyst selection,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989, p, 57.
Nash, Richard M., “REFINING/GAS PROCESSING
REPORT: Process conditions and catalyst for low-
aromatics diesel studies,” The Oil and Gas Journal, May
29, 1989, p. 47.
Aalund, Leo R., “Expanded Mongstad refinery has
major export role,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 12,1990,
p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT
Conversion gains reflect healthy margins,” Th.e Oil and
Gas Journal, Mar. 26, 1990, p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual retlning survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 26,
1990 p. 77.
Suchanek, Arthur J., “Catalytic routes to low-aromatics
diesel look promising,” The Oil and Gas Journal, May 7,
1990, p. 109.
Shaffer, Arthur G., Jr., and Hemler, Charles L., “Seven
years of operation prove RCC capability,” The Oil and Gas
Journal, May 28, 1990, p. 62.
“Refining Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Bucheim, Gerrit M., “Ways to deal with wet H2S crack-
ing revealed by study,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 9,
1990, p. 92.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
“Acoustic tests during cooldown find cracks in reactors
at Gulf Coast refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 17,1991,
p. 47.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 relining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
189
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p, 46.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
“Texas refinery gets two reactors,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 7, p. 30.
Ladeur, Peter and Bijwaard, Harry, “Shell plans
$2.2-billion renovation of Dutch refinery,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 26, 1993, p. 64.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44
III. CATALYTIC CRACKING
Humphries, Adrian and Wilcox, Jack R., “Zeolite com-
ponents and matrix composition determine FCC catalyst
performance,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 6, 1989, p. 40.
Keyworth, Donald A., Reid, Terry A., Kreider, Keith R.,
and Yatsu, Carolyn A., “FCC LPG olefinicity and branch-
ing enhanced by octane catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
29, 1989, p. 56.
McDonald, G.W.G., “FCC charge stock value depends on
operational response,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 31, 1989,
p. 80.
Christie, David A. and Holden, David G., “Fluid cat
cracking units’ advanced control can achieve benefits in six
areas,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 25, 1989, p. 104.
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Desai, Pankaj H. and Haseltine, Robert P. “Advanced
FCC catalyst formulations can be used to boost motor
octane number of gasoline,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 23,
1989, p, 68.
Bartholomew, Karl D. and Soudek, Ales, “LP accuracy is
improved by incorporating FCC simulation data,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 30, 1989, p. 57.
Rhemann, H., et al, “On-line FCCU advanced control
and optimization,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No.
06, June 1989, p. 64.
Adams, C.T., et al, “Hydroprocess catalyst selection,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989, p. 57.
Carter, G.D.L. and McElhiney, G., “FCC catalyst selec-
tion,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989,
p. 63.
Washimi, K. and Limmer, H., “New unit to thermal
crack resid,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept.
1989, p. 69.
Elvin, FJ., “Catalyst demetallized for reuse,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1989, p. 71.
Brown, Gordon W., “Direct measurement of FCC flu-
idizability helps spot problems,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Jan 15, 1990, p. 46.
Aalund, Leo R., “Expanded Mongstad refinery has
major export role,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 12,1990,
p. 33.
“Innovative improvements highlight FCC’s past and
future,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jan. 8, 1990, p. 33.
TOC/INDEX
Parkinson, Gerald, Johnson, Eric, “Designer catalysts
are all the rage,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1989, p. 30.
Avidan, Amos, Krambeck, Frederick J., Owen, Hartley,
and Schipper, Paul H., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
FCC closed-cyclone system eliminates post-riser cracking,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 26, 1990, p. 56.
Yatsu, Carolyn A., and Keyworth, Donald A., “AN-
NUAL REFINING REPORT: Modified MAT and CC help
predict FCC gasoline quality,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Mar. 26, 1990, p. 64.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT
Annual refining survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 26,
1990 p. 77.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-l:
Reformulated gasolines will challenge product-quality
maintenance,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 9, 1990,
p. 43.
Weeks, Simon A., and Dumbill, Peter, “Method speeds
FCC catalyst attrition resistance determinations,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Apr. 16, 1990, p. 38.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-
Conclusion: Options to meet 1990s fuel composition rules
limited,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990, p. 91.
Heite, Richard S., English, A.R., and Smith G. Andrew,
“Bismuth nickel passivation effective in FCCU,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Jun. 4, 1990, p. 81.
Nieskens, Mart JPC., Khouw, Frank H.H., Borley,
Martin J.H., and Roebschlaeger, Karl-Heinz W., “Shell’s
resid FCC technology reflects evolutionary development,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 11, 1990, p. 37.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-
Tough air-quality goals spur quest for transportation fuel
changes,” The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Fuel
reformulations, alternatives cover broad spectrum,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 42.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-New
and modified processes and catalysts needed for new fuels,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 52.
Bucheim, Gerrit M., “Ways to deal with wet H2S crack-
ing revealed by study,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 9,
1990, p. 92.
Gilman, Robert H., “Capital outlays for gasoline re-
formulation can be minimized,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Sept. 3, 1990, p. 44.
Stokes, G.M., Wear, C.C., Suarez, W., and Young, G.W.,
“Reformulated gasoline will change FCC operations and
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 2, 1990, p. 58.
Alkemade, U., Cartlidge, S., and Thompson, J.M.,
“WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT: Improved alumina
sol FCC catalysts meet challenges of the 1990s,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 1, 1990, p. 52.
Upson, L.L., Lawson, R.J., Cormier, W.E., and Baard,
FJ., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT: Matrix, sieve,
binder developments improve FCC catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 1, 1990, p. 64.
Lovink, H.J., “Siberian catalyst research center works
at world class level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 31, 1990,
p. 119.
Hoek, A., Huizinga, T., Esener, A.A., Maxwell, I.E.,
Stork, W., van de Meerakker, FJ., and Sy, O., “New catalyst
improves heavy feedstock hydrocracking,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 22, 1991, p. 77.
190
Elvin, F.J. and Pavel, SK., “Metals removal of FCC
catalyst operating in refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 22,
1991, p. 94.
“Additives play important role in FCC development,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 23, 1991, p. 50.
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, S.M., “FCC
CORROSION - 1: Basic steps lead to successful FCC cor-
rosion control,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 81.
Hoffman, H. L., “Catalyst market estimated,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 53.
Hayward, C.M. T. and Winkler, W. S., “FCC: Matrix/
zeolite interactions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No.
02, Feb. 1990, p. 55.
Soudek, M. and Lacatena, J.J., “Crack isobutane for
isobutylene,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May
1990, p. 73.
“Refining Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Santner, C. R., “Rare earth and matrix activity effects in
resid FCC cat,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12,
Dec. 1990, p. 75.
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, S.M., “FCC
CORROSION - Conclusion: Basic corrosion control
methods solve varied problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1991, p. 86.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
Hoffman, H. L., “Refining catalyst market ‘91,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Sadeghbeigi, R., “Estimating hydrogen of FCC coke,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 38.
McLean, J. B. and Moorehead, E. L., “Steaming affects
FCC catalyst,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02,
Feb. 1991, p. 41.
Humphries, A., et al, “Catalyst helps reformulation,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 69.
Jazayeri, B., “Optimize FCC riser design,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 93.
Letzsch, W. S., et al, “Passivate nickel in FCC feeds,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06, Jun. 1991, p. 89.
Johnson, T. E., “Improve regenerator heat removal,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 55.
Krishna, A. S., et al, “Additives improve FCC process,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 59.
O’Connor, P, et al, “Improve resid processing,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 76.
Johnson, T. E., “Improve regenerator heat removal,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 55.
Krishna, A. S., et al, “Additives improve FCC process,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 59.
Golden, S. W. and Martin, G. R., “Improve HVGO qual-
ity and cutpoint,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov., 1991,
p. 69.
O’Connor, P et al, Improve resid processing,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 76.
Rajagopalan, K. and Habib, H. P Jr., “Understand FCC
matrix technology,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Sept., 1992,
p. 43.
TOC/INDEX
Sloan, H. D., “Process heavier crude blends,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 99.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Schmitt, Rodolphe, “FCC catalyst find three safe reuse
outlet in Europe,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18,1991, p. 101.
Rowlands, Gareth, Konuk, Aydin, and Sleinschrodt,
Frank, “FCCU advanced controls increase feed rate and
column stability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 25, 1991, p. 64.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
McDonald, G.W.G., “Upgrading FCC VRU can yield
attractive payoff,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 79.
“Presulfiding, FCC olefins focus of catalyst sessions,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 37.
“UOP to end U.S. operations in FCC catalyst manu-
facture,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 46.
Leiby, Susan, “FCC catalyst technologies expand limits
of process capability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992,
p. 49.
Eriksson, Per-Olof, Tomlins, Aric, and Dash, Sachindra,
“FCCU advanced control system achieves 2-month pay-
out,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 62.
Brahn, Michael G., “Olefin recovery from FCC offgas can
pay off,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 20, 1992, p. 94.
Perez de Haro, Juan, Berlanga Gonzales, Antonio J.,
Schroder, Nina, and Stenberg, Olle, “O2 enrichment in-
creases FCC operating flexibility,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
11, 1992, p, 40.
Reichle, A.D., “Fluid catalytic cracking hits 50 year
mark on the run,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 18,1992, p. 41.
Aalund, Leo, “Human element key to FCC success,” Oil
& Gas Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 46.
Murphy, James R., “Evolutionary design changes mark
FCC process,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 49.
Avidan, Amos A., “FCC is far from being a mature
technology,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 59.
Murcia, Alvaro A., “Numerous changes mark FCC
technology advance,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, 1992,
p. 68.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
Campos, Mario Cesar M.M., and Rodrigues, Paulo Sergio
B., “Practical control strategy eliminates FCCU com-
pressor surge problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 11,1993,
p. 29.
Sarrazin, Patrick, Cameron, Charles J., Barthel, Yves,
and Morrison, M. Edward, “Processes prevent detrimental
effects from As and Hg in feedstocks,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 25, 1993, p. 86.
“NPRA Q&A-2: Catalytic cracking receives heavy at-
tention at Q&A meeting,“Oil& Gas Journal, Apr. 19,1993,
p. 48.
Golden, Scott W., Martin, Gary R., and Schmidt, Karl D.,
“Field data, new design correct faulty FCC tower revamp.”
Goelzer, Alan R., Ram, Sanjeev, Hernandez-Robinson,
Agustin, Chin, A cnur A., Harandi, Mohsen N., and Smith,
C. Morris, “Refiners have several options for reducing gaso-
line benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 63.
191
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Golden, S. W., et al., “FCC main fractionator revamps,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 77.
Lin, T. D. V., “FCCU advanced control and optimiza-
tion,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4, April 1993,
p. 107.
IV. HYDROTREATING AND HYDROREFINING
Nash, Richard M., “Process conditions and catalyst for
low-aromatics diesel studied,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 29,
1989, p. 47.
Christman, Robert D., Plesko, Ronald W., and Donahue,
Michael, and Wilson, Robert E., “Tests show DMSO effec-
tive for HDS, HDN catalyst sulfiding,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 18, 1989, p.90.
“Panel gives hydrotreating guides,” Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 68, No. 03, Mar. 1989, p. 113.
Adams, C.T., et al, “Hydroprocess catalyst selection,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989, p. 57.
Novalany, S. and McClung, R.G., “Better alky from
treated olefins,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09,
Sept. 1989, p. 66.
Parkinson, Gerald, Johnson, Eric, “Designer catalysts
are all the rage,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1989, p. 30.
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
“European emission, fuel quality regs tighten,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Dec. 18, 1990, p. 41.
Suchanek, Arthur J., “Catalytic routes to Iow-aromatics
diesel look promising,” The Oil and Gas Journal, May 7,
1990, p. 109.
Hohnholt, John E, ShifIlet, Woodrow K., and Suchanek,
Arthur K., “REFINING/GAS PROCESSING REPORT:
Higher severity hydroconversion hikes diesel and distillate
yields at Valero,” The Oil and Gas Journal, May 28, 1990,
p. 72.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Tough
air-quality goals spur quest for transportation fuel
changes,” The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Fuel
reformulations, alternatives cover broad spectrum,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 42.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-New
and modified processes and catalysts needed for new fuels,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 52.
Kahn, H.U., Mungali, M.M., Agrawal, K.M., and Joshi,
G.C., “Graphical method simplifies diesel cloud point de-
terminations,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Sept. 24, 1990,
p. 98.
TOC/INDEX
Smith, Fritz A., and Bortz, Robert W., “Applications
vary for dewaxing process over 10-year span,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Aug. 13, 1990, p. 51.
Hoffman, H. L., “Catalyst market estimated,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 53.
Eastwood, D. and Van de Venne, H., “Revamp distillate
desulfurizers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05,
May 1990, p. 63.
“Refining Handbook '90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
“Hydrotreating unit installed in Texaco’s Wales re-
finery,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1991, p. 36.
LeRoy, C.F., Hanshaw, M.J., Fischer, S.M., Malik, T., and
Kooiman, R., “HYDROTREATING OPTIMIZATION - 1:
Refiner conducts full scale VGO hydrotreating study,” Oil
& Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 49.
LeRoy, C.F., Hanshaw, M.J., Fischer, SM., Malik, T., and
Kooiman, R., “HYDROTREATING OPTIMIZATION -
Conclusion: Optimization of catalyst system reaps eco-
nomic benefits,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 3, 1991, p, 87.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
Hoffman, H. L., “Refining catalyst market ‘91,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Plantenga, Frans L., Inoue, Yoshimasa, and Torihara,
Naoyuki, “Specialized guard-bed technology can improve
resid unit operation,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.. 21, 1991,
p. 74.
“Ashland refinery starts up two sulfur units,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 95.
“End seen for high sulfur fuel oil in Europe,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 21.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Single and dual stage hydrotreating can up diesel ce-
tane,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 88.
Desai, P. H., et al., “Enhance gasoline yield and quality,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 51.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Cooper, B. H., et al., “Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel
aromatics saturation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 6, June 1993, p. 83.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,“Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
“New processes and catalysts solve problems of feed
contaminants,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 51.
“Process passivates spent catalyst to allow unloading
under air,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 56.
“NPRA Q&A-1: Experience exchanged on complex
effects ofcatalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 22,1993, p. 45.
192
Simonsen, Knut A., O’Keefe, Luke E, and Fong, W.
Francis, “Changing fuel formulations will boost hydrogen
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 45.
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert E, “Visbreaker
hardware has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
“Ashland refinery units take shape,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 19, 1993, p. 20.
“NPRA Q&A: Hydroprocessing key issue in ‘low sulfur’
era,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 26, 1993, p. 88.
Booth, Martin and Wolveridge, Peter E., “Severe hydro-
treating of diesel can cause fuel-injector pump failure,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 71.
Gorra, Filippo, Scribano, Giorgio, Christensen, Preben,
Andersen, Karin Vibeke, and Corsaro, Osvaldo Gaetano,
“New catalyst, improved presulfiding result in 4-year
hydrotreater run,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 23,1993, p. 39.
“Oklahoma hydrotreater nearly finished,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 36.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44
V. REFORMING
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Aalund, Leo R., “Expanded Mongstad refinery has
major export role,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 12,1990,
p. 33.
Ramsey, John R., and Truesdale, Patrick B., “Blend
optimization integrated into refinery-wide strategy,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 19, 1990, p. 40.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual refining survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 26,
1990 p. 77.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-1:
Reformulated gasolines will challenge product-quality
maintenance,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 9, 1990,
p. 43.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-
Conclusion: Options to meet 1990s fuel composition rules
limited,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990, p. 91.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Tough
air-quality goals spur quest for transportation fuel
changes,” The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Fuel
reformulations, alternatives cover broad spectrum,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 42.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-New
and modified processes and catalysts needed for new fuels,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 52.
Gilman, Robert H., “Capital outlays for gasoline re-
formulation can be minimized,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Sept. 3, 1990, p. 44.
McClung, R.G., “Reformer operation improved by feed
sulfur removal,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 8, 1990, p. 98.
Hoffman, H. L., “Catalyst market estimated,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 53.
“Gas Process Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 04, Apr. 1990, p. 69.
TOC/INDEX
“Refining Handbook '90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Santner, C. R., “Rare earth and matrix activity effects on
resid FCC cat,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12,
Dec. 1990, p. 75.
“Acoustic tests during cooldown find cracks in reactors
at Gulf Coast refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 17,1991,
p. 47.
Hoffman, H. L., “Refining catalyst market ‘91,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,‘, Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Japanese refinery starts up UOP Platforming unit,,’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.,27, 1992, p. 32.
“Refiners look at H 2 SO 4 alkylation, catalytic re-
forming,,’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 45.
Hennico, Alphonse, Mank, Larry, Mansuy, Christophe,
and Smith, D. H., “Texas reformer designed for two-step
expansion,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 8, 1992, p. 54.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Baade, W. F., et al., “Generate hydrogen for reformulated
gasoline and clean diesel,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 89.
Liers, J., et al., “Reforming using erionite catalysts,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 165.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
Simonsen, Knut A., O’Keefe, Luke E, and Fong, W.
Francis, “Changing fuel formulations will boost hydrogen
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 45.
“Ashland refinery units take shape,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 19, 1993, p. 20.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44
VI. TREATING AND DESALTING
Pitsinigos, V.D. and Lygeros, A.I., “Predicting
HPS-MEA equilibrium,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68,
No. 04, Apr. 1989, p. 43.
Vervalin, C.H., “Bioremediation on the move,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug. 1989, p. 50.
Isla, M.A., et al, “Improving sour water strippers,”
HydroCarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug. 1989, p. 65.
Elvin, FJ., “Catalyst demetallized for reuse,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1989, p. 71.
Chiu, C. H., “Advances in gas separation,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 01, Jan. 1990, p. 69.
Hoffman, H. L., “Catalyst market estimated,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 53.
Smith, R. S., “Gas dehydration process upgraded,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 75.
193
“Gas Process Handbook '90,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 04, Apr. 1990, p. 69.
Eastwood, D. and Van de Venne, H., “Revamp distillate
desulfurizers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05,
May 1990, p. 63.
Talavera, P. G., “Selecting gas/liquid separators,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 81.
Frank, B. E., “Canadian natural gas exports: Position-
ing for the 1990s,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 09,
Sep. 1990, p. 136C.
“Refining Handbook '90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Cooley, D. F., “Strip SO2 from acid treated soil,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 85.
Hoffman, H. L., “Refining catalyst market ‘91,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Mdtiee, M., “Estimate possibility of hydrates,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, Jul. 1991, p. 98.
Yamanlar, S., et al, “Control hydrate formation,‘, Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sep. 1991, p. 155..
Dillion, E. T., “Triazines sweeten gas easier,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 65.
Duke, R.B., “Water content test for EORcrude simulates
desalter,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 25, 1991, p. 40.
Minikkinen, Ari, Larue, Joseph Y.M., Pate], Suru, and
Levier, Jean-Francois, “Methanol gas-treating scheme
offers economics, versatility,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1,
1992, p. 65.
Desai, P H., et al., “Enhance gasoline yield and quality,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 51.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Felten, J. R., et al., “Residual fuels in a clean-fuels
environment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6,
June 1993, p. 82-B.
Cooper, B. H., et al., “Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel
aromatics saturation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 6, June 1993, p. 83.
“Filtration method efficiently desalts crude in com-
mercial test,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 17, 1993, p. 59.
VII. CRUDE DISTILLATION
“Upgrading process can be used upstream or down,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 23, 1989, p. 55.
Al-Besharah, Jasem M., Akashah, Saed A., and Mum-
ford, C.J., “Binary mixture viscosities - Conclusion: Binary
mixtures of petroleum products and mixtures based of base
oils examined,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 6, 1989, p. 50.
Corbett, Richard A., “Canada’s heavy oil, bitumen up-
grading activity is growing,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 26,
1989, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “Modern hydrocracking is the key
to upgrading processes,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 26,1989,
p. 42.
Al-Besharah, Jasem M., Akashah, Saed A., and Mum-
ford, C.J., “Binary mixture viscosities - 1: Viscosities of
binary crude oil mixtures correlated,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 20, 1989, p. 35.
Corbett, Richard A., “Oseberg premium crude is in
production,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 24, 1989, p. 56.
TOC/INDEX
Court, A.L. and Smith, W.H., “Canada’s first heavy oil
upgrader complex on stream,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 26,
1989, p. 46.
West, Karen I., Hankinson, R.W., and Downer, Lionel,
“Petroleum Measurement Tables of 1980 reaffirmed,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 7, 1989, p. 63.
Du, Pham Quang, “Highly paraffinic Vietnamese crudes
characterized,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 6, 1989, p. 39.
Vatcha, S.R., “How efficient can distillation be?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989, p. 65.
Chen, G.K. and Chuang, K.T., “Recent developments in
distillation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 02, Feb.
1989, p. 37.
Harrison, Mark E., France, John J., “Troubleshooting
distillation columns - Part 1: Technique and tools,”
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1989. p. 116.
Harrison, Mark E., France, John J., “Troubleshooting
distillation columns - Part 3: Trayed columns,” Chemical
Engineering, May. 1989. p. 126.
Harrison, Mark E., France, John J., “Troubleshooting
distillation columns - Part 4: Auxiliary equipment,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1989. p. 130.
Trigueros, David, Coronado-Velasco, Cristina, and
Gomez-Munoz, Alejandro, “Synthesize simple distillation
the thermodynamic way,” Chemical Engineering, Aug.
1989, p. 129.
Corbett, Richard A., “Important Norwegian crude
assays updated,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 12, 1990,
p. 37.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Conversion gains reflect healthy margins,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Mar. 26, 1990, p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual Refining Survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar.
26, 1990, p. 77.
Coker, A.K., “Program provides short-cut distillation
tower calculations,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jun. 25,
1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., GUIDE TO WORLD EXPORT
CRUDES: Brent blend, North Sea benchmark, assayed,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, Jun. 25, 1990, p. 38.
Du, Pham Quang, “Detailed assays conducted on Viet-
namese crude oils,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 16,1990,
p. 58.
Bird, Graham, Limb, David, and Pandit, Alok, “Flow-
sheet simulation models crude distillation and ammonia
production,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 23,1990, p. 43.
Lee, C., “Enhance gas oil from crude,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May 1990, p. 69.
“Refining Handbook '90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Furgang, S. R., “State-of-the-art refinery training,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 89.
Manriquez, L., Moreno, A., and Anaya, C.G., “EXPORT
CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Assays for important Mexican
crudes updated,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 4, 1991, p. 41.
“EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Alba is first heavy
North Sea crude,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 94.
“EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Commingled crude
from the Brent and Ninian streams assayed,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 8, 1991, p. 46.
Rhodes, A.K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s:
Assay of Forties stream updated,” July 15, 1991, p, 53.
194
Bruening, I.M.R.d.A., “Crude oil polarity measures
quality, preducts behavior,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 5,
1991, p. 38.
Lieberman, N.P. and Lieberman, E.T., “Design, in-
stallation pitfalls appear in vat tower retrofit,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 26, 1991, p. 57.
Rhodes, A.K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s:
Characteristics of North Sea’s Flotta crude updated,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 2, 1991, p. 90.
Swain, E.J., “U.S. crude slate gets heavier, higher in
sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 9, 1991, p. 59.
Rhodes, A.K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s:
North Sea Emerald crude oil assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 16, 1991, p. 84.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
Parrott, K. S., “Better crude oil sample systems,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 63.
Hower, Jr., T. C. and Kister, H. Z., “Solve process column
problems, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05,
May 1991, p. 89.
Hower, Jr., T. C. and Kister, H. Z., “Solve process column
problems, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06,
Jun. 1991, p. 83.
Ashcroft, S. J., et al, “Find shrinkage of spiked crudes,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 109.
Golden, S. W. and Martin, G. R., “Improve HVGO qual-
ity and cutpoint,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11,
Nov. 1991, p. 69.
Sloan, H. D., “Process heavier crude blends,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 99.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.K. North Sea’s Kittiwake crude
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 55.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Two important Saudi crudes
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 64.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K., “East Zeit Mix and Dulang crudes
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 46.
“Koch to construct sour crude units at Corpus Christi,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 56.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Four California OCS crudes
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 67.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Malaysian, Canadian, Saudi crudes
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 44.
“‘Iyumen due U.S. topping unit,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 15, 1992, p. 25.
“Lyondell plans to hike heavy crude runs at Houston,”
Oil & Gas Journal, July 20, 1992, p. 41.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Assays oftwo Saudi crudes updated,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 91.
Jamialahmadi, Mohamad, and Muller-Steinhagen,
Hans, “Computer program designs packed columns,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 33.
Golden, Scott W., and Sloley, Andrew W., “Simple
methods solve vacuum column problems using plant data,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 14, 1992, p. 74.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
TOC/INDEX
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Golden, S. W., et al., “FCC main fractionator revamps,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 77.
Fair, J. R., “How to design baffle tray columns,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 75.
Roberts, D. A., et al., “Recover additional distillate from
vacuum residue,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7,
July 1993, p. 75.
Golden, S. W., et al., “Troubleshoot vacuum columns
with low-capital methods,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 81.
Lieberman, Norman P. and Lieberman, Elizabeth T.,
“Inadequate inspection cause of flawed vac tower revamp,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 14, 1992, p. 33.
Rhodes, Anne K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s:
Papua New Guinea’s first commercial crude assayed,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 15, 1993, p. 73.
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert E, “Visbreaker
hardware has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
French, Eddie C., “New inhibitor reduces crude-unit
corrosion problems at lower pH,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
24, 1993, p. 45.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Four steps solve crude-tower
overhead corrosion problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 5,
1993, p. 47.
Rhodes, Anne K., “GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Two
light, sweet C.I.S. crudes assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 6, 1993, p. 82.
VIII. PETROCHEMICAL
Sardar, Hashim, Allen, S.U. Li, and Gendler, JefFrey L.,
“Thermal hydrodealkylation adapted to heavy aromatics
feeds,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20, 1989, p. 91.
Otto, K.W., “Olefin capacity surge will tighten feedstock
supplies,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 3, 1989, p. 35.
Han, S., Shihabi, D.S., Absil, RPL., Huang, Y.Y., Leiby,
SM., Marler, D.O., and McWilliams, J.P., “ZSM-5 catalyst
developed for toluene disproportionation,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Aug. 21, 1989, p. 84.
Inkrott, Kenneth E., Scinta, James, and Smith, Paul D.,
“Polyolefin catalyst manufacturing,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 16, 1989, p. 49.
Shannahan, N., “Ammonia loop modernization,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989, p. 60.
Emmrich, G. and Lackner, K., “Recover butene-1 or -2
easier,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989,
p. 71.
Barton, J., “Pinch technology improves olefin heat re-
covery,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 02, Feb.
1989, p. 47.
Schultheisz, D.J. and Sommerfeld, J.T., “More interest
in batch simulation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No.
06, June 1989, p. 73.
195
Parkinson, Gerald, Johnson, Eric, “Designer catalysts
are all the rage,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1989, p. 30.
Ahmad, I., et al, “Epoxies from maleic anhydride,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 02, Feb. 1989, p. 51.
Michel, S., “Cost to make CO or H2 + CO,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 68, No. 04, Apr. 1989, p. 37.
Yaws, C.L., et al, “Critical properties of chemicals,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 07, July 1989, p. 61.
Doolan, PC. and Pujado, P.R., “Make aromatics from
LPG,“Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989,
p. 72.
“Petrochemical Handbook ‘89,” Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 68, No. 11, Nov. 1989, p. 85.
Irving-Monshaw, Susan, Johnson, Eric, “Ethylene’s rid-
ing high,” Chemical Engineering, May 1989, p. 35.
Toomey, Joseph E., Jr., Yu, Jimmy C., “Making organic
chemicals via electrochemical processing,” Chemical En-
gineering, June 1989, p. 140.
Johnson, Eric and Chowdhury, Jay, “New menu for
MMA plants,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1990, p. 35.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL PETROCHEMICAL
REPORT: Derivative demand pushes ethylene capacity
up,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Sept. 4, 1989, p. 53
Han, S., Shihabi, D.S., Absil, RPL., Huang, Y.Y., Leiby,
SM., Marler, D.O. and McWilliams, J.P., “ZSM-5 catalyst
developed for toluene disproportionation,” The Oil and Gas
Journal, Aug. 21, 1989, p. 84.
Barton, Jan, “Method improves pyrolysis TLE oper-
ation,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jan. 29, 1990, p. 81.
Morrison, T.A. and Laflamme, D., “Advanced controls
improve performance of two-shell dual-pressure column,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, May 14, 1990, p. 60.
Coker, A.K., “Program provides short-cut distillation
tower calculations,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jun. 25,
1990, p. 33.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Diagnosis key to flooding prob-
lem solution,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 16,1990, p. 62.
Corbett, Richard A., “Proposed OSHA safety regs target
process plant procedures,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug.
20, 1990, p. 80.
Krembs, John A. and Connolly, James M., “Analysis
shows process industry accident losses rising,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Aug. 27, 1990, p. 40
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL PETROCHEMICAL
REPORT: World ethylene capacity still growing,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Sept. 10, 1990, p. 49.
Lee, A.K.K. and Aitani, A.M., “ANNUAL PETRO-
CHEMICAL REPORT: Saudi ethylene plants move toward
more feed flexibility,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Sept. 10,
1990, p. 60.
Field, S., “Ethylene profitability trends,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar. 1990, p. 47.
LeBlanc, J. R. and Rovner, J. M., “Remote gas conver-
sion in worldscale methanol plant,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar. 1990, p. 51.
Carstensen, J. H., et al, “New developments in shift
catalysts for ammonia,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69,
No. 03, Mar. 1990, p. 57.
Harris, N. and Tuck, M. W., “Butanediol via maleic
anhydride,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May
1990, p. 79.
Di Cintio, R., et al, “Improve ethylene’s demethanizer,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 65.
TOC/INDEX
“Methanol supplies could be pinched by mid-1990s,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 17, 1990, p. 82.
“Dewitt study sees growth for polypropylene in 199Os,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 17, 1990, p. 27.
“Petrochemical recycling to pick up speed,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 1, 1990, p. 35.
“Phillips 66 Co. restoring Houston petrochem capacity,”
Oct. 8, 1990, p. 42.
“Special efforts required to rebuild Hoechst Celanese
Pampa plant,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 8, 1990, p. 100.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT: Petrochemicals,” Oct. 15, 1990, p. 65.
“Westlake’s Louisiana ethylene project past halfway
mark,” Oct. 29, 1990, p. 31.
Aalund, L.R., “Exxon HDPE train uses Mitsui process,”
Dec. 10, 1990, p. 22.
“Shell Berre steam cracker blast causes cited,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 17, 1990, p. 24.
“Sabic details outlook for key petrochemicals,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 28, 1991.
“Pdvsa, EN1 plan Venezuelan methanol plant,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 135.
“MTBE demand to soar if methanol available,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 25, 1991.
“Iran pushing petrochemical industry growth,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 29.
“China targets doubling of ethylene capacity by 2000,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 1, 1991, p. 26.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT: Petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1991,
p. 69.
“Chinese downstream projects move forward,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 29, 1991, p. 40.
Graham, J.F., “ISO QUALITY SYSTEM - Conclusion:
Texas petrochemical plant gets certification,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 13, 1991, p. 48.
Taylor, M.A., “Ethylene plant steam strips waste water
to recover benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991,
p. 62.
“Union Texas eyes ethylene plant project,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 17, 1991, p. 19.
Halle, R.T., and Vadekar, M., “Rust catalyzed ethylene
hydrogenation causes temperature runaway,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 17, 1991, p. 33.
“UOP acquires acetylene conversion process,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 17, 1991, p. 46.
“Demand for methanol will strain capacity,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 19, 1991, p. 28.
“Polyolefins operating rate seen staying at less than
90%,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 38.
“Beijing’s Sinopec adding plants in expansion program,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 26.
Burns, K. G., et al, “Chemicals increase ethylene plant
efficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan.
1991, p. 83.
Sundaram, K. M., et al, “Styrene plant simulation and
optimization,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01,
Jan. 1991, p. 93.
Hummel, H. K., et al, “Optimization of EB plant by
constraint control,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
03, Mar. 1991, p. 67.
“Petrochemical handbook ’9l,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 121.
196
Ibn Salamah, I. A., “Saudi petrochemicals outlook,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 50C.
Brown, R. E. and Lee, I? M., “Way to purify cyclo-
hexane,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May
1991, p. 83.
Di Cintio, R., et al, “Separate ethylene efficiently,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, Jul. 1991, p. 83.
Al-Morished, M. H. and Lamb, M. Y., “Synthesize
styrene,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug.
1991, p. 125.
Brockwell, H. L., et al, “Synthesize ethers,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sep. 1991, p. 133.
Fulmer, J. W. and Graf, K. C., “Distill acetone in tower
packing,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct.
1991, p. 87.
Abraham, O. C. and Chapman, G. L., “Hydrogenate
benzene,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct.
1991, p. 95.
Armstrong, E. H., “Define olefins competition,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 116C.
Gosling, C. D., et al, “Upgrade LPG to BTX products,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 69.
Gosling, C. E., et al, “Process LPG to BTX products,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Dec., 1981, p. 69.
Schneider, R. V., “Choose optimum syngas route,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1992, p. 51.
Resetarits, M. R., “Trays inhibit foaming,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, March, 1992, p. 61.
Lee, J. and Wang, C. C., “Dehydrogenate cyclohexanol,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1992, p. 67.
Giacobbe, E G. et a;. “Increase hydrogen production,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1992, p. 69.
Farina, G. L. and Supp, E., “Produce syngas for meth-
anol,” Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1992, p. 77
Hausch, G. W. et al, “Structured packing at high pres-
sure,” Hydrocarbon Processing, April, 1982, p. 67.
Turpin, L. E., “Cut benzene out of reformate,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, June, 1992, p. 81.
Amorelli, A. A., et al, “Estimate feedstock process-
ability,” Hydrocarbon Processing, June, 1991, p. 93.
Wagner, E. S. and Fromet, G. E, “Steam reforming
analyzed,” Hydrocarbon Processing, July, 1992, p. 69.
“Petrochem health, safety training at issue,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 21, 1991, p. 41.
“Worldwide Construction Report: Petrochemicals,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 65.
“Statoil outlines MTBE development program,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Nov. 25, 1991, p. 37.
“MTBE key to Total’s octane campaign,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 16, 1991, p. 35.
“Shell plans MTBE units,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16,
1991, p. 35.
“Two petrochemical plants scheduled at Venezuelan
sites,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 17.
Albano, John V., Olszewski, Edward F, and Fukushima,
Toshiyuki, “Gas turbine integration reduces ethylene
plant’s energy needs,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992,
p. 55.
“S. Korean petchem exports to soar,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 30, 1992, p. 23.
Upchurch, James Alan, “Big Texas Co splitter unites
feedstock suppliers with users,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
30, 1992, p. 58.
TOC/INDEX
Udengaard, Niels R., Bak Hansen, Jens-Henrik, Han-
son, David C., and Stal, Joseph A., “Sulfur passivated
reforming process lowers syngas H2/CO ratio,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 9, 1992, p. 62.
“Thai petrochemical boom on track,: Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 16, 1992, p. 29.
“India approves big petchem project,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 42.
“Taiwanese companies expanding petrochemical in-
vestment,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 30.
“Polyolefins handling plant nears start-up,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 52.
Brahn, Michael G., “Olefin recovery from FCC offgas can
pay off,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 20, 1992, p. 94.
“China schedules construction of polypropylene unit,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 29.
“New process produces alternative oxygenate from pro-
pylene,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 39.
“BP-Enichem venture to dominate European poly-
styrene market,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 8, 1992, p. 36.
“S. Korea moving up petrochem list,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 15, 1992, p. 17.
“MTBE plant planned at Mont Belvieu,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 15, 1992, p. 32.
“Cleaning up gasoline will increase refinery hydrogen
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 92.
Summers, Daniel R., Coleman, Steven T., and Venner,
Ronald M., “Ethylene fractionator revamp results in 25%
capacity increase,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 10, 1992, p. 52.
“Beijing project to use Texaco technology,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 103.
“DOE to help fund methanol production project,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 31.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.S. refiners choose variety of routes
to MTBE,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 36.
“Novacor slates petrochem expansions, upgrades,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 14, 1992, p. 36.
“Shell, Montedison to form polyolefins joint venture,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 32.
“Petrochem industry expands North American MTBE
capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 34.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Tomlinson, T. R., “Produce more LPG,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 75.
Baas, J. and Warner, R., “How much ‘life’ is left in your
oletin unit?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec.
1992, p. 81.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Tagoe, C., et al., “Are there contaminants in your feed-
stream?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 117.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Lian, H. Y., et al., “Vibration effects of two-phase cross
flow on heat exchangers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 3, March 1993, p. 53.
197
Gorra, Filippo, Breckenridge, Lee L., Guy, Wayne M.,
and Sailor, Robert A., “Selective toluene disproportionation
process proven at Italian refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
12, 1992, p. 60.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT - Petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26,
p. 102.
“IFP offers three new process technologies,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 23, p. 36.
Sarrazin, Patrick, Cameron, Charles J., Barthel, Yves,
and Morrison, M. Edward, “Processes prevent detrimental
effects from As and Hg in feedstocks,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 25, 1993, p. 86.
“Methanol plant design choices affect operations, costs,
other equipment,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 29,1993, p. 53.
“New two-stage process converts butadiene to ethyl-
benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 29, 1993, p. 58.
“Korean company starts up first ARS-based ethylene
unit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 29, 1993, p. 60.
“Plans advance for Chinese ammonia unit,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 5, 1993, p. 32.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION SUR-
VEY - Petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12,1993.
p. 70.
“Phillips ready to license process for production of fuel
ethers,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 19, 1993, p. 24.
“Petrochemical complex due in Kuwait,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 5, 1993, p. 23.
“Taiwan’s sixth naphtha cracker gets green light,” Oil &
Gas Journal, July 12, 1993, p. 34.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Texas plant will use new process to
coproduce propylene oxide, MTBE,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 30, 1993, p. 82.
Goelzer, Alan R., Ram, Sanjeev, Hernandez-Robinson,
Agustin, Chin, Arthur A., Harandi, Mohsen N., and Smith,
C. Morris, “Refiners have several options for reducing gaso-
line benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 63.
IX. DELAYED COKING
Lieberman, Norman P., “Frequently asked questions on
coke quality answered,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 27, 1989,
p. 67.
Nagy, Anthony J. and Antalffy, Leslie P, “Head oper-
ating mechanism improves delayed coker safety, ef-
ficiency,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 29, 1989, p. 77.
Acciarri, Jerry A. and Stockman, Gordon H., “Demand
for superhuman needle cokes on upswing,” The Oil and Gas
Journal, Dec. 25, 1989, p. 118.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Causes ofshorter delayed coker
heater runs reported,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 12,
1990, p. 49.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Conversion gains reflect healthy margins,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Mar. 26, 1990, p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual Refining Survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar.
26, 1990, p. 77.
“Refining Handbook '90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Elliott, J.D., “Design, operation factors can up coker
liquid yields,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 4, 1991, p. 41.
TOC/INDEX
Swain, E.J., “REFINERY COKE - 1: Major growth in
coke production takes place,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 6,
1991, p. 100.
Swain, E.J., “REFINERY COKE - Conclusion: Power,
cement industries shape coke future,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 20, 1991.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Dymond, R. E., “World markets for petroleum coke,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sep. 1991,
p. 162C.
Adams, W. V., “Assure delayed coking safety,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, March, 1992, p. 109.
Thorpe, Wilson A. and Sivaraman, Srini, “Simple tech-
niques reduce coke inventory, sales measurement errors,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 44.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Concawe, “Survey reveals Europe’s refinery waste dis-
posal methods, amounts, and costs,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 28, 1989, p. 53.
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Tzikas, Stephen A., “Save money on drum-quality waste
disposal,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1989, p. 118.
Parkinson, Gerald, “Surging interest in leakproof
pumps,” Chemical Engineering, June 1989, p. 30.
Hopper, David R., “Cleaning up contaminated waste
sites,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1989, p. 94.
Parkinson, Gerald, Johnson, Eric, “Designer catalysts
are all the rage,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1989, p. 30.
Anderson, PH. and McInnes, R.G., “Guidelines for
SARA compliance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No.
01, Jan. 1989, p. 77.
Schultz, D.L., “The communication side of environ-
mental control,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 04,
Apr. 1989, p. 63.
Vervalin, C.H., “Loss prevention information re-
sources,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 06, June
1989, p. 80.
Baybutt,P., “Communicating risk, step by step,“Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 06, June 1989, p. 85.
Jacobs, H.C., “Improve process safety reviews,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 07, July 1989, p. 66.
Iaquaniello, G., et al, “Rotary kiln incineration control
strategies,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug.
1989, p. 39.
Wimberley, W. F., “To dispose of waste wisely. . .,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug. 1989, p. 45.
Isla, M.A., et al, “Improving sour water strippers,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug. 1989, p. 65.
Roberts, R.H., “Design plants for safety,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989, p. 92.
Stacklin, C.A., “Expert-control accident mitigation
(Part 1),” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct.
1989, p. 83.
Mackenzie, John, “Hydrogen peroxide without acci-
dents,” Chemical Engineering, June 1990, p. 84.
198
Stacklin, C.A., “Expert-control accident mitigation
(Part 2),” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 11, Nov.
1989, p. ‘71.
Parkinson, Gerald, “HF’s future is up in the air,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, May 1990, p. 39.
Vatavuk, William M., “Pricing equipment for air-
pollution control,” Chemical Engineering, May 1990,
p. 126.
Hill, Joel, “Controlling emissions from marine loading
operations,” Chemical Engineering, May 1990, p. 133.
Gallant, R.W., “Highly toxic liquids: Teaching operators
to handle them,” Chemical Engineering, April 1990, p. 116.
Grossel, Stanley S., “Highly toxic liquids: Moving them
around the plant,” Chemical Engineering, April 1990,
p. 110.
“SARA goes public,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1990,
p. 30.
Lucks, John O., “Dispose hazardous wastes safely,”
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1990, p. 141.
Monshaw, Susan, “New zip in activated carbon,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Feb. 1990, p. 43.
Arniella, Elio E and Blythe, Leslie J., “Solidifying traps
hazardous wastes,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1990,
p. 92.
Parkinson, Gerald, “Petroleum refiners clean up their
act,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1990, p. 30.
Valentin, Fred H., “Making chemical-process plants
odor: Free,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1990, p. 112.
Melamed, Dennis, “Fixing superfund,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Nov. 1989, p. 30.
Unzelman, George H., “ETHERS IN GASOLINE-1:
Ethers have good gasoline-blending attributes,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Apr. 10, 1989, p. 33.
Nougayrede, J. and Voirin, R., “Liquid catalyst efficient-
ly removes H2S,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 17, 1989,
‘p. 65.
Nash, Richard M., “REFINING/GAS PROCESSING
REPORT: Process conditions and catalyst for low-
aromatics diesel studies,” The Oil and Gas Journal, May
29, 1989, p. 47.
DeRoocker, A., Buonocuore, V., Martin, D.E., Marvillet,
J., Ooms, A.C., Sibra, P., Williams, P.J. and Brandt, J.,
“Survey reveals Europe’s refinery-waste disposal methods,
amounts, and costs,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 28,
1989, p. 53.
deWit, Johannes, “Brittle fracture of old storage tanks
can be prevented,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 19,1990,
p. 40.
Corbett, Richard A., “ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY
REPORT: Refiners, petrochem plants focus on new waste
challenges,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 5, 1990, p. 33.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-
Conclusion: Options to meet 1990s fuel composition rules
limited,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990, p. 91.
Suchanek, Arthur J., “Catalytic routes to low-aromatics
diesel look promising,” The Oil and Gas Journal, May 7,
1990, p. 109.
Corbett. Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Tough
air-quality goals spur quest for transportation fuel
changes,” The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Fuel
reformulations, alternatives cover broad spectrum,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 42.
TOC/INDEX
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-l:
Reformulated gasolines will challenge product-quality
maintenance,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 9, 1990,
p. 43.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-New
and modified processes and catalysts needed for new fuels,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 52.
Gilman, Robert H., “Capital outlays for gasoline re-
formulation can be minimized,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Sept. 3, 1990, p. 44.
Finch, R. N. and Serth, R. W., “Model air emissions
better,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 01, Jan. 1990,
p. 75.
Anon (Conoco), “Rescue team learns the ropes,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 01, Jan. 1990, p. 81.
Li, K. Y. and Hsiao, K. J., “VOC strippers: how many
trays?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990,
p. 79.
Nelson, K. E., “Use these ideas to cut waste,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar. 1990, p. 93.
Berglund, R. L. and Snyder, G. E., “Minimize waste
during design,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 04,
Apr. 1990, p. 39.
“Gas Process Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 04, Apr. 1990, p. 69.
Kuhlke, W. C., “Recycle your plastic waste,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May 1990, p. 89.
Hoare, M. C., “Worldwide options for butane,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May 1990, p. 116B.
Van Zele, R. L. and Diener, R., “On the road to HF
mitigation, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No.
06, Jun. 1990, p. 92.
Piel, W. J. and Thomas, R. X., “Oxygenates for re-
formulated gasoline,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No.
07, Jul. 1990, p. 68.
Van Zele, R. L. and Diener, R., “On the road to HF
mitigation, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No.
07, Jul. 1990, p. 77.
Early II, W. E and Eidson, M. A., “Design for zero
releases,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug.
1990, p. 47.
Hethcoat, H. G., “Minimize refinery waste,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 51.
Steinmeyer, D., “Learn from energy conservation,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 57.
Vervalin, C. H., “To incinerate waste...,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 61.
Lorenz, W. T., “Where the money is going,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 65.
Anon, “EC seeks gasoline emission control,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 09, Sep. 1990, p. 43.
Wade, D. E., “Manage for process safety,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 09, Sep. 1990, p. 44.
Brown, R. A. and Cartwright, R. T., “Biotreat sludges
and soils,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct.
1990, p. 93.
Early II, W. F, et al, “ARCHIE evaluates hazard inci-
dents,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1990,
p. 69.
DiBona, C. J., “The environment dominates industry’s
attention,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec.
1990, p. 49.
199
“Refining Handbook '90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Wilson, J. L., “Theme for ‘91 could be ‘The Future is
Now’,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990,
p. 51.
Beach, R. C., “California, a pacesetter for HP1 environ-
mental future,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12,
Dec. 1990, p. 52.
McGraw, L., “Brand new decade brings the same old
crisis,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990,
p. 53.
Drew, E. H., “Strategies for leadership: a challenge in
the 1990s,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec.
1990, p. 57.
Tevis, P., “Environmental issues: An E/C’s perspective,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 58.
Cooley, D. F., “Strip SOz from acid treated soil,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 85.
Poche, L.R., Derby, R.E., and Wagner, D.R., “Solvent
extraction of refinery wastes rates EPA BDAT,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 7, 1991, p. 73.
“Advanced filter system part of oily groundwater
cleanup,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 14, 1991, p. 59.
“ARCO cites S. California clean air milestone,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Feb. 4, 1991, p. 63.
Brown, G.W., Roderick, D., and Nastri, A., “Dry scrub-
ber reduces SO2 in calciner flue gas,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 18, 1991, p. 41.
“Landfill closure cell completed at refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 1, 1991, p. 66.
Yaws, C.L. and Pan, Xiang, “New correlation calculates
reliable paraffin solubilities,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8,
1991, p. 79.
“Sun outlines R&M environmental initiatives,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 13, 1991, p. 70.
Taylor, M.A., “Ethylene plant steam strips waste water
to recover benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991,
p. 62.
Spicer, G.W. and Woodward, C., “H2S control keeps gas
from big offshore field on spec,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27,
1991, p. 76.
“Fina halts emission releases at Port Arthur plant,” Oil
& Gas Journal, June 24, 1991, p. 31.
Nyman, G.B.G. and Tokerud, A., “Seawater scrubbing
removes SO2 from refinery flue gases,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 1, 1991, p. 52.
Taylor, N.A., Hugill, J.A., van Kessel, M.M., and Ver-
burg, R.P.J., “Gas-desulfurization plant handles wide
range of sour gas compositions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug.
19, 1991, p. 57.
de Filippi, R. and Markiewicz, J., “Propane extraction
treats refinery wastes to BDAT standards,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 9, 1991, p. 52.
Yaws, C.L., Pan, X., and Piper, D.G. Jr., “New cor-
relation accurately calculates naphthene water solu-
bilities,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 16, 1991, p. 86.
McInnes, Robert; Jelinek Steven; Putsche, Victoria,
“Cutting toxic organics,” Part 1, Chemical Engineering,
Sept. 1990, p. 108.
McInnes, Robert; Jameson, Kevin; Austin, Dorothy,
“Scrubbing toxic inorganics,” Part 2, Chemical Engineer-
ing, Sept. 1990, p. 116.
TOC/INDEX
McInnes, Robert; Van Royen, Ross, “Desulfurizing flue-
gases,” Part 3, Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1990, p. 124.
McInnes, Robert Van Wormer, Mary B., “Cleaning up
NO, emissions,” Part 4, Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1990,
p. 130.
Kirby, G.N.; Firtel, J., “Wastewater systems: Materials
of contruction,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1990, p. 166.
Derks, Robert, “Be safe - eliminate PCBs from trans-
formers,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1991, p. 133.
Helishom, Elyse D., “Removing VOCs from con-
taminated water,” Part 1, Chemical Engineering, Feb.
1991, p. 120.
Gurvitch, Martin M; Lowenstein, Jack G., “Waste dis-
posal in pilot plants,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1990,
p. 108.
Helishom, Elyse D., “Removing VOCs from con-
taminated water,” Part 2, Chemical Engineering, March
1991, p. 152.
Adams, William V., “Sealing off fugitive emissions,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1991, p. 189.
Heumann, William L., “Cyclone separators a family
affair,” Chemical Engineering, June 1991, p. 118.
Li, K.Y.; Hsiao, K.J., “How to optimize an air stripper,”
Chemical Engineering, July 1991, p. 114.
Berglund, R.L.; Lawson, C.T., “Preventing pollution in
the CPI,” Part 1, Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 120.
Benforado, D.M.; Ridlehoover, G.; Gores, M.D., “Pol-
lution prevention: One firm’s experience,” Part 2, Chemical
Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 130.
Pojasek, Robert B., “For pollution prevention: Be de-
scriptive, not prescriptive,” Chemical Engineering, Sept.
1991, p. 136.
Couch, Robert O., “A guide to multiple-pipe con-
tainment,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 158.
Van Valkenburgh, Gary, “Storing hazardous wastes
safely,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 203.
Bosworth, Michael A., “Dilute-phase pneumatic con-
veying: Instrument selection guide,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Sept. 1991, p. 166.
Stucker, Thomas, “Tracking ever-shrinking emissions,”
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1991, p. 90.
McGowan, Thomas; Ross, Richard, “Hazardous waste
incineration is going mobile,” Chemical Engineering, Oct.
1991, p. 114.
Campbell, D. and Foundos, A., “Chromatographs meet
environmental needs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70,
No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 63.
Matson, L., “Improve secondary containment,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 73.
Leite, O. C., “Smokeless, efficient, nontoxic flaring,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 77.
Singh, B., “Selecting nonasbestos sheet gasketing,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 79.
Hyland, R. P, “Environment and maintenance: strat-
egies for the 199Os,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
05, May 1991, p. 113.
Ross, L. L., “CWRT pushes waste reduction,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 121.
Aalbersberg, H. G., “Health, safety, environment: a pre-
construction focus,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
06, Jun. 1991, p. 34B.
Norman, M. E., “Refinery primary sludge listing,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 53.
200
Daggett, J. and Brown, R., “Control compliance costs,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 61.
Shelby S. E., et al, “Meet new NPDES permit limits,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol%, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 67.
Alkhatib, E. A. and Thiem, L. T., “Wastewater oil re-
moval evaluated,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08,
Aug. 1991, p. 77.
Hanson, T.P., et al, “How Shell reduced waste,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 83.
Fogman, C. B. and Brummer, T. A., “Ammonia storage
for NOx control,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08,
Aug. 1991, p. 120.
Newman, S. A., “Sour water design by charts, Part 1,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sep. 1991, p. 145.
Kelly, W. J., “Oversights and mythology in a HAZOP
program,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct.
1991, p. 114.
Newman, S. A., “Sour water design by charts, Part 3,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 139.
Ruzzo, W. P., “Prepare for stormwater regulations,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 105.
Kurla, Matthew L., Jones, Stephen C., “Air pollution
permits,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1991. p. 225.
Sundin, David, “New options in transformer oils,”
Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1991, p. 125.
Hartung, Robert, Marturana, David, “Water treatment:
Invest in quality program,” Chemical Engineering, Jan.
1992, p. 98.
Princiotta, Frank, “Inside EPA research,” Chemical En-
gineering, Mar. 1992, p. 153.
Kobylinski, E. A., Hunter, G. L., “Wastewater: Part I,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 74.
Seton, Waldermar, Fitterer, Richard S., Harris, Thomas,
“Step up to the challenge: Hazmat storage,” Chemical En-
gineering, June 1992, p. 118.
Kuryla, Matthew, Yahay, Stephen C., “New safety rules
add to plant managers’ worries,” Chemical Engineering,
June 1992, p. 153.
Sober, Ronald F, Paul, Dibyendu, “Less-subjective odor
assessment,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992, p. 130.
Ozog, Henry, Stickles R., Peter, “What to do about proc-
ess safety audits,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992,
p. 173.
Newman, S. A., “Sour water design by charts,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Nov., 1991. p. 131.
Ruzzo, W. P, “Prepare for stormwater regulations,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Dec., 1991, p. 105.
Egan, B., “Environment action game plan,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Jan., 1992, p. 99.
Reynolds, B. E., “Clean gasoline via VRDSRFCC,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, April, 1992, p. 43.
Jones, D. W., “Lessons from HAZOP experience,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, April, 1922, p. 77.
Graham, J. F., “Understand IS0 9000’s application and
requirements,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992, p, 83.
Rock, K., “TAME: technology merits,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, May, 1992, p. 86.
Davis, B. C., “Adventures in Clean Air Act amendments
and implementation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992,
p. 91.
Menon, K. R. and Mink, B. H., “Residue conversion
options for Europoean refineries,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, May, 1992, p. 100-i.
TOC/INDEX
Hall, J. R., “Cleaner products: a refining challenge,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992, p. 100-c.
Crowley, E. D. and Hart, D. G., “Minimize fugitive
emissions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, July, 1992, p. 93.
Sarmanian, S., “Improve regulatory compliance,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug., 199s, p. 56.
Gardner, J. F, “Control emissions from valves,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 49.
Kunz, R. G., “Control NO, from furnaces,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 57.
Oolman, T., “Biotreat oily refinery wastes,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Aug., 1992.
Freiman, J P. and Hill, J., “Use dispersion modeling
update,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug., 1992. p. 73.
Frayne, S. P., “Minimize plant wastewater,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p.79..
Frank, L. D., “Lower plant noise with lagging,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 83.
McCluer, P. E. and Whittle, D. K., “Lessons learned from
HAZOP reviews,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug., 1992,
p. 140-d.
Hyland, R. P and Moore, J. F., “Beyond environmental
and safety compliance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Sept.,
1992, p. 82-c.
Mak, H. Y., “Amine unit converted to MDEA,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Oct., 1992.
Diepolder, P., “Is zero discharge realistic?” Hydocarbon
processing, Oct., 1992, p. 129.
Reddi, S. V., “Thermal insulation safety, part 1,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Oct.. 1992, p. 122-c.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
“Environmental costs close Wyoming refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 21, 1991, p. 41.
“French refiners grappling with new octane specs, envi-
ronmental rules,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 23.
“Union Carbide claims 99% effectiveness for flue gas
scrubber,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 118.
“Alternative auto fuels pose cost or technical challenge,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 9, 1991, p. 57.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Recent and pending regulations push
refiners to the limit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1991,
p. 39.
“Industry hits California reformulation move,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 26.
“NRC: Smog control off mark,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan.
6, 1992, p. 40.
“U.S. refiners scramble to meet reformulated gasoline
mandate,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 21.
“Group pursuing new alkylation process,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 40.
Nasato, Elmo, Goar, B. Gene, and Boorsboom, J., “Ca-
nadian retrofit meets stiffer sulfur recovery regulations,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 61.
“CERA: Refiners can cope with CAA requirements,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
“Lyondell to produce gasoline from used lubricating oil,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
“EPA postpones effective date for benzene reduction
rule,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 25.
201
de Wind, Menno, Heinerman, J.J.L. (Hans), Lee, Seck
Leong, Plantenga, Frans, Johnson, Chris C., and Wood-
ward, Debbie C., “Air quality and economics spur use of
presulfided catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24, 1992,
p. 49.
“Chevron details Port Arthur revamp,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 30.
“Environmental regulatory vise squeezing U.S. re-
finers,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 21..
“Cogen plant first to use new high-temperature de-NOx
process,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 53.
“U.S. refiners lament lack offinal CAA rules,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 26.
“New process produces alternative oxygenate from pro-
pylene,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 39.
Norman, Michael E., Kapoor, Sunil, Smalley, G. Allan
Jr., and Daniel, Bruce M., “U.S. regs cause refiners to
rethink wastewater systems,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1,
1992, p. 54.
“Chevron’s ‘clean’ diesel gets California nod; Unocal
mostly opts out of state’s diesel market,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 8, 1992, p. 30.
“Mobil refineries reduce wastes,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 15, 1992, p. 29.
Norman, Michael E., Kapoor, Sunil, Smalley, G. Allan
Jr., and Daniel, Bruce M., “Hazardous waste regs affect
refinery wastewater schemes,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 15,
1992, p. 45.
Norman, Michael E., Kapoor, Sunil, Smalley, G. Allan
Jr., and Daniel, Bruce M., “Wastewater planning helps
meet anticipated changes in regulations,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, June 29, 1992, p. 63.
“EPA moves to ease industrial air pollution rules,” Oil &
Gas Journal, July 6, 1992, p. 26.
Lemanski, John, “Automated compressor-packing sys-
tem meets California emissions reg,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 6, 1992, p. 71.
“Oxygenates to hike gasoline price,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 3 1992, p. 28.
“Ontario to stiffen water pollution rules,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 27.
“Ashland beats target in program to cut emissions,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 33.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.S. refiners choose variety of routes
to MTBE,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 36.
Eble, Karen S., and Feathers, Jennifer, “Charac-
terization of streams first step in reuse scheme,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 87.
“Two-step process treats variety of waste water
streams,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 84.
“Petrochem industry expands North American MTBE
capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 34.
Eble, Karen S., and Feathers, Jennifer, “Water reuse
optimization requires knowledge of cleanup methods,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 83.
Harris, Graham E, Fuchs, Michael R., Holcombe, Larry
J., “A guide to environmental testing,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Nov. 1992, p. 98.
Garg, Ashutosh, “Trimming NO, from furnaces,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Nov. 1992, p. 122.
Kroupa, Ralph, “Selecting valves for tough conditions,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 74.
TOC/INDEX
Spock, Thomas, “Control fugitive emissions from valves,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 82.
Colannino, Joseph, “Low-cost techniques reduce boiler
NOx,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 100.
McGowan, Thomas E., Lipinski, George E., Santoleri,
Joseph J., “New rules affect the handlinq of waste fuels,”
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 122.
Kotcher, Raymond L., “Turn a permitting challenge into
an opportunity,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 157.
Lin, Sheng H., Yeh, Kuo L., “Looking to treat waste-
water? Try ozone,” Chemical Engineering, May 1993,
p. 112.
Blair, Hugo, “The Environmental pluses of diaphragm
pumps,” Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 118.
Stubblefield, Fred Jr., “Get topnotch performance from
jacketed pipes, Chemical Engineering, June 1993, p. 110.
Jespersen, Chris, Jerger, Douglas, Exner, Jurgen, “Bio-
remediation tackles hazwaste,” Chemical Engineering,
June 1993, p. 116.
Fruci, Leonard, “Valves put a plug on emissions,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, June 1993, p. 139.
Anspach, Kenneth, “Insuring against environmental
risks,” Chemical Engineering, June 1993, p. 145.
Crowley, E.D., “Stemming leaks with spiral-wound gas-
kets,” Chemical Engineering, July 1993, p. 139.
Kuryla, Matthew, “TSCA traps for the unwary plant
manager,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1993, p. 161.
Diepolder, P., “Is ‘zero discharge’ realistic?,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 129.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Higgins, T. S., “U.S. refiners will make tough decisions
in 1993,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec.
1992, p. 33.
Luding, W., “Europe’s harried refiners face regulatory
challenge,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec.
1992, p. 34.
Lenz, L. J., “Global harmonization is chemical industry
focus,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992,
p. 36.
Tejml, E. L., “Commodity petrochemicals look to an
uncertain 1993,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12,
Dec. 1992, p. 41.
Sutton, M., “HPI’s gas processors expect growing de-
mand,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992,
p. 44.
Evans, R. E., “Environmental technology can be cost
effective,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec.
1992, p. 47.
Petchonka, J., et al., “How CAA impacts polymer proc-
essing,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993,
p. 95.
Sadhukhan, P. and Bradford, M., “Fluidized bed inciner-
ation: improved waste disposal method,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 61.
Hanisch, J. L., et al., “How to prepare a successful
operating permit,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4,
April 1993, p. 95.
Quernemoen, B. L., “When is part substitution okay?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 101.
Felten, J. R., et al., “Residual fuels in a clean-fuels
environment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6,
June 1993, p. 82-B.
202
Gallupe, W., “Retrofit methods reduce valves’ fugitive
emissions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6, June
1993, p. 97.
Capps, R. W., et al., “Reduce oil and grease content in
wastewater,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6, June
1993, p. 102.
Loftus, D., et al., “Partnership programs can solve envi-
ronmental waste problems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 90.
Portal, G. M. A., “Europe’s refiners face new horizons,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 92-C.
Cindric, D. T., et al., “Reduce crude unit pollution with
these technologies,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
8, Aug. 1993, p. 45.
Agar, G., et al., “Energy absorption probes control oily-
water discharges,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8,
Aug. 1993, p. 55.
Callahan, B. and McCaw, P. A., “Risk assessment allevi-
ates environmental liabilities,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 61.
Anon, “Environmental Processes ‘93,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 67. Bergmann, E.
P., “Approximate risk assessment prioritizes remedial de-
cisions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993,
p. 111.
Robinson, J. E., “Underground storage tank: removal vs.
abandonment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8,
Aug. 1993, p. 149.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
Fusselman, Deborah and Liposher, Dan, “Several tech-
nologies available to cut refinery NOx,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 2, 1992, p. 45.
Abrishamian, Ramin, Kabrick, Randolph, and Swett,
Geoffrey, “Two on site treatment methods reduce sludge
waste quantities,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1992, p. 51.
Broussard-Welther, Patricia, “Thermal desorption
meets BDAT standards at Louisiana refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 2, 1992, p. 58.
“Bioremediation system treats contaminated soils in
Canadian winter,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1992, p. 68.
Cunha-Leite, Olavo, “FLARE SYSTEMS - Design al-
ternatives, components key to optimum flares,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 23, 1992, p. 70.
“New technology reduces SOx emissions,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 30, 1992, p. 54.
Cunha-Leite, Olavo, “FLARE SYSTEMS - Safety,
noise, and emissions elements round out flare guidelines,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 7, p. 68.
“EPA issues clarification on rule governing benzene
emissions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 24.
“Tests show limits on oxygen content to be unwar-
ranted,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 46.
“W. European refiners face tough environmental rules,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 25, 1993, p. 29.
“Big upgrade slated at Shell’s Pernis refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 25, 1993, p. 40.
“NPRA Q&A-1: Experience exchanged on complex
effects of catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 22,1993, p. 45.
“Diesel fuel quality is improving in most European
countries,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 54.
“Oxygenated fuel cuts emissions, EPA data show,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 32.
TOC/INDEX
“California approves Texaco diesel,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 22, 1993, p. 34.
“U.S. refiners face record stacks of laws and regu-
lations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 29, 1993, p. 32.
“Italian refiners’ environmental spending to soar in
199Os,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 5, 1993, p. 19.
True, Warren R., “GLYCOL-REBOILER EMISSIONS -
1: Federal, state efforts force reexamination of glycol-
reboiler emissions,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 17, 1993,
p. 28.
True, Warren R., “GLYCOL-REBOILER EMISSIONS -
2: Glycol mass-balance method scores high for estimating
BTEX, VOC emissions,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 31,1993,
p. 54.
Myers, Philip E. and Ferry, Robert L., “Tables simplify
deluge of U.S. storage tank regulations,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, June 7, 1993, p. 46.
True, Warren R., “GLYCOL-REBOILER EMISSIONS
— Conclusion: PC program estimates BTEX, VOC emis-
sions,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 14, 1993, p. 36.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Recommissioned German refinery
ready to meet tough fuels, emissions specs,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 9, 1993, p. 29.
“Glycol reboiler emissions control process tested,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 23, 1993, p. 44.
“Witco: new diesel grade meets California specs,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 30, 1993, p. 24.
“Ashland produces low sulfur diesel for highway use,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 42.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44
XI. INSTRUMENTATION PRODUCT BLENDING,
AND QUALITY CONTROL
Cadmus, Richard H. and Woolsey, Melvin D., “Expert
systems complement refinery information systems,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 9, 1989, p. 50.
Goodpaster, Ross and Kennedy, J. Patrick, “Software
communications integrated into refinery system,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 16, 1989, p. 53.
Reif, David R., “Standardized field bus would improve
integrated computer system communications,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 13, 1989, p. 42.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, “Correlations allow calculation of
density of petroleum fractions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
27, 1989, p. 66.
Unzelman, George H., “Ethers in gasoline - 1: Ethers
have good gasoline blending attributes,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 10, 1989, p. 33.
Unzelman, George H., “Ethers in gasoline - Con-
clusion: Ethers will play a larger role in octane, environ-
mental specs for gasoline blends,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
17, 1989, p. 44.
Gibbs, Lewis M., “Additives boost gasoline quality,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 24, 1989, p. 60.
Nash, Richard M., “Process conditions and catalyst for
low-aromatics diesel studied,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 29,
1989, p. 47.
Christie, David A. and Holden, David G., “Fluid cat
cracking units’ advanced control can achieve benefits in six
areas,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 25, 1989, p. 104.
203
Bartholomew, Karl D. and Soudek, Ales, “LP accuracy is
improved by incorporating FCC’ simulation data,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 30, 1989, p. 57.
Mather, T.W. and Gamer, H.E., “Implementing CIM in
an existing facility,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No.
01, Jan. 1989, p. 43.
Mullins, T.E. and Shorland, M., “Predict asphalt per-
formance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan.
1989, p. 67.
Kulkarni, B.D. and Deshpande, PB., “New method for
solving equations impacts process control,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 68, No. 03, Mar. 1989, p. 97.
Kennedy, J.P, “Real-time refinery optimization (Part
11,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 04, Apr. 1989,
p. 57.
Kennedy, J.F?, “Real-time refinery optimization (Part
21,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 05, May 1989,
p. 57.
“Advanced Process Control Handbook IV,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 03, Mar. 1989, p. 35.
Lawrence, PJ., “Data reconciliation: Getting better in-
formation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 06, June
1989, p. 55.
Ayral, T.E., “On-line expert system for process control,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 06, June 1989, p. 61.
Rhemann, H., et al, “On-line FCCU advanced control
and optimization,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No.
06, June 1989, p. 64.
Chawla, V.K., et al, “New digital control algorithm
applied to SISO systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68,
No. 10, Oct. 1989, p. 59.
Yaws, C.L. and Yang, H.-C., “To estimate vapor pressure
easily,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1989,
p. 65.
Stacklin, C.A., “Expert-control accident mitigation
(Part 11,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct.
1989, p. 83.
“Panel discusses control systems upgrading,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 11, Nov. 1989, p. 63.
Stacklin, C.A., “Expert-control accident mitigation
(Part 2),” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 11, Nov.
1989, p. 71.
Hazlewood, Eric, “Getting the noise out,” Chemical En-
gineering, Nov. 21, 1988, p. 105.
Roper, D. L., “Select the right vacuum gage,” Chemical
Engineering, Mar. 1989, p. 125.
Snyder, Dale R., “Understanding distributed control,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1989, p. 87. -
Funk, John C., McAllister, Larry, “Controlling con-
tinuous processes with DCS,” Chemical Engineering, May
1989, p. 90.
Modell, Donald J., “DCS for batch process control,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1989, p. 97.
Condon, Benjamin T., “Engineering workstations im-
prove productivity,” Chemical Engineering, May 1989,
p. 104.
May, Donald L., Koontz, Donald W., “Planning cuts the
cost of retrofitting controls,” Chemical Engineering, Oct.
1989, p. 181.
Mei, Kenneth W., “Automatic tank gauges can be use for
custody transfer,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 13, 1989,
p. 81.
TOC/INDEX
Piel, William J., “Ethers will play key role in “clean”
gasoline blends,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Dec. 4, 1989,
p. 39.
Lindsay, Scott and Palladino, David, “Advanced ion
chromatograph detects low MEA levels,” The Oil and Gas
Journal, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 50.
Sivaraman, S., “Guidelines help select storage tank
calibration method,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 5,
1990, p. 41.
Touchstone, Terrell, Blackwell, Derek E., Carter, Grady
E., and Kramer, Jolene K., “Expert system trains, advises
process operators,” Feb. 12, 1990, p. 41.
Yatsu, Carolyn A., and Keyworth, Donald A., “AN-
NUAL REFINING REPORT: Modified MAT and GC help
predict FCC gasoline quality,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Mar. 26, 1990, p. 64.
Grover, Paul, “Infrared can warn of an impending dis-
aster,” Chemical Engineering, July 1990, p. 141.
Ramsey, John R., and Truesdale, Patrick B., “Blend
optimization integrated into refinery-wide strategy,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 19, 1990, p. 49.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-l:
Reformulated gasolines will challenge product-quality
maintenance,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 9, 1990,
p. 43.
Brown, Gordon W., “Direct measurement of FCC flu-
idizability helps spot problems,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Jan. 15, 1990, p. 46.
Weeks, Simon A., and Dumbill, Peter, “Method speeds
FCC catalyst attrition resistance determinations,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Apr. 16, 1990, p. 38.
Sivaraman, S., “Field tests prove radar tank gauge
accuracy,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990, p. 89.
Unzelman, George H., “REFORMULATED FUELS-
Conclusion: Options to meet 1990s fuel composition rules
limited,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990, p. 91.
Berto, Frank J., “Hydrostatic tank gauges accurately
measure mass, volume, and level,” The Oil and Gas Jour-
nal, May 14, 1990, p. 57.
Morrison, T.A. and Laflamme, D., “Advanced controls
improve performance of two-shell dual-pressure column,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, May 14, 1990, p. 60.
“Field trials to provide experience for field-bus stan-
dardization,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 16,1990, p. 64.
Gilman, Robert H., “Capital outlays for gasoline re-
formulation can be minimized,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Sept. 3, 1990, p, 44.
Palluzi, Richard and Porcelli, Joseph J., “Timely tem-
perature control of stirred reactors,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Aug. 1990, p. 143.
Monshaw, Susan, “Quality advice: Listen to your cus-
tomers,” Chemical Engineering, June 1990, p. 27.
Lewis, Clifford W., “Measure remote temperatures ef-
ficiently,” Chemical Engineering, May 1990, p. 114.
Ginesi, Donald, “Electronic transmitter: Key operating
tool,” Chemical Engineering, April 1990, p. 201.
Parkinson, Gerald, “Petroleum refiners clean up their
act,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1990, p. 30.
Egol, Len, “Desktop products for process control,”
Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1990, p. 157.
Egol, Len, “What’s new in networking and data ac-
quisition,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1989, p. 269.
204
Schmer, L. D. and Goodman, M. A., “Using ultrasonics to
inspect bellows and towers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 01, Jan. 1990, p. 61.
Mabe, W. J. and Mulholland, R. A., ‘Variable high-speed
motors optimize sealless pumps,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 71.
Staroselsky, N. and Carter, D., “Protecting multicase
compressors,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03,
Mar. 1990, p. 85.
Breeman, D. J., “Backflush column removes GC sample
water,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar. 1990,
p. 90.
Poche’, H., “Fiber optics: characteristics and appli-
cations,,’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May
1990, p. 85.
Sullivan, T. L., “Refinery-wide blending control and
optimization,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05,
May 1990, p. 93.
Stanton, B. D., “Using historical data to justify controls,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 57.
Conley, R. C. and Ayral, T. E., “Choosing and using
advanced control consultants,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 63.
Aronson, C. R. and White, D. C., “Implementating ad-
vanced controls with new DCSs,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 69.
Witt, S. D. and Waggoner, R. C., “Tuning parameters for
non-PID three-mode controllers,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 74.
Serridge, M., “Better machinery monitoring,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 07, Jul. 1990, p. 53.
Sivasubramanian, R. and Penrod, W. V., “Computer
control for third world: fantasy or reality?,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 84C.
Campos, M. C. M. M. and Rodrigues, P. S. B., “Program
finds centrifugal compressor operating point,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 09, Sep. 1990, p. 47.
“Advanced Process Control Handbook V,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 09, Sep. 1990, p. 51.
Oser, M. G., “Implementing programmable safety shut-
down systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10,
Oct. 1990, p. 83.
Brambilla, A., et al, “Robust tuning of conventional
controllers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 11, Nov.
1990, p. 53.
Weideruh, E. and Strobl, U., “Program evaluates radial
compressors,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12,
Dec. 1990, p. 71.
Bloch, HP, “Laser optics accurately measure running
shaft alignment,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 5, 1990, p. 42.
Khan, H.U., Mungali, M.M., Agrawal, K.M., Joshi,
G.C., “Graphical method simplifies diesel cloud point de-
terminations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 24, 1990, p. 98.
Coker, A.K., “Equilibrium flash calculations quickly
computed on PC,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 14,1991, p. 55.
Hollrah, D.P., and Burns, A.M., “MMT increases octane
while reducing emissions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 11,
1991, p. 86.
Serpemen, Y., Wenzel, F.W., and Huebel, A., “MODERN
FUEL BLENDING - Conclusion: Diesel blending system
cuts quality giveaway,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 1, 1991,
p. 54.
TOC/INDEX
Serpemen, Y., Wenzel, FW., and Huebel, A., “MODERN
FUEL BLENDING - 1: Blending technology key to making
new gasolines,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 62.
Schindler, G. and Lamprecht, J., “IS0 QUALITY SYS-
TEMS - 1: E&P companies, suppliers move to international
standards,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 6, 1991, p. 92.
Graham, J.F., “IS0 QUALITY SYSTEM - Conclusion:
Texas petrochemical plant gets certification,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 13, 1991, p. 48.
“Acoustic tests during cooldown find cracks in reactors
at Gulf Coast refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 17, 1991,
p. 47.
“Ethyl renews request for HiTEC 3000 approval by
EPA,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 22, 1991, p. 37.
Khan, H.U., Mungali, M.M., Agrawal, K.M., and Joshi,
G.C., “Graphical correlation calculates diesel properties
from known values,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 23, 1991,
p. 47.
“MTBE: ARC0 Chemical’s No. 1 performer,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 15, 1990, p. 40.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE
- 1: U.S. Clean Air Act expands role for oxygenates,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1991, p. 44.
“GM mounts push for reformulated fuel now,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 28.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE
- Conclusion: Oxygenate/hydrocarbon shift will rewrite
gasoline recipes,” Apr. 29, 1991, p. 62.
“More MTBE, TAME plants due U.S.,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 29, 1991, p. 40.
“Coastal Chem breaks ground on MTBE plant,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 6, 1991, p. 30.
“Tenneco building Houston area MTBE plant,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 20, 1991, p. 25.
“Mobil, Chemvest study Saudi MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1991, p. 27.
“More U.S. oxygenates projects scheduled,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 32.
Scherr, R.C., Smalley, G.A. Jr., and Norman, M.E., “RE-
FINING IN THE ’90s - 1: Clean Air Act complicates re-
finery planning,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27,1991, p. 68.
“UOP develops new oxygenates process,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 3, 1991, p. 30.
“Way clear for reformulated gasoline rule,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 26, 1991, p. 37.
“Exxon U.S.A. plans three MTBE plants,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 16, 1991, p. 34.
de1 Valle El Cid, J.L., “Multiply savings using field
multiplexers,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1990, p. 164.
l&on, George K.; Willis, Reid S., “Successful online
chemical analysis,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1990,
p. 67.
Shinskey, FG., “Putting controllers to the test,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Dec. 1990, p. 96.
Boteler, Jack E.; Lapus, Benjamin V., “Meter flow with a
pump,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1991, p. 96.
Ginesi, Donald, “Choices abound in flow measurement,”
Chemical Engineering, April 1991, p. 88.
Ginesi, Donald, “A raft of flowmeters on tap,” Chemical
Engineering, May 1991, p. 146.
Ottino, Charles, “Designing and laying out a control
room,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 174.
205
Hall, G. F., “GC-directed control improves refining,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 47.
Gokhale, N. D., et al, “Advanced control of nonlinear
processes, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04,
Apr. 1991, p. 75.
Gardner, J. F., “Selecting valves for reduced emissions,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 87.
Setterlund, R. B., “Selecting process piping materials,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 93.
Miles, M. E., “Valve and piping safety factors,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 103.
Black, P. and Junier, R., “Precise valve position control
improves efficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
08, Aug. 1991, p. 109.
“Advanced Process Control Handbook VI,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sep. 1991, p. 51.
Dronoff, A. and Hammann, M., “Improve return on
advanced controls,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
10, Oct. 1991, p. 112.
Porter, Ted, “Upgrading control systems and the bottom
line,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1992, p. 137.
Petersen, Kent, “Testing sensors for accuracy and
speed,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1992, p. 131.
Bhatt, Siddharth, “Process control ties into business:
Part 1,” Chemical Engineering, May 1992, p. 90.
Mehta, Chetan, “The business link,” Chem.ical Engi-
neering, May 1992, p. 96.
Bell, R. Michael, “Find the hidden errors in batch flow
metering,” Chemical Engineering, May 1992, p. 128.
May, Donald L., Payne, John Thurman, “Validate proc-
ess data automatically,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992,
p. 112.
Kowalczyk, Stan W., “Root out the silent effects of elec-
trical noise,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 145.
Roughton, James E., “Logging plant data without pencil
and paper,” Chemical Engineering, July 1992, p. 137.
Brown, Nigel P, Heywood, Nigel I., “The right instru-
mentation for slurries,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992,
p. 107.
Hasselbaum, Robert, “Keeping tabs from afar,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 148.
Rohan, Thomas H., “Troubleshoot with quality-
improvement methods,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1992,
p. 161.
Tu, F. C. U., “On-line process identification for SMPC,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 115.
Chatha, A., “Fieldbus begins new era in process control,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Dec., 1991, p. 59.
Senyard, C. P., “Control consultants address user ques-
tions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Dec., 1991, p. 81.
Elliott, J. D., “Maximize distillate liquid production,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan., 1992. p. 75.
Zhaohul, C, and Xinlu, E, “Use NMR spectroscopy for
on-line gasoline analysis,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan.,
1992, p. 94.
Daneman, H. L., “Improve thermocouple temperature
measurement,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p.100.
Yeager, R. L. and Davis, T. R., “Reduce process variation
with real-time SPC,” Hydrocarbon Processing, March,
1992, p. 89.
Barreth, R., and Pankoff, “Training DCS operators,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1992, p. 95.
TOC/INDEX
Berkowittz, P., “On-line optimal control improves gas
processing,” Hydrocarbon Processing, April, 1992, p. 71.
Conley, R. C. and Clerrico, A. T., “Select and implement
a plantwide information system,“Hydrocarbon Processing,
May, 1992, p. 47.
Stout, J. B., “Develop a strategic automation plan,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992, p. 57.
Latour, P. R., “Quantify quality control’s intangible ben-
efits,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992, p. 61.
Kennedy, J. P., “Integrate real-time data with decision
support,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992, p. 69.
Gonzalez-Jeanne, P., “Statistical analysis updates on-
line predictive models,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May,
1992, p. 75.
Wheatcroft, C., “Present and future refinery infor-
mation systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992,
p. 101.
Ayral, T. E. and Melville, S. J., “Conduct a process
control technology audit,” Hydrocarbon Processing, June,
1992, p. 43.
King, M J., “How to lose money with advanced controls,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, June, 1992, p. 47.
Devlin, J. F., “Fluid coker benefits from advanced con-
trol,” Hydrocarbon Processing, June, 1992, p. 55.
Fatora, F. C., “Successful closed loop and real-time oper-
ation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, June, 1992, p. 65.
“On-line quality control for changing setpoints,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, June, 1992, p. 75.
Kinm, W. H., “Improve process measurements with a
least squares filter,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug., 1992,
p. 143.
“Advanced Process Control Handbook VII,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Sept., 1992, p. 99.
Friedman, Y. Z., “Avoid advanced control project mis-
takes,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct., 1992, p. 115.
Rowlands, Gareth, Konuk, Aydin, and Sleinschrodt,
Frank, “FCCU advanced controls increase feed rate and
column stability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 25, 1991, p. 64.
“Auto-oil research finds no immediate benefits in use of
gasoline-methanol blend,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24,
1992, p. 46.
Eriksson, Per-Olof, Tomlins, Aric, and Dash, Sachindra,
“FCCU advanced control system achieves 2-month pay-
out,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 62.
Muller, Alwin, “New method produces accurate octane
blending values,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 80.
Morris, William E., “Simple calculation predicts hydro-
carbon loss from gasoline blends,” Oil & Gas Journal, June
22, 1992, p. 68.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, “New correlation predicts density
of petroleum fractions,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 13, 1992,
p. 49.
“Amoco producing improved premium for Midwest
market,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 38.
LiptBk, BCla G., “Level measurement with problem
liquids,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 130.
Crandall, John A., “How to specify, design and maintain
online process analyzers,” Chemical Engineering, Apr.
1993, p. 94.
Hodgson, Steve, Holden, David, “Scaling new heights in
plant automation,” Chemical Engineering, July 1993,
p. 103.
206
Harris, Graham E., Fuchs, Michael R., Holcombe, Larry
J., “A guide to environmental testing,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Nov. 1992, p. 99.
Friedman, Y. Z., “Avoid advanced control project mis-
takes,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992,
p. 115.
Catena, D., Dietz, J. T. and Traubert, T. D., “Create
intelligent P&IDS,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No.
11, Nov. 1992, p. 65.
Korchinski, W. J., et al., “FCCU advanced control in a
DCS,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992,
p. 73.
Beckman, L. V., “Optimum proof testing of pro-
grammable safety systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 87.
Pakianathan, M. J., “P only or P + I in one controller,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 93.
Dailey, W. V., “Improve process analyzer availability,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 69.
Gruhn, P., “Safety system performance terms: clearing
up the confusion,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2,
Feb. 1993, p. 63.
Beckman, L. V., “Selecting redundant microprocessor-
based systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2,
Feb. 1993, p. 71.
Kobyakov, A. I., “Include heuristics in protection sys-
tems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993,
p. 79.
Golden, S. W., et al., “FCC main fractionator revamps,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 77.
Haq, I., “Improve machinery vibration data,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 94.
Forsell, K. A., “Protect motors with solid-state over-
loads,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993,
p. 100.
Zetter, M. S. and Politzer, B. A., “On-line octane control
with NIR analyzers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
3, March 1993, p. 103.
Dollar, R., et al., “Consider adaptive multivariable pre-
dictive controllers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3,
March 1993, p. 109.
Berkowitz, P. N., et al., “On-line optimal NGL recovery
in lean oil plants,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4,
April 1993, p. 55.
Fleming, G. K. and Dupuis, G. E., “Hydrogen membrane
recovery estimates,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
4, April 1993, p. 61.
Lin, T. D. V., “FCCU advanced control and opti-
mization,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4, April
1993, p. 107.
Kopple, L. B., “Information system master planning,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 45.
Yoshimura, J. S., “Computer integrated manufacturing/
processing in the HPI,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 5, May 1993, p. 65.
Haskins, D. E., “How to justify small-refinery info/
control system modernization,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 69.
Coonan, T. and Strobhar, D., “Manage plant mod-
ernization projects ‘humanistically,’” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 55.
Quernemoen, B. L., “When is part substitution okay?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 101.
TOC/INDEX
Hussain, M. S., “Improve planetary gear vibration
analysis,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May
1993, p. 105.
Lines, B., et al., “Polyethylene reactor modeling and
control design,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6,
June 1993, p. 119.
Dragoo, R. E. and Letendre, R., “Manage costs in real
time,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7, July 1993,
p. 41.
Stoll, K. E., et al., “Simplify fuzzy controller implemen-
tation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7, July 1993,
p, 49.
King, M. J. and Evans, H. N., “Assessing your com-
petitors’ application of CIM/CIP,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 57.
Roberson, C. G., et al., “Benefits of standardized ad-
vanced controls,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7,
July 1993, p. 63.
Pelham, R. O., “Process optimization in the HPI,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 69.
Agar, G., et al., “Energy absorption probes control oily-
water discharges,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8,
Aug. 1993, p. 55.
Singh, B., et al., “Heavy oil viscosity range from one
test,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993,
p. 157.
Jaisinghani, R., et al., “Delayed coker fractionator ad-
vanced control,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8,
Aug. 1993, p. 173.
Chou, Kelley, Clay, Roger M., Gamez, Jorge P.,
Berkowitz, PN., and Papadopoulos, M.N., “Multivariable
control system installed at ARC0 West Texas gas plant,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 16, 1992, p. 53.
Mullally, Michael J. and Goens, Kathleen D., “Changing
operations prompt major gas plant automation,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 28, 1992, p. 90.
White, John and Hall, Fred, “Gasoline blending opti-
mization cuts use of expensive components,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 9, p. 81.
“Ashland cites savings in measuring octane,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 23, 1992, p. 23.
Lubeck, Axe1 J. and Cook, Robert D., “Bromine number
should replace FIA in gasoline olefins testing,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 28, 1992, p. 86.
Edalat, M., Bozar-Jomehri, R.B., and Mansoori, G.A.,
“Generalized equation predicts vapor pressure of hydro-
carbons,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 1, 1993, p. 39.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTS-l: Automation of oil
movement systems prevents mistakes, savies money,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 76.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTS-Conclusion: In-
tegrating oil movement and data systems beefs project
benefits,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
DiFoggio, Rocco, Sadhukhan, Maya, and Rant, Martha
L., “Near-infrared techniques for octane analysis have
limitations,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 3, 1993, p. 87.
Riazi, Mohammad-Reza and Mansoori, G. Ali, “Simple
equation of state accurately predicts hydrocarbon den-
sities,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 12, 1993, p. 108.
Aulich, Ted R., He, Xinming, and Knudson, Curtis L.,
“Gasoline sampling technique crucial to ensuring Rvp
compliance,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1993, p. 30.
207
“EPA to require addition of dye to higher-sulfur diesel
fuel,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 2, 1993, p. 76.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS
“Nelson-Farrar cost indexes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1991, p. 91. Nov. 4, 1991, p. 75. Dec. 2, 1991, p. 57. Jan. 6,
1992, p. 73. Feb. 3, 1992, p. 50. Mar. 2, 1991, p. 45. Apr. 6,
1992, p. 61. May 4, 1992, p. 130. June 1, 1992, p. 78. July 6,
1992, p. 83-84. Aug. 3,1992, p. 61. Sept. 7,1992, p. 48. Oct.
5, 1992, p. 82.
“Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 7,1991, p. 92. Jan. 6,1992, p. 82. Apr. 6,1992,
p. 62. July 6, 1992, p. 84. Oct. 5, 1992, p. 86.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
“Fixed-bed reactor successful in fuels from coal syn-
thesis,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 53.
de Wind, Menno, Heinerman, J.J.L. (Hans), Lee, Seek
Leong, Plantenga, Frans, Johnson, Chris C., and Wood-
ward, Debbie C., “Air quality and economics spur use of
presulfided catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24, 1992,
p. 49.
“Presulfiding, FCC olefins focus of catalyst sessions,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 37.
Leiby, Susan, “FCC catalyst technologies expand limits
of process capability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992,
p. 49.
Koch, Pierre, “Simple program calculates partial liquid
volumes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 54.
“Texaco presses projects for gasification process,” Oil &
Gas Journal, July 6, 1992, p. 38.
Jamialahmadi; Mohamad, and Muller-Steinhagen,
Hans, “Computer program designs packed columns,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 33.
Jenkins, John H., LP modeling pieces together re-
formulation puzzle,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 16, 1992,
p. 41.
Holm, Peter, “Offshore TEG dehydration unit per-
formance exceeds design,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 25,
1993, p. 96.
Sloley, Andrew W. and Golden, Scott W., “Analysis key
to correcting debutanizer design flaws,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 8, 1993, p. 50.
Mani, Karthik C., Matthews, Michael A., and Haynes,
Henry W. Jr., “‘Continuous’ approach optimizes vapor-
liquid equilibrium calculations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
15, 1993, p. 76.
England, Ed and George, Spencer, “Idle plant key to
quick completion of tough gas-treating project,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 15, 1993, p. 57.
Richardson, Kenneth W. and Taibi, Frank D., “Loui-
siana joint venture starts up coke-fueled cogen plant,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 5, 1993, p. 38.
Coker, A.K., “Computer program enhances guidelines
for gas-liquid separator designs,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
10, 1993, p. 55.
Mehra, Yuv R., Wood, Gelnn C., and Ross, Michael M.,
“Noncryogenic Nz-rejection process gets Hugoton field
test,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 24, 1993, p. 62.
TOC/INDEX
“Italian refinery plans cogen unit,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 31, 1993, p. 78.
Sasson, Richard and Pate, Robin, “Retraying and re-
vamp double big LPG fractionator’s capacity,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 2, 1993, p. 71.
Connell, David E., Horth, Paul, and Powell, R.H.W.,
“Analysis sets optimum C3 recovery for N. Sea gas ter-
minal,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1993, p. 74.
A. LUBE OIL AND WAXES
Smith, Fritz A., and Bortz, Robert W., “Applications
vary for dewaxing process over lo-year span,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Aug. 13, 1990, p. 51.
“Refining Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
“Lube oil catalysts go commercial,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 8, 1991, p. 81.
Brinkman, D.W., “Large grassroots lube rerefinery in
operation,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 19, 1991, p. 60.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Lyondell to produce gasoline from used lubricating oil,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
“BP to make lubes in Viet Nam,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 2, 1992, p. 29.
“Conoco schedules consolidation of U.S. lubricants,” Oil
& Gas Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 26.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Refinery operating variables key to
enhanced lube oil quality,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 4,1993,
p. 45.
B. MAINTENANCE
Lieberman, Norman P. and Golden, Scott W., “Foaming
is leading cause of tower flooding,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug.
14, 1989, p. 45.
Cary, John B. and Liss, Jerome B., “Automated system
monitors refinery pipe corrosion,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
11, 1989, p. 37.
Gaylord, FD., “Solving reed frequency vibration prob-
lems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989,
p. 50.
Fisher, L., “Operational speed balancing: Should you be
doing it?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan.
1989, p. 55.
Misra, L.N., “Unique repair method saved rotor shafts,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 02, Feb. 1989, p. 54.
Goyal, O.P., “Guidelines on rotating equipment,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1989, p. 39.
Fischbach, M.J., “Dry seal applications in centrifugal
compressors,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10,
Oct. 1989, p. 47.
Sheppard, Walter Lee, “Inspection - key to quality
masonry lining,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1989, p. 191.
Fijas, David E, “Getting top performance from heat
exchangers,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1989, p. 141.
208
Sattler, Frank J., “Improving quality through non-
destructive testing,” Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1989,
p. 116.
Kent, George R., “Troubleshooting rotating equipment.
Confessions of a service engineer, Part II,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Apr. 1989, p. 163.
Condon, Benjamin T., “Engineering workstations im-
prove productivity,” Chemical Engineering, May 1989,
p. 104.
Sattler, Frank, J., “Finding surface defects with non-
destructive testing,” Chemical Engineering, July 1989,
p. 125.
Sattler, Frank, J., “Finding below-surface defects with
nondestructive testing,” Chemical Engineering, Sept.
1989, p. 161.
Egol, Len, “Save dollars on maintenance management,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1990, p. 157.
Ginesi, Donald, “Electronic transmitter: Key operating
tool,” Chemical Engineering, April 1990, p. 201.
Finn, Gavin A. and Reinschmidt, Kenneth F., “Expert
systems in operation and maintenance,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Feb 1990, p. 131.
Sattler, Frank J., “Improving plant maintenance via
nondestructive testing,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1989,
p. 115.
Sattler, Frank J., “Nondestructive testing via optical
and acoustical methods,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1989,
p. 191.
Brown, Gordon W., “Direct measurement of FCC flu-
idizability helps spot problems,” The Oil and Gas Journal,
Jan. 15, 1990, p. 46.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Causes ofshorter delayed coker
heater runs reported,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 12,
1990, p. 49.
deWit, Johannes, “Brittle fracture of old storage tanks
can be prevented,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 19,1990,
p. 40.
Heite, Richard S., English, A.R., and Smith G. Andrew,
“Bismuth nickel passivation effective in FCCU,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Jun. 4, 1990, p. 81.
Bucheim, Gerrit M., “Ways to deal with wet H2S crack-
ing revealed by study,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 9,
1990, p. 92.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Diagnosis key to flooding prob-
lem solution,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 16,1990, p. 62.
Bloch, Heinz P., and Carroll, Joseph R., “Preventive
maintenance can be more effective than predictive pro-
grams,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 30, 1990, p. 81.
Archuletta, Jim, Bitler, Bruce, Binford, Mark, and
Modi, John, “Cooperative corrosion control and treatment
program proves effective,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 6,
1990, p. 60.
Corbett, Richard A., “Proposed OSHA safety regs target
process plant procedures,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug.
20, 1990, p. 80.
Krembs, John A. and Connolly, James M., “Analysis
shows process industry accident losses rising,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Aug. 27, 1990, p. 40.
Godse, A. G., “Rotating equipment shop testing,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 01, Jan. 1990, p. 47.
Prescott, M., “HPRT developments improve payout,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 01, Jan. 1990, p. 53.
TOC/INDEX
Sohal, H. S. and McClister, W. J., “Hydra-cutting speeds
maintenance and retrofitting,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 01, Jan. 1990, p. 65.
Goyal, O. P, “Guidelines on fluid flow systems,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 04, Apr. 1990, p. 47.
Shull, W. W. and Church, M. L., “Improve pump ef-
ficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 07, Jul.
1990, p. 43.
Maten, S., “Rotors in magnetic bearings require field
balancing,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 07, Jul.
1990, p. 47.
Garbers, A. W. E and Wasfi, A. K., “Preventing cavi-
tation in high energy centrifugal pumps,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 07, Jul. 1990, p. 48.
Sex-ridge, M., “Better machinery monitoring,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, NO. 07, Jul. 1990, p. 53.
Doolin, J. H., “Pump baseplate design and installation,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 07, Jul. 1990, p. 59.
Casado, E., “Model optimizes exchanger cleaning,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 71.
Leite, O. C., “Structural design of stacks,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 64.
Bloch, HP, “Laser optics accurately measure running
shaft alignment,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 5, 1990, p. 42.
“NPRA MAINTENANCE Q&A - 1: Rotary machinery
maintenance is key process plant activity,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 17, 1990, p. 47.
Lieberman, N.P.and Lieberman, E.T., “Design, in-
stallation pitfalls appear in vac tower retrofit,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 26, 1991, p. 57.E. Storage and Transfer
Sivaraman, S., “Field tests prove radar tank guage
accuracy,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990, p. 89.
Sivaraman, S. and Wallace, R.I., “Vessel experience
factor issues clarified,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 15, 1990,
p. 44.
Rangel, E.K. and Lindsay, J.D., “System provides sec-
ondary containment for above ground storage tanks,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 29, 1990, p. 33.
Tamimi, A., “Explosion hazards in crude, distillate stor-
age tanks assessed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 19, 1990,
p. 53.
“ARC0 spells out cause of Channelview blast,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 14, 1991, p. 22.
Trenchard, A.J., Bull, V., and King, M.J., “Port study
solves refinery shipping bottleneck,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 21, 1991, p. 29.
Ludlam, R., “Automatic system drains tank water with-
out product loss,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 15, 1991, p. 64.
Berto, EJ., “Gauging data pose question on stability of
reference gauge heights,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 29,1991,
p. 78.
“Refiners receive antispill orders,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 23, 1991, p. 14.
Sattler, Frank J., “Nondestructive testing methods can
aid plant operation,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1990,
p. 177.
Sattler, Frank J., “Success in managing nondestructive
testing,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1991, p. 126.
Ramakrishna, P., “How often to clean an evaporator,”
Chemical Engineering, July 1991, p. 143.
Nasr Ali, “Extending the life of magnetic-drive pumps,”
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1991, p. 159.
209
Bloch, H. P., “Use laser optics for on-stream alignment
verification,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan.
1991, p. 71.
Shull, W. W. and Church, M. L., “Field performance test:
key to pump savings,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
01, Jan. 1991, p. 77.
Misra, L. N., “Emergency steam turbine rotor repair,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 126.
Granere, V. R., “Understand torsional vibration,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, Jul. 1991, p, 53.
Gresh, M. T., “On-line cleaning restores compressor
performance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, Jul.
1991, p. 65.
Croix, R. and Suarez, S., “Monitor cooling tower and
cooler fans,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, Jul.
1991, p. 71.
Dube, J. C., et al, “Reciprocating compressor bottle siz-
ing,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, Jul. 1991,
p. 79.
Godse, A. G., “Implement machinery predictive main-
tenance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sep.
1991, p. 163.
Myers, Phillips, “Keeping above-ground storage tanks
in top shape,” Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1992, p, 161.
Ojala, Russell, “Keep ejectors online,” Chemical Engi-
neering, May 1992, p. 114.
Kowalczyk, Stan W., “Root out the silent effects of elec-
trical noise,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 145.
Pless, Lowell, Bowman John D., “Scanning columns
with gamma rays,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992,
p. 127.
Hasselbaum, Robert, “Keeping tabs from afar,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 148.
Ray, J., “Fast-track retrofitting,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Jan., 1992, p. 45.
Petersen, P R., “Improve corrosion control by computer
simulation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan. 1992, p. 50.
Gresh, M. T., “Troubleshooting compressor per-
formance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan., 1992, p. 57.
Pennington, J., “Information key to on-line leak seal-
ing,” Hyhdrocarbon Processing, Jan., 1992, p. 63.
Gandy, T. and Bailey. J., “Reduce costs with acoustic
emission cool-down monitoring,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Jan., 1992, p. 66.
Chiu, C. H. and Murray, K. L., “Retrofit baseload LNG
plants,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan., 1992, p. 69.
Junier, R. and Purvis, H., “Ceramic valves lower lower
FCCU maintenance costs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan.,
1992, p. 72.
Lester, L. et al, “Building a world class maintenance
organization, “Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p. 98-c.
Granere, V. R., “Torsional vibration: Are your mea-
surements accurate?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, April,
1992, p.71.
“Nelson-Farrar cost indexes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1991, p. 91. Nov. 4, 1991, p. 75. Dec. 2, 1991, p. 57. Jan. 6,
1992, p. 73. Feb. 3, 1992, p. 50. Mar. 2, 1991, p. 45. Apr. 6,
1992, p. 61. May 4, 1992, p. 130. June 1,1992, p. 78. July 6,
1992, p. 83-84. Aug. 3, 1992, p. 61. Sept. 7, 1992, p. 48. Oct.
5, 1992, p. 82.
“OSHA levies fine on Citgo,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 9,
1991, p. 36.
TOC/INDEX
“Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 7,1991, p. 92. Jan. 6,1992, p. 82. Apr. 6,1992,
p. 62. July 6, 1992, p. 84. Oct. 5, 1992, p. 86.
Strong, Russell C., Majestic, Veronica K., and Wilhelm,
Mark S., “Basic steps lead to successful FCC corrosion
control,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 81.
Strong, Russell C., Majestic, Veronica K., and Wilhelm,
Mark S., “Basic corrosion control methods solve varied
problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7, 1991, p. 86.
“Petrochem health, safety training at issue,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 21, 1991, p. 41.
de Wit, Johannes, “Safe jack up method permits repairs
of tank bottoms and foundations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
4, 1991, p. 76.
Ferguson, K.R., and Stutheit, A.G., “Weld overlay
chosen for corrosion repair at Texas CO2 plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 54.
Ferguson, K.R., and Stutheit, A.G., “Unusual weld over-
lay project stresed quality, safety,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan.
6, 1992, p. 69.
Ferguson, K.R., and Stutheit, A.G., “Extensive testing
ensures success of unusual weld-overlay project,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 39.
“Survey updates amine stress corrosion cracking data,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 42.
Hassan, Hassan M.K., “Sequential lifting of tank shell
used to repair floors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 3, 1992,
p. 33.
“Kuwaiti refinery repairs eyed,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 9, 1992, p. 31.
“Refiners discuss HF alkylation process and issues,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 67.
Bellomo, P.J., “OSHA safety regulations calls for step-
by-step approach,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1, 1992, p. 49.
Bloch, Heinz, “Bearing seals ward off failures,” Chemical
Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 149.
Heckman, Andrew T., “Vibration monitoring yields big
benefits,” Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 126.
Thibault, Larry, “Taking care of enclosed gear drives,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 145.
Andrews, Robert, Weber, Paul, “High pressure oper-
ations: Part 1: Upkeep of equipment,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Sept. 1993, p. 98.
Sheppard, B., “Determine bearing inner race defect
length,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec.
1992, p. 101.
Kotnour, T. J., “Manage your time wisely,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 114.
Pradhan, S., “Apply reliability centered maintenance to
sealless pumps,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1,
Jan. 1993, p. 43.
Singh, B., “Specifying clad CRA piping,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 51.
Peterson, J. R. and Davidse, G. J., “Consider pump cast
refractory for critical linings,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 55.
Nelson, W. E., “Improve relief valve reliability,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p, 59.
Dailey, W. V., “Improve process analyzer availability,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p, 69.
Gamboa, R., “Consider insulation reliability,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 73.
210
Thorman, G. O. and Unruh, C., “Use a simple color code
for maintenance priorities,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p. 116-D.
Haq, I., “Improve machinery vibration data,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 94.
Forsell, K. A., “Protect motors with solid-state over-
loads,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993,
p. 100.
Karassik, I. J., “When to maintain centrifugal pumps,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4, April 1993, p. 101.
Hussain, M. S., “Improve planetary gear vibration
analysis,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May
1993, p. 105.
Woollatt, D., “Factors affecting reciprocating com-
pressor performance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 6, June 1993, p. 57.
Leonard, S. C., “Improve maintenance reliability,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993,
p. 162-C.
El Sherif, A. H., “Monitor lube-oil quality in service,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 171.
“Process passivates spent catalyst to allow unloading
under air,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 56.
Nelson-Farrar Cost Index, Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2,
1992, p. 79; Dec. 7, 1992, p. 74; Jan. 4, 1993, p. 38; Feb. 1,
1993, p. 44; Mar. 1, 1993, p. 70; Apr. 5, 1993, p. 62; May 3,
1993, p. 96; June 7, 1993, p. 36; July 5, 1993, p. 50; Aug. 2,
1993, p. 78.
Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating, Jan. 4, 1993, p.
52; Apr. 5, 1993, p. 64.
“NPRA MAINTENANCE Q&A - Refiners focus on
maintenance inspection and analysis techniques,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992, p. 86.
Lieberman, Norman P. and Lieberman, Elizabeth T.,
“Inadequate inspection cause of flawed vac tower revamp,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 14, 1992, p. 33.
Campos, Mario Cesar M.M., and Rodrigues, Paula Sergio
B., “Practical control strategy eliminates FCCU com-
pressor surge problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 11,1993,
p. 29.
“New cat converter design for compressors cuts service
time,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 19, 1993, p. 53,
C. PIPING
Cary, John B. and Liss, Jerome B., “Automated system
monitors refinery pipe corrosion,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
11, 1989, p. 37.
Gaylord, ED., “Solving reed frequency vibration prob-
lems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989,
p. 50.
Fisher, L., “Operational speed balancing: Should you be
doing it?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan.
1989, p. 55.
Misra, L.N., “Unique repair method saved rotor shafts,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 02, Feb. 1989, p. 54.
Sandberg, C., “Heat tracing: steam or electric?,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 03, Mar. 1989, p. 107.
McGuiness, W.N., “Strainers for equipment protection,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 05, May 1989, p. 53.
Goyal, O.P., “Guidelines on rotating equipment,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1989, p. 39.
TOC/INDEX
Simiskey, PL. and Faulkner, C.R., “Better reliefsystems
design,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 05, May
1989, p. 63.
Godse, A.G., “Predict compressor performance at new
conditions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 06, June
1989, p. 77.
Cassolato, B.M., “Holzer analysis using spreadsheet
macros,,’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug.
1989, p. 55.
Shah, B.V., “Solving fluid flow problems with spread-
sheets,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept.
1989, p. 85.
Fischbach, M.J., “Dry seal applications in centrifugal
compressors,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10,
Oct. 1989, p. 47.
Bauer, F, “Valve pocket losses in reciprocating com-
pressors, ” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10, Oct.
1989, p. 55.
Wyss, Stephen E., “How to organize pipe tie-ins for
revampprojects,” ChemicalEngineering, Feb. 1989,p. 107.
Smith, Byron D., “Sizing the economic pipe,” Chemical
Engineering, Sept. 1989, p. 201.
Britt, Frank, “Stainless steel vs. fiberglass pipe,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1990, p. 105.
Hunt, Jack, “Joining thermoplastic pipe,” Chemical En-
gineering, Feb. 1990, p. 110.
Strauss, B.M., “Use replication to evaluate high tem-
perature creep,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 10,
Oct. 1989, p. 77.
Archuletta, Jim, Bitler, Bruce, Binford, Mark, and
Modi, John, “Cooperative corrosion control and treatment
program proves effective,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 6,
1990, p. 60.
Bucheim, Gerrit M., “Ways to deal with wet H2S crack-
ing revealed by study,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 9,
1990, p. 92.
Corbett, Richard A., “Proposed OSHA safety regs target
process plant procedures,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug.
20, 1990, p. 80.
McGuiness, W. .N., “Block-type ball valve con-
siderations,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar.
1990, p. 101.
Wenger, J. L., “Add piping to recover more NGL,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 67.
Soliman, R. H. and Collier, P B., “Pressure drop in slurry
lines,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1990,
p. 60.
Bhasin, Vinod C., “Actuator selection,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Nov. 1990, p. 140.
Lewis, Sidney A., “Take the stress out of strainer selec-
tion,” Chemical Engineering, June 1991, p. 110.
Anderson, Vaughn R., “Quarter-turn valves: Choose the
right one,” Chemical Engineering, July 1991, p. 78.
Hotchkiss, C. Jr., “The long arm of valve control,”
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1991, p. 104.
Couch, Robert O., “A guide to multiple-pipe con-
tainment,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 158.
Peterson, D. J., “Better piping and expansion joint de-
sign,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan. 1991,
p. 89.
Singh, B., “Specifying high nickel alloy piping,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 109.
211
Alspach, W. J. and Maurer, G., “Consider digital valves,,’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 101.
Cagle, Larry L., “Fiberglass pipe’s fringe benefit,”
Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1991, p. 170.
Ridey, Michael, “Relieving over-pressure,” Chemical
Engineering, Dec. 1991, p. 98.
Grumstrup, Bruce, “Shut out leaks with bellows seal
valves,” Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1992, p. 124.
Brown, Nigel P., Heywood, Nigel I., “The right instru-
mentation for slurries,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992,
p. 106.
Singh, B., “Specifying high nickel alloy piping,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 109.
Alspach, W. J. and Maurewr, G., “Consider digital
valves,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Dec., 1991, p. 101.
Wong, W. J., “PRV sizing for exchanger tube rupture,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p. 59.
Escoe, A. K., “Maximum allowable pressure for nozzle
openings,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992, p. 95.
Hassan, H. M. K., “Code check floating tank roofs,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct., 1992.
“Flow improver eliminates bottleneck in refinery trans-
fer piping,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 47.
Lindley, Nancy L., Lloyd, Joe C., “Piping systems: How
installation costs stack up,” Chemical Engineering.
1993, p. 94.
Kroupa, Ralph, “Selecting valves for tough conditions,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 74.
Speck, Thomas, “Control fugitive emissions from valves,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 82.
Stubblefield, Fred Jr., “Get topnotch performance from
jacketed pipes,” Chemical Engineering, June 1993, p. 110.
Fruci, Leonard, “Valves put a plug on emissions,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, June 1993, p. 139.
Henthorn, Greg, Lednicky, Randy, “Sealing tips for
plastic-lined pipe,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1992,
p. 142.
D. FURNACES AND HEAT EXCHANGERS
Al-Najjar, Hazim S.H. and Pauls, G. Abdul-Ahad,
“Equation calculates propertied of saturated steam,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 4, 1989, p. 86.
Ganapathy, V., “Cold end corrosion: causes and cures,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989, p. 57.
Barton, J., “Pinch technology improves olefin heat re-
covery,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 02, Feb.
1989, p. 47.
Lee, K.L., et al, “Refinery heat integration using pinch
technology,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 04, Apr.
1989, p. 49.
Ganapathy, V., “Basic program computes boiler and
heater efficiencies,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No.
05, May 1989, p. 69.
Ranade, SM., et al, “Impact of utility costs on pinch
designs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 07, July
1989, p. 39.
Garg, A., “Better burner specifications,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug. 1989, p. 71.
Ranade, S.M., et al, “Know marginal utility costs,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989, p. 81.
TOC/INDEX
Klaren, D.G. and Bailie, R.E., “Consider nonfouling
fluidized bed exchangers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
68, No. 07, July 1989, p. 48.
Goyal, O.P., “New approaches solve difficult exchanger
problems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 11, Nov.
1989, p. 53.
Parkinson, Gerald, “Heat transfer perks up with new
fluids,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1989, p. 39.
Green, Richard L., Larsen, Alvin H., and Pauls, Allen
C., “The heat-transfer fluid spectrum,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Feb. 1989, p. 90.
Bowman, Jeff and Turton, Richard, “Quick design and
evaluation: Heat exchangers,” Chemical Engineering, July
1990, p. 92.
Glavic, Peter, Kravanja, Zdravko, Homsak, Marko, “Put-
ting the pinch on reactors,” Chemical Engineering, June
1990, p. 106.
Echols, J.T. and Mayne, ST., “Cooling-water cleanup by
ozone,” Chemical Engineering, May 1990, p. 163.
Deacon, Walter T., “Quality steam, not steam quality,
delivers maximum heat,” Chemical Engineering, June
1990, p. 141.
Ganapathy, V., “Win more energy from hot gases,”
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1990, p. 102.
Tuthill, Arthur H., “The right metal for heat exchanger
tubes,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1990, p. 120.
Haas, John H., “Steam traps: Key to process heating,”
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1990, p. 151.
Fijas, David E, “Getting top performance from heat
exchangers,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1989, p. 141.
Garg, A., “How to boost the performance of fired heat-
ers,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1989, p. 239.
Barton, Jan, “Method improves pyrolysis TLE oper-
ation,‘, The Oil and Gas Journal, Jan. 29, 1990, p. 81.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Causes ofshorter delayed coker
heater runs reported,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 12,
1990, p. 49.
Smith, K., “Refractory heat dry considerations,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 01, Jan. 1990, p. 57.
Ganapathy, V., “Simplify HRSG performance evalu-
ation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar. 1990,
p. 77.
Yaws, C. L., et al, “Predict enthalpy of vaporization,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 87.
Ganapathy, V., “Evaluate extended surface exchangers
carefully,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct.
1990, p. 65.
Trom, L., “Consider plate and spiral heat exchangers,,’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct. 1990, p. 75.
Foreman, J. M., “Pre-reformer aids syngas units,”
HydrocarbonProcessing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 34B.
Rao, K. R., et al, “Design options reduce exchanger cost,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, ~\lo. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 81.
Garg, Ashutosh; Ghosh, H., “Make every Btu count,”
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1990, p. 217.
Armer, Albert, “Operating steam-heated exchangers at
high downturn,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1990, p. 131.
Hernandez-Guerrero, A.; Macias-Machin, A., “How to
design bayonet heat exchangers,” Chemical Engineering,
April 1991, p: 122.
Mart, Tony; Verhappen, Ian, “Improving fuel efficiency
with statistics,” Chemical Engineering, June 1991, p. 143.
212
Burley, James R., “Don’t overlook compact heat ex-
changers,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1991, p. 90.
Rossiter, A..P., et al, “Pinch technology identifies process
improvements,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01,
Jan. 1991, p. 63.
Schad, M., et al, “How nuclear reactors can supply heat
for the HPI,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar.
1991, p. 12oc.
Nieh, C. D. and Zhang, M. X., “Natural frequencies of
exchanger U-tubes,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
05, May 1991, p. 97.
Dotiwalla, K. K., “Process heating systems: Steam or
thermal fluid?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10,
Oct. 1991, p. 67.
Gross, P. G., “Prevent exchanger waterlogging,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 73.
Miller, U. R., “Stress analysis and design of exchanger
expansion joints,” Hydrocarbon Processing Vol. 70, No. 12,
Dec. 1991, p. 93.
Crisi, Giovanni S., “Buying heat exchangers,” Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 1992, p. 94.
Ghosh, H., “Improve your fired heaters,” Chemical En-
gineering, Mar. 1992, p. 116.
Plants, Chester A., “Evaluate heat-exchanger per-
formance — Part 1,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992,
p. 100.
Burd, Vladimir, “Squeezing clean energy from boilers
and heaters,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1992, p. 145.
Plants, Chester A., “Evaluate heat-exchanger per-
formance — Part 2,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992,
p. 104.
Rubin, Frank L., “Heat transfer topics often overlooked,”
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992, p. 74.
Fehr, M., “Make the boiler part of the team,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Nov., 1991, p. 131.
Miller, U. R., “Stress analysis and design of exchanger
expansion joints,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Dec., 1991,
p. 93.
Steinmeyer, D. E., “Optimum delta p and delta t in heat
exchange,” Hydrocarbon Processing, April, 1992, p. 53.
Love, D. L., “No hassle reboiler selection,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct., 1992, p. 41.
Ganapathy, V., “Fouling - the silent heat transfer
thief,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct., 1992, p. 49.
Steinmeyer, D., “Save energy, without entropy,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Oct., 1992, p. 55.
O’Donnell, J., “Improve seawater cooling with titanium
finned tubes,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct., 1992, p. 61.
Sloane, B. A., “Maximize your energy savings with
proper insulation size,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct.,
1992, p. 67.
Ancheyta, Jorge, Nares, Ruben, Moreno, Abel, and
Anaya, Carlos G., “New algorithm simplifies heat-
exchanger calculations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16,1991,
p. 70.
Albano, John V., Olszewski, Edward F., and Fukushima,
Toshiyuki, “Gas turbine integration reduces ethylene
plant’s energy needs,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992,
p. 55.
Richardson, Kenneth W. and Taibi, Frank D., “Loui-
siana joint venture starts up coke-fueled cogen plant,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 5, 1993, p. 38.
TOC/INDEX
Reddi, S. V., “Thermal insulation safety,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct., 1992, p. 122-c.
Ganapathy, V., “Effective use of heat-recovery steam
generators,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1993, p. 102.
Ganapathy, V., “Recovering heat when generating
power,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 94.
McGowan, Thomas F, Lipinski, George E., Santoleri,
Joseph J., “New rules affect the handling of waste fuels,”
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 122.
Boyer, John, Trumpfheller, Gary, “Specification tips to
maximize heat transfer,” Chemical Engineering, May 1993,
p. 90.
Garg, Ashutosh, “Trimming NO, from furnaces,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Nov. 1992, p. 122.
E. STORAGE AND TRANSFER
Berto, Frank J., “Methods for volume measurement
using tank gauging devices can be error prone,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 13, 1989, p. 57.
Edvardsson, Olle, “Radar used to measure tank hydro-
carbon liquid level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 2,1989, p. 39.
Sivaraman, S. and Hampton, B.J., “Guidelines set for
recalibration of storage tanks,” Oil & Gas Journal, June
12, 1989, p. 46.
Watkins, Don L. Jr., “Plagued by pumping problems?
Consider the flexible-impeller pump,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Jan. 1989, p. 94.
Kent, George R., “Troubleshooting rotating equipment
- Confessions of a service engineer, Part II,” Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1989, p. 163.
Wong, Wing Y., “Safer relief-valve sizing,” Chemical
Engineering, May 1989, p. 137.
Parkinson, Gerald, “Surging interest in leakproof
pumps,” Chemical Engineering, June 1989, p. 31.
Lahr, Paul T., “Better standards, better pumps,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, July 1989, p. 96.
Lapina, Ronald P., “Compressor performance: key
things to remember,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1989,
p. 122.
Miller, John E., “Bucking up reciprocating pump per-
formance,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1989, p. 149.
Parkinson, Gerald, “Compressor choices expand,”
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1989, p. 47.
McCaul, Colin, “Keep the wear out of pump wear rings,”
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1989 p. 149.
Mei, Kenneth W., “Automatic tank gauges can be use for
custody transfer,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 13, 1989,
p. 81.
Sivaraman, S., “Guidelines help select storage tank
calibration method,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb, 5,
1990, p. 41.
Berto, Frank J., “Hydrostatic tank gauges accurately
measure mass, volume, and level,” The Oil and Gas Jour-
nal, May 14, 1990, p. 57.
Doolin, J.H. and Teasdale, Leslie M., “Sealless
magnetic-drive pumps: Stronger than ever,” Chemical En-
gineering, Aug. 1990, p. 112.
Mills, David, “Keeping pneumatic delivery up to speed,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1990, p. 93.
Hill, Joel, “Controlling emissions from marine loading
operations,” Chemical Engineering, May 1990, p. 133.
213
Mills, David, “Troubleshooting pneumatic conveying:
Part 2: Major systems and their key components,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, July 1990, p. 101.
Lapina, Ronald P, “Compressor performance: How
changes in inlet conditions affect efficiency,” Chemical En-
gineering, July 1990, p. 110.
Margus, Edward, “Choosing thermoplastic pumps,”
Chemical Engineering, July 1991, p. 106.
Bosworth, Michael A., “Dilute-Phase Pneumatic Con-
veying: Instrument selection guide,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Sept. 1991, p. 166.
Van Valkenburgh, Gary, “Storing hazardous wastes
safely,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 203.
Nasr Ali, “Extending the life of magnetic-drive pumps,”
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1991, p. 159.
Mills, David, “Troubleshooting pneumatic conveying:
Part 3: Problems from the outside,” Chemical Engineering,
Sept. 1990, p. 157.
Doolin, James, Kawohl, Rudolf, et al, “Pumping difficult
fluids,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1991, p. 67.
Bloch, Heinz P., Noack, Pierre, W., “Screw compressors,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1992, p. 100.
Myers, Phillips, “Keeping above-ground storage tanks
in top shape,” Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1992, p. 161.
Geyer, Wayne, “Bringing storage tanks to the surface,”
Chemical Engineering, July 1992, p. 94.
Clark, Michael A., “Fluoropolymer linings: The low-cost
advantage,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992, p. 106.
Darby, Ron, Mun, Robert, Boger, David, V., “Predict
friction loss in slurry pipes,” Chemical Engineering, Sept.
1992, p. 116.
Spivey, Marty, “Intermediate bulk containers,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Sept. 1992, p. 145.
Adams, W. V., “Controlling fugitive emissions from me-
chanical seals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1992,
p. 99.
Hallam, J. L., “Commissioning compressors with gas
seals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, July, 1992, p. 41.
Schmidt, W. A., “Rerate driver shafts using thermal
analogy,” Hydrocarbon Processing, July, 1992, p. 49.
Clark, D. and Abbott, C., “Improve slurry pump lief,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, July, 1992, p. 53.
Scheithe; W., “Better bearing vibration analysis,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, July, 1992, p. 57.
Wiederuh, E. and Meinhart, D., “Isothermal com-
pressors for process gas,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Sept.,
1992, p. 58.
Wong, R. F., “Troubleshooting rotating equipment,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Oct., 1992, p. 123.
de Wit, Johannes, “Safe jack up method permits repairs
of tank bottoms and foundations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
4, 1991, p. 76.
“Flow improver eliminates bottleneck in refinery trans-
fer piping,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 47.
Hassan, Hassan M.K., “Sequential lifting of tank shell
used to repair floors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 3, 1992,
p. 33.
Koch, Pierre, “Simple program calculates partial liquid
volumes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 54.
Mei, Kenneth W., “Accurate, automatic temperature
measurements reduces tank volume errors,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 20, 1992, p. 105.
TOC/INDEX
Vandell, Craig, Foerg, Wolfgang, “The pluses of positive
displacement,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1993, p. 74.
Sumbry, Louis C., Bogner, Ben R., “Lining tank bottoms
to extend service life,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1993,
p. 131.
Blair, Hugo, “The environmental pluses of diaphragm
pumps,” Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 118.
Fruci, Leonard, “Pipeless plants boost batch processing,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1993, p. 102.
Birgenheler, David B., Butzbach, Thomas L, et al, “De-
signing steam-jet vacuum systems,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, July 1993, p. 116.
Thorpe, Wilson A. and Sivaraman, Srini, “Simple tech-
niques reduce coke inventory, sales measurement errors,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 44.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTSI: Automation of oil
movement systems prevents mistakes, savies money,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 76.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTS-Conclusion: In-
tegrating oil movement and data systems beefs project
benefits,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
Sivaraman, Srini and Wallace, Richard I., “New tank
calibration method could be wave of the future,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 19, 1992, p. 81.
F. CORROSION
Powell, James T., Rue, James R., and Mansuri, Mehdi
M., “Corrosion control program maximizes crude unit re-
liability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20, 1989, p. 60.
Richert, J.P., Bagdasarian, A.J., and Shargay, C.A.,
“Extent of stress corrosion cracking in amine plants re-
vealed by survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 5, 1989, p. 45.
Cary, John B. and Liss, Jerome B., “Automated system
monitors refinery pipe corrosion,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
11, 1989, p. 37.
Sheppard, Walter Lee, Jr., “Inspection: key to quality
masonry linings,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1989,
p. 191.
Irving-Monshaw, Susan, “Non-chromates vie for a cool-
ing water niche,” Chemical Enginering, Sept. 1989, p. 59.
Ganapathy, V., “Cold end corrosion: causes and cures,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989, p. 57.
Tuthill, Arthur H., “The right metal for heat exchanger
tubes,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1990, p. 120.
Bucheim, Gerrit M., “Ways to deal with wet H2S crack-
ing revealed by study,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul. 9,
1990, p. 92.
Archuletta, Jim, Bitler, Bruce, Binford, Mark, and
Modi, John, “Cooperative corrosion control and treatment
program proves effective,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 6,
1990, p. 60.
Christie, David A. and Golden, David C., “Fluid cat
cracking units’ advanced control can achieve benefits in six
areas,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Sept. 25, 1989, p. 104.
Lowder, Roger, “Gas turbine operates on catalytic re-
former offgas,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Oct. 9,1989, p. 82.
Barton, Jan, “Method improves pyrolysis TLE oper-
ation,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jan. 29, 1990, p. 81.
Lieberman, Norman F!, “Causes ofshorter delayed coker
heater runs reported,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 12,
1990, p. 49.
214
Morrison, T.A. and Laflamme, D., “Advanced controls
improve performance of two-shell dual-pressure column,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, May 14, 1990, p. 60.
Bird, Graham, Limb, David, and Pandit, Alok, “Flow-
sheet simulation models crude distillation and ammonia
production,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul23, 1990, p. 43.
Buchheim, G.M., “Ways to deal with wet H2S cracking
revealed by study,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 9, 1990, p. 92.
Archuletta, J., Bitler, B., Binford, M., and Modi, J.,
“Cooperative corrosion control and treatment program
proves effective,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 6, 1990, p. 60.
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, SM., “FCC
CORROSION - 1: Basic steps lead to successful FCC cor-
rosion control,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 81.
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, SM., “FCC
CORROSION - Conclusion: Basic corrosion control
methods solve varied problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1991, p. 86.
“Survey updates amine stress corrosion cracking,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 42.
Whitecraft, Paul K., “High-tech steels to the rescue,”
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1992, p. 116.
Clark, Michael A., “Fluoropolymer linings: The low-cost
advantage,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992, p. 107.
Pollock, Warren L., “What’s hot in metal alloys,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 78.
Puyear, Robert B., “Pick the right material for process
hardware,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 90.
Pollock, Warren L., “Baffled by how alloys are labeled?“,
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 169.
Dotiwalla, K. K., “Save energy with absorption chill-
ers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p. 112.
Scott, B., “Identify alkylation hazards,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 77.
Reddi, S. V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part l,“Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 122-C.
Reddi, S. V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 2,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 100-C.
Schwinn, V. and Streisselberger, A., “Avoid’H2S cor-
rosion in refinery vessels,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 103.
DuPart, M. S., et al., “Understanding corrosion in al-
kanolamine gas treating plants, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4, April 1993, p. 75.
DuPart, M. S., et al., “Understanding corrosion in
alkanolamine gas treating plants, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 89.
Gallaher, Dale M. and Malhoney, Michael J., “MOBILE
BAY-l: New technologies used in development of sour
Fairway gas,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 22, 1993, p. 57.
Gallaher, Dale M. and Malhoney, Michael J., “MOBILE
BAY-Conclusion: Fairway sour gas development proves
new materials, monitoring,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 1,
1993, p. 76.
French, Eddie C., “New inhibitor reduces crude-unit
corrosion problems at lower pH,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
24, 1993, p. 45.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Four steps solve crude-tower
overhead corrosion problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 5,
1993, p. 47.
Priest, David, “Measuring corrosion rates fast,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Nov. 1992, p. 169.
TOC/INDEX
Sumbry, Louis, C., Bogner, Ben R., “Lining tank bottoms
to extend service life,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1993,
p. 131.
Miller, W.A., “How to choose a fluoropolymer,” Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1993, p. 163.
G. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Raab, FE., “New Exxon gas plant design couples NGL
recovery with cogeneration,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 19,
1989, p. 40.
Lowder, Roger, “Gas turbin operates on catalytic re-
former off gas,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1989, p. 82.
Vatcha, S.R., “How efficient can distillation be?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989, p. 65.
Cooper, D., “Do you value steam correctly?,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 07, July 1989, p. 44.
Vervalin, C.H., “Energy information resources,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 11, Nov. 1989, p. 119.
Melamed, Dennis, Johnson, Eric, Chowdhury, Jayadev,
“Energy prices will rise in the 199Os,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Sept. 1989, p. 55.
Glavic, Peter, Kravanja, Zdravko, Homsak, Marko, “Put-
ting the pinch on reactors,” Chemical Engineering, June
1990, p. 106.
Ganapathy, V., “Win more energy from hot gases,”
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1990, p. 102.
Haas, John H., “Steam traps: Key to process heating,”
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1990, p. 151.
Sudhakar, B. and Rao, B. K. B., “India’s energy options:
the latest review,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 04,
Apr. 1990, p. 116C.
Misra, L. N., “Innovative generator/motor repair,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 139.
Siegell, J. H., “Plant energy conservation,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct. 1990, p. 59.
Ranade, S. M. and Chao, Y. T., “Industrial heat pumps:
Where and when?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No.
10, Oct. 1990, p. 71.
Western, E.R., and Nass, D.W., “Cogeneration improves
thermal EOR efficiency,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 15, 1990,
p. 41.
Ganapathy, V., “Evaluate deaerator steam requirements
quickly,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb.
1991, p. 59.
Siegell, J. H., “Analyzing process energy efficiency,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 55.
Tripathi, P. and Shukla, D., “Environmentally respon-
sible energy management,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 45.
Szeto, E., “Prevent insulation from punking,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 51.
Ganapathy, V,, “Maximize steam generation gas turbine
HRSGs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct.
1991, p. 57.
Irwin, W., “Avoid common mistakes when insulating
piping,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991,
p. 64.
Albano, John V., Olszewski, Edward F., and Fukushima,
Toshiyuki, “Gas turbine integration reduces ethylene
plant’s energy needs,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992,
p. 55.
215
Newman, S. A., “Sour water design by charts, Pt. 2,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 101.
Macek, Stanley J., “Putting a lid on evaporation costs,”
Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1992, p. 139.
Ganapathy, V., “Effective use of heat-recovery steam
generators,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1993, p. 102.
Ganapathy, V., “Recovering heat when generating
power,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 94.
Burger, Robert, “Cooling towers: The often over-looked
profit center,” Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 100.
Nutter, Darin, Britton, Angela, Heffington, Warren,
“Conserve energy to cut operating costs,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Sept. 1993, p. 126.
H. GENERAL
Corbett, Richard A., “Capacity rise reflects return to
better times for U.S. refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20,
1989, p. 49.
Gwyn, Debra A., “Annual U.S. refining survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 20, 1989, p. 68.
Davis, Brian C., “Supplying high-octane gasoline will
further challenge U.S. refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
15, 1989, p. 35.
“Study targets refiners’ surplus normal butane,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 8, 1989, p. 42.
Sears, George F., “Nomogram estimates competitive
fuel prices,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 8, 1989, p, 41.
Hermes, Robert A., “High utilization, tight supply will
maintain strong refining margins in US.,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 19, 1989, p. 44.
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Olujic, Barko, “Explicit solution is developed for vapor
pressure equation,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 6, 1989, p. 46.
Furgang, S.R., “Train better by computer,“Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan. 1989, p. 86.
Contino, A.V., “Process engineering management (Part
l),” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 02, Feb. 1989,
p. 56.
Contino, A.V., “Process engineering management (Part
2),” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 03, Mar. 1989,
p. 121.
Torell, C.A., “Fast-track contracting can save time and
money,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 04, Apr.
1989, p. 68.
Munisteri, J.G. and Chevriere, J.P, “E/Cs: Be ready for
the 199Os,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 05, May
1989, p. 37.
Hoffman, H.L. and Riddle, L., “Spending tied to con-
struction,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 05, May
1989, p. 42.
Provost, R.D. and Lipscomb, R.S., “Partnering: A case
study,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 05, May 1989,
p. 48.
Vervalin, C.H., “Construction information resources,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 05, May 1989, p. 51.
Kennedy, R.D., “Ready for America’s funeral?,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 06, June 1989, p. 93.
Frohman, M., “Improve group problem-solving,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 07, July 1989, p. 77.
TOC/INDEX
Woodruff, D.M., “Tools for better management (Part 11,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug. 1989, p. 74.
Woodruff, D.M., “Tools for better management (Part 21,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept. 1989, p. 103.
Kent, George R., “Troubleshooting vibration problems.
Confessions of a service engineer, Part I,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Feb. 1989, p. 145.
Harrison, Mark E., France, John J., “Distillation
column troubleshooting,” Chemical Engineering, Apr.
1989, p. 121.
Harrison, Mark E., France, John J., “Troubleshooting
distillation columns - Part 3: Trayed columns,” Chemical
Engineering, May 1989, p. 126.
Wong, Wing Y., “Safer relief-valve sizing,” Chemical
Engineering, May 1989, p. 137.
Harrison, Mark E., France, John J., “Troubleshooting
distillation columns - Part 4: Auxiliary equipment,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1989, p. 130.
Kent, George R., “Troubleshooting equipment vi-
bration. Confessions of a service engineer, Part III,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, July 1989, p. 171.
Trigueros, David, Coronado-Velasco, Cristina, and
Gomez-Munoz, Alejandro, “Synthesize simple distillation
the thermodynamic way,” Chemical Engineering, Aug.
1989, p. 129.
Barnicki, Scott D. and Davis, James F., “Designing
sieve-tray columns,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1989,
p. 202.
Barnicki, Scott D., Davis, James I?, “Designing sieve-
tray columns,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1989, p. 140.
Corbett, Richard A., “ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY
REPORT: Refiners, petrochem plants focus on new waste
challenges,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 5, 1990, p. 33.
True, Warren R., “ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY RE-
PORT: Clean Air Act and PCB cleanup hold attention of
processors, pipelines,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 5,
1990, p. 38.
Aalund, Leo R., “Expanded Mongstad refinery has
major export role,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 12,1990,
p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Conversion gains reflect healthy margins,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Mar. 26, 1990, p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual Refining Survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar.
26, 1990, p. 77.
“WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Refineries,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 16, 1990 p. 53.
“WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Petrochemicals,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 16, 1990, p. 60.
“WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Gas Processing,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 16, 1990, p. 72.
“WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Related Fuels,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, Apr. 16, 1990, p. 74.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Tough
air-quality goals spur quest for transportation fuel
changes,” The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Fuel
reformulations, alternatives cover broad spectrum,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 42.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-New
and modified processes and catalysts needed for new fuels,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 52.
216
True, Warren R., “GAS PROCESSING REPORT:
Worldwide gas-processing growth slows,” The Oil and Gas
Journal, Jul. 9, 1990, p. 41.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “GAS PROCESSING REPORT:
World sulfur derived from oil, gas production,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Jul. 9, 1990, p. 87.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “GAS PROCESSING REPORT:
Worldwide gas processing,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul.
9, 1990, p. 55.
Beck, Robert J., “Crude price slump tempers midyear
outlook,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul 30, 1990, p. 49.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL PETROCHEMICAL
REPORT World ethylene capacity still growing,” The Oil
and Gas Journal, Sept. 10, 1990, p. 49.
Pascarella, P. and Frohman, M. A., “The purpose-driven
organization, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No.
02, Feb. 1990, p. 83.
Pujado, P. R. and Vora, B. V., “Make C3-C4 olefins selec-
tively,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar. 1990,
p. 65.
Desensy, M. G., “Chemical industry faces growth, chal-
lenges in ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03,
Mar. 1990, p. 132C.
Kerridge, A. E., “For quality, define requirements,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 04, Apr. 1990, p. 103.
Wilson, J. W., “1992 will impact U.S. refiners,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May 1990, p. 55.
Kerridge, A. E., “Be a ‘winning’ project manager,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May 1990, p. 99.
Raudsepp, E., “Flexibility can lead to success,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 05, May 1990, p. 113.
Watters, P R., “New partnerships emerge in LPG and
petrochemicals trade,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69,
No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 100B.
Srosboll, M. P., “Succeed, with organized chaos,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 06, Jun. 1990, p. 141.
Raudsepp, E., “Should I change jobs?,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 69, No. 07, Jul. 1990, p. 87.
Vervalin, C. H., “Creative problem solving revisited,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 08, Aug. 1990, p. 87.
Brown, D. J., “Quality improvement: buzzword or revo-
lution?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 09,
Sep. 1990, p. 123.
Marcos-Giacoman, E., “Mexican oil industry gears up
for new economic environment,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct. 1990, p. 50C.
Wilson, J. L., “Theme for ‘91 could be ‘The Future is
Now’,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1990,
p. 51.
Raudsepp, E., “Are you assertive enough?,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct. 1990, p. 107.
Kavanagh, J. T., “Managing construction resources,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 34C.
Kerridge, A. E., “Use a fast-track schedule,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 75.
Drew, E. H., “Strategies for leadership: a challenge in
the 1990s,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec.
1990, p. 57.
Weismantel, G. E., “Quality” is a major focus next year
and beyond,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 12, Dec.
1990, p. 60.
“HP1 spending for 1991,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 12, Dec. 1990, p. 97.
TOC/INDEX
“GAO: Reformulation threatens small refiners,” Oil &
Gas Journal, July 2, 1990, p. 34.
Williams, B., “Reformulated fuels set the stage for U.S.
supply pinch, price spikes,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 9,
1990, p. 21.
“Ashland starts up MTBE unit,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 13, 1990, p. 32.
Corbett, R.A., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
New catalyst designs meet environmental challenges of the
1990s,” Oct. 1, 1990, p. 49.
“Catalysts available from East Germany,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 15, 1990, p. 54.
Aalund, L.R., “East German refiners face risky future,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 15, 1990, p. 52.
“MTBE: ARC0 Chemical’s No. 1 performer,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 15, 1990, p. 40.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT Refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 15, 1990, p. 57.
“Temporary mat system supports heavy vessels,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 22, 1990, p. 80.
Aalund, L.R., “Major East German plants enter EEC
refining network,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 24, 1990, p. 30.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT Worldwide Refining,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
“U.S. kerosene jet fuel consumption soars,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 23.
Ozog, H., and Stickles, R.P., “Process hazard manage-
ment documents, practices compared,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 28, 1991, p. 86.
“Indian revamps strategy for refining capacity expan-
sion,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 11, 1991, p. 32.
“Shortfall looms as strike cripples Brazilian refineries,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 11, 1991, p. 40.
“Chevron revises Richmond refinery project,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 44.
Aalund, L.R., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT: U.S.
refining industry has powerful configuration,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 57.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
“Chevron settles tire safety case with OSHA,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 32.
“Esso Thai refinery project, divestiture okayed,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 32.
“GM mounts push for reformulated fuel now,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 28.
“Mobil to add units at Singapore refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 1, 1991, p. 42.
“Western closes purchase of Amoco plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 8, 1991, p. 91.
Yepsen, G. and Witoshkin, T., “Refiners have options to
deal with reformulated gasoline,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
8, 1991, p. 68.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT Refineries,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15,1991, p. 62.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE
- 1: U.S. Clean Air Act expands role for oxygenates,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1991, p. 44.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE
- Conclusion: Oxygenate/hydrocarbon shift will rewrite
gasoline recipes,” Apr. 29, 1991, p. 62.
“BP outlines U.S. refinery spending plans,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 29, 1991, p. 30.
217
“More MTBE, TAME plants due U.S.,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 29, 1991, p. 40.
“Coastal Chem breaks ground on MTBE plant,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 6, 1991, p. 30.
“Tenneco building Houston area MTBE plant,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 20, 1991, p. 25.
“Mobil, Chemvest study Saudi MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1991, p. 27.
“Saudis eye Japan R&M joint venture,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, May 20, 1991, p. 27.
“More U.S. oxygenates projects scheduled,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 32.
“India to hike refining capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 27, 1991, p. 112.
Scherr, R.C., Smalley, G.A. Jr., and Norman, M.E., “RE-
FINING IN THE ’90s - 1: Clean Air Act complicates re-
finery planning,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 68.
“UOP develops new oxygenates process,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 3, 1991, p. 30.
“Saudi, Japanese refining additions eyed,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 10,1991, p. 18.
“Refiners may meet CAA requirements if...,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 10, 1991, p. 26.
“ways sought to improve E. Europe refineries,” Oil &
Gas Journal, June 10, 1991, p. 27.
Scherr, R.C., Smalley, G.A. Jr., Norman, M.E., “RE-
FINING IN THE ’90s - Conclusion: Clean air amendments
put big burden on refinery planning,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 10, 1991, p. 35.
“EPA outlines reformulated gasoline regs,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 17, 1991, p. 20.
“European refiners press sulfur campaign,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 24, 1991, p. 26.
“Flexible new process converts aromatics in variety of
diesel feedstocks,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 1, 1991, p. 55.
“ARC0 claims advance in gasoline formula,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 22, 1991, p. 37.
“German refinery to undergo large revamp,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 5, 1991, p. 30.
Vielvoye, R., “WATCHING THE WORLD: Pacific Rim
processing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12, 1991, p. 38.
Crow, P., “WATCHING WASHINGTON: ‘Reg-neg’ gaso-
line standards,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12, 1991, p. 44.
“Upgrade adds three units at Corpus plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 12, 1991, p. 96.
“New short contact time processes upgrade residual oils
and heavy crudes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12, 1991, p. 79.
“Saudis poised for huge refining upgrade,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 19, 1991, p. 32.
“Asia-Pacific area shows big’gains in processing,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 26, 1991, p. 17.
“Way clear for reformulated gasoline rule,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 26, 1991, p. 37.
“OSHA levies fine on Citgo,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 9,
1991, p. 37.
“Exxon U.S.A. plans three MTBE plants,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 16, 1991, p. 34.
“Soviets avert accident at Ufa refinery,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 38.
“Malaysia to expand refining, LNG capacity,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 7, 1991, p. 111.
“Elf group will speed study for Shanghai area refinery,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 27.
TOC/INDEX
“EPA actions target OxyChem, Olin, Texaco,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 36.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Yanagi, Tak, “Inside a trayed distillation column,”
Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1990, p. 120.
Burger, Robert, “Colder cooling water pays offs,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, March 1991, p. 177.
Godbey, Thomas, “Brace your plant against a dust ex-
plosion,” Chemical Engineering, April 1991, p. 130.
Simpson, L.L., “Estimate two-phase flow in safety de-
vices,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1991, p. 98.
Chatrathi, Kris, “Explosion-isolation systems,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1991, p. 134.
Richardson, T., “Learn from the Phillips explosion,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 83.
Schuler, G. H. M., “Will Middle East oil continue to
supply your refinery?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70,
No. 07, Jul. 1991, p. 50C.
Spranza, F G., “Will terrorists hit your plant?,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, Jul. 1991, p. 102.
Karnik, J.L., “Refiners in Western Europe face emission
reductions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug.
1991, p. 50E.
Jones, R. L., “U.S. refiners will face a year ofchallenge,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 47.
- Portal, G. M. A., “What the new year holds for European
refiners,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec.
1991, p. 49.
Lenz, A. J., “Chemical industry output ‘to grow 5% in
‘92’,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991,
p. 50.
Tucker, R. L., “For E/Cs the ‘92 message is ‘change with
the times’,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec.
1991, p. 52.
Early II, W. F., “Wed regulatory compliance to long-term
business goals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12,
Dec. 1991, p. 54.
Finley, H. I?, “Productivity growth in the U.S. refining
industry,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec.
1991, p, 55.
Robinson, R. I., “A major restructuring has started, or
will,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, 1991, p. 57.
Riley, K. G., “Petroleum refiners face major strategic
decisions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec.
1991, p. 58.
Tarbutton, A. and Salazar, M., “A global panorama of
the natural gas industry,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70,
No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 146C.
Chatha, A., “Fieldbus begins a new era in process con-
trol,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991,
p. 59.
Hearn, Graham, “Coping with electrostatic hazards,”
Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1991, p. 188.
Bechman, Lawrence V., “How reliable is your safety
system?”, Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1992, p. 109.
Olson, Kevin R., “How to remove fouling solids cooling
water,” Chemical Engineering, May 1992, p. 155.
Turner, J., “Accessing and manipulating simulation
data in spreadsheets,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov., 1991,
p. 123.
218
Yaws, C. L., “Calculate liquid heat capacity,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Dec., 1991, p. 73.
Finley, H. E, “Productivity growth in U. S. refining
industry,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 1992, p. 74-c.
“Gas process handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
1992, p. 83.
Wadsworth, P. A. and Villalanti, D. C., “Pinpoint hydro-
carbon types,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1992, p. 109.
Gallun, S. E. et al, “Use open equations for better mod-
els,” Hydrocarbon Processing, July, 1992, p. 78.
Bergmann, E. P. et al, “Risk management success calls
for some hard decisions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug.,
1992, p. 45.
Eley, C., “Compliance audit checklist for hazardous
chemicals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 97.
Mallett, R., “Rate your risk management plans,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 111.
Wong, E. W. et al, “Produce high purity VCM product,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 129.
Vasquez, J. J. et al, “How to estimate Rvp of blends,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 135.
Spranza, E G., “Plant security checklist,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Sept., 1992, p. 71.
Philley, J., “Investigate incidents with MRC,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Sept., 1992, p. 77.
“Nelson Farrar cost indexes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1991, p. 91. Nov. 4, 1991, p. 75. Dec. 2, 1991, p. 57. Jan. 6,
1992, p. 73. Feb. 3, 1992, p. 50. Mar. 2, 1991, p. 45. Apr. 6,
1992, p. 61. May 4,1992, p. 130. June 1,1992, p. 78. July 6,
1992, p. 83-84. Aug. 3, 1992, p. 61. Sept. 7, 1992, p. 48. Oct.
5, 1992, p. 82.
“Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 7, 1991, p. 92. Jan. 6, 1992, p. 82. Apr. 6, 1992,
p. 62. July 6, 1992, p. 84. Oct. 5, 1992, p. 86.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining
catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.K. North Sea’s Kittiwake crude
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 55.
“Worldwide Construction Report: Refineries,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 56.
“Malaysian upgrade delayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
11, 1991, p. 24.
“Long delayed Soviet refinery starts up,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 30.
“End seen for high sulfur fuel oil in Europe,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 21.
Manafi, Kambiz, “Simple refining complexity cal-
culation tracks regional trends,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 2,
1991, p. 62.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Two important Saudi crudes
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 64.
“Samarec outlines $4 billion upgrading plans,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 9, 1991, p. 73.
“Europeans vying for German refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 16, 1991, p. 21.
“Corpoven plans refinery in E. Venezuela,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 16, 1991, p. 35.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Recent and pending regulations push
refiners to the limit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1991,
p. 39.
TOC/INDEX
“Plans changed for Bahrain refinery project,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 18.
“Unocal completes purchase of part of Shell refinery,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 26.
“Industry hits California reformulation move,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 26.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Tanasescu, Dumitru, “Romanian refining industry as-
sesses restructuring,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 30, 1991,
p. 89.
“Esso Thailand schedules project to almost triple re-
finery capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 21.
“SBA plans to jump small refinery definition to 75,000
b/d capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 32.
“Elf group to buy German downstream assets,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 28.
“Amoco to seek buyer for refinery in Salt Lake City,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 30.
‘Unease among Japanese refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 27, 1992, p. 38.
“Caltex signs pact to build Thailand’s fifth refinery,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 40.
“Petro-Canada to cut refining capacity,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 3, 1992, p. 22.
“CIS to get more refining technologies,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 3, 1992, p. 24.
“Seven projects scheduled at Ashland refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 38.
“CERA: Refiners can cope with CAA requirements,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
“CIS refining faces tough year,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
17, p. 40.
“BP to make lubes in Viet Nam,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 2, 1992, p. 29.
“Sinopec outlines progress,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2,
1992, p. 30.
“Statoil to expand Danish plant,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 2, 1992, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., “East Zeit Mix and Dulang crude3
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 46.
“Kuwaiti refinery repairs eyed,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 9, 1992, p. 31.
“California a dangerous pattern for action on emissions
reduction,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 24.
“Chevron details Port Arthur revamp,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 30.
“New NPRA chairman sees more rationalization among
U.S. refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Four California OCS crudes
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 67.
“Chevron drops methanol auto fuels program,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 34.
“Environmental regulatory vise squeezing U.S. re-
finers,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 21.
“Multibillion dollar upgrade ahead for Canadian re-
finers,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 22.
“Fire hits two Houston area downstream complexes,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 35.
“Pdvsa earmarks $3.2 billion for two refinery projects,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 40.
219
“‘Japanese firms to hike deep conversion,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 40.
“Chem Systems study outlines U.S. refiners strategic
options,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 20, 1992, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Malaysian, Canadian, Saudi crudes
assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 44.
Duncan, Norman E., “Conversion index helps refiner
assess relative profitability,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 4,
1992, p. 108.
“Coastal unit eyes move into Romania,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 23.
“Conoco schedules consolidation of U.S. lubricants,” Oil
& Gas Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 26.
“Philippines’ downstream sector poised for growth,” Oil
& Gas Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 28.
“C.I.S.-U.S. venture to offer process services,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 31.
“Canadian R&M restructuring to pay dividends,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 18.
“Thai, Aussie refining contracts let,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 25, 1992, p. 21.
“U.S. refiners lament lack of final CAA rules,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 26.
“Mobil refineries set plant records for 1991,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 1, 1992, p. 46.
Bellomo, P.J., “OSHA safety regulation calls for step-by-
step approach,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1, 1991, p. 49.
“Chevron’s ‘clean’ diesel gets California nod; Unocal
mostly opts out of state’s diesel market,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 8, 1992, p. 30.
“Gasoline reformulation to roil petrochem markets,” Oil
& Gas Journal, June 8, 1992, p. 32.
“Russian refining reflects old ways,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 15, 1992, p. 24.
“Amoco to retain Utah refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 22, 1992, p. 30.
“Agreement near on upgrader overrun,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 13, 1992, p. 19.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, “New correlation predicts density
of petroleum fractions,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 13, 1992,
p. 49.
“Singapore refiners in midst of huge construction cam-
paign,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 20, 1992, p. 23.
“Lyondell plans to hike heavy crude runs at Houston,”
Oil & Gas Journal, July 20, 1992, p. 41.
“Corpus Christi refinery due new units,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 55.
“Problems persist for French refining sector,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 107.
“Pdvsa buys more downstream assets,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Aug. 3, 1992, p. 24.
“Oxygenates to hike gasoline price,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 3, 1992, p. 28.
“Elf group buys E. German R&M assets,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 3, 1992, p. 31.
“Mobil’s Aussie refinery revamp okayed,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 36.
“Chevron plans revamp of Richmond refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 39.
“Fish agrees to settle citations issued by OSHA,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 42.
“Two new unit3 cut refinery costs at Puertollano,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 24, 1992, p. 21.
TOC/INDEX
Collinge, J. Alan, “Auditing reduces accidents by elim-
inating unsafe practices,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 24,
1992, p. 38.
“Ashland outlines $261 million in refinery unit con-
struction,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 20.
“Pemex to acquire interest in Shell Texas refinery,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 28.
Jamialahmadi, Mohamad, and Muller-Steinhagen,
Hans, “Computer program designs packed columns,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 33.
“Mothballed Canadian refineries marked for reuse,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 14, 1992, p. 42.
“Star agrees to spill settlement,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 14, 1992, p. 47.
“India beckons participants in burgeoning refining sec-
tor,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 25.
“Amoco producing improved premium for Midwest
market,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 38.
“National oil companies’ presence to hike U.S. refining
competition,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 40.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Assays of two Saudi,crudes updated,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 91.
“Petrochem industry expands North American MTBE
capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 34.
Humphrey, Jimmy L., Seibert, A. Frank, “New horizons
in distillation,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1992, p. 86.
Mak, H. Y., “Gas plant converts amine unit to MDEA-
based solvent,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10,
Oct. 1992, p. 91.
Reddi, S. V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 1,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 122-C.
Shah, G. C., “Improve activated carbon bed absorber
operations,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov.
1992, p. 61.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Catena, D., Dietz, J. T. and Traubert, T. D., “Create
intelligent P&IDS,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No.
11, Nov. 1992, p. 65.
Stippick, J. A., “How to check welding procedures with-
out becoming an expert,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71,
No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 93.
Reddi, S. V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 2,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 100-C.
McMarlin, R. M. and Gerrish, R. W., “Can your ‘non-
combustible’ insulation burn?,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 101.
Baas, J. and Warner, R., “How much ‘life’ is left in your
olefin unit?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec.
1992, p. 81.
Wong, W. Y., “Capacity credit calculation method for
exchanger tube rupture,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71,
No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 89.
Sarathy, P R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Tagoe, C., et al., “Are there contaminants in your feed-
stream?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 117.
Zoller, L. and Esping, J., “Use ‘What-If method for
process hazard analysis,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 132-B.
220
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Gruhn, P., “Safety system performance terms: clearing
up the confusion,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2,
Feb. 1993, p. 63.
Beckman, L. V., “Selecting redundant microprocessor-
based systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2,
Feb. 1993, p. 71.
Kobyakov, A. I., “Include heuristics in protection sys-
tems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993,
p. 79.
Bishop, K. and Knittel, T., “Do you have the ‘right’ flame
arrester in service?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
2, Feb. 1993, p. 99.
Golden, S. W., et al., “FCC main fractionator revamps,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 77.
Forsell, K. A., “Protect motors with solid-state over-
loads,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993,
p. 100.
Aitani, A. M., “Sour natural gas drying,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4, April 1993, p. 67.
Fair, J. R., “How to design baffle tray columns,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1993, p. 75.
Goyal, R. K., “FMEA, the alternative process hazard
method,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 5, May
1993, p. 95.
Kletz, T. A., “Organizations have no memory when it
comes to safety,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6,
June 1993, p. 88.
Gallupe, W., “Retrofit methods reduce valves’ fugitive
emissions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6, June
1993, p. 97.
Roberts, D. A., et al., “Recover additional distillate from
vacuum residue,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7,
July 1993, p. 75.
Golden, S. W., et al., “Troubleshoot vacuum columns
with low-capital methods,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 81.
Loftus, D., et al., “Partnership programs can solve envi-
ronmental waste problems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 90.
Cindric, D. T., et al., “Reduce crude unit pollution with
these technologies,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
8, Aug. 1993, p. 45.
Agar, G., et al., “Energy absorption probes control oily-
water discharges,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8,
Aug. 1993, p. 55.
Bergmann, E. P, “Approximate risk assessment pri-
oritizes remedial decisions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 111.
McSween, T. E., “Improve your safety program with a
behavioral approach,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 119.
Dougan, K. W. and Reilly, M. C., “Quantitative re-
liability methods improve plant uptime,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 131.
Robinson, J. E., “Underground storage tank: removal vs.
abandonment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8,
Aug. 1993, p. 149.
TOC/INDEX
Bear-row, M. E., “How to shop for a PSM consultant,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 7, July 1993, p. 95.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refiningcatalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT-Gas Processing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26,1992,
p. 114.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT - Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992, p. 77.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT - Refineries,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992,
p. 91.
Nelson-Farrar Cost Index, Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2,
1992, p. 79; Dec. 7, 1992, p. 74; Jan. 4, 1993, p. 38; Feb. 1,
1993, p. 44; Mar. 1, 1993, p. 70; Apr. 5, 1993, p. 62; May 3,
1993, p. 96; June 7, 1993, p, 36; July 5, 1993, p. 50; Aug. 2,
1993, p. 78.
Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating, Jan. 4, 1993, p.
52; Apr. 5, 1993, p. 64; “How refinery fuel indexes have
varied,” July 5, 1993, p. 56.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE REFINING REPORT
—Worldwide refiners make big move into modernization,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 21, 1992, p. 41.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE REFINING REPORT -
Refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 21, 1992, p, 52.
“Shell starts up two projects at Essex refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 21, 1992, p. 31.
“Texaco preparing to bring parts of Wilmington refinery
back on stream,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992, p. 29.
“Big upgrade slated at Shell’s Pernis refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 25, 1993, p. 40.
“API report shows U.S. refining capacity declining,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 8, 1993, p. 81.
Rhodes, Anne K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s:
Papua New Guinea’s first commercial crude assayed,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 15, 1993, p. 73.
Swain, Edward J., “U.S. refiners face declining crude
quality, insufficient price spread,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
1, 1993, p. 62.
“Shell, Pemex team up in refining venture,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 25.
“Two Refineries Running Crude; Third To Restart By
September,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 15, 1993, p. 48.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTSl: Automation of oil
movement systems prevents mistakes, savies money,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 76.
“Coastal to idle Kansas refineries,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 22, 1993, p. 32.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION SUR-
VEY - Refining,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12,1993, p. 55.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION SUR-
VEY - Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 78.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION SUR-
VEY - Gas Processing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12,1993,
p. 79.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTS - Conclusion: In-
tegrating oil movement and data systems beefs project
benefits,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
“Ashland refinery units take shape,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 19, 1993, p, 20.
Ladeur, Peter and Bijwaard, Harry, “Shell plans
$2.2-billion renovation of Dutch refinery,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 26, 1993, p. 64.
221
“World refining outlook seen positive,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 26, 1993, p. 94.
“Asia-Pacific Region’s Oil Demand Growth Strains Re-
fining Capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 10, 1993, p. 36.
“China Expands Refining Sector To Handle Booming
Oil Demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 10, 1993, p. 40.
“Lyondell, Citgo join for refinery project,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 17, 1993, p. 23
Aalund, L.R., “Saudi Master Refining Program Takes
Shape,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 21, 1993, p. 39.
Dahl, Carol and Garcia, Wolfgang J., “Reformulated
gasoline more profitable in Venezuela than in U.S.,” Oil &
Gas Journal, June 21, 1993, p. 72.
“Contracts let for German refinery units,” Oil & Gus
Journal, June 21, 1993, p. 35.
“NPRA establishes ‘International Workshop’ at main-
tenance meeting,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 28,1993, p. 70.
True, Warren R., “Maxus starts up Texas Panhandle gas
plant,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 28, 1993, p. 68.
“Houston refinery upgrade is a firm deal,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 12, 1993, p. 29.
True, Warren R., “World gas processing, sulfur-recovery
capacities still growing,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 12, 1993,
p. 41.
“Worldwide gas processing survey,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 12, 1993, p. 55.
“World sulfur survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 12,1993,
p. 93.
“Big upgrade starts at Shell’s Deer Park refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, July 19, 1993, p. 28.
Sweeney, Brian N.C., “Rising costs call for new
European refining strategies,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 19,
1993, p. 30.
“French, U.S. companies merge catalyst lines,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 2, 1993, p. 76.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Recommissioned German refinery
ready to meet tough fuels, emissions specs,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 9, 1993, p. 29.
Aalund, L.R., “STATE OIL COMPANIES: Saudi Arabia,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 38.
Williams, Bob, “STATE OIL COMPANIES: Mexico,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 55.
Knott, David, “STATE OIL COMPANIES: Kuwait,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 66.
Moritis, Guntis, “STATE OIL COMPANIES: Indonesia,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 68.
Rhodes, Anne K., “GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Two
light, sweet C.I.S. crudes assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 6, 1993, p.82.
“California refiners beat diesel fuel deadline,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 33.
“NPC: U.S. refiners can meet environmental regu-
lations, but...,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 34.
“French refiners face shakeout with soaring costs,
downturn,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 25.
“Chevron schedules refinery outlays,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 40.
“Kuwaiti refinery back on stream,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 27, 1993, p. 40.
“Supplying low sulfur diesel no great hurdle for U.S.
refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1993, p. 29.
“Catalyst suppliers further consolidate business units,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 41.
TOC/INDEX
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
LIGHT-OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Desai, P. H., et al., “Enhance gasoline yield and quality,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 51.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p, 53.
Ludwig, G. H., “Industrial hydrogenation of aldehydes,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 67.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 89.
Cooper, B. H., et al., “Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel
aromatics saturation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 6, June 1993, p. 83.
Liers, J., et al., “Reforming using erionite catalysts,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 8, Aug. 1993, p. 165.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
ISOMERIZATION
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Ramsey, John R., and Truesdale, Patrick B., “Blend
optimization integrated into refinery-wide strategy,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 19, 1990, p. 49.
Corbett, Richard A., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Conversion gains reflect healthy margins,” The Oil and
Gas Journal, Mar. 26, 1990, p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual Refining Survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar.
26, 1990, p. 77.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Tough
air-quality goals spur quest for transportation fuel
changes,” The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 33.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-Fuel
reformulations, alternatives cover broad spectrum,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 42.
Corbett, Richard A., “FUELS FOR TOMORROW-New
and modified processes and catalysts needed for new fuels,”
The Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1990, p. 52.
222
Hoffman, H. L., “Catalyst market estimated,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 53.
Amigues, P., et al, “Propylene from ethylene and
butene-2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct.
1990, p. 79.
“Refining Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Haizmann, R.S., Lowry, D.R., and Schiferli, W.J., “Isom-
erization with separation/recycle brings big octane boost,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 3, 1990, p. 66
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Hoffman, H. L., “Refining catalyst market ‘91,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Monfils, J. J. et al, “Upgrade isobutane to isobutylene,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb., 1992, p. 47.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Lyondell develops one step isobutylene process,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 42.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ‘92,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Sarathy, P. R. and Suffridge, G. S., “Etherify field bu-
tanes, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
John, Thomas P. and Thomas, Stephen P., “Texas plant
first to isomerize n-butylenes to isobutylene,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 24, 1993, p. 54.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
AROMATIC EXTRACTION
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual Refining Survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar.
26, 1990, p. 77.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
TOC/INDEX
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Goelzer, Alan R., Ram, Sanjeev, Hernandez-Robinson,
Agustin, Chin, Arthur A., Harandi, Mohsen N., and Smith,
C. Morris, “Refiners have several options for reducing gaso-
line benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 63.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
VISBREAKING
Mullins, T.E. and Shorland, M., “Predict asphalt per-
formance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 01, Jan.
1989, p. 67.
Washimi, K. and Limmer, H., “New unit to thermal
crack resid,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 09, Sept.
1989, p. 69.
Wood, J.R. and Marino, C.K., “Design improvements
increase run length,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 25, 1991,
p. 42.
Castellanos, J., Cano, J.L., del Rosal, R., Briones, V.M.
and Mantilla, R.L., “Kinetic model predicts visbreaker
yields,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 76.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert F., “Visbreaker
hardware has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT:
Annual Refining Survey,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Mar.
26, 1990, p. 77.
Srivastava, R. D., et al, “Catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 02, Feb. 1990, p. 59.
“Gas Process Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 04, Apr. 1990, p. 69.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Shaver, K. G., et al, “Membranes recover hydrogen,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06, Jun. 1991, p. 77.
223
Johansen, T., “Trends in hydrogen plant design,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Aug., 1992, p. 119.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Cleaning up gasoline will increase refinery hydrogen
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 92.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
Simonsen, Knut A., O’Keefe, Luke F., and Fong, W.
Francis, “Changing fuel formulations will boost hydrogen
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 45.
Ladeur, Peter and Bijwaard, Harry, “Shell plans
$2.2-billion renovation of Dutch refinery,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 26, 1993, p. 64.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
SULFUR PLANT OPERATIONS
Kimtantas, Charles L., “Here are ways to increase sul-
fur processing capability,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 22,
1989.
Nougayrede, J. and Voirin, R., “Liquid catalyst efflcient-
ly removes H2S from liquid sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 17, 1989, p. 65.
Heisel, M.P. and Marold, F. J., “Tests indicate sulfur
recovery process improves on Claus unit performance,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 14, 1989, p. 37.
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Lagas, J.A., et al, “Claus process gets extra boost,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 68, No. 04, Apr. 1989, p. 40.
Luinstra, E.A. and d’Haene, PE., “Catalyst added to
Claus furnace reduces sulfur losses,” Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 68, No. 07, July 1989, p. 53.
Reif, D.R., “Sulfur unit control in a DCS,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 68, No. 08, Aug. 1989, p. 61
Samuels, Alvin, “HzS removal system shows promise
over iron sponge,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 5, 1990,
p. 44.
True, Warren R., “GAS PROCESSING REPORT:
Worldwide gas-processing growth slows,” The Oil and Gas
Journal, Jul. 9, 1990, p. 41.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “GAS PROCESSING REPORT:
World sulfur derived from oil, gas production,” The Oil und
Gas Journal, Jul. 9, 1990, p. 87.
“Gas Process Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 69, No. 04, Apr. 1990, p. 69.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 15, 1990, p. 75.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1991, p. 79.
Thrash, L.A., “World sulfur derived from oil, gas pro-
duction,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 22, 1991, p. 85.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1991, p. 84.
“WORLDWIDE REPORT - Refining,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 31, 1990, p. 84.
TOC/INDEX
Thrash, Lou Ann, “GAS PROCESSING REPORT:
Worldwide gas processing,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Jul.
9, 1990, p. 55.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Chou, J. S., et al, “Mercaptans affect Claus units,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 39.
Simek, I. O., “Sulfur unit circulates catalyst,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 45.
Hardison, L. C. and Ramshaw, D. E., “H2S to S: process
improved,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan., 1992, p. 89.
Heisel, M. P. and F. J. Marold, “How new tail gas treater
increases Claus unit throughput,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, March, 1992, p. 83.
“Worldwide Construction Report: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 77.
“Ashland refinery starts up two sulfur units,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 95.
Nasato, Elmo, Goar, B. Gene, and Boorsboom, J., “Ca-
nadian retrofit meets stiffer sulfur recovery regulations,,’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p.1 61.
Bell, Laura, “World sulfur production,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, July 20, 1992, p. 96.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75
million b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 89.
Aitani, A. M., “Sour natural gas drying,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 4, April 1993, p. 67.
Felten, J. R., et al., “Residual fuels in a clean-fuels
environment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6,
June 1993, p. 82-B.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Judd, Bill, “Mercaptan removal rate exceeds 99% at
Canadian gas plant,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993,
p. 81.
“Process for H2S removal from low-volume gas streams
tested,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 70.
Schendel, Ronald, “SO2-generation process can double
refinery Claus unit capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 27,
1993, p. 63.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
224
POLYMERIZATION
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
Hennico, A., et al, “Butene-1 is made from ethylene,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 03, Mar. 1990, p. 73.
Amigues, P., et al, “Propylene from ethylene and
butene-2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 69, No. 10, Oct.
1990, p. 79.
“Refining Handbook ‘90,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
69, No. 11, Nov. 1990, p. 83.
Roffel, B. and Chin, P A., “Fuzzy control of a poly-
merization reactor,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No.
06, Jun. 1991, p. 47.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,1992, p. 41.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
XIII. HYDROGEN
Corbett, Richard A., “Catalyst industry consolidates
catalysts, companies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1989,
p. 49.
“Texaco, Carbide form hydrogen plant venture,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 28.
“Cleaning up gasoline will increase refinery hydrogen
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 92.
“Praxair extending hydrogen pipeline in Southeast
Texas,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 24, 1992, p. 26.
Baade, W. F., et al., “Generate hydrogen for reformulated
gasoline and clean diesel,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
72, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 3, March 1993, p. 89.
Fleming, G. K. and Dupuis, G. E., “Hydrogen membrane
recovery estimates,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
4, April 1993, p. 61.
Felten, J. R., et al., “Residual fuels in a clean-fuels
environment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 6,
June 1993, p. 82-B.
Simonsen, Knut A., O’Keefe, Luke F., and Fong, W.
Francis, “Changing fuel formulations will boost hydrogen
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 45.
“Hydrogen recovery from fuel gas can help meet refinery
demand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 60.
TOC/INDEX

REGISTRATION LIST
NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Aalund, Leo R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

Abernathy, Marshall W. . . . . . . . FINA Oil & Chemical Company . . . Dallas, TX
Ablin, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Abrahams, Kenneth N. . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Abrosimov, AIexandr . . . . . . . . . . Oil Processing Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Ache, Warren F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Catalysts Ventures Inc. . . . . . . Houston, TX
Acosta, Alfredo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Adler, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Octane Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rosslyn, VA
Adrean, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southwestern Refining Co. . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Agar, Jo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agar Corporation, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Aizawa, Mitsuru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Akhnazarov, Melik . . . . . . . . . . . . All Russian Inst. of Oil Refining . . . Moscow, Russia
Al-Anzi, Farhan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Co. . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Al-Othman, Khalid . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Co. . . . . Shuaiba, Kuwait
Al-Shamma, Nasser . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Co. . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Alario, Rodney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Albers, Edwin W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CMP-Cativco International . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Albert, Brian D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company Inc. . . . Wichita, KS
Albertson, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Alexander, William . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . Roosevelt, UT
Ali, Babar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALCOA Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . Bad Homburg, Germany
Allen, Liz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L. P. . . . Houston, TX
AIlsmiller, Robert A. . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Alvarez, Jorge L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discovery Aluminas, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Aman, Gary B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anderson, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thermal Technologies Group . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Andrews, Doug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Andrews, Peter G. . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Angerdina, Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . Kenner, LA
Anischenko, Seiguei . . . . . . . . . . . Oil Refining Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gorjki, Russia
Arias, Blanca Yasmi . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Armbrester, Michael S. . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Amdt, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Co. . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Arnold, Victor E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raytheon Engineers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tampa, FL
Arora, Ak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Oil Corporation Limited . . . . New Delhi, India
Arrighi, Jeri Sue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arrighi, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arthur, David H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp Freeport, TX
Arthur, Dick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Oil & Refining Corporation .. Clayton, MO
Asim, Mehmet Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Assad, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . Houston, TX
Aubrey, Morton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

Bacon, Thomas R. . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . Freeport, TX

Bae, Ki Dong . . . . . . . Yukong Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulsan, Korea
Bailes, Robert . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
Bailey, D. M. . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . Bartlesville, OK
Bain, Douglas . . . . . . . . GraceDearborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Zurich, IL
Baker, Gerald . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bamon, Layton M. . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . Ewell, UK
Banfi, Roberto . . . . . . . ALCOAItalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milan, Italy
Bannov, Pave1 . . . . . . . . Kirichi-nefteorgsintez . . . . . . . . Kirichi, Russia
Barbosa, Fernando C. FCC S.A.- Petrobras . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

225
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Barchha, Rajnikant . . . . ...... Novacor Chemicals (Canada) Ltd. . Sarnia, Ontario
Barlow, R. C. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Barnhart, T. R. . . . . . . . . . ...... GraceDavison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Barr, Shirley . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Barrese, Joseph . . . . . . . . ...... Crown Central Petroleum Corp. . . . Houston, TX
Barrett, Stephen . . . . . . . ...... Criterion Catalyst Company L P. .. Houston, TX
Barrows, Ted . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Barry, James J. . . . . . . . . ...... CR1 International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Barry, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Praxair, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Ramon, CA
Barsby, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Criterion Catalysts Canada . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Bartek, Robert . . . . . . . . . ...... Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . Littleton, CO
Bartholic, David B. . . . . . ...... Bar-co Processes Joint Venture . . . Watchung, NJ
Baugher, Bruce . . . . . . . . ...... Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Bayer, Larry G. . . . . . . . . ...... Union Texas Petrochemicals . . . . . . Geismar, LA
Beard, William H. . . . . . . ...... ARC0 Products ,Company . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Beasley, Todd S. . . . . . . . . ...... Canadian Chemical Reclaiming . . . Brooks, Alberta
Beaton, William . . . . . . . . ...... Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Bell, Michael H. . . . . . . . . ...... Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Bennett, Diane . . . . . . . . . ...... Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Bennett, Joseph . . . . . . . . ...... Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Benson, Bernard A. . . . . ...... The Pritchard Corporation . . . . . . . . Overland Park, KS
Berman, David P. . . . . . . . ...... Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Owings Mills, MD
Berrebi, Georges . . . . . . . ...... Eurecat S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte, France
Berzins, Valdis . . . . . . . . . ...... Criterion Catalyst Company L P. .. Houston, TX
Bettinger, John P. . . . . . . ...... BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Bhogal-Mitro, Balvy . . . . ...... Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Bieber, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . ...... BPCVChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bielinski, Dennis . . . . . . . ...... Caltex Services Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Biernacki, Bill P. . . . . ...... Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Bingham, F. Emmett . . . . ...... Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mission Viejo, CA
Bird, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Elf Atochem Canada, Inc. . . . . . . . . Oakville, Ontario
Birnbaum, Rick W. . . . . . ...... Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . Danbury, CT
Bjorklund, Bradford L. . ...... UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Black, John H. . . . . . . . . . ...... Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allison Park, PA
Blakeway, Patrice . . . . . . ...... Lyondell-CITGO Refining . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Blew, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Chalmette, LA
Boardman, Shaun L. . . . ...... Criterion Catalyst Company Ltd. .. Fareham, UK
Boche, Debbie . . . . . . . . . . ...... Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bochow, Carl . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Bogert, David . . . . . . . . . . ...... Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Bolado, Alberto . . . . . . . . ...... Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Bolivar, Eduardo . . . . . . . ...... Zeochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bolton, Anthony P. . . . . . ...... PQ Zeolites B.V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leiden, The Netherlands
Bonelli, Richard . . . . . . . . ...... Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . Robinson, IL
Bonilla, Jorge . . . . . . . . . . ...... Stone & Webster Engineering Corp Houston, TX
Bonner, Richard C. . . . . . ...... Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Boone, Michael . . . . . . . . . ...... ICI Tracero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Bork, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Borovikov, Genadi . . . . . ...... Zavodslantsy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Petersburg, Russia
Bortz, Robert W. . . . . . . . ...... Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Bottomley, James C. . . . . ...... Stewart & Bottomley, Inc. . . . . . . . . Sapulpa, OK
Bouck, Douglas . . . . . . . . ...... BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Boudreaux, Lance . . . . . . ...... Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Bourdeau, Roland . . . . . . ...... ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Bourdon, John C. . . . . . . ...... TPA,Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Boverie, James . . . . . . . . . ...... Clark Oil & Refining Corporation . Hartford, IL
Bowen, Colin . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Stone & Webster Engineering Corp Houston, TX
Bowman, Elaine . . . . . . . . ...... Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Boydstun, R. Les . . . . . . . ...... Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Bozza, Pierluigi . . . . . . . . ...... Agip Petroli S.p.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome, Italy
Bozza, Robert . . . . . . . . . . ...... Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bracken, Paul A. . . . . . . . ...... Stone & Webster Canada, Ltd. . . . . Toronto, Ontario

226
TOC/INDEX
NAME
Brady, Daniel . . . . . .
Brahn, Michael . . . . .
Branham, Russell . .
Bredehoft, Ronald .
Breeding, Larry . . . .
Bremner, Ian J. . . . .
Bricker, John . . . . . .
Bridges, Steve . . . . . .
Brierley, Gary R. . .
Brinck, Leif . . . . . . . .
Brown, David . . . . . .
Brown, John . . . . . . .
Brown, Robert S. . . .
Brown, Robert L. . .
Brown, Russell F. .
Bruch, Herbert . . . .
Brunelle, Andre . . . .
Bryson, M. Charles .
Buccini, James P. . .
Bucior, David . . . . . .
Bullard, Robert H. .
Bullin, Jerry A. . . . .
Burgio, Karin . . . . . .
Burmaster, Brad . . .
Burns, David . . . . .
Bums, George . . . . . .
Bums, Robert A. . . .
Busbea, Craig . . . . . .
Butz, Tom . . . . . . . . . .
Buyan, Frank . . . . .
Buziuk, Frank . . . . . .
Byers, Gregg . . . . . . .
Cabrera, Carlos A. . . . . . . .
Cambre, Joseph T. . . . . . . .
Campagna, Robert J. . . . .
Campbell, Bruce A. . . . . . .
Campos De Maria, Miguel
Canessa, Bartolome . . . . .
Cantrell, Albert G. . . . . . . .
Caplan, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carlisle, Edwin A. . . . . . . . .
Carls, William . . . . . . . . . . . .
Caron, LeRoy A. . . . . . . . . .
Carp, Stanley . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carrothers, Scott . . . . . . . . .
Carson, Joe P. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cartledge, Anne T. . . . . . . .
Cary, Rick L. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Casmore, Johnny . . . . . . . .
Castagnos, Leonce F. . . . . .
Castro, Nestor . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cathcart, Norman . . . . . . . .
Cavalleiro, Cristina . . . . . .
Cavanaugh, T. A. . . . . . . . . .
Cazemier, Sandra . . . . . . . .
Chachkina, Svetlana . . . . .
Chakraborty, Dino . . . . . . .
Chambers, Andrew . . . . . .
Champion, G. L. . . . . . . . . . .
Chang, Stephen . . . . . . . . . .
Chapin, Lark E. . . . . . . . . . .
COMPANY LOCATION
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . Florham Park, NJ
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Kinetics Technology Int’l Corp. . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Norton Chemical Process Products . . . Houston, TX
Foster Wheeler USA Corp. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Syncrude Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Skandinaviska Raffinaderi AB . . . . . . . Lysekil, Sweden
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia, CA
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Information Resources, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Nalco Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POINTE CLAIRE, Quebec
Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Koch Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
ICI Tracero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc. . Bryan, TX
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Clark Oil & Refining Corporation . . . . Blue Island, IL
Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Petrotrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trinidad, West Indies
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Lion Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, AR
FINA Oil & Chemical Co. . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Mobil Research & Development . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Chevron Research & Technology Co. . Richmond, CA
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Walk, Haydel & Associates . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Refining Process Services, Inc. . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
RPC., S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concon, Chile
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
IRI/Hart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potomac, MD
Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
The UNO-VEN Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Lemont, IL
Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
SETPOINT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation . . . . Wynnewood, OK
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bellaire, TX
Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cadereyta, Mexico
Pall Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cortland, NY
Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. .. Florham Park, NJ
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Oil Lubricants Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Stone & Webster Canada, Ltd. . . . . . . . Toronto, Ontario
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . London, UK
ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . . . Alhambra, CA
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
227
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Chapman, Toni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chappell, Hayward H. . . . . . . . .
Charles, Cedric M. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chaudbri, A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chavez, Asdrubol . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chavez, John J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chen, Mabel M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cherman, Algerd . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chiang, Polly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chiang, W. C. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Childress, Bruce N. . . . . . . . . . . .
Chiu, Gerard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chlapik, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Christman, Robert D. . . . . . . . . .
Chung, Sung Soo . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ciancio, Donald J. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ciarella, D. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cieraszynski, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cieutat, Denis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Citarella, Vicente A. . . . . . . . . . .
Clancy, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clanton, Buz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clark, Michael E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clark, Patrick A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clarke, Robert G. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clegg, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clemmons, Josh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clevenger, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clouse, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cobum, Julie K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Colchin, Mark W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Collier, Gary E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Collins, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coney, Bernadette . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conley, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Connell, Angus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cook, Joseph B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cooledge, Nathan . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coons, John D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cooper, John C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cooper, Richard L. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corcoran, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corcuera, Juan Francis . . . . . . .
Coser, Richard J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cotton, Randy L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Co&on, Richard E. . . . . . . . . . . .
Cox, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cramer, Glenn W. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crawley, Jake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crespo-Riera, Carlos E. . . . . . . .
Cromarty, Ben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross, W. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crotty, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cruz, Ruben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cummings, Arthur L. . . . . . . . . .
Cunningham, Frank L. . . . . . . . .
Cupps, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
International Technology Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Indian Oil Corporation Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Delhi, India
Corpoven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . King of Prussia, PA
CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mission Viejo, CA
Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Powerine Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santa Fe Springs, CA
Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roosevelt, UT
Shell Eastern Petroleum Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Yukong Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulsan, Korea
ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Air Liquide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris, France
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kenner, LA
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fountain Valley, CA
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
CATREP-ACS Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alamo, CA
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
BHP Americas Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ewa Beach, HI
NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bellaire, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Bateman Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lakewood, CO
Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metairie, LA
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minnetonka, MN
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baytown, TX
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atascocita, TX
Catalyst Consultants, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spring House, PA
ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Big Spring, TX
Corpoven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto Cabello, Venezuela
ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, UK
TEK Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media, PA
Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
MPR Services,Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson,TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Crostield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL

Dallhoff, Robert A. . . . . . . . . . . . . Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston,TX

Dam, Quy-Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris, France
Damigella, Mario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milan, Italy
Dassow, Matt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK

228
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Daugherty, E. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Daughtry, James L. . . . . . . . . . . .
Dave, Dilip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davenport, Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davey, Stephen W. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davidson, Marc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davies, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davis, Earl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davis, Edgar D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davis, F. Kent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davis, Robert E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Day, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Day, Robert L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
De Stena, Andrew V. . . . . . . . . . .
de Cardenas, Antonio . . . . . . . . .
De Capite, Augie M. . . . . . . . . . . .
De Velasco, Despina . . . . . . . . . . . .
De La Fuente, Emiliano . . . . . . .
Deady, Joanne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dean, Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dean, John R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deaton, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DeBlanc, Don . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Debord, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Debose, Mack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decesaro, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deering, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dees, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
de1 Bosque, Oscar . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delgado, Eddie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Demark, Mark W. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Demmel, Edward J. . . . . . . . . . . .
Denison, Frank W. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Denk, Lawrence T. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dennis, Geoffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deshpande, V. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DeVelasco, Ruben . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dharia, Dilip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DiCamillo, David J. . . . . . . . . . . .
DiLiello, Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dillard, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dirksen, Feike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ditz, J. Merle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dixon, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dodd, D. Harold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dodds, R. Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dommel, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Donahue, Michael D. . . . . . . . . . .
Donahue, Patrick J. . . . . . . . . . . .
Donata, Gregorio . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doran, Mark S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dom, Richard H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doss, L. Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dougan, Timothy J. . . . . . . . . . . .
Dover, Jerry D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Downie, Renee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Downing, Judith C. . . . . . . . . . . .
Doyle, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dreyfuss, Corey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dufresne, Pierre . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dumas, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dunham, Daryl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross Oil and Refining Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smackover, AR
Dow, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Houston, TX
Criterion Catalyst Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fareham, UK
Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Phibro Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krotz Springs, LA
Litwin Engineers & Constructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Phillips 66 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Borger, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
R. E. Davis Chemical Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oak Brook, IL
CENEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurel, MT
NOVA Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
ABB Lummus Crest Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
L. A. Salomon Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Severna Park, MD
Di-Chem de Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. . . . . . . . . . Bound Brook, NJ
Clark Oil & Refining Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blue Island, IL
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Criterion Catalyst Company L. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Criterion Catalyst Company L. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newport Beach, CA
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hydrocarbon Research Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Criterion Catalyst Company L. .P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Quebec
Ergon Refining Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vicksburg, MS
INTERCAT EUROPE, b.v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, Netherlands
The M..W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Christenson Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bellingham, WA
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
UOP Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guildford, UK
GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Refineria Isla (Curacao) S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curacao, Neth. Antilles
ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, UK
Catalyst Resources Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valley Forge, PA
Lyondell-CITGO Refining Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Grace Dearborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Zurich, IL
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eurecat S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte, France
Buckman Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK

229
TOC/INDEX
NAME
Duque, Jorge . . . . . . . .
Dwyer, David L. . . . . .
Dwyer, John . . . . . . . .
Earl, Gerald E. . . . . . .
East, John J. . . . . . . . .
Ebrom, Elizabeth . . .
Eccles, Richard M. ..
Edelman, Allan M. ..
Einert, Matt . . . . . . . . .
El-Enezi, Farhan . . . .
El-Sawy, Mohammad
Elgin, Michael . . . . . . .
Ellett, Carl . . . . . . . . . .
Elling, Dan . . . . . . . . . .
Elliott, John F. . . . . . .
Elliott, Mark S. . . . . . .
Ellis, Edward G. . . . .
Ellis, Paul J. . . . . . . . .
Ellison, Thomas . . . . .
Elmore, Michael . . . . .
Elvin, Frank . . . . . . . .
Emanuel, Dale . . . . . .
England, John . . . . . .
Enters, Jim . . . . . . . . . .
Erdmann, Richard E.
Ernest, Neil . . . . . . . . .
Evans, Martin . . . . . . .
Everett, Gary L. . . . . .
Evreiski, Victor . . . . .
Faford, Robert D. . . .
Faney, William . . . . . .
Farah, George G. . . .
Farrar, Gary . . . . . . .
Fausto, Chris . . . . .
Feierabend, J. G. . . .
Feinberg, Arnold S. .
Feistel, Gerald . . . . . .
Feltrop, B. W. . . . . . . .
Ferguson, Robert I. .
Fichter, Calvin . . . . . .
Fields, John D. . . . . . .
Figari, David . . . . . . .
Fischer, Steven M. .
Fisher, Dave J. . . . . . .
Fisher, Paul W. . . . .
Fitt, Jeffrey . . . . . . . .
Flanders, Robert L. .
Flaten, Kathy . . . .
Fleming, Brad . . . . . .
Fleming, William M. .
Fletcher, Robert R. . .
Flowers, Richard . . . .
Floyd, Raymond H. .
Fokin, Vladimir . . . .
Foley, R. M. . . . . . .
Foral, Michael . . . .
Forero, Patricia . . . . .
Forshage, Kermit . . .
Frampton, Gordon .
Frampton, Jerry D.
COMPANY LOCATION
Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Teques, Venezuela
Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . Pleasant Hill, CA
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. Houston, TX
Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc. Bryan, TX
Princeton Process Engineers . . . . . . . East Orleans, MA
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. Florham Park, NJ
Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . El Dorado, KS
Kuwait National Petroleum Co. . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Kuwait National Petroleum Co. . . . . Shuaiba, Kuwait
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Ultramar Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. Florham Park, NJ
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation . . . Elizabethton, TN
INTERCATInc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Derry, NH
Reactor Services International Inc. Alvin, TX
Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. .. Houston, TX
FINA Oil & Chemical Company . . . Dallas, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highton, Australia
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . Baytown, TX
Muse, Stancil & Company . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . West Hartford, CT
Lyondell Petrochemical Company . . Houston, TX
Orsknefteorgsintez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orsk, Russia
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gerald L. Farrar & Assoc., Inc, . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Valero Refining & Marketing Company Corpus Christi, TX
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . Florham Park, NJ
Crosiield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Caltex Services Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Consumers’ Co-op Refineries Ltd. . . . . . Regina, Saskatchewan
Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . Houston, TX
CITGO Refining & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Chevron, Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Anselmo, CA
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Kerr-McGee Rose Licensing . . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma City, OK
Oil Refining Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gorjki, Russia
Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Buckman Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Denton, TX
Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . McAlester, OK
PETROFAC, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
230
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

France, John J. . . . . . . . . .. Nutter Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Frantz, William J. . . . . . . .. PQ Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Savannah, GA
Franzino, Jack . . . . . . . . . .. Trifinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Frayne, Stephen P . . . . . .. Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Frazier, Michael . . . . . . . . .. AkzoCatalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Frederickson, Lewis A. . .. Chevron Research & Technology Co. Richmond, CA
Fredrick, Barton . . . . . . . .. Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Freeze, John G. . . . . . . . . .. The John G. Freeze Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seabrook, TX
French, Millard . . . . . . . . .. Chevron U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Fritsche, G. Ray . . . . . . . . .. Chevron General Atomics . . . . . . . . . . San Diego, CA
Frkuska, William . . . . . . . .. Pennzoil-Penreco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karns City, PA
Fronczak, Robert V. . . . . .. Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Frye, Robert A. . . . . . . . . .. ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vidalia, LA
Funk, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Federal Container Canada . . . . . . . . . . St. Catharines, Ontario
Furby, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chevron U.S.A. Products Co. . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Furfaro, Angelo P. . . . .. UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Furman, Donna . . . . . . . . .. Hart/IRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Furr, Celeste . . . . . . . . . . . .. Information Resources, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC

Gaarder, Philip . . . . . . .. Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN

Galli, August . . . . . . .. Tosco Bayway.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linden, NJ
Gallogly, Robert . . . . . .. Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oak Park, IL
Ganster, Alan . . . . . . . . .. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . Houston, TX
Garcia-Rameau, Eddy . Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. Houston, TX
Gardner, Arthur . . . . . . .. Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grand Junction, CO
Garren, Mark B. . . . . . .. LaRoche Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Garrett, A. Jack . . . . . . .. Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Garrett, Glenn . . . . . . . . .. Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gebhard, Thomas J. . .. Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Gentry, Arthur K. . . . . .. The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Geoffroy, Luc . . . . . . . . . .. Ultramar Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levis, Quebec
George, Safa E. . . . . . . .. Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gerber, Norman H. . . . .. Core Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ghani, Azhar A. . . . . . . .. Caltex Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Gialella, Richard . . . . . .. IFP Enterprises Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Gibson, Michael C. . . .. Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Giglotto, Joseph M. . . .. Hunt Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tuscaloosa, AL
Giles, Kevin A. . . . . . . . .. Barnes & Click Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Gill, Harry . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ultramar, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Gilliam, A. Bruce . . . . .. Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Gillis, Brenda . . . . . . . . .. CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gilman, Robert H. . . . . .. Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gilmore, Richard . . . . . .. Betz Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huntington, Beach, CA
Gilson, E. Frank . . . . . .. Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Girardier, P. Frederic .. Eurecat S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte, France
Giuhani, Dan . . . . . . . . . .. Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Glasford, James W. . . . .. Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Glover, John N. . . . . . .. CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Go, Tony S. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Godwin, Roy . . . . . . . .. Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . Freeport, TX
Goebel, Kenneth . . . . . .. The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Goelzer, Alan R. . . . . . . .. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . Houston, TX
Gohres, Steve . . . . . . . . .. UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Golden, Scott W. . . . . . . .. Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Goliaszewski, Alan . . .. Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Gonzalez, Dionisio . . . .. Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salina Cruz, Mexico
Gonzalez, Rene G. . . . . .. Fuel Reformulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Goolsbee, Andy C. . . .. Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gorra, Filipo . . . . . . . . .. Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milan, Italy
Gossard, Richard L. . . .. Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgetown, CO
Gould, David . . . . . . . . .. Lion Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, AR
Goytisolo, Sr., Jorge A. .. Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD

231
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Goytisolo, Jr., Jorge A. . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baltimore, MD
Grace, Richard . . . . . . . . . Nalco Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Burlington, Ontario
Graf, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . .. Akron, OH
Graham, Richard N. . . . . ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vidalia, LA
Graham, S. Diane . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Leawood, KS
Grande, Knut . . . . . . . . . . Statoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trondheim, Norway
Granniss, Edwin L. . . . . . ABB Lummus Crest Inc. . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Grant, Chris L. . . . . . . . . . Syncrude Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . .. Fort McMurray, Alberta
Grant, P. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chicago, IL
Gray, Gary E. . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Graybill, Steven . . . . . . . . Muse, Stancil & Company . . . . . . . . . .. Dallas, TX
Greczek, Michael D. . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Fulshear, TX
Greenbank, Dennis . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Beaumont, TX
Greenwood, Gil J. . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . .. Bartlesville, OK
Gregory, Richard A. . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . .. Bound Brook, NJ
Gregory, William M. . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . Florham Park, NJ
Gregu, Antioco M. . . . . . . Saras S.p.A. Ratlinerie Sarde . . . . . . .. Sarroch, Italy
Gretschel, Mike . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp .. Freeport, TX
Griest, Stewart L. . . . . . . Alon Processing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tarentum, PA
Griffin, Leland . . . . . . . . . Montana Refining Company . . . . . . . .. Great Falls, MT
Griffiths, Clive . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Warring-ton, UK
Grimm, Larry . . . . . . . . . . Juno-Grimm & Associates . . . . . . . . . . Richardson, TX
Grosboll, Martin . . . . . . Lyondell Petrochemical Company . . .. Channelview, TX
Gulayets, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . Imperial Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Edmonton, Alberta
Gullietta, Glenn . . . . . . . . GraceDavison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baltimore, MD
Gunardson, Harold H. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. .. .. Allentown, PA
Gunter, P Michael . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P . . . . Houston, TX
Gussow, Stanley . . . . . . . . ABB Lummus Crest Inc. . . . . . . . . . . .. Bloomfield, NJ
Gutierrez, Luis . . . . . . . . . Lagoven-PDVSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Judibana. Venezuela
Habib, E. Thomas . .... Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Columbia, MD
Hachmuth, Henry K. .... Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . .... Bartlesville, OK
Haddock, Ralph . . . . .... Aqua Process Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Houston, TX
Hakka, Leo . . . . . . . . . . . .... Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . .... Montreal, Quebec
Hallada, Calvin J. . . . .... Climax Molybdenum Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Ypsilanti, MI
Hallen, Ted S. . . . . . . . . .... Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Brea, CA
Halliday, Jack R. . . .... Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Houston, TX
Hamilton, Gary L. . . . . .... ABB Lummus Crest Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Bloomfield, NJ
Hamlet, Ernest . . . . . . . .... Wyoming Refining Company . . . . . . . . . .... Newcastle, WY
Handza. Thomas . . . . .... Sun Refining & Marketing Co. . . . . . . . .... Philadelphia, PA
Hannerup-Nielsen, Peter . .... Haldor Topsoe Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Houston, TX
Hanower, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . .... Closter, NJ
Hansen, Raymond . . . . . . . .... Chevron USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... El Paso, TX
Hansen, Wendy L. . . . . . . . . .... Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Harbison, Greg . . . . . . . . . . . .... Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Garyville, LA
Harbison, Kathy . . . . . . . . . .... Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Garyville, LA
Hargis, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Dallas, TX
Harrell, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Houston, TX
Harrell, Jane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Chevron U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... El Paso, TX
Harrington, Michael J. . . . .... Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Warrington, UK
Harris, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Frontier Refining, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Cheyenne, WY
Harris, Ralph . . . . . . . . . . . . .... CITGO Refining & Chemicals, Inc. . . . .... Corpus Christi, TX
Harrison, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Nutter Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Sugar Land, TX
Hartley, Dan . . . . . . . .... D. H. Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Summit, NJ
Hartman, Edward . . .... Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Dallas, TX
Harwell, Leslie J. .. .... Litwin Engineers & Constructors . . . . ... Houston, TX
Hastings, Thomas W. .... PQ Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Valley Forge, PA
Haugen, Robert . . . . .... Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . .... Houston, TX
Haugseth, Paul . . . . . .... Powerine Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Santa Fe Springs, CA
Haveman, John . . . . .... Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Houston, TX
Hawthorne, Lyle E. .... Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... San Antonio, TX
Haydel, Marvin C. .. .... Wink Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... New Orleans, LA

232
TOC/INDEX
NAME
Heck, William E. . . . . . .
Heckel, Tim L. . . . . . . . . .
Heller, Fred . . . . . . . . . . .
Henderson, Gerald O. .
Henderson, Jody . . . . . .
Hendricks, Jim . . . . . . . .
Henke, Kevin W. . . . . . . .
Henning, William D. . . .
Henriquez, Eduardo J.
Henry, James T. . . . . . . .
Herra, Marek . . . . . . . . .
Herrera, Juan . . . . . . . . .
Herrmann, Claudio . . . .
Hibbert, Tom W. . . . . . . .
Hibble, Pierre W. . . . . . .
Hickman, Gerald . . . . . .
Hidalgo, Francisco . . . .
Higgins, Terrence S. . . .
Hill, Robert W. . . . . . . . .
Hiller, Les A. . . . . . . . . . .
Hillier, William J. . . . . . .
Hlozek, Robert . . . . . . . .
Hodge, Vanessa B. . . . .
Hofner, Kevin E. . . . . . .
Hoge, Kenneth D. . . . . .
Hoh, Patrick . . . . . . . . . .
Hoiseth, Merlin G. . . . . .
Holbrook, David . . . . . . .
Holden, David . . . . . . . . .
Holt, Robert E. . . . . . . . .
Hooper, Charlie W. . . . .
Hooper, Ray . . . . . . . . . . .
Horn, Allan . . . . . . . . . . .
Hostetter, Edward R. ..
Housenga, Brad . . . . . . .
Howard, T. James . . . . .
Hraban, Thomas L. . . .
Hufnagle, Jerry J. . . . .
Huggins, John . . . . . . . .
Humphries, Adrian P. .
Hunkus, Steve . . . . . . . . .
Hunter, Michael G. . . . .
Hurst, Joyce M. . . . . . . .
Husted, Don A. . . . . . . . .
Hutchens, Brian . . . . . . .
Hutchins, Charles . . . . .
Hutchison, John D. . . .
Hyatt, John . . . . . . . . . . .
Iglesias, Carlos
Ingraham, L. S.
Irwin, Ian . . . .
Irwin, R. Bruce
Isaka, Atsuhiro
Ishii, Makoto . .
Jackson, .Ronald G.
Jackson, Ronnie D.
Jackson, Steven . . .
Jacob, Drake . . . .
Jaffe, Jay . . . . . . . .
Janke, Scott L. . . . . .
COMPANY LOCATION
Energy BioSystems Corporation . . The Woodlands, TX
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . Ashland, KY
The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Buckman Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Corpoven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Gdansk Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gdansk, Poland
Key Quimica - ChemLink . . . . . . . . Monterrey, Mexico
Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stone & Webster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milton Keynes, UK
KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . Metairie, LA
Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . Houston, TX
Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dow U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Muse, Stancil & Company . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
The C. W. Nofsinger Company . . . . Kansas City, MO
IFP Enterprises Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Reactor Services International Inc. Alvin, TX
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Johnson Yokogawa Corporation . . . Houston, TX
Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. .. Houston, TX
ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, UK
Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
SETPOINT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Federal Container Corporation . . . . Houston, TX
Catalyst Clearing House . . . . . . . . . . Robinson, IL
Shell Canada Products Limited . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Turner Mason & Company . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . Memphis, TN
The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . Houston, TX
CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Ergon Refining Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vicksburg, MS
LaRoche Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Petrox, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conception, Chile
Criterion Catalyst Company L.P . Houston, TX
BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kwinana, Western Australia
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Cosmo Oil Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Mitsubishi Oil Company, Ltd. . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Litwin Engineers & Constructors . . Houston, TX
Lion Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, AR
Hunt Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . Tuscaloosa, AL
Atlas Processing Company . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp Freeport, TX
LaRoche Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
233
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Jenkins, John B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jenkins, Robert I. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jennings, James A. . . . . . . . . . . .
Jerus, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jezak, Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jimenez Ortiz, Rolando . . . . . . .
Jinks, Charles D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jochelson, Neil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jody, Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John, Mark W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Axel R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Brian H. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Chris C. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, David M. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Ike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Randy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Tiffin E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnston, Jay K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jokubaitis, Linas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jones, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jones, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jones, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jones, James W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jones, Ronald E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jones, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joseph, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Juno, Edward F. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Juracek, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Imperial Oil-Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North York, Ontario
Consumers’ Co-op Refineries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina, Saskatchewan
United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
TPA,Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Caltex Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
LaGloria Oil and Gas Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
MK-Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Montana Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Falls, MT
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lafayette, LA
The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Imperial Oil Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ft. McMurray, Alberta
Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
LaGloria Oil and Gas Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD

Kaija, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calagary, Alberta

Kakehi, Kiyoshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kaminski, Edouard . . . . . . . . . . .
Kaminski, Richard J. . . . . . . . . .
Kaminski, T. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kantor, Laszlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Karakouts, Vladimir . . . . . . . . .
Karibov, Alisker . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kasbaum, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kashiwaya, Shigeru . . . . . . . . . . .
Kawaguchi, Hiromi . . . . . . . . . . .
Kawakami, Katsuhiko . . . . . . . . .
Keefer, Pam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keegan, Mel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keiner, Steven L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keller, Alfred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keller, Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keller, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kellett, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kelly, Peter E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kelly, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kelly, William A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kemock, Robert W. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kennard, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kennedy, Paul E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kenney, Thomas J. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keys, Kent W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keyworth, Donald A. . . . . . . . . . .
Kibble, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kidder, Rudolph . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kilb, Norman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTERCAT PACIFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Research Inst. of Oil Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Lyondell-CITGO Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Portage, IN
MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Budapest, Hungary
Oil Processing Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ufa, Russia
Oil Processing Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Achinsk, Russia
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Toyo Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narashino-Shi, Japan
Kurita Water Industries, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Softard Industries Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Kinetics Technology Int’l Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bellaire, TX
ConocoInc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norwalk, CA
Glitsch Field Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
CDTech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Dearborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Zurich, IL
Koch Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
The Pro-Quip Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Texaco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfax, VA
The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ

234
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Kilner, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kim,Doyun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kim, Jae In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
King, David Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
King, Jack C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
King, Thomas D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kingston, J. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kipper, Jay P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirchgessner, M. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kissel, Robert S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kit, Daniel W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kleemeier, Karl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kleinschrodt, Frank J. . . . . . . . .
Kliesch, H. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Klimek, Scott W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kline, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Klutschkowski, Michael . . . . . . .
Kolb, Norman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kolmetz, Karl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Komazawa, Takahiko . . . . . . . . .
Konuk, Aydin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kouznetsov, Vladimir . . . . . . . . .
Kowalczyk, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kowalczyk, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Koyama, Toshio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kozak, Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Krahl, Larry J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kraynak, James . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kremer, Lawrence . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kreter, Paul E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Krikorian, Krik V. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Krishna, Ashok S. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Krishnan, Vijayaragh . . . . . . . . .
Krivorotov, Edouard . . . . . . . . . .
Krolicki, Sterling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kromm, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Krummerich, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kryshkin, Valery . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kryukov, Oleg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ku, Camey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kubayashi, Kurao . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kucharski, Richard . . . . . . . . . . .
Kuehler, C. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kumar, Ashok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kunes, Michelle A. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kurumado, Hiroshi . . . . . . . . . . .
Kutsche, Ronald A. . . . . . . . . . . .
Kutska,Helen M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Catalytica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mountain View, CA
Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bellaire, TX
Yukong Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulsan, Korea
Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Climax Molybdenum Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
SETPOINT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . London, Ontario
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
SETPOINT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Profimatics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Pennzoil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rouseville, PA
Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
IPC Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
SETPOINT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Russian Trade Development Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Refining Process Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
The UNO-VEN Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lemont, IL
Fuji Oil Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Witco Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woodcliff Lake, NJ
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
ARCO Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weybridge, UK
Chevron U.S.A. Products Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Refineria Isla (Curacao) S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curacao, Neth. Antilles
Orsknefteorgsintez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orsk, Russia
Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oceanside, CA
Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arkansas City, KS
Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Russian Trade Dev. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Shell Development Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
NSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Witco Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allegany, NY
Chevron Research and Technology Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Atlas Processing Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Hakuto Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC

La Russo, Anthony C. . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norwalk, CT

Laabs, Patrick . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Lacatena, Jerry . . . . . . . Foster Wheeler USA Corporation . Clinton, NJ
Lacey, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . Unichem International . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Lacijan, Lawrence A. . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Lakhanpal, Balbir . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worms, Germany
Lal, Ravi . . . . . . . . . . . Kinetics Technology Int’l Corp. . . . San Dimas, CA
Lamm, A. E. . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Lampert, Len . . . . . . . . . . Imperial Oil Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Lane, Philip A. . . . . . . . . Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lannen, T. W. . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Industrial Chemicals . . . . Houston, TX
Larson, Robert W. . . . . INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glen Arm, MD
Lascola, A. P . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD

235
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Lathrop, Ron M. . . . . . . . . . .. Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Lauricella, Frank . . . . . . . . .. Praxair, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tarrytown, NY
Laux, M. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Three Rivers, TX
Lavergne, Patrick D. . . . . . .. Lyondell Petrochemical Company . . . . Houston, TX
Lawrence, Peter J. . . . . . . . .. MK-Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Le, Binh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Learman, Robert J. . . . . . . .. Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ledden, Richard A. . . . . . . .. Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Lederman, Jon . . . . . . . . . . . .. Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Legvold, Richard . . . . . . . . . .. Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Lenoir, Horace . . . . . . . . . . . .. Praxair, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Letzsch, Warren . . . . . . . . . . .. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
Leuenberger, E. L. . . . . . . . .. ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Lewandowski, Roy A. . . . . .. Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Lilienthal, Brent W. . . . . . . . .. Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lim, Tow Foon . . . . . . . . . . . .. Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Lindley, Randy D. . . . . . . . . .. Clark Oil & Refining Corporation . . . . Hartford, IL
Linhardt, Hans D. . . . . . . . . .. Raytheon Engineering & Construction Newport Beach, CA
Linington, David . . . . . . . . . .. Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detroit, MI
Link, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Liolios, Glenn C. . . . . . . . . . .. STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Lipinski, John J. . . . . . . . . . .. The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lippert, Regis B. . . . . . . . . . .. INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Girt, NJ
Lippert, Robin B. . . . . . . . . .. INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Girt, NJ
Liu, Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Caltex Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Llanos, Zenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . Freeport, TX
Lombard, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . .. ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noblesville, IN
Long, James K. . . . . . . . . . . .. Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Long, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
Loo, Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . . . Alhambra, CA
Look Tong, Anthony . . . . . Petrotrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trinidad, West Indies
Lopez, Linda L. . . . . . . . . . . .. Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lordo, Sam A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Loudon, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . .. Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Love, Don . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The Pro-Quip Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Low, Gordon . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Lowe, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Midland, MI
Lucero, Bernardo . . . . . . . . .. Norton Chemical Process Products . . . Houston, TX
Ludolph, Robert A. . . . . . . . .. Sun Refining and Marketing Company Marcus Hook, PA
Lui, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Suncor, Inc. OSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Luna, Damian . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Lynne, Laura . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Lyons, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Grace Dearborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX

MLackey, Terry D. . . . . . . . . . . MK-Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH

Macy, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maher, P. K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maholland, Michael . . . . . .
Maiden, J. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Malik, Tariq . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Malik, Zaheer I. . . . . . . . . . .
Malmberg, Doris . . . . . . . . .
Malone, Donald . . . . . . . . . .
Malone, James . . . . . . . . . . .
Maloy, Phillip . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mambi, Norman . . . . . . . . . .
Manchiraju, Srinivas . . . . .
Mankowski, Anthony S. ..
Mann, James . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manning, William L. . . . . . .
Manthos, George J. . . . . . .
Manuel. Donald . . . . . . . . . .
. Stewart & Bottomley, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Sapulpa, OK
. Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange, CA
. Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Mobil Research & Development Corp. Princeton, NJ
. CITGO Refining & Chemical . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
. The Pro-Quip Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
. NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
. GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wheaton, IL
. Grace Dearborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Zurich, IL
. Relineria Isla (Curacao) S.A. . . . . . . . . Curacao, Neth. Antilles
. Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunray, TX
. Syncrude Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
. Indian Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lawrenceville, IL
. The Pritchard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Overland Park, KS
. Jacobs Engineering Group . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA

236
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Maple, Ralph E. . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Myariani, Richard A. . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Des Plaines, IL
Markle, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Marquez A., Luis E. . . . . Maraven,S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Clinton, NJ
Marrelli, Ronald E. . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . .. Bartlesville, OK
Marshall, D. J. . . . . . . . . . Chevron Corporation - Retired . . . . . . .. Boston, MA
Marshall, Gregory A. . . . Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baytown, TX
Martin, Robert B. . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Martin, Tim W. . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
Masak, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Markham, Ontario
Masters, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Leawood, KS
Mastracci, Ennio L. . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mata, Amilkar R. . . . . . . . Tecnofluor C.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Mathews, Richard C. . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Mathur, Steve S. . . . . . . . . Chevron Research and Technology Co .. Richmond, CA
Matos, Jose . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baltimore, MD
Myatragrano, John G. . . . Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baton Rouge, LA
Matsushita, Takashi . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Matthews, Bruce B. . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Mamy, Jon . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . Houston, TX
May, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Freeport, TX
McArthur, Dennis . . . . . Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Brea, CA
McAuley, Andrew J. . . . Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . . . Rouseville, PA
McCaffrey, David S. . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. .. Florham Park, NJ
McClung, Ronald G. . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
McCormick, Chris . . . . . . Indian Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lawrenceville, NJ
McCoy, Charles S. . . . . . . Consultant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Orinda, CA
McCulloch, Donald C. .. Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . Houston, TX
McDaniel, J. Gary . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
McDaniel, Norman K. .. Amoco Oil Company-Retired . . . . . . . . .. League City, TX
McDonald, Scott . . . . . . . Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Texas City, TX
McFarlane, Philip . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . . Houston, TX
McFarlin, Henry E. . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . .. Sugar Land, TX
McGreevy, Tod . . . . . . . . . Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Texas City, TX
McGuinness, Michael H. Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Convent, LA
McHugh, Kernan . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . .. Blaine, WA
McHugh, Terrence J. . . . Discovery Aluminas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McKaig, Bob . . . . . . . . . . . FINA Oil and Chemical Co. . . . . . . . . .. Big Spring, TX
McKay, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . Millennium Downstream Report . . . . Houston, TX
McKay, Dwight . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
McKiernan, Robert . . . . . Imperial Oil Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sarnia, Ontario
McKinney, Jack . . . . . . . . Comae Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
McLaren, Theron . . . . . . ABB Randall Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McLean, Joseph B. . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
McMahon, Loret A. . . . . Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . .. Baytown, TX
McNeill, W. C. . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McQuiston, Harvey L. .. ABB Lummus Crest Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McWilliams, David . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
Meakim, John T. . . . . . . . ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Meason, John . . . . . . . . . . Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Three Rivers, TX
Mecum, Shade . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlotte, NC
Meeker, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Co. . . . . . . . .. Richmond, CA
Meier, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . .. Bartlesville, OK
Memmott, Vincent J. . . . Flying J Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. North Salt Lake, UT
Mendizabal, Wilfrido . . . Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Salamanca, Mexico
Menegaz, Steve . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Menon, Sudbir . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemicals India Limited . . . . . .. Bombay, India
Mettee, Elizabeth W. . . . . GraceDavison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baltimore, MD
Metzger, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Meyer, Darsi . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Torrance, CA
Meyer, David P. . . . . . . . . The UNO-VEN Company . . . . . . . . . . . .. Lemont, IL
Meza, Jorge . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico

237
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Michelini, Eugene S. . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Linwood, PA
Miciotto, Andrew J. . . . . . Betz Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trevose, PA
Mihaly, Robert C. . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . .. Canton, OH
Millard, Michael G. . . . . . . Canadian Chemical Reclaiming . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Millensifer, Tom A. . . . . . . Powmet, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Littleton, CO
Miller, David J. . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Newtown Square, PA
Miller, Donald G. . . . . . . . . FINA Oil & Chemical Company . . . . . . . .. Dallas, TX
Miller, Donald B. . . . . . . . . Caltex Services Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . .. Irving, TX
Miller, Harvey S. . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Long Beach, CA
Miller, James E. . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . .. Lake Charles, LA
Miller, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Miller, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chicago, IL
Millner, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research and Technology Co. . .. San Francisco, CA
Milovanof, Victor . . . . . . . Russian Danish Joint Venture . . . . . . . . . .. Moscow, Russia
Mimura, Yukihiro . . . . . . . Cosmo Research Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Satte-Shi, Japan
Miranda, Ronald E. . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Miro Roig, Pedro . . . . . . . . CEPSA - Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madrid, Spain
Misiong, George . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Misiti, A. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Mitchell, John . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Mitchell, Richard E. . . . . . Sun Refining & Marketing Co. . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
Mitchell, Robert . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bartlesville, OK
Moffitt, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Co. . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Moke, Ken L. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Torrance, CA
Monkiewicz, Edmund . . . Gdansk Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gdansk, Poland
Monroe, W. D. . . . . . . . . . . . Atlas Copco.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kingwood, TX
Moore, Andy . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dallas, TX
Moore, Ebb . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moore’s Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Moore, Robert E. . . . . . . . . Frontier Refining, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheyenne, WY
Moore, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Austin, TX
Moorehead, Eric L. . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Morash, David . . . . . . . . . . Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Orange, CA
Morelli, David . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Moreno, Oliverio . . . . . . . . Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mexico City, Mexico
Morgan, Barry S. . . . . . . . . Chevron International Oil Co. . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Morgan, John A. . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bartlesville, OK
Morgan, R. Donald . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . .. Wichita, KS
Morgan, Thomas A. . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company - Retired . . Pampa, TX
Morris, David R. . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . .. Richmond, CA
Morris, Lee W. . . . . . . . . . . . Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Morrison, M. Edward . . . IFP Enterprises Texas, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Morse, Robert W. . . . . . . . . Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Iselin, NJ
Moses, James R. . . . . . . . . Process-Vessel Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Edmonton, Alberta
Mosher, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Leawood, KS
Moyse, Brian M. . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Moysiuk, John . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Canada, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . .. Toronto, Ontario
Mrvichin, William . . . . . . . Hoechst Celanese Corporation . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Mueller, Juergen . . . . . . . . Heraeus Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Newark, NJ
Mukherjee, Shankarkum Hindustan Petroleum Corp., Lt . . . . . . . . .. Bombay, India
Mulik, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southwest Research Institute . . . . . . . . . . . San Antonio, TX
Mullenix, Andrew . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Mulraney, Donald D. . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . Houston, TX
Munro, James C. J. . . . . . Consumers Power Company . . . . . . . . . . . Marysville, MI
Munson, G. W. . . . . . . . . . . . Crown Central Petroleum Corporation . .. Houston, TX
Murcia, Alvaro A. . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . .. Houston, TX
Murff, Stephen R. . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Murphy, Christopher . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Murphy, George . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Liverpool, UK
Murray, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul Park, MN

Nagel, Jeffrey A. . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX

Nakamura, David . . . . . . . Hydrocarbon Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston. TX

238
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Naoumov, Viatcheslav . .
Nash, Doyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nash, Duane L. . . . . . . . . .
Nassar, Emile . . . . . . . . . .
Nasser, William E. . . . . . .
Naumann, John . . . . . . . .
Necrouf, Jean-Claude . .
Needham, Terrill . . . . . . .
Neff, Sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Neighbors, John M. . . . .
Neigut, Steve . . . . . . . . . . .
Nelson, Andrew . . . . . . . .
Nelson, Bradly D. . . . . . .
Neuman, Daniel J. . . . . .
Neuman, Pamela K. . . . .
Newell, Dennis . . . . . . . . .
Nguyen, Hung D. . . . . . . .
Nguyen, Tuan . . . . . . . . . .
Nicholson, David S. . . . .
Nielsen, Anders . . . . . . . .
Nielsen, James T. . . . . . . .
Nielsen, Lillian J. . . . . . .
Noble, Roger . . . . . . . . . . .
Nocca, Jean-Luc . . . . . . .
Nodier, Michael . . . . . . . .
Nolan, Barry D. . . . . . . . .
Norman, William S. . . . . .
Novak, John . . . . . . . . . . .
Novak, Kirk R. . . . . . . . . .
Novak, William J. . . . . . .
Novalany, Stephen . . . . .
Nowobilski, Peter . . . . . .
Nozemack, Richard J. ..
Orsknefteorgsintez . . . . . . . . . . . . Orsk, Russia
Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . Texas City, TX
CITGO Petroleum Corporation . Lake Charles, LA
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Packinox, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris, France
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westlake, LA
Giant Relining Company . . . . . . Gallup, NM
ABB Randall Corporation . . . . . Houston, TX
Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
MK-Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Vortoil Separation Systems . . . . Houston, TX
Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Crostield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrington, UK
Haldor Topsoe AS . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyngby, Denmark
The UNO-VEN Company . . . . . . Lemont, IL
Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chappaqua, NY
John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
IFP Enterprises Texas, Inc. . . . . Houston, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . Chalmette, LA
Powerine Oil Company . . . . . . . . Billings, MT
Discovery Aluminas, Inc. . . . . . . Houston, TX
LaRoche Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange, CA
Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD

O’Brien, Sharon . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . Sweeny, TX

O’Bryant, Darryl Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
Oikawa, M. . . . . JGC Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yokahama, Japan
Olbrich, Hazel . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. Richmond, CA
Olesen, John A. . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Olesky, Philip J. . . LaRoche Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Ollech, John . . . Buckman Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Olsen, Charles W. Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Olson, Frank M. . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Orem, Mike . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Orr, Allan . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp Freeport, TX
Osborn, Keith . . . . Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
Osetek, Tom . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Ostenberg, Lise Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Otwell, Gary N. . . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norwalk, CT
Owen, Hartley . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worton, MD

Painchaud, Brian . . . Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

Pair, Benson . . . .
Paloumbis, Stephen
Pannucci, Joseph . .
Pantota, Guillermo .
Pappal, David . . . . . .
Paquet, Yves . . . . . .
Parastar, K. M. . . . . .
Parekh, Uday N. . . .
Parker, Jim . . . . .
Parker, Tony . . . . . .
The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worms, Germany
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madero Tamaulipas, Mexico
Mobil Research & Development Corp. Paulsboro, NJ
Ultramar Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levis, Quebec
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation . Houston, TX
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . Allentown, PA
John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
BP Oil Alliance Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA

239
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Parnell, David C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Patel, Nitin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Patel, Raj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Patton, Hager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Patton, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Patureaux, Thierry . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paules, Jeffrey W. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pavel, Stephen K. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pearce, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pearson, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peccatiello, Kenneth A. . . . . . . .
Peck, Roger A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peddicord, Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pedersen, Joergen . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pedersen, Peter S. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pelham, Roger O. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Penman, Brian R. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pennels, Mark E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pepper, Julia L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percy, Samuel W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perger, Jozsef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perkins, J. Douglas . . . . . . . . . . .
Perone, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perrot, Jacques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pesek, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peterman, Raymond W. . . . . . . .
Peterson, Mark A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pettaway, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pfile, M. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phansalkar, Sunil J. . . . . . . . . . . .
Phillip,Ralph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phillips, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Piekos, Frank S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pierce, Eric R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pierson, Lynette A. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Piper, Edwin M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Piper,James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Piskolich, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pitchford, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plaja, Jorge L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plantenga, Frans L. . . . . . . . . . . .
Poddar, Syamal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Polizopoulos, Ipo . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pollock, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poncin, Jean-Pierre . . . . . . . . . . .
Poon, Jim P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potscavage, William . . . . . . . . . . .
Potter, Frederick L. . . . . . . . . . . .
Powell, Joseph W. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poythress, R. Paul . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prebula, Alvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preiser, Aaron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pritchett, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proops, Kevin R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Propst, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pryzbyl, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pults, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purcell, Anthony F. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pusty, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Fuel Reformulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plano, TX
Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levallois, France
Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
AkzoCatalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
National Cooperative Refinery Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . McPherson, KS
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Statoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mongstad, Norway
Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Profimatics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Napa, CA
Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equip. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . Golden, CO
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chappaqua, NY
MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Budapest, Hungary
United CatalystsInc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
E1f Atochem S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris, France
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reisterstown, MD
Vista Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Englewood, CO
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Nutter Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Maraven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cardon, Venezuela
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, Netherlands
Bechtel Petroleum, Chemical & Industrial . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levallois, France
Bechtel, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Information Resources Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
CITGO Refining & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Dow Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eppendorf North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madison, WI
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whiting, IN
ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melbourne, Australia
Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL

Quigley, Robert P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crostield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL

Quinlan, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Bayway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linden, NJ

240
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Quinn, Richard K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX

Raadsen, B.C.J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, Netherlands

Ragsdale, Ralph . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rajagopalan, Kuppuswamy R. .
Rajguru, Anil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ram, Ajay Pat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ramirez, Mario L. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ramirez Ruiz, Oswaldo . . . . . . .
Ramsey, Brad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rasmussen, Henrik W. . . . . . . . .
Reeg, Cloyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reid, Terry A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reid, William R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reisig, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remsen, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resnick, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rettenmaier, Albert C. . . . . . . . .
Reverdy, Francois . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reynolds, Robert W. . . . . . . . . . .
Rezvani, Jafar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rhodes, Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rice, William M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Richards, Judy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Richardson, James A. . . . . . . . . .
Richardson, Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Riedl, Joseph F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rieg, Gordon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rieves, Steve G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Riley, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ripoche, Jacques . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ritzel, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roach, Greg F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roberts, C. David . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roberts, Dwayne C. . . . . . . . . . . .
Roberts, Randy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Robichaux, Ronald J. . . . . . . . . .
Robson, Helen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rock, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roddey, J. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rodgers, James M. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rogan, Francis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rogers, James A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rogers, William W. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rolandelli, Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ronnander, James C. . . . . . . . . .
Ross, J. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rossi, Richard J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rowe, Alan T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rowe, Katherine . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roy, Kajal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rubin, David B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rucker, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rudder, J. K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rumell, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Russell, Judy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia, MD
Fluor Daniel, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Hindustan Petroleum Corp., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bombay, India
Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Toro, CA
Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange, CA
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Bechtel, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stafford, TX
The Pritchard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overland Park, KS
Packinox, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Laguna Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Englewood, CO
Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, KS
Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
CRI-MET Crystaphase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Elf Antar France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mormant, France
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Caltex Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
PQ Zeolites B.V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leiden, The Netherlands
Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Koch Engineering Company Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nalco Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sweeny, TX
BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
ACS Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ergon Refining Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vicksburg, MS
Lion Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, AR
Grace Dearborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

Sabers, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE

Sadeghbeigi, Reza . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Saforo, Emmanuel . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Sagaser, Dawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morrison, CO
Sager, Edward R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVA Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK

241
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Saifoullin, Nour . . . . . . .
Sakura, Masashi . . . . . .
Salazar, Franklin . . . . . .
Sams, David A. . . . . . . . .
Sanchez, Nilda . . . . . . . .
Sannikov, Alexander . .
Santner, Chris . . . . . . . . .
Santos, Gerald . . . . . . . .
Santos, Jesus . . . . . . . . . .
Sappington, James M. .
Sarli, Michael S. . . . . . . .
Sarsten, Jan . . . . . . . . . . .
Sarubbi, Frank . . . . . . . .
Sasaki, Takumi . . . . . . . .
Savin, Vladimir . . . . . . .
Savory, Donald . . . . . . . .
Sayal, Sandeep S. . . . . .
Sayles, Scott . . . . . . . . . .
Scalise, John M. . . . . . . .
Schantz, Sean . . . . . . . . .
Scharre, Mark D. . . . . . .
Scheirer, Glen E. . . . . . .
Schimbor, R. . . . . . . . . .
Schmidt, Mike R. . . . . . .
Schmitz, Anthony . . . . .
Schoemann, Alexander
Schoonover, Roger E. .
Schowe, Edwin W. . . . . .
Schroer, Anthon . . . . . . .
Schulman, Bernard L. .
Schultheis, S. H. . . . . . . .
Schwandt, Scott . . . . . . .
Sciretti, Michael . . . . . . .
Scolari, Oscar . . . . . . . . .
Scott, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . .
Scott, Charles E. . . . . . .
Scruggs, G. Darrell . . . .
Scuorzo, Linda . . . . . . . .
Sebulsky, Raynor T. . . .
Seidel, Richard J. . . . . .
Sekellick, Ron S. . . . . . .
Sexton, John . . . . . . . . . .
Shah, Pankaj P . . . . . . .
Shallice, Christopher
Sharp, Andrew . . . . . . . .
Sharp, Curtis . . . . . . . . . .
Sharp, Joy . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shearer, Bruce . . . . . . . .
Shehan, Robert . . . . . . .
Shelton, Al . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shi, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shiflett, W. K. . . . . . . . . .
Shoemaker, Larry D. ..
Shortt, Mark . . . . . . . . . .
Shubert, Jack . . . . . . . . .
Sides, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . .
Siebert, Jeffrey R. . . . . .
Sigan, Jack A. . . . . . . . . .
Silverman, Michael A. .
Simonton, Steve . . . . . . .
Singer, Roger . . . . . . . . .
Singh, Himmat . . . . . . . .
Oil Processing Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ufa, Russia
Nikko Kyodo Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Oil Refining Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Achinsk, Russia
The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
The Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . White Plains, NY
Koch Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Mobil Research & Development Corp. Princeton, NJ
Encon Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Millington, NJ
Texaco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fuji Oil Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Orsknefteorgsintez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orsk, Russia
Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . . . Alhambra, CA
Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Caltex Services Corporation . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. .. Florham Park, NJ
CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Emtrol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hauppauge, NY
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Koch Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Portage, IN
Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
SFA Pacific, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Englewood, CO
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . Houston, TX
Atlas Processing Company . . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Bruce Scott, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Rafael, CA
OXY USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Kinetics Technology Int’l. Corp. . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Exxon Research & Engineering Co. .. Florham Park, NJ
The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mott Metallurgical Corporation . . . . . . Farmington, CT
The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
CF Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woburn, MA
CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Criterion Catalyst Company L.P . . . . . Houston, TX
Betz Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Alghanim Est. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, VA
NOVA Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Thiele Kaolin Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sandersville, GA
Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . Azusa, CA
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
CITGO Refining & Chemicals, Inc. . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Johnson Yokogawa Corporation . . . . . . Carrollton, TX
INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hoffman Estates, IL
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
The Purolite Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bala Cynwyd, PA
Indian Institute of Petroleum . . . . . . . . Dehradun, India

242
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Sinnard, Judith . . . . . . . . . . . ... Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Siwek, Janusz . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Slade, Cornell . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sloan, H. David . . . . . . . . . . . ... The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Sloley, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dallas, TX
Smit, Cees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Amersfoort, Netherlands
Smith, David L. . . . . . . . . . . . ... ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. San Ramon, CA
Smith, G. Andrew . . . . . . . . . ... INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missouri City, TX
Smith, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . .. Florham Park, NJ
Smith, Jonah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Torrance, CA
Smith, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Wilmington, CA
Smith, Lawrence A. . . . . . . . ... CDTECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Smith, Norman . . . . . . . . . . ... ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Smith, Paul B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Solomon Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dallas, TX
Smith, Rusty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Smith, Scot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Tulsa, OK
Smith, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia
Smuck, William W. . . . . . . . . ... Hydrocarbon Engineering Associates, Inc. . .. Swarthmore, PA
Sohmer, Michael . . . . . . . . . . ... Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Solsbury, Jane . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Soni, Dalip S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Sopko, Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Girt, NJ
Sopko, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . ... The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Wickliffe, OH
Soria, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Crown Central Petroleum Corporation . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Soudek, Ales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... The Pace Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Sourp, Thierry . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Packinox, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baltimore, MD
Spardel, Steven E. . . . . . . . . . ... Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Spoerle, F. Steven . . . . . . . . . ... Betz Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trevose, PA
Springett, Howard . . . . . . . . ... Shell International Petroleum Co. . . . . . . . . . .. London, UK
Spurrell, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Chevron U.S.A. Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. El Segundo, CA
Staaf, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Martinez, CA
Stamires, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . ... Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Newport Beach, CA
Stanger, Charles W. . . . . . . . ... Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Stefansen, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Wichita, KS
Stegelman, Albert F. . . . . . . . ... Phillips 66 Company - Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Borger, TX
Stell, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oak Brook Terrace, IL
Stellman, Richard G. . . . . . . ... The Pace Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Stelly, Timothy J. . . . . . . . . . . ... Mobil Research & Development Corp. . . . . . .. Princeton, NJ
Stephen, P M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Chevron Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Burnaby, Brit. Columbia
Stephens, Gary A. . . . . . . . . . ... IFP Enterprises Texas, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Stephenson, Raymond A. . ... Lyondell-CITGO Refining Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Stergios, George . . . . . . . . . . ... Stone & Webster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Milton Keynes, UK
Stewart, Sandra M. . . . . . . . ... Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Stier, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Commerce City, CO
Stirling, Stann . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stockwell, Rod . . . . . . . . . . . . ... United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Louisville, KY
Street, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Texaco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Stuart, Jonathan . . . . . . . . . . ... Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. . . . . . . . . .. Saraland, AL
Suarez, Felipe J. . . . . . . . . . . ... Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Suarez, Rodolfo . . . . . . . . . . . ... Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minatitlan, Mexico
Suchanek, Arthur J. . . . . . . ... Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Sugimoto, Akira . . . . . . . . . . . ... JGC Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kinuura, Japan
Sumrok, Bradley . . . . . . . . . . ... Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Sundaram, Chandrasekar . ... Madras Refineries Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manali, India
Sutton, Patricia M. . . . . . . . . ... NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Washington, DC
Suzuki, Tomio . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Nikko Kyodo Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Tokyo, Japan
Svoboda, LaNell . . . . . . . . . . ... Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sweeney, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . ... Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX

Tacchi, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

Taggart, George W. . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Tailer, Victor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . Houston, TX

243
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Takagi, Kenziko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Takeda, Hidetoshi . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tamborski, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tanaka, Yuji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tang, Alice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tarka, Raymond . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tasker, Kenneth G. . . . . . . . . . . .
Taylor, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Taylor, John F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Taylor, Thomas C. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Taylor, William C. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tedesco, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tenenbaum, Slava . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tenney, Edwin D. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thaver, Nithianathan . . . . . . . . .
Theriault, Bert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thiel, Phillip G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thomas, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Titone, J. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Toberman, Richard A. . . . . . . . .
Tolen, Delbert F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Torchia, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Torpis, Sevket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Toscano Martinez, Francisco . .
Toyoo, Kaijima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tran, Hieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Treece, Michael W. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trenga, Frank J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trevino, Cesar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tronchin, Amilton A. . . . . . . . . . .
Troyer, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tryjankowski, Damian A. . . . . .
Tseliaritski, Vladimir V. . . . . . .
Tselidi, Anatoli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tucker, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tunnell, Duke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turk, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turpin, Lee E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tyree, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kashima Engineering Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Tohoku Oil Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sendai-Shi, Japan
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Cosmo Oil of U.S.A., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Catalyst Recovery Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hydrocarbon Research Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Caltex Services Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Aqua Process Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buckner, KY
Betz Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
GE Environmental Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, PA
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
Catalyst Recovery Canada Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deer Park, TX
Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equip. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . Golden, CO
BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alhambra, CA
Petroleos Mexicanos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tula, Mexico
Kashima Engineering Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Suncor, Inc. OSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grace Aquatec Quimica Ltda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sao Paulo, Brazil
Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mobil Research & Development Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Lennefteprodukt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Petersburg, Russia
Oil Refining Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Phillips Petroleum Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sweeny, TX
Proiimatics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
BIC US Magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA

Udengaard, Niels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe A/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

Udvari, Emery J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ulmer, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unzelman, George H. . . . . . . . . . .
Urbancic, Michael A. . . . . . . . . . .
Usher, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Uthman, Muhammad T. . . . . . . .
Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Acreon Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fuel Reformulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
SAMAREC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Vadekar, M. O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chem Tech Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario

Valentine, Julie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Valentine, Lee L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Van de Venne, Hubert . . . . . . . .
Van Hemmen, Richard . . . . . . . .
Van Driesen, Roger P. . . . . . . . .
Vance, Paul W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vandiver, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Varadi, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vazquez, Ramiro G. . . . . . . . . . . .
Veldman, Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Victory, Randall M. . . . . . . . . . . .
Villio, Robert C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vinokourov, Valeri . . . . . . . . . . . .
Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boulder, CO
Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Litwin Engineers & Constructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Novacor Chemicals Canada Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
ABB Lummus Crest, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bloomfield, NJ
Acreon Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chase, LA
Plastics Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aktau, Russia

244
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Vogt, Ingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sunoco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sarnia, Ontario
Vogus, C. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Pennzoil-Penreco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Karns City, PA
Vona, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Voronin, Victor . . . . . . . . . .. Oil Processing Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Volgograd, Russia

Wade, Elton . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . .. Houston, TX

Wagner, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . .. STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Wagner, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . .. Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Philadelphia; PA
Waldorf, Daniel . . . . . . . . .. Tricat, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Orange, CA
Waldrop, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . .. Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Walker, Donald K. . . . . . . .. Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Walker, Hugh B. . . . . . . . . . ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Walker, James P. . . . . . . .. Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dallas, TX
Walker, John E. . . . . . . . . .. Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . .. Azusa, CA
Walker, Richmond . . . . .. Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Wall, James D. . . . . . . . . . .. Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Wall, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . .. Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Anacortes, WA
Wallace, Carrie . . . . . . . . . .. ICIKatalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Wallendorf, William H. .. The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Walter, Richard E. . . . . . . .. Exxon Research & Engineering Co. .. Florham Park, NJ
Walther, Michael W. . . . . .. Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Walton, K. Scott . . . . . . . . .. CENEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurel, MT
Wambaugh, James A. .. .. Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . .. Houston, TX
Ward, John W. . . . . . . . . . .. Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Ward, John W. . . . . . . . . . .. Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Brea, CA
Ware, Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
Wasser, Richard J. . . . . . .. Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . .. Sugar Land, TX
Waterfield, David N. . . . . .. BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sunbury-on-Thames, UK
Watkins, Bass . . . . . . . . . . .. GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . .. Slidell, LA
Watson, David . . . . . . . . . . .. Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Watson, John . . . . . . . . . . . .. UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Des Plaines, IL
Watson, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . .. Eppendorf North America . . . . . . . . . .. Madison, WI
Watts, Richard H. . . . . . . .. LaRoche Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baton Rouge, LA
Wear, Charles C. . . . . . . . .. Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baltimore, MD
Webb, John H. . . . . . . . . . .. Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . .. The Woodlands, TX
Webber, Arthur . . . . . . . . .. Stone & Webster Canada Limited . . .. Toronto, Ontario
Weber, E S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . .. Port Arthur, TX
Weiss, Arlene . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vista Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Welch, J. Gary . . . . . . . . . .. CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wenner, David M. . . . . . . .. Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chalmette, LA
Wenzel, Fritz W. . . . . . . . . .. VEBA OEL Technologie GmbH . . . . .. Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Werkmeister, Michael J. .. Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Westbrook, Gerald T. . . . .. Dow Hydrocarbon Resources . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Westhoff, Stephen . . . . . . .. Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . .. Alhambra, CA
Wheeler, Marlo R. . . . . . . .. UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wheeler, Thomas . . . . . . . .. UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Des Plaines, IL
Whelchel, Paul H. . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .. Houston, TX
Whikehart, David . . . . . . .. Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . .. Robinson, IL
Whitlock, C. W. . . . . . . . . . .. Betz Process Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . .. The Woodlands, TX
Whittington, E. Louis . . . .. The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Whittington, Lloyd K. .. .. ChemCat Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kenner, LA
Wick, James P. . . . . . . . .. Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . .. Findlay, OH
Wieliczko, Thomas B. . . . .. W. R. Grace & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cherry Hill, NJ
Wieser, Stephen L. . . . . . .. Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Wilcox, Jack R. . . . . . . . . .. Refining Process Services, Inc . . . . . . .. Pittsburgh, PA
Wilkening, Greg C. ...... .. Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . Borger, TX
Willer, Rodney . . . . . . . . . .. GAYLORD CHEMICAL Corp. . . . . . .. Slidell, LA
Williams, Dale . . . . . . . . . . .. Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Williams, James E. . . . . . .. Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Williams, Michael . . . . . . .. Vista Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Williams, Rufus . . . . . . . . .. Praxair, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, TX
Williams, Russell . . . . . . . .. MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . .. Memphis, TN

245
TOC/INDEX
NAME
Williams, Terre1 D. . . . .
Williamson, Leonard M.
Willingham, Young . . . .
Willis, David A. . . . . . . . .
Wilmer, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . .
Wilson, Bill W. . . . . . . . . .
Wilson, Jerome H. . . . . .
Wilson, Robert L. . . . . . .
Wilson, Troy . . . . . . . . . . .
Wiltrout, Carl S. . . . . . . .
Wimberly, Mark O. . . . .
Winchester, Larry C. ..
Winslett, David . . . . . . . .
Winslow, Phil . . . . . . . . . .
Winston, William G. . . .
Winter-Roach, George .
Wise, Mark S. . . . . . . . . .
Witoshkin, Anatol . . . . .
Witty Davis, Vickie L. .
Wizig, Herbert W. . . . . . .
Wong, Phillip . . . . . . . . . .
Woo, Sang-Ryong . . . . .
Wood, Curtis B. . . . . . . .
Wood, David . . . . . . . . . .
Wood, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Woods, Robert P. . . . . . .
Woodward, Colin . . . . . .
Wright, Marie A. . . . . . .
Wright, Phil P. . . . . . . . . .
Wuensche, Bill . . . . . . . .
Yanazume, Ei . . . . .
Yancy, John I. . . . .
Yanez, Alfonso . . .
Yanik, Stephen J.
Yellig, Raymond V.
Yepsen, Gary L. .
Yotaka, Shida . . . .
You, Ji Young . . . .
Youngblood, Scott
Yung, Yen . . . . . .
Yunoki, S. . . . . . . . .
Zacher, Michael . . . . .
Zafar, Humayon Z. . .
Zaidi, Mohammad . .
Zakaev, Ramzan . . . . .
Zeillmann, Louie E. .
Zelonis, Randolph P.
Zeltman, Jon . . . . . .
Zetlmeisl, Michael . .
Zima, Ric T. . . . . . .
Zimmerman, Paul .
Zoller, John R. . . . . . .
Zurkoff, Jonathan . . .
Zyskowski, M. S. . . .
COMPANY LOCATION
Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation . . . . Houston, TX
Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . Houston, TX
Bateman Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Lakewood, CO
Chevron U.S.A. Products Co. . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Caltex Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Moore Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Boulder, CO
TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Phibro Energy USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ardmore, OK
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Chevron Research & Technology Co. . Richmond, CA
Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Petrotrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pointe A Pierre, W. Indies
Chemetals Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Sun Refining & Marketing Co. . . . . . . . Toledo, OH
Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Honam Oil Refinery Company . . . . . . . Seoul, Korea
Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . Houston, TX
ICIKatalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, UK
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
CITGO Refining & Chemicals, Inc. . . . Corpus Christi, TX
NSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
LaGloria Oil and Gas Company . . Tyler, TX
Petrox S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conception, Chile
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
IFP Tokyo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Yukong Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulsan, Korea
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . Houston, TX
Akzo Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, Netherlands
UOP/Nikki Universal . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Litwin Engineers & Constructors . Houston, TX
Kuwait National Petroleum Co. . . . Safat, Kuwait
Oil Processing Enterprise . . . . . . . . Gronzy, Russia
GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . Slidell, LA
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edison, NJ
Norton Chemical Process Products Akron, OH
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Ashland Oil, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brea, CA
Akzo Catalysts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
CF Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boise, ID
Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississauga, Ontario
246